# Article - Lemond's 1989 Steel Time Trial Bike: Proof you don't need an expensive bike



## SilentAssassin (Jul 29, 2010)

"GREG LeMOND’S 1989 BOTTECCHIA - 1
With its steel frame, 650c front wheel and Mavic rear disc wheel, Greg LeMond’s Bottecchia was no different than other time trial bikes in the 1989 Tour de France. What separated it was the addition of Boone Lennon-designed aerobars. Aided by the aerobars, Greg LeMond was able to defeat Laurent Fignon in the closest and most defining Tour de France of the modern era. With his victory came a new era in time trialing, one in which aerodynamics played as large a role as strength and skill. LeMond winning the Tour de France in the final time trial by a mere eight seconds brought time trialing to the front of the sport in public appeal and started a technology arms race within the bicycle industry."

"In that time trial LeMond put his bike in a huge 55 x 12 gear and rode it 54.545 km/h (34.52 mph), the second fastest time trial ever ridden in the Tour de France. He made up 58 seconds on Laurent Fignon, ultimately winning the race by 8 seconds."










It's steel. It's a boat anchor, and Lemond still holds the 2nd fastest time trial record on the beast even after all these "Technological advancements" in aerodynamic frames and ultra light carbon materials that followed in the past two decades. Hell most of you know this, but it's interesting nonetheless.


----------



## krisdrum (Oct 29, 2007)

Just because it is steel does not mean it was a boat anchor. And all this proves is fitness and physical "gifts" outweigh everything else when it comes to performance.


----------



## backinthesaddle (Nov 22, 2006)

In LeMond's case, in 1989, all you need is huge doses of EPO...


----------



## bwhite_4 (Aug 29, 2006)

And a downhill TT course with a tailwind. BTW - who says this bike wasn't "expensive" during this time period? Either way - its the motor that counts.


----------



## wim (Feb 28, 2005)

krisdrum said:


> And all this proves is fitness and physical "gifts" outweigh everything else when it comes to performance.


And that on flat roads, low aerodynamic resistance trumps low weight / low rolling resistance every time.


----------



## buck-50 (Sep 20, 2005)

Um, that thing was pretty f'ing high tech in 1989. And expensive. 

Lemond was the guy who bought high tech to the TDF. While Fignon had his pony tail and rode a pretty standard bike in the TT, Lemond had his aero bars, his goony aero helmet, his clipless pedals, etc...

Saying his bike was a boat anchor is like saying Armstrong's first madone was a POS because it didn't have a tapered steerer...


----------



## PlasticMotif (Aug 1, 2006)

650c front wheel.


----------



## Dave Hickey (Jan 27, 2002)

Steel doesn't mean slow....Not to mention that bike is illegal today.....650/700 combination isn't allowed under UCI rules..


----------



## dontbetoomuchofa (Sep 6, 2010)

bwhite_4 said:


> And a downhill TT course with a tailwind. BTW - who says this bike wasn't "expensive" during this time period? Either way - its the motor that counts.


And the high-octane fuel that powers the motor.


----------



## nealric (Jul 5, 2007)

That bike has all the essential characteristics of a modern TT setup: 

He is in a full aero position with his back at a 90 degree angle 
He is wearing an aero helmet
He is using a full disc rear wheel 

I doubt it was even all that heavy- but weight doesn't really even matter on a flat TT. 

If he made the record on an upright dutch single speed I would be prepared to agree that the bike doesn't matter.


----------



## RussellS (Feb 1, 2010)

It was also a fairly short time trial for distance. 24.5 kilometers. 15.2 miles. Over short distances you can ride a faster average speed. Many thought it was too short to make up 50 seconds on Fignon.


----------



## bikerjulio (Jan 19, 2010)

We can talk all we want about the current Greg, but back then he was the man. I think the first time TDF had any coverage at all in NA it was down to Greg. He made an immense contribution to the popularity of the sport here.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

It wasn't a "new era" where aerodynamics suddenly were important. Aero brake levers, aero down tube mounts, teardrop tubing and 650 front wheels were all old aero standards at that point. The only thing "new" was the adoption of biathalon/triathalon gear of the time by the the somewhat stodgy bicycle racing world. Scott aero bars had won several other events going back to '87 and earlier. The first bar of that type was used in '84 during the RAAM.

Fignon was ill and had saddle sores. Lemond did a great job, and his equipment was amongst the most ideal for the job.

Price has little to do with winning or even riding. It sometimes has a lot to do with how happy you are in the long term with your bicycle, though.


----------



## Deus_Ex_Machina (Sep 4, 2010)

SilentAssassin said:


> "In that time trial LeMond put his bike in a huge 55 x 12 gear and rode it *54.545 km/h (34.52 mph)*, the second fastest time trial ever ridden in the Tour de France. He made up 58 seconds on Laurent Fignon, ultimately winning the race by 8 seconds."
> 
> It's steel. It's a boat anchor, and Lemond still holds the 2nd fastest time trial record on the beast even after all these "Technological advancements" in aerodynamic frames and ultra light carbon materials that followed in the past two decades. Hell most of you know this, but it's interesting nonetheless.


