8/15/14 5:17 PM

dddd,your comments make sense, but...

I wonder if at this point most folks wanting a light and nice riding road "racing" type bike are just going to skip steel and go carbon, for a lot of good reasons.

Nothing with steel is going to be as light and have the ride qualities outside of a Sachs or something similar and even then you are buying a name as much the material.

That said, there's certainly a sub-group of roadies that prefer steel and will either migrate towards a Sachs, Waterford, etc... or to a Gunnar or Surly or Soma, etc,.. the
later at price point of easily 50% the cost of a Lemond. Or you buy steel (as I did - a Soma Smoothie) because it provides other options, rack mount, 28mm tires, etc... not available in production carbon.

If you go with a Lemond at that point, you're buying a name and are not getting a Sachs, so why bother.

8/16/14 7:30 AM

quote:

---

But if you were choosing a bike to keep for a lifetime (or for those of us who are older, maybe 20 years), would you go with carbon fiber? Or do you not think in terms of keeping any bike that long?

---

quote:

---

...there's certainly a sub-group of roadies that prefer steel and will either migrate towards a Sachs, Waterford, etc... or to a Gunnar or Surly or Soma, etc,

---

8/16/14 8:13 AM

"Litespeed Catalyst Ti. I judged it the lightest strong material (compared to steel) and the strongest light material (compared to Aluminum) at the time."

Which is ironic as I thought the same thing about titanium, still do even though my experience wasn't a happy one.

When the integral seat post clamp on my all-aluminum Klein Quantum snapped, Trek/Klein/Bontrager/Lemond offered some warranty options, None were free, but the Lemond Victorie titanium seemed like a good deal (at $750 in 2000).

Pretty bike, had good geometry but lousy paint. After the initial paint job flaked away within the first year, Trek offered to re-paint as a warranty job. They (at my request) gave me a nicer blue paint scheme and when THAT paint flaked away after a year Trek said too bad. I then had it stripped and re-painted locally. That paint lasted but the frame developed a crack along a cable stop on the down tube, Trek again said too bad as if you paint privately, warranty's void.

At this point I was done with Lemond titanium anyway as this bike had the softest bottom bracket area that found me using Campy shifters to gain the front trim needed to eliminate chainring rub. So it was a poor choice for a heavy rider and I learned that a Trek warranty is worth zip as well as Lemond bikes aren't anything special.

Thus I'd pass on these models

8/16/14 8:30 AM

I'm not going to judge these Greg LeMond steel frames by the poor design of some Trek-built LeMond titanium frames, which were relatively unreliable (crack prone).

As far as frames like Soma, Gunnar, etc, I don't know of any frames from these companies that are close to the level of these Greg LeMond steel frames, which are likely pounds lighter. Those others I would describe as being more mass-produced from more-generic material, and not configured for use with cutting edge forks or cranksets, so even heavier yet in the final build. But they're not in the Greg LeMond price range, either, so little point in comparing apples to cantaloupes.

A Sachs frame is a very fine frame, but strictly adheres to traditional design, so again is a completely different animal. And yet, some folks still win races on them!

Waterford might offer a high-end steel frame made from advanced tubing, but again I doubt it goes all the way in terms of the latest fork and crankset architechture, unless perhaps custom-built(?).

8/16/14 10:38 AM

Say what you want about the Sachs, but my Gunnar Crosshairs is a great bike!

If you get a Gunnar Roadie frame with the same fork as the LeMond, painted to match, it costs $250 less than the LeMond. That could be accounted for by an upgraded paint job (the LeMond has painted logos and "decals" for example). So they are right in the same ballpark. As others have suggested, maybe Waterford makes both of them.

A lot of riders like Gunnars. They are no-frills bikes made in the US by Waterford, who I think know what they are doing.

8/16/14 11:17 AM

"And yet, some folks still win races on them! "

Well, I seem to recall you do pretty well when you decide to take the Pedersen to race. ;)

Ti and specifically the Catalyst, Agree 100%. Even before I became 'strong' I test rode one and it was bad IMO and experience, re: big rider et al.

I got a Classic instead, still mid/late 90s.. better, but as I got big legs, it was not too good in the BB when ridden very aggressive. I did have a LS made Lemond Ti with straight ga. tubes prior that was plenty stiff, an Ultimate tweaked to Lemond spec IIRC. Fit not great though.

