# Christmas Came Early - New Bike!



## MTBMaven (Dec 17, 2005)

Back in November I placed an order for a new '07 Lemond Zürich with Pasadena Cyclery. I wanted to support my LBS and got a good deal on the bike. They have always taken care of me in the shop and even help you with trail maintenance. 

The bike was schedule to arrive sometime in mid-February. I was preparing myself for delays on top of that, until yesterday. I was at the hardware store and got a call from the shop...
LBS: "Hey Brian this is Matt from Pasadena Cyclery."
Me: 'Oh sh!t, what's gone wrong with the purchase' "Hey Matt, what's up?"
LBS: "I've got good news"
Me: 'F yeah, my bike is in'
LBS: "Your bike is in"

So I went by and picked it up. I had to steal some kids lunch money to pay off my balance but what the hell, he didn't need it. 

I switched out a few parts I picked up to replace poorly spec'ed OEM parts. I ditched the OEM Bontrager Race wheelset for a set of Reynolds Alta Race from PricePoint. I will be ditching the OEM Bontrager Race Lite fork for a Reynolds Ouzo full carbon fork from PricePoint as well. Between those two items I drop the bike weight by 430 grams (453.6 grams to 1 pound). 

I will be selling the wheelset, fork, and saddle soon. Let me know if anyone is interested before they go on the market.

Unfortunately I don't have my pedals yet. I didn't expect the bike so soon. I will be ordering a set of Look Keo Carbons from eBay (found them for $140 from some dude in Hong Kong). I will be riding with my huge platform clip pedals until the Looks arrive (that will make me look real cool with the roadie set).

I need to play around with a few things. The stem looks way to tall, it's 110mm/17deg. The bike has a pretty tall head tube to begin with plus a half inch riser and a 17 degree rise on the stem. The angle looks like my AM mountain bike.  Still have to install my cool carbon water bottle cages I got from Performance too! (What a gear ***** I know.)

I can't wait to ride it. If it were not for all this damn family stuff today and tomorrow...

My new baby under the tree


----------



## djg714 (Oct 24, 2005)

Sweet, that fork looks cool.... 
Enjoy


----------



## Coppi51 (May 30, 2002)

Gotta let us know how the new Min/Max Lemond carbon's are! You are the first I've seen with one...


----------



## MTBMaven (Dec 17, 2005)

Will do, though I'm afraid I will not be able to provide too useful of a review. This my first road bike ever. I have been riding mountain bikes since junior high (1990). My guess is I will love it. Bring on the centuries.


----------



## travism (Jun 29, 2006)

I got an '07 Zurich a couple of weeks ago. I agree that the wheels, fork and saddle are good upgrades to the stock bike. I switched out the wheels and saddle to the Mavic Ksyrium SLs and Fizik Arione I had been riding on, but I'll use the stock fork for a while until I get the urge to upgrade, probably to an Easton EC90. I wouldn't expect trading out the other Bontrager components to make enough difference for me, so I'll keep those.

The head tube is really tall, so I've flipped the stem and got rid of all the spacers to get the handlebars where I like them. Besides giving me the right fit, I like the clean look of not having the stack of spacers under the stem, and it supposedly helps keep the front end stiff as well. People who like a lot of drop between their saddle and bars may have some trouble with the tall head tube. I have around 3-4 inches of drop on mine. I'm 5'9" on a 57cm frame, so I think I'm on the small end for this size bike. That may explain why I have the bars as low as they go.

I had the bike shop weigh it once I had it set up the way I'm going to ride it, complete with bottle cages, computer, Speedplay pedals, etc. and it was 17.75 lbs. Most people don't include the accessories when stating bike weight so it would be around 17.5 lbs with pedals that way. The Easton fork I mentioned would save another 1/2 pound.

This is my first carbon frame. I had been riding an aluminum Trek. The ride is much smoother on the Lemond. I had tested the Zurich and a Madone back-to-back and picked the Zurich based on the smoother ride feel. The bike feels plenty stiff as well. I can especially tell a difference when climbing and accelerating while standing, where I'm assuming stiffness comes into play most.

So far the Zurich is meeting all my expectations!!!


----------



## toyota (Sep 4, 2006)

travism said:


> The head tube is really tall, so I've flipped the stem and got rid of all the spacers to get the handlebars where I like them. Besides giving me the right fit, I like the clean look of not having the stack of spacers under the stem, and it supposedly helps keep the front end stiff as well. People who like a lot of drop between their saddle and bars may have some trouble with the tall head tube. I have around 3-4 inches of drop on mine.* I'm 5'9" on a 57cm frame*, so I think I'm on the small end for this size bike. That may explain why I have the bars as low as they go.
> 
> 
> 
> So far the Zurich is meeting all my expectations!!!