Was it the "2nd fastest time trial" up till then, or the second fastest even today, twenty one years later? 

This is a timely thread. I am in the midst of finally upgrading my ancient road bike. In it's day this Pinarello with it's lugged Columbus SLX frame and Campagnolo gruppo was all that was needed to compete at the highest levels. I could still achieve incredible speeds on this machine, so I sometimes wonder why I should "upgrade". I guess it's the same desire to have the cutting edge technology of the day that inspired me to buy the Pinarello in 1990.

I'll soon have a carbon fiber frame with ultralight components to compare with the "obsolete" original machine.


----------



## z5Thor (Jun 29, 2010)

I rode that bike. Broken wheel and all it was FAST. Maybe it was the the 54 or 56 tooth chainring, I forget what was on it. My sister still has the headbadge off of it.

I worked in the paint shop at Ten Speed Drive Imports distributer of LeMond bikes at the time. It wa sent to us after the season to be repainted as a LeMond in Team Z colors, I never saw it again until I took a tour of Treks headquarters a couple of years ago and it was bolted to the wall.

This was in 1989, before ebay. I wonder what that badge would have gotten? I could have easily had it authenticated, but then it wouldn't have ended in my hands...


----------



## redpoint510 (Mar 26, 2009)

I would personally love to see a pro team try out steel again or Ti. Too much emphasis rests on equipment which I will admit has certainly improved in reliability and functionality but at the end of the day its the rider. Its been proven that you can make a high quality sub 17lb steel bike and even lighter Ti especially if the bike is for a smaller person. I ride with people in my local club who are monsters riding older "outdated" bikes. The pros ride what they are given and I don't believe that many aside from the very top high profile riders, have any input in design or fit, not the way Lemond did at least. He was always looking at design and build angles to get an edge and had great successes on custom steel. How cool would it be to see a pro team riding Moots RSL's or something similar. I wonder what success of a team like that would do for the carbon market.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

You can make 2.5 pound steel frames with S3, and ti can go below 2.

That really isn't the point. Steel and ti framebuilding are now cottage industries. Pro teams are sponsored by bike corporations with massive output. The only pro-type mass produced bikes anymore are carbon. Unless Trek or Orbea wants to suddenly hire 1000 speciality TIG welders, there is never going to be a mass production pro level metal frame again.

Lemond road ti and early Carbon because he WANTED to, not because he was sponsored by Clark Kent or Carbonframes. If someone put together a team that didn't need the bike sponsor's money, then maybe we would see some alternative bikes, but teams are about money and advertising, so it ain't likely.


----------



## Lou3000 (Aug 25, 2010)

Yeah, that bike is no slouch even by modern standards. The 650/700 wheel set up allows for an aero position that no 700/700 bike can match. Not to mention that LeMond is sporting an aero helmet, a speedsuit, and aerobars.

The truth is that despite all of these windtunnel tests, I think I've heard that the bike only accounts for about 5-10% of what the wind sees. The other 90% is your body. Position is everything, and for the most part, LeMond's position on this frame is as good if not better than any body position that can be achieved on the current crop of aero frames. The year to year improvements in aero frames is usually to make up seconds, not minutes.


----------



## RC28 (May 9, 2002)

There was an article in Bicycle Guide or Winning back then where they profiled the bike. IIRC it was indeed heavier than, say, the TVT and even the regular steel road bike that Lemond rode then (was it Columbus Air tubing that it used? I forget)...but it was pretty darn fast! Like somebody else said, in that particular TT, weight had minimal importance. It was just about being aero and powerful.


----------



## Kuma601 (Jan 22, 2004)

That was a very exciting stage to watch and was a big $$ bike in the time.


----------



## kbiker3111 (Nov 7, 2006)

redpoint510 said:


> I would personally love to see a pro team try out steel again or Ti. Too much emphasis rests on equipment which I will admit has certainly improved in reliability and functionality but at the end of the day its the rider. Its been proven that you can make a high quality sub 17lb steel bike and even lighter Ti especially if the bike is for a smaller person. I ride with people in my local club who are monsters riding older "outdated" bikes. The pros ride what they are given and I don't believe that many aside from the very top high profile riders, have any input in design or fit, not the way Lemond did at least. He was always looking at design and build angles to get an edge and had great successes on custom steel. How cool would it be to see a pro team riding Moots RSL's or something similar. I wonder what success of a team like that would do for the carbon market.


If Lemond could have ridden a Specialized Shiv or a Cervelo S3 with Zip 808s, he would have.


----------



## SilentAssassin (Jul 29, 2010)

You sure it wasn't a nickel like candy bars were in that time  - I didn't realize it was on a slight decline. Even so, 34mph is ridiculous you have to admit...it would be extremely tough to stay at 34mph for 24km. I certainly doubt a lot of grand tour riders could do what Lemond did, juiced up or not.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

I'll bet a lot of the riders that have won the Tour could have come pretty close.


----------



## blackjack (Sep 7, 2010)

rx-79g said:


> I'll bet a lot of the riders that have won the Tour could have come pretty close.