Got the 2000-1 Classic, and it was better, but once the Strong came along it was all I rode for a long time.

I gave up on TI mainly because it seem evident to me that the labor and cost to overcome the Material was not worth it to me.

The new Steel Lemond is something I like and would consider definitely. But for 500.00 more i would sure have Carl do me another bike with zero fit compromise.

If not for the Scott, I might be more serious about looking. If I ever break it....


Re: Lemond steel offerings, ie 853 - forward stuff etc. They bring huge coin here in PDX, it is amazing. Framesets in fair to good condition $350.00 and up is common. Selling, not asking. ;) I parted out the one I traded the Disc Poprad for and the frame sold in two days, $365.00. All the Campy bits are on the 85 Victory Nago now. ;)

The more recent Lemonds I rode I felt lacked the attention to different tubes in the right places for the bigger sizes, thus not worth the salt for me.
I doubt the new one would qualify poorly. ;)

I suspect the price point and way the new steel frame is made might be from the experiences of the pre-trek into trep production era. But business being business, maybe different audience is desired.


One porkers opinion.

8/16/14 12:01 PM

"I'm not going to judge these Greg LeMond steel frames by the poor design of some Trek-built LeMond titanium frames, which were relatively unreliable (crack prone). "

I wasn't either, I was mostly commenting on how I got snookered, by Trek mostly, as when I thought titanium would be a good choice, it wasn't.

But I'm not seeing that a steel Lemond is going to be worth at least twice a Soma Smoothie, which is welded with Prestige tubing and can run any fork you desire.

"Cutting Edge Fork ". Marketing BS is what I see.

8/16/14 12:58 PM

"Cutting Edge Fork ". Marketing BS is what I see.

Disagree, 1-1/2" at the bottom race and rooted like the AMEs. That will probably be a pretty strong and stiff setup/front end. Maybe a bigger than 9mm front axle is next. ;O

So the top and bottom tube better be worked to take it, which they appear to be. A super stiff front end won't be of much use if it just moves more flex down the line. ;)

8/16/14 1:37 PM

Why would someone want a super stiff front end? I've always thought I liked bikes that take the edge off of big hits and feeling a bike work brings a smile to my face.

8/16/14 2:47 PM

For racing presumably. Plus I guess if you are 220lb pushing a softer front end into hard turns ain't fun probably..

I actually took the AME off my Strong in Favor of an old HSC3 Look. Posted this before, it was just more comfortable that way. I believe Sandi did something similar re: and HSC3 on his bike at a point.

I actually have 5 steel fork bikes. If you don't mind the weight, the material makes for a good fork.. Imagine that? ;)

8/16/14 3:45 PM

Let's get real.

Is anybody wanting to compete in a road race going to use steel ?, Probably not.

And maybe it's just me but a carbon fork on a steel frame just seems to maybe miss the point. Older Lemond steel bikes had carbon forks, but I much prefer a steel fork, rides nice, looks great.

8/16/14 3:57 PM

"road race going to use steel ?"

Maybe not at the pro level...

8/16/14 4:29 PM

quote:

---

but the Lemond Victorie titanium seemed like a good deal (at $750 in 2000).

Pretty bike, had good geometry but lousy paint. After the initial paint job flaked away within the first year, Trek offered to re-paint as a warranty job. They (at my request) gave me a nicer blue paint scheme and when THAT paint flaked away after a year Trek said too bad.

---

8/16/14 4:34 PM

I wonder what percent of the mid to high level frame market are actual racers (who are not sponsored)? I mean road races or crits, not the occasional tt like I ride. I'll bet it is de minimus and not even considered by manufacturers. Of course, lots of riders will want to ride the same bikes as the high level racers. I really don't see much low level racing. Years ago there were lots of citizen road races and 4/5 races. I don't see those. Rick's club in Boston has the Wells Ave crits, but I'm guessing that is the exception.