 You say you are 5'9 so I cant even fathom how the heck you can ride a 57cm Lemond, flip the stem and still have 3 or 4 inches of drop. In fact that would mean a saddle height of over 80cm and thats higher than most people that are 6'2. Someone your height would normally ride a 53cm Lemond and even if they slammed the stem would not end up with that much saddle to handlebar drop. Either you are not 5'9 or that bike is not a 57cm.


----------



## travism (Jun 29, 2006)

By flipping the stem, you know I mean that the stem is in the lower position, right? Basically parallel to the ground. That provides a lot of drop on a 17 degree stem. For a 80cm saddle height, what points are you measuring between? 

I ride a 56cm Trek. I just remeasured my height at 5 foot 9.5 inches. I have no idea where you get that I should be on a 53cm bike. I'll be happy to verify any measurements if you want me to, but you'll have to back up some of your statements before I spend too much time trying to convince you that I fit on this bike.


----------



## toyota (Sep 4, 2006)

travism said:


> By flipping the stem, you know I mean that the stem is in the lower position, right? Basically parallel to the ground. That provides a lot of drop on a 17 degree stem. For a 80cm saddle height, what points are you measuring between?
> 
> I ride a 56cm Trek. I just remeasured my height at 5 foot 9.5 inches. I have no idea where you get that I should be on a 53cm bike. I'll be happy to verify any measurements if you want me to, but you'll have to back up some of your statements before I spend too much time trying to convince you that I fit on this bike.


 I misunderstood what you said about the stem. Usually when people say they have flipped the stem and gotton rid of the spacers that means they have it in the higher rise position. If you ride a 56cm Trek than a 57cm Lemond is too big for you. Trek measures to the top of the seat tube and Lemond measures a theoretical center to center. The center to center measurement doesnt really mean a lot since they have a slope now. So a 56cm Trek would be like a 53cm Lemond in theory. In fact when Lemond used rebranded OCLV frames in the mid 90s they were called 47-59 instead of Treks 50-62 even though they were exactly the same frame. Its a little hard to do a direct comparison between Trek and a Lemond since their top tubes are at different extremes.

Most people in these forums dont have a freakin clue about how to compare different companies geometry. I am so sick of hearing that Lemonds have long top tubes. Lemond actually has the shortest top tubes until you get up to a 59cm. Remember that a 49cm Lemond is like a 52cm Trek. Trek is actually the company with really long top tubes not Lemond. In reality your 57cm Lemond is TOO big for you. Even a 55cm Lemond would be outside the norm for someone 5'9. A 53cm Lemond would have shorter top tube and a 55cm Lemond would be slightly longer(4mm) than a 56cm Trek. At no point would a 57cm Lemond make since for you unless your 56cm Trek was *way* too small.


----------



## travism (Jun 29, 2006)

I've always heard of flipping the stem as putting it in the lower position. Maybe it's a regional difference. Doesn't matter.

It sounds like you don't have a problem with me riding a 56cm Trek but you think the 57cm Lemond is too big. This appears to be based on how they measure the seat tubes differently. I don't care about the nominal seat tube length because 1) as you stated that's measured differently by different brands and 2) the seatpost can make up whatever difference you need. 

I picked out the size based on the effective top tube lengths. The cockpit felt slightly small (not "way too small") on the 56cm Trek (eff. top tube of 562mm) so I chose the 57cm Lemond (eff. top tube of 575mm). Standover height is fine on the Lemond, plus I don't have a ton of seatpost showing which I find more appealing than a lot of seatpost sticking out of a small frame.

I don't go by a company's reputation for long top tubes or the traditional differences between two brands of bikes. I just look at the current geometry numbers. It's possible that Trek and Lemond have changed their geometries since the 90s even though you base some of your statements on their differences from back then. And don't you think it's possible that people might fit on frames differently than some traditional sizing theories?

Every bike shop I went to when testing bikes put me on bikes in this size range. If you were me, would you listen to them or to you? It's not like I'm going to return a bike that I'm comfortable on because some dude that likes to hang out on internet forums said the bike is too big. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here. I was just trying to give a review of the bike that people seemed interested in.


----------



## toyota (Sep 4, 2006)

Well if you dont have a ton of seatpost showing on a Lemond then you are only reinforcing my opinion that the bike is too big. A 57cm Lemond only measures 50cm in the seat tube so you should have a ton of seatpost showing if the bike actually fit. You also had to be really exaggerating earlier when you said that you had a 3 to 4 inch saddle to bar drop. 