Yeah, Fignon wasn't even second and had a bad back, a saddle sore and supposedly wasn't feeling well.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE67U3GD20100831

LeMond only beat Thierry Marie by 33 seconds. 

It was estimated that LeMond's aero bars and helmet saved him 75 seconds over the competition.

The course had an elevation drop of 250 feet and there was what was characterized as a moderate tailwind.

It's a little tiring that people keep bringing this race up to possibly illustrate nefarious activities on LeMond's part.


----------



## SilentAssassin (Jul 29, 2010)

Very few could do what Lemond did. Maybe Cancellera...and maybe Lance in his prime...that's about it.


----------



## Lou3000 (Aug 25, 2010)

SilentAssassin said:


> Very few could do what Lemond did. Maybe Cancellera...and maybe Lance in his prime...that's about it.


Oh, LeMond was a great, great bike rider, and ranks as one of the greatest Time Trialists, and while Cancellara would wipe the floor with him, that isn't a great comparison because Cancellara couldn't win the whole tour.

Though I think the point of this thread was to say that cheap bikes can still win. This is an awful illustration of that point because one, this bike was probably more expensive than anything in the tour this year because so much of it was custom. You can go to a store and buy the same frame as Lance rode in the tour this year, but I guarantee the average person couldn't get what Greg was on that year.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Lou3000 said:


> Oh, LeMond was a great, great bike rider, and ranks as one of the greatest Time Trialists, and while Cancellara would wipe the floor with him, that isn't a great comparison because Cancellara couldn't win the whole tour.
> 
> Though I think the point of this thread was to say that cheap bikes can still win. This is an awful illustration of that point because one, this bike was probably more expensive than anything in the tour this year because so much of it was custom. You can go to a store and buy the same frame as Lance rode in the tour this year, but I guarantee the average person couldn't get what Greg was on that year.


You mean a Bottecchia? You can buy one of those legendary Italian bikes really cheap these days! I hear they come from the same place as all those shiny new "Motebecanes".  
http://www.bottecchiasale.com/


----------



## DannyBoy (Feb 19, 2004)

Deus_Ex_Machina said:


> Was it the "2nd fastest time trial" up till then, or the second fastest even today, twenty one years later?
> 
> This is a timely thread. I am in the midst of finally upgrading my ancient road bike. In it's day this Pinarello with it's lugged Columbus SLX frame and Campagnolo gruppo was all that was needed to compete at the highest levels. I could still achieve incredible speeds on this machine, so I sometimes wonder why I should "upgrade". I guess it's the same desire to have the cutting edge technology of the day that inspired me to buy the Pinarello in 1990.
> 
> I'll soon have a carbon fiber frame with ultralight components to compare with the "obsolete" original machine.


Hey Deus, post your current ride over on the retro forum, I'm keen to see it.


----------



## SilentAssassin (Jul 29, 2010)

@ Lou3000

But considering it's 21 years old and is surely a boat anchor compared to today's time trial bikes, it should be arguably more modern, lighter, and faster...that's just not the case. Regardless people still feel they need 14 pound bikes to "go fast." That's what I was poking fun of really.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Not a very effective point, since time trial bikes are often made purposely heavy to keep their speed over flat terrain. Most disc wheels are heavier to preserve rolling inertia.

Light bikes are wonderful for climbing and rapid accelerations, two things you don't do much of in a time trial. Ordinary road bikes should be light, though. But weight shouldn't sacrifice other concerns, like comfort, handling, efficiency and position.

Steel racing bikes of that era were about 20-22 pounds. Nothing need be that heavy anymore, but lots of stuff is because of hidden weight in wheels and small parts.


----------



## innergel (Jun 14, 2002)

Deus_Ex_Machina said:


> Was it the "2nd fastest time trial" up till then, or the second fastest even today, twenty one years later?
> 
> This is a timely thread. I am in the midst of finally upgrading my ancient road bike. In it's day this Pinarello with it's lugged Columbus SLX frame and Campagnolo gruppo was all that was needed to compete at the highest levels. I could still achieve incredible speeds on this machine, so I sometimes wonder why I should "upgrade". I guess it's the same desire to have the cutting edge technology of the day that inspired me to buy the Pinarello in 1990.
> 
> I'll soon have a carbon fiber frame with ultralight components to compare with the "obsolete" original machine.


I think you have it backwards. Moving from a carbon frame with ultralight components to your SLX & Campy steel Pinarello is the upgrade.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

rx-79g said:


> Not a very effective point, since time trial bikes are often made purposely heavy to keep their speed over flat terrain. Most disc wheels are heavier to preserve rolling inertia.


Can you cite even one example of a bike or frame where weight is deliberately added for the purpose you cite? That disk wheels are often heavier than spoked ones is a consequence of favoring drag reduction over light weight, not an attempt to preserve inertia. That should be clear from the great efforts the manufacturers put into making the disks as light as possible.

It's also never true that a heavier bike is faster on a road course unless there is a significant net elevation loss over the course. http://www.analyticcycling.com


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Moser's hour record bike had weights that deployed out in the disc wheels. At the time of Lemond's win, the rotational weight of the Hed and Mavic discs were considered a plus. http://sprinterdellacasa.blogspot.com/2008/07/equipment-time-trial-bike-history.html

Would a general TT bike benefit from being heavy? No. Because a general use TT bike may have to climb.