I do agree that most riders who see themselves as serious want carbon bikes. Even at centuries, I see tons of Treks and Cannondales, very little steel. People like to heft my Sachs, which is not particularly light, and than are a bit quizzical about why I would ride such a thing. That's fine, each to their own. Of course, I also run into people who are nostalgic for the "ride" of steel, lamenting that their bikes suck over bumps. Personally I don't think it's the material but the design. And at the last century a volunteer came over at a rest stop to talk about the Sachs and I could barely get back on the road. :)

As to forks, I love steel forks. In terms of performance, I can't really say I notice a difference. The only carbon forks I have had are on Serottas, which are designed to be comfortable and handle neutrally, and they do. I love the look of good steel forks. Wouldn't want carbon on the Sachs. On my Crosshairs, I had them reuse the lugged 531 fork from my previous bike. My Pereira has a gorgeous twin plate fork crown, and I love the 531 tandem fork on my Fat Chance and the double plateau fork on my Masi. I can say that I've never felt that a fork was either too stiff or too soft (but I may just be oblivious).

A great thing about cycling is that there are many choices and everyone can ride what they like.

Last edited by dan emery on 8/16/14 4:53 PM; edited 1 time in total

8/16/14 4:47 PM

7 steel fork bikes, missed the tandem and Elaine's MTB. ;)

And there is a frame outside I may do something with that is also steel fork. ;)


Guessing racers would have trouble finding anything but Carbon anymore. Especially used.. Dominates the market, let's face it.

8/16/14 6:34 PM

NYC has the Kissena Cycling Club, which runs multi category crits on Tuesday nights from March to October, my nephew raced in the Cat 5 level one summer. He was on a Heron steel (hand me down), everybody else on carbon. Carbon is pretty much the choice for the majority of the weekend warrior types in our local club, though the oddball rides titanium or hand crafted steel. Maybe some aluminum bikes here and there, but not like the old days when Kleins and Cannondales were all over the place.

@ Dave B. I have no clue as to why Lemond/Trek chose to paint the majority of their titanium frames, I would have prefered polished but that wasn't available. I recall some buzz a few years back of people having paint issues with steel Lemonds as well and only learned after the fact of how the manufacturer needs to pay attention to the preperation of the titanium, which Lemond/Trek didn't do, twice. Serrotta painted their frames, as did Litespeed and I never read anything about issues. I was completely pissed at the Trek warranty person I had a few conversations with, the attitude was TFB. So no Treks in my future.

8/16/14 7:46 PM

Pretty sure it's just aesthetics, which you may take or leave. My Serotta Hors Cat has beautiful paint that looks as good today as it did in '99 when I bought the bike. Actually I like the finish on the ti seat tube of my Ottrott even better - matte with the "Serotta" polished in.

Look forward to riding the Hors Cat in a few weeks in the Mt. Greylock Hillclimb - it's set up for steep climbing.

8/16/14 7:59 PM

Ti and Paint. Me too, got a bit tired with the monochromatic look. Thus the colorful direction when I first built up the Strong.

Lots of red yellow and black. ;)

8/16/14 8:01 PM

Back in the mid-'90s, I went on a fast/racey group ride with a bunch of people. The guy who put the hurt on everyone else? Riding an old Schwinn Varsity, Ashtabula crank, Pletscher rack and all.

A couple of pounds of frame weight aren't going to make the difference for most of us.

8/16/14 8:09 PM

"A couple of pounds of frame weight aren't going to make the difference for most of us."


I agree, especially when we stay fit and on the bike.

Which does not explain the Scott. Except for maybe exceleration witch it accels at [that is a joke on the speeling] ;). Why I need this is all a matter of what has got in my head and little to do with my legs no doubt. I do like it though. ;)

8/17/14 12:45 AM

The Tange Prestige tubing of the ~1990 era was as light as the premium stuff from Columbus and Reynolds, but I helped a friend build up a Soma with Tange Prestige label on the frame, and that frame was on the quite-heavy side, so not built as a racing-style frame in regards to wall thicknesses and weight. It would surely be a very sturdy frame, probably on the stiff side, too.

The tapered carbon steerers make sense because carbon shows off a high strength-to-weight ratio of tubing by using larger cross-sections, and the lower end of a steerer typically limits the diameter of this most-highly-stressed part of the fork structure.
So, with the 1-1/8" diameter limitation, the designer has less control of where the fork's flex occurs. The larger diameter of a contemporary steerer's tapered portion lowers the stress there to more-closely match the stress levels above and below this area, so that a more consistent wall thickness can be maintained and with more lengthwise continuity of individual fibers. It's just better design.
Having to add thickness >locally< to the inside diameter of a 1-1/8" steerer means that this added material is not "rooted" along the length of the entire fork, but instead is another overlapped layer that adds much less strength per weight than do rooted fibers, while also depending more on the bonding strength of the resin.