Based on your comments about your 56cm Trek the 55cm Lemond would have been a much better choice. The 55cm Lemond has a longer top tube and a much taller head tube than the 56cm Trek. The 57cm Lemond has whopping 50mm effective taller head tube than a 56cm Trek. Thats the reason you had to slam the stem. If you are happy then that is all that matters but be to clear a 57cm Lemond is made for much taller people than 5'9. There is already a thread on here about a 53cm and the average rider is 5'9.


----------



## bquig (Aug 29, 2006)

There's another difference between the trek and lemond frames that hasn't been mentioned but is probably relevant here. The seat angle between the two is different by 1 degree. (Trek 73.5 for 56cm & Lemond 72.5 for 57cm). With the steeper seat tube on the Trek you would potentially need more setback on the seat for the same riding position. 

I've seen rules of thumb that talk about 1 cm per degree of angle. I don't know how accurate they are, or if I have misunderstood the whole geometry thing. If it is the case, then that would make the two fairly equivalent from a tob tube perspective once seat placement is taken into account.

I guess this becomes even more relevant if you have a long inseam measurement.

Nice bike BTW.


----------



## toyota (Sep 4, 2006)

bquig said:


> There's another difference between the trek and lemond frames that hasn't been mentioned but is probably relevant here. The seat angle between the two is different by 1 degree. (Trek 73.5 for 56cm & Lemond 72.5 for 57cm). With the steeper seat tube on the Trek you would potentially need more setback on the seat for the same riding position.
> 
> I've seen rules of thumb that talk about 1 cm per degree of angle. I don't know how accurate they are, or if I have misunderstood the whole geometry thing. If it is the case, then that would make the two fairly equivalent from a tob tube perspective once seat placement is taken into account.
> 
> ...


 Well if you look at the geometry on the 55cm Lemond compared to the 56cm Trek you will see what I said earlier is correct. The 55cm Lemond has 73.0 seat angle, 73.5 head angle and 56.5 top tube compared to the Treks 73.5 seat angle, 73.75 head angle, and 56.1 top tube. So that means if you placed the seat in the same position over the bottom bracket on both bikes you would end up with virtually the same top tube. In other words the slightly longer top tube on the 55cm Lemond would be offset when moving the seat forward to compensate for its more slack seat angle. 

Its obvious that neither him nor the bike store know how to look at geometry. Someone 5'9 should not even consider a 57cm Lemond. If the 56cm Trek fit him _well_ than the near exact equivalent for a Lemond would have been a 55cm.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

Toyota is pretty dogmatic.


----------



## toyota (Sep 4, 2006)

Richard said:


> Toyota is pretty dogmatic.


 No Im just anal about bike fit. Why would you say dogmatic when everything I said can be clearly proven?


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

toyota said:


> No Im just anal about bike fit. Why would you say dogmatic when everything I said can be clearly proven?


I do the professional fitting in our shop and I CAN'T FIT ANYBODY without personally seeing them on the bike in question.

And I'll give you a concrete example of how a height difference of two inches doesn't mean squat.

My brother is 5'9" and I'm 5'11", but the difference is all in our leg length. He has a long torso and long arms to boot. Last summer he was out from Virginia to California on business and we wanted to go for a ride. At that time I had a Supergo Scattante XRL 57cm as my commuter/backup bike. The sloping top tube gave him adequate standover, so I dropped the seat to his correct height and moved it slightly forward on the rails to get him where he likes relative to the crank (I ride well back and have for decades.) He likes his bars higher relative to the saddle than I do - by approximately the distance the saddle was lowered.

The bike fit him so well (in my observation and from his direct experience) that when he got back to Virginia he picked one up from Performance - in a 57cm not the 55cm they recommended.

LeMond's have very similar geometry and sizing to the Scattante (we are a Trek dealer and I like the fit of a 57cm LeMond for myself) so I can see where a 5'9" rider may very well fit that size in a LeMond.

So much for "clear proof!"


----------



## toyota (Sep 4, 2006)

Richard said:


> I do the professional fitting in our shop and I CAN'T FIT ANYBODY without personally seeing them on the bike in question.
> 
> And I'll give you a concrete example of how a height difference of two inches doesn't mean squat.
> 
> ...


 Ok I will keep it real simple then. If the 56cm Trek fit then the 55cm Lemond would have been the logical choice. That part I did *clearly* prove. I also made it clear that* if* the 56cm Trek was too small then a 57cm Lemond would be considered. The guy said that his 56cm Trek was not too small so guess what....that means the 55cm Lemond would have been the proper bike size.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

toyota said:


> Ok I will keep it real simple then. If the 56cm Trek fit then the 55cm Lemond would have been the logical choice. That part I did *clearly* prove. I also made it clear that* if* the 56cm Trek was too small then a 57cm Lemond would be considered. The guy said that his 56cm Trek was not too small so guess what....that means the 55cm Lemond would have been the proper bike size.