I looked at that link but didn't see anything that immediately applied. If you want to post something more specific, cool.


----------



## ultraman6970 (Aug 1, 2010)

rx-79g said:


> You mean a Bottecchia? You can buy one of those legendary Italian bikes really cheap these days! I hear they come from the same place as all those shiny new "Motebecanes".
> http://www.bottecchiasale.com/



Is this an irony? THe bottechias and Motobecanes sold in the states aren't the italian and french ones, are only cheap a$$ chinese bikes, cant remember how was that bikes direct got the names registered here in the states but if you go to the real bottechia web site the bikes are not even similar to the ones u get in the web site u posted neither to the ones bikes direct sells. In a matter of fact bottechia changed the logo a few years ago. Regarding motobecane, the name died years ago and for sure is easier to rebump an old name that came up with a new one.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Yeah, I'm being ironic. I think that sort of copyrighting nonsense is terrible.


----------



## SilentAssassin (Jul 29, 2010)

asgelle said:


> Can you cite even one example of a bike or frame where weight is deliberately added for the purpose you cite? That disk wheels are often heavier than spoked ones is a consequence of favoring drag reduction over light weight, not an attempt to preserve inertia. That should be clear from the great efforts the manufacturers put into making the disks as light as possible.
> 
> It's also never true that a heavier bike is faster on a road course unless there is a significant net elevation loss over the course. http://www.analyticcycling.com


99.9% of that win was due to Lemond's discipline and ability...not the frame, or disk wheels. That's really the point of this thread.

Would Lemond have won on another frame...so long as it fit, and he could get a good aerodynamic position...yes.

Think you can do this on a 5k Cervelo time trial bike? You can't, guaranteed.

Perhaps you could on a Kestrel.....I kid I kid  

End of story.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Really? Sounded like you wanted to talk about bikes, not riders. Then get in plug for whatever BikesDirect lead sled you're pushing.

Sorry it didn't work out.


----------



## Tembo (Sep 7, 2010)

You are forgetting that LeMond was ''gifted''.. 92.5 VO²Max.. Lance has 82. That makes a difference of 10. Therefore Lance reached better performances on even longer distances.

Now who was saying bikes didn't get better ?!


----------



## ultraman6970 (Aug 1, 2010)

Bikes got better in my opinion, the only issue is that uci has rules and at least i nthe pro tour bikes need to follow the UCI rules, thats the reason the aero machines with 650 or 24 inches wheels dissapeared. The other issue is positions, superman position was banned also.

Yes, lemond was a monster, got bad luck? yes. The bottechia he was using was custom made? maybe, all these great racers were not using stock bikes so probably the bike was tailored for him. 

The reason for the heavy wheels in the back was because of momentum, as heavy it is more inertia it has, but the main problem is to launch the wheel, in a matter of fact back in the day disc wheels were not balanced either so depending of the effect u were looking for u were able to add or take more weight to/off the wheel. But again the problem was to get the wheel rolling, once rolling u were all good.

Somebody mentioned the Gitane aero bike, the darn bike weighted like 1 kilogram more than the regular road model, I know because i rode one back in the day, a gitane dealer had one and the bike was nice but pretty heavy, again inertia momentum plus aero were going to give you the advantage in the road. In the track was another issue because all the track bikes are heavy, u have no components but the bikes weights around 7 to 8 kg, thats heavy for a naked bike. The only super light TT bike made back in the day was EDDY's hour record colnago, that was like 5 to 6 kg and im sure the darn bike was twisting like a spaghetti. 

The bike does some tricks but if the engine is not the right one it is useless.


----------



## Deus_Ex_Machina (Sep 4, 2010)

Lou3000 said:


> Though I think the point of this thread was to say that cheap bikes can still win. This is an awful illustration of that point because one, this bike was probably more expensive than anything in the tour this year because so much of it was custom.


Custom or not, I think Lemond's (now vintage) Bottecchia is a _good_ example of the point of the thread. The machine is considered old and heavy by today's standards, and would be inexpensive even as a custom build today, especially when the components are factored in. Despite being old and heavy, a rider like Lemond was still able to ride at an incredible speed on the machine then, as could a similarly talented rider today.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

The carbon Hotta time trial superbikes of the 90's built up around 24 pounds. Boardman and Lance rode them on flat time trials. They aren't legal for UCI anymore.


----------



## rx-79g (Sep 14, 2010)

Deus_Ex_Machina said:


> Custom or not, I think Lemond's (now vintage) Bottecchia is a _good_ example of the point of the thread. The machine is considered old and heavy by today's standards, and would be inexpensive even as a custom build today, especially when the components are factored in. Despite being old and heavy, a rider like Lemond was still able to ride at an incredible speed on the machine then, as could a similarly talented rider today.


But it wasn't dated then, and the competition had similarly advanced bikes. so this comparison doesn't make any sense.

And, despite being "dated" there was no feature of that bike so problematic that it wouldn't still be competitive on a similar course.