I have no idea exactly where frame designers want their frame/fork designs to flex, but it has to be a good thing to have control over this without adding layers and weight.
Many traditional builders simply tried to keep a steel frameset sufficiently rigid while keeping weight to a minimum, but we are told that with some carbon designs now that this flex is being strategically tuned into the design. This is being included in Giant's advertising/media literature as numerical comparisons of directional stiffness of their newest frame to their competitor's frames, so possibly this is the beginning of a new kind of frame performance numbers war that goes beyond weight as these builders take directional flex control to new extremes.

8/17/14 6:54 AM

Sparky:

Differences in frame geometry, even small ones, can make a huge difference, as can differences in where (if at all) the machine flexes. These are differences are huge compared to any impact in terms of weight. Moreover, these differences can be accomplished in any material.

I rather suspect that is what you're seeing in the Scott.

One of the ironies in geometry is that the best geometry is one where the bike is made for the rider--that is, where the bike's and rider's geometries are suited to one another. GL's long top-tube was probably optimal for him; for some other riders, it certainly would not be optimal.

If we're really lucky, we have frames custom made for us. If we're just lucky, we find production frames that do a reasonable job, and work hard to adapt them.

8/17/14 8:49 AM

Thinking on it, the Press fit BB setup is probably just a way to save production hassles and cost.

Saw this internet fodder:

Claimed frame weight is listed at 1535g for an unpainted 57cm frame, and 1705g with paint. That complete bike built up at 16.18 lbs with a Dura Ace Di2 build kit and Hed Stinger 3 wheels.

And this:
I believe these are made by Zen in Portland.

A nice steel disc/CX with extra clearance for monster CX tire might have a place in the market. Same orange would not be a bad thing either.

Could call it a Pinyon, Washoe winter pine nut diet...

I emailed back to the reply I got via a contact link with the idea. Said I would be happy to send up my
size requirements if they wanted to use the name and say thanks for the idea with a frame/fork. ;)

http://www.zenbicyclefabrication.com

Seems Zen makes a CX disc frame in AL that shows a tapered Head tube.

<img src="http://www.zenbicyclefabrication.com/images/ca1ef1b2fbae85627c56296f10cc94a4_6sd1.png" width=578 />

8/17/14 2:54 PM

...I really don't think of any bike as a "lifetime" product. However, I did ride my Ti bikes (a '94 Lemond RS built by Clark Kent and a '98 Litespeed Vortex) for 13 years before trying carbon for the third time. I had my first carbon fiber frame in 1977 and the second in '94, so while there have been substantial advances recently, carbon fiber has been around for a long time.

All of that said, if I was going to buy one bike to keep for a lifetime, it would be Ti. It's the most durable material available, it's light, it damps vibration quite well and it can be built pretty stiff. It embodies all of the desirable ride characteristics of steel without any of the material downsides (weight, rusting, seatpost/stem seizing, etc.). Carbon fiber is lighter and more "tuneable", and Ti is closer to it than steel is. Sure, it costs more, but a Ti frame could last for generations with essentially zero maintenance.

8/17/14 4:19 PM

Pat, in contrast to Brian, at my age I look at every bike as a life expectancy product. I expect all my bikes to outlast me. While I'm no expert, I'd have no concern about any material, as long as it is a good quality bike and not goofy/ super light. My only carbon is a Serotta Ottrott which has a ti seat tube and head tube and is otherwise carbon. I bought it in 2005, rode it as my primary road bike (under my fat a**) until I started with the Sachs this year, and it is indistinguishable from new. Used the same carbon bar and post all that time too, no concern about any of it. That is high quality of course, and designed for my weight.

I figured I'd probably not get another bike, but I just noticed Gunnar has a Rohloff/disc option on the Crosshairs. I have posted about some difficulties I've had with discs, but I could take a shot at this application. I have Rohloff on a commuting bike, and love it. This could be an ultimate (for me) dirt road/ D2R2 bike. I've emailed Gunnar with some questions. Never say never...