Sorry Toyota, but you haven't proved anything.

In my 40 years experience of serious cycling and 10+ in bike fitting I have learned one thing about bike fitting - there are no absolutes!

I see many customers who are "in between" sizes. For racers, hard-core fast cyclists, etc., generally I'll recommend sizing down. For club riders, century types, older riders, etc., I'll go the larger size.

I fit primarily by effective top tube length, proper position over the crank (which can vary considerably by pedalling "style" (e.g., high cadence, low cadence, toes down, heels down, etc.), and no extremes in stem length.

I've seen a lot of guys who could ride either a 56cm or a 58cm Trek. Neither was "too large" or "too small". As long as there was adequate standover, the deciding factor was bar height to saddle height. Someone who wanted a very aggressive position, go 56. The next guy (or girl) who wanted to be a little more upright, go 58.

I'm sick to death of "experts" who think there is some magic formula that by taking a bunch of measurements/numbers, calculating this and that, looking at a "geometry chart" that they can come up with the perfect fit. Human beings come in such a polyglot of physiognamies that the only way to get a great bike fit is to establish some "baselines" and fine tune from there.

And you HAVE TO SEE THE PERSON ON THE BIKE!!


----------



## toyota (Sep 4, 2006)

Richard said:


> Sorry Toyota, but you haven't proved anything.
> 
> *HAVE TO SEE THE PERSON ON THE BIKE*!!


 I agree with you on that last comment that you need to see the person but try to follow me for this last time. *He said the 56cm Trek fit*. Ok are you still following? The 55cm Lemond would give basically the exact same fit. Are you still paying attention? Also the 57cm has a *whopping 5cm taller head tube*. Thats why he had to slam the stem just get a decent fit on the bike. Please use some common sense and look at what I am basing my size comments on. If you just go by what he said you would know that a 57cm Lemond is probably NOT the proper size.


----------



## travism (Jun 29, 2006)

I really wanted to try to keep the thread on topic and have it be about the bike, but it is not to be. I feel the need to clear up some statements that have been made.

First, I said the cockpit of my Trek feels a little small. Toyota keeps saying I said the Trek fits, and uses that as a base for setting up the Lemond the same as the Trek. The extra 13mm of effective top tube on the Lemond, with a little tweaking of the saddle position, gets me to where I want to be.

Second, toyota doesn't know me nor the type of riding I'm interested in. I am not a racer, just a club rider who likes to try to keep up with the fast group and do some centuries. The taller head tube of the Lemond does produce a more comfort oriented position, as I knew it would before buying the bike. I was not expecting to set up the Lemond with the exact same dimensions as the Trek. The Trek is comfortable enough, but I also wanted something a bit different as my flexibility and riding styles change. 

Third, toyota says I have no idea how to look at geometries. Then he proceeds to make his argument based on top tube length, which is the exact same reasoning I originally used to show why I picked the 57 cm. He originally said I should be on a 53 cm Lemond, now you are saying 55 cm. I think Richard and myself have stated reasonable ways that the 57 cm can be a good fit as well. If I was a racer I probably would have gone with a 55 cm. Instead I went with what I thought would be a more comfortable position for longer rides. So far I haven't seen anything that convinces me otherwise. If anything, Richard's statements have reinforced that it has logic behind it.

Ideally, I think I'm between sizes. I said in my original post that I'm on the small end for the 57 cm frame. I am willing to concede that a 55 cm or a 57 cm could provide a good fit depending on the other adjustments. The insistence that only a 55 cm or smaller frame is reasonable is where I take exception. Believe it or not, I did put a lot of research and thought into this bike purchase.

We can keep going around in circles, but I don't know how else to say that the bike fits. The whole point is that I'm happy with the bike. It's stiff but still provides a smooth, comfortable ride. So others should check the bike out if that's what they're looking for. That was really my original point before all this other BS.


----------



## toyota (Sep 4, 2006)

travism said:


> We can keep going around in circles, but I don't know how else to say that the bike fits. The whole point is that I'm happy with the bike. It's stiff but still provides a smooth, comfortable ride. So others should check the bike out if that's what they're looking for. That was really my original point before all this other BS.


 Well if you are happy then that is all that matters in the end. Sorry if I came across as rude.  

I actually had this Lemond on my short list. I ended up getting a 2006 Cannondale R1000 but only because it was marked down to $1599.


----------