----------



## SilentAssassin (Jul 29, 2010)

> But it wasn't dated then, and the competition had similarly advanced bikes. so this comparison doesn't make any sense.
> 
> And, despite being "dated" there was no feature of that bike so problematic that it wouldn't still be competitive on a similar course.


Actually it does make sense, since this is still the 2nd fastest time trial ever recorded to date. And this was 21 years ago :thumbsup:

It's 99.9% the rider that dictates the performance of any frame, guaranteed.


----------



## SilentAssassin (Jul 29, 2010)

> But it wasn't dated then, and the competition had similarly advanced bikes. so this comparison doesn't make any sense.
> 
> And, despite being "dated" there was no feature of that bike so problematic that it wouldn't still be competitive on a similar course.


It does make sense because Lemond's time trial is still the 2nd fastest time trial ever recorded, and he set that 21 years ago.

Point is the rider dictates 99.9% of the performance out of a bike.

/Thread


----------



## cpark (Oct 13, 2004)

SilentAssassin said:


> Very few could do what Lemond did. Maybe Cancellera...and maybe Lance in his prime...that's about it.


Speculating, but I think Big Mig would've been capable of topping that.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

SilentAssassin said:


> Actually it does make sense, since this is still the 2nd fastest time trial ever recorded to date. And this was 21 years ago :thumbsup:
> 
> It's 99.9% the rider that dictates the performance of any frame, guaranteed.


And the fact that there was a tailwind and the course was downhill accounts for the other 0.1%? Right.


----------



## SilentAssassin (Jul 29, 2010)

asgelle said:


> And the fact that there was a tailwind and the course was downhill accounts for the other 0.1%? Right.


No, because very few could do what he did regardless. It was a slight downhill.


----------



## mdime (Apr 15, 2010)

SilentAssassin said:


> No, because very few could do what he did regardless. It was a slight downhill.


I appreciate your point about Lemond but your conclusion about TT bikes and technology is pretty dumb.


----------



## rendus (Jul 1, 2004)

This whole thread is based on a false premise. How many people have to point this out before the OP gets it? Eleven and counting...oops, make that twelve.


----------



## Jay03GT (Jul 13, 2010)

I find it ironic that nobody has asked a very simple question. How is it that the guy with the second fastest ever ITT can raise all these allegations about other riders that were doping, and never had a suspicion against himself? You hear all the excuses, the old tech bike, the old wheels, heavy bike, whatever. Fact of the matter is this still stands as the second fastest, on old inferior equipment, and this guy was clean enough to point fingers at every rider since?!


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Jay03GT said:


> Fact of the matter is this still stands as the second fastest, on old inferior equipment, and this guy was clean enough to point fingers at every rider since?!


I've gone further, faster than Lemond on a standard bike with no aero equipment on a course with the same general characteristics (downhill, tailwind). The fact of the matter is you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Move it to doping where that isn't a limitation to discussion.


----------



## SilentAssassin (Jul 29, 2010)

asgelle said:


> I've gone further, faster than Lemond on a standard bike with no aero equipment on a course with the same general characteristics (downhill, tailwind). The fact of the matter is you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Move it to doping where that isn't a limitation to discussion.


Right, so have I. I also climb faster than Andy Schleck on a heavier bike.


----------



## Jay03GT (Jul 13, 2010)

asgelle said:


> I've gone further, faster than Lemond on a standard bike with no aero equipment on a course with the same general characteristics (downhill, tailwind). The fact of the matter is you haven't a clue what you're talking about. Move it to doping where that isn't a limitation to discussion.



You must be really fast. What team do you ride for? That old bike must not have given any advantages if someone can ride farther, faster with no aero gear. Why did UCI ban that setup and position?


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Jay03GT said:


> You must be really fast. What team do you ride for? That old bike must not have given any advantages if someone can ride farther, faster with no aero gear. Why did UCI ban that setup and position?


Did you miss the downhill tailwind part? Do you start to see how you can't just compare speed without considering course and wind? Do I really have to spell it out for you?

Just as it's true that I can climb faster than Andy Schleck did on the Tourmalet under similar conditions. The explanation is left to the reader.


----------



## jimhodges (Aug 23, 2010)

No doubt Lemond just ran down to the LBS and picked up a bike for the TdF. If you believe that I have some real estate to sell you.


----------



## Jay03GT (Jul 13, 2010)

asgelle said:


> Did you miss the downhill tailwind part? Do you start to see how you can't just compare speed without considering course and wind? Do I really have to spell it out for you?
> 
> I've gone further, faster than Lemond on a standard bike with no aero equipment on a course with the same general characteristics (downhill, tailwind).
> 
> Just as it's true that I can climb faster than Andy Schleck did on the Tourmalet under similar conditions. The explanation is left to the reader.



You claimed to be faster than a 3 time TdF winner on a similar course, similar conditions.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

Jay03GT said:


> You claimed to be faster than a 3 time TdF winner on a similar course, similar conditions.


Go back and read what I wrote.


----------



## ronderman (May 17, 2010)

*A little late, but . . .*

I'm late to this thread, but wanted to add I agree 100%.

Diminishing Marginal Utility - look it up, we hit that in the early 80s with technology on bikes.

Aside from LeMond having the 2nd fastest TT - to date, buy the way, he held the fastest for a long time, we also have Cunigo winning the Giro on a Cannondale Caad 8 with Campy Record and Mavic Kysirium Tubular wheels - that's all he ride, carbon and aero wheels were around, but none of those riders won. Next, Merckx and the hour record, once they made the rules you needed to ride a standard road bike Boardman beat it by a mere 200 meters, the technology in lighter wheels alone should have made that difference.

It's all the rider, anything beyond a Dale with Ultegra or 105 is cause you want it, not cause you need it (maybe with the exception of tubulars, cause they do rider better than clinchers to this day)




SilentAssassin said:


> 99.9% of that win was due to Lemond's discipline and ability...not the frame, or disk wheels. That's really the point of this thread.
> 
> Would Lemond have won on another frame...so long as it fit, and he could get a good aerodynamic position...yes.
> 
> ...


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

ronderman said:


> Next, Merckx and the hour record, once they made the rules you needed to ride a standard road bike Boardman beat it by a mere 200 meters, the technology in lighter wheels alone should have made that difference.


You realize Boardman didn't really train for that don't you? He believed that since it was a new rule, anything he rode would establish the new record. It was only fairly late that he learned the old Merckx record was the established mark and he would have to beat it to set the record.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

asgelle said:


> I've gone further, faster than Lemond on a standard bike with no aero equipment on a course with the same general characteristics (downhill, tailwind).


And then you woke up.
.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

SystemShock said:


> And then you woke up.
> .


You've never gone faster than 35 mph? Sad.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

asgelle said:


> You've never gone faster than 35 mph?


Sure, same way you did... with a big tailwind, a very fast paceline, or on a descent. 

But you out time-trialing LeMond, as you seem to be implying? Again, then you woke up. :lol:
.


----------



## erol/frost (May 30, 2004)

SystemShock said:


> And then you woke up.
> .


...


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

SystemShock said:


> Sure, same way you did... with a big tailwind, a very fast paceline, or on a descent.
> 
> But you out time-trialing LeMond, as you seem to be implying? Again, then you woke up. :lol:
> .


Gee, from the first paragraph I thought you got the point. Then you had to blow it in the second. 

I don't know where you got the idea I said I could out TT Lemond. Did you read the posts?


----------



## Doctor Falsetti (Sep 24, 2010)

Asgelle is correct, the course was downhill, tailwind, and straight. 

Lemond is no longer the fastest for a Tour TT. Dave Z went faster in 2005 on the same length course (20km) but with a 1km climb. Ulrich, Armstrong, and others have come within .3 kph of Greg's speed on courses that were over twice as long with multiple climbs.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

asgelle said:


> Gee, from the first paragraph I thought you got the point. Then you had to blow it in the second.
> 
> I don't know where you got the idea I said I could out TT Lemond. Did you read the posts?


Sure I did... here's what you said:



asgelle said:


> I've gone further, faster than Lemond on a standard bike with no aero equipment on a course with the same general characteristics (downhill, tailwind).


and


asgelle said:


> Just as it's true that I can climb faster than Andy Schleck did on the Tourmalet under similar conditions.


So, from what you actually wrote, it's entirely understandable why ppl are poking fun @you. 

Now, if what you're TRYING to say is, "With considerably MORE of a tailwind and downhill than LeMond had, I could ride faster than him (maybe)", then I doubt anyone would take you to task. But your "same general characteristics" line seems to contradict that.

Thus, the prob is in your vague writing style, not other ppl's reading comprehension skills.

So, let's give you another chance to make your point... what EXACTLY are you trying to say here? :idea:
.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

SystemShock said:


> Thus, the prob is in your vague writing style, not other ppl's reading comprehension skills.


If you get from my saying I could go faster on one downhill, tailwind course than Lemond could on another downhill, tailwind course that I claimed I could out TT Lemond, I really can't help you. 

The word characteristic was chosen deliberately to avoid any confusion that I was talking about a course with similar topography.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

asgelle said:


> If you get from my saying I could go faster on one downhill, tailwind course than Lemond could on another downhill, tailwind course that I claimed I could out TT Lemond, I really can't help you.


Nah. Your word choices aren't clear, and remain so. "With the same general characteristics" is muddying what it is you're trying to get across... whatever that is. Are you talking the same amt of tailwind and downhill as LeMond had, or not?

What's so hard about writing clearly? Lots of ppl on RBR seem capable of doing so. 

Also, what's this about you out-climbing Shleck on the Tourmalet "under similar conditions"? Care to clarify, or do you want to continue to play coy? 

Or are you just trolling?
.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

SystemShock said:


> Also, what's this about you out-climbing Shleck on the Tourmalet "under similar conditions? Care to clarify, or do you want to continue to play coy? Or are you just trolling?
> .


You mis-quoted what I wrote (hardly surprising). I never wrote I could out climb Schleck. I wrote that I could climb faster than Schleck did when he climbed the Tourmalet. See the difference? Details matter.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

asgelle said:


> You mis-quoted what I wrote (hardly surprising). I never wrote I could out climb Schleck. I wrote that I could climb faster than Schleck did when he climbed the Tourmalet. See the difference? Details matter.


LOL, I just quoted what you said, which again was



asgelle said:


> Just as it's true that I can climb faster than Andy Schleck did on the Tourmalet under similar conditions.


Vague, and could certainly be taken to imply that you thought you could out-climb Schleck. "The under similar conditions" line trips you up, just as the "With the same general characteristics" line trips you up on the LeMond comparison.

Again, what are TRYING to say, if anything? 

If you are unable to clarify, I could always send you copy of _Hooked on Phonics_. That might help.
.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

SystemShock said:


> LOL, I just quoted what you said, ...


I think I see your problem. That word


> , I don't think it means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> SystemShock said:
> ...


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

asgelle said:


> Schleck climbed Tourmalet at somewhere around 4 W/kg and certainly less than 5 W/kg. I (as well as almost every relatively fit cyclist) can ride for some period of time at 10 W/kg and hence would clearly climb faster than Schleck.


Ah, looks like I may not have to send you that copy of _Hooked On Phonics_ after all... you _finally_, after much pressing, show some clarity. You can climb faster than Shleck... for a couple of minutes, then blow up. 

Which is actually pretty obvious if stated plainly. So, okay... what was the broader point then? If we backtrack through all the coy posts, maybe it has something to do with LeMond not doping? Something else? 



> _The fact that you changed my wording to out-climb, shows you failed to grasp the fact that there is more to performance than just instantaneous climbing speed. I would argue that is a failure of understanding, not clarity of writing._


Nah. Like others, I simply took what you originally gave us, which wasn't much. At least not until after a half-dozen posts or so, when you finally stopped playing coy and clarified.



> _O.K. enough. This is a cycling forum, not a writing class._


Well, for you it's been a writing class, and a much-needed one. For me, it's been an exercise in cryptography. 
.


----------



## asgelle (Apr 21, 2003)

SystemShock said:


> Nah. Like others, I simply took what you originally gave us, which wasn't much.


You're a regular Paul Newman aren't you?


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

asgelle said:


> You're a regular Paul Newman aren't you?


Oh, sure. Why not?
.


----------



## SilentAssassin (Jul 29, 2010)

In before the lock


----------



## terbennett (Apr 1, 2006)

backinthesaddle said:


> In LeMond's case, in 1989, all you need is huge doses of EPO...


Something to consider, but what's changed? They still dope. Only now they have to cloak it with stuff or get the newest stuff that has been deemed illegal. We like to dream that athletes areclean but I am willing to bet that at least half of them dope.


----------



## rjsdavis (Jul 12, 2012)

z5Thor said:


> I worked in the paint shop at Ten Speed Drive Imports distributer of LeMond bikes at the time. It wa sent to us after the season to be repainted as a LeMond in Team Z colors, I never saw it again until I took a tour of Treks headquarters a couple of years ago and it was bolted to the wall.


Hi Thor

I've just stumbled across this thread, and you could be just the guy I've been looking for for all of these years!!

I've a Z Team replica that I've owned from new (1991), that sadly is in need of a respray to bring her back to her original glory - the difficulty that I've got, is sourcing decals for it! I've swapped some emails with the illustrious Roberto Billato himself and sadly he cannot help, however I understand that these were actually pained with DuPont Imron and decaled by you guys in the US in any case??

Can you assist at all? Or at least point me in the direction of who did the decals so that I can approach them direct....?

Huge, huge thanks in advance.


----------



## ultraman6970 (Aug 1, 2010)

The bike might have been made by billato, if was made by bilatto.Some of those 1st and 2nd generation lemonds were made by other manufacturers too. Pretty much lemond send the production to who ever was ready for it. I had one in blakc but mine was chromed under the paint. Yours might not be chromed from what i can see.

As for the bike you have and pretty much all the gan and z team replicas, those were painted in the united states by ten speed in FL (miami I believe).

Paint colors is not a problem because polyurethane car paint comes in flat colors like that one too, IMRON is just a denomination from dupont paints so doesnt say that much. Just like saying that the pen in you pocket is a BIC. To find the paint wont be an issue at all, you be sure that all as long are the same type of paint (polyurethane or lacquer), i would use polyurethane if i was you, the same than the clear coat.

As for the decals thats not a big deal, just picture them and re do them in a computer. I had to do that with a Bertoni i had because the decals were not available no where. Will take you like a week IMO working little by little, is not hard just tedious if you dont have experience working out with graphics software. If you have a friend that is designer probably will get that made in hours.

Get a decal paper called Lazertran and print it in that. Is hi quality water slide decal paper. The print wont be like super shiny but after you apply the clear will get shiny again.

Paint the bike, cut the decals really good, apply the decals and let it sit for a day and put 3 or 4 coats of polyurethane clear coat over the whole bike. Wait a day or two so the clear gets harder before sand and polish the clearcoat.

Another solution is to send the frame to somebody for painting, they usually offer the service of redoing the decals if are not available (they pretty much do what i told you or cut stencils and paint those graphics).

Another option is to look at ebay, the last time (and only time) i saw a set of those decals was last year and they went for 300 bucks because are not available.

Another option, dissemble the bike, then sand and polish (hope you know what im talking about) that paint job to get rid off of all the junk that is stuck in the surface. Based in the pictures doesn't look that you need a new paint job at all, the bike looks like well used but if you dont clean it it will look pretty bad and clearly you have a lot of glue and grease moving around. The BB is easy to fix using hobby paint, besides nobody will look under the BB shell.

Good luck.


----------



## rjsdavis (Jul 12, 2012)

I'm intending to get it painted by someone like Chas Roberts over here in the UK - he's about the best framebuilder in the country and I'd trust a quality result. 

It's frustrating as CyclArt in the US actually made and painted some early LeMond frames - hoping that I can source some decals from them and give them to the pro frame painter to strip - repaint - and reapply and finish. 

I'm getting back into the saddle and want to keep and use this frame for the next 20 years. She's so rare, that it's worth repainting. Especially as I'll be keeping her.

I've messaged another user who appears to have been a painter at 10 Speed Drive imports from back in the day - hoping that he can point me in the right direction as to who made their decals from them - since they painted the frames and therefore must have applied the decals when it was new.....

Would look better than some home-made decals no matter how much time is spent on the design software. Nothing beats genuine.


----------



## ultraman6970 (Aug 1, 2010)

I dont think you will find a source for those decals, many guys in the US are looking for them since very long time.

To redo decals is not hard at all, u use the pictures as templates and then you draw over the top. Depending on the year the decals in those lemonds are vinyl or transfers. I have seen both so no consistency on that at all aswell. The main problem with lemond bikes at the beginning is that none of the bikes were equal, even sometimes the paint colors were different because different guys manufacture them. Your decals looks like painted or maybe water slide transfers. My lemond had vinyls that were clearcoated.

For the record your bike came in black, dark blue and the colors you have in there. Solid colors are easier to do for a painter just in case.

Good luck man


----------



## ultraman6970 (Aug 1, 2010)

Forgot this, I know who has a red one of those ones brand new and in that size (62 maybe?), if you are going to spend like 500 to 700 bucks in a paint job is better get a new one. Another inconsistency, the one im talking about is red. No idea they came in red until i saw that one.


----------



## rjsdavis (Jul 12, 2012)

Thanks Ultraman - however, have already sourced some genuine decals. CyclArt were actually a LeMond builder / finisher at one point. Only proviso thus far has been that they would want to do the work to be happy to apply genuine decals - to ensure that the frame is genuine too.

I can understand this to a point - but at least there's one source of genuine decals! Am hoping that a former Ten Speed painter will answer the question as to who supplied them back in the day when Ten Speed were actually painting the frames that they imported from Billato. 

BTW - have swapped some emails with Roberto Billato, and it is one of his - however, his decals are long since gone. Gggrrrrrrr.....

I might take the opp to go much darker blue on the blue element - when you look at Greg's bike from the '90 TdF, his TVT was much, much darker blue on the blue elements - other than that, don't anticipate any issues for a pro painter to match the current neon yellow/pink parts of the frame. As you say, they are solid colours and not metallic like on a car - so shouldn't be too tricky for matching.....


----------



## ultraman6970 (Aug 1, 2010)

Well if you notice the color in the team bikes the colors are switched, or close colors but the blue for example is at the bottom and the green at the top (making up stuff here), the decals had some difference too with the colors.

And since batches of bikes were painted wouldnt surprise me that they used a similar color when they did not have the original one available.  Sure you are familiar too with the mess in the bike industry in italy and europe when back in the 80s they just took the bikes out of the factory as fast as possible just for a cost problem, and thats why sometimes you have no consistency between models and years even in the colors. You are in the UK sure you know that raleigh did stuff like that too, as long as the demand for the bikes was covered they did not even care about finishing, tubes they were using or anything.


----------



## SystemShock (Jun 14, 2008)

blackjack said:


> The course had an elevation drop of 250 feet and there was what was characterized as a moderate tailwind.


Good point. Over 24km, that works out to an average downhill grade of only 0.3%. In other words, a 'downhill in name only', pretty much.

Seems like it was essentially a flat course, which makes LeMond's achievement all the more amazing.




> _It's a little tiring that people keep bringing this race up to possibly illustrate nefarious activities on LeMond's part._


My guess? It's largely the Lance fanboi brigade serving up some payback. 

Thing is, it's looking more and more likely that Lance is finally going to be found guilty of doping, and may even be stripped of his TDF wins. His team doctors and trainer just got handed lifetime bans. Not hard to see that it probably won't stop there:

Lance Armstrong Cycling Team Doctors Banned for Doping - ABC News
.


----------



## rjsdavis (Jul 12, 2012)

I'm not sure this is correct.

See this link - which (on page 3), is a genuine Team Z steel frame that Greg never rode as he moved to Carbon:

ww.velostuf.com/index.php?page_id=112&nggpage=3]Page 3


----------

