# How does a Merckx MX Leader compare to todays carbon frames?



## digby (Jul 23, 2004)

Just curious, Ive been reading about MXL's for quite some time now, always slightly enviously. I read nothing but praise about the connection to the bike, the smoothness of it and its amazing handling.

Now, I finally have the means to get one for myself and I have to ask(since Ive never seen one in person or ridden one) how they compare to todays carbon frames or todays steel frames? From everything Ive read it seems like the weight is a non issue. But how does it compare ride wise to a AXM or EXM?

I currently have a Giant TCR 1 carbon that Ive been riding for the last few years. Its definiitly a nice ride, takes the sting out of the road, but it can be a little twitchy. Before that I had a Steel Bianchi Talladega. When I swapped from the Bianchi to the Giant I noticed a immediate improvment in my level of comfort after my normal loop(the carbon floats over alot of the things I'd notice on the bianchi). Will I notice something similar when/if going from giant to MXL?


----------



## AlexCad5 (Jan 2, 2005)

The only way you will really answer the question is by buying one. Certainly you will feel the weight difference on climbs, and when you are moving it around the garage. The Merckx is going to be much more stable and predictable than your Giant. I would predict it will have a more solid ride. It may not have the snap you are used to, but it will be fast, at least as fast as you are. But like I said, order one and let us know the difference.


----------



## Henry Chinaski (Feb 3, 2004)

digby said:


> From everything Ive read it seems like the weight is a non issue.


 I wouldn't want to race one these days--the carbon frames most people ride are probably 2-3 pounds lighter. But they are great frames and killer rides. Kind of like a '69 Road Runner is a great car and fun to drive. It's just seriously outdated.


----------



## Kung Fu Felice (Apr 17, 2007)

You wouldn't to race it, but since more than 80% of a person's saddle time is on a training ride versus racing, wouldn't it be the perfect training bike? Reserve the ultra light bike for race days, and use the heavier more comfortable bike for training.


----------



## Fivethumbs (Jul 26, 2005)

The MX Leader is the kind of bike you don't have to think about when your riding it. It goes when you pedal it, it's fast, smooth, predictable, it climbs well and it descends like a mofo. Oh, and it's built like a Sherman Tank. After the holocaust only cockroaches and MX Leaders will still be around.


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

*Eddy*

As a "go fast" bike, steel (eddy or otherwise) just cannot stack up to carbon. My vote for carbon goes to Ridley Excaliber for price, quality and speed. I sold my two eddy's once I got the Ridley. It is not at all subtle. I started beating guys I could hardly keep their wheel the first week on the Ridley.
I don't think steel is dead. I just think you need to know what you are getting it for. Comfort, durability, cool factor, price and customization. I would recommend getting a custom bike in steel over the Eddy. IF are an obvious example of such awesomeness. Every region of the country has their local favorites. I would say one of the most important factors (after the builders quality) would being able to meet the builder and go through what you want on the bike, and making sure your measurements are right on the money.
Eddy's are great bikes though. You will turn heads, feel and look cool on your Eddy.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Thanks.......*



zoikz said:


> As a "go fast" bike, steel (eddy or otherwise) just cannot stack up to carbon. My vote for carbon goes to Ridley Excaliber for price, quality and speed. I sold my two eddy's once I got the Ridley. It is not at all subtle. I started beating guys I could hardly keep their wheel the first week on the Ridley.


for the morning laugh! You can't possibly believe this?

Hysterical.

Len


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

*you're right*

Yea I was making a joke. eddys are the best and fastest bikes ever and carbon bikes are just a fad. I've never ridden an eddy and I have no idea what I am talking about.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*I'm not slamming......*



zoikz said:


> Yea I was making a joke. eddys are the best and fastest bikes ever and carbon bikes are just a fad. I've never ridden an eddy and I have no idea what I am talking about.


carbon bikes, rather I'm laughing at your assertion that a carbon bike is actually faster than a steel bike....for an average rider, the differences are negligible enough to be a joke......it may feel faster, but it isn't.

Len


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

well, at least you could have made fun of him for comparing steel to a Ridley-got to be one of the heaviest carbon frames around: 1400grams for the small size of the Noah.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

Len J said:


> carbon bikes, rather I'm laughing at your assertion that a carbon bike is actually faster than a steel bike....for an average rider, the differences are negligible enough to be a joke......it may feel faster, but it isn't.
> 
> Len


I plan on taking a trip to Pisa in August. Maybe I should drop a carbon bike and a steel bike off the leaning tower and see which one hits the ground first.


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

*should have known better*

please note that the frame I mentioned was the excaliber which is 1.15kg. also note that bikes such as the noah have an integrated seatpost so the actual weight of the bike in comparison would include the seatpost and clamp.
don't know how much racing you do, that may make the difference a bit more apparent between steel and carbon.


----------



## bigbill (Feb 15, 2005)

zoikz said:


> don't know how much racing you do, that may make the difference a bit more apparent between steel and carbon.


I should get rid of my steel Pegoretti and get me a Trek. I always wondered what would make me faster. Maybe one of them Bottechias, aren't they carbon? I have a MX Leader as well, maybe I could use it as a boat anchor or buy a second one and make a rack to hold firewood.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Go to.........*



zoikz said:


> please note that the frame I mentioned was the excaliber which is 1.15kg. also note that bikes such as the noah have an integrated seatpost so the actual weight of the bike in comparison would include the seatpost and clamp.
> don't know how much racing you do, that may make the difference a bit more apparent between steel and carbon.


analyticalcycling.com and plug in your body + bike weight & your watts for 40K TT and then do the same adding 3 lbs and see what the time difference is. Then do the same for a 2 mile 7 degree climb. & then remember that these differences are slightly overstated because the frame weight differences are static weight not rotating weight. In addition, 3 lbs is the worst case difference.....I have a lugged steel bike with no weight weenie stuff on it that comes in at 17.5 lbs with pedals.

While I agree that a carbon frame can feel faster, the facts don't support that it actually is any more than negligibly faster. The rest is all placebo.

I actually like the ride feel of some carbon frames, but I don't delude myself into thinking that they make me faster.

Whatever helps you mentally though....go for it.

Len


----------



## Mr. Versatile (Nov 24, 2005)

Lmao!


----------



## stevesbike (Jun 3, 2002)

re the Noah, even accounting for the integrated seatpost, it's still 300 grams more than frames like the Scott Addict or R3. That's more than 1/2 lb-given the strength of the R3 something tells me Ridley isn't exactly optimizing the properties of CF in their frames.


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

*I'm not sure the weight is the difference*

I'm not saying steel is dead. In fact it's still very alive and kicking. I love the hell out of my steel cross bike that. Also the new Reynolds 953 tubeset really is going to change how folks think about steel. Unfortunately the only guys I know on these bikes are IF factory riders, who seem to dig the hell out of it. Plus the cost of this frameset far exceeds even the choicest Ti frame...tough on the pocket.
But from a racing perspective a Eddy MX leader just is not going to be as fast as a well designed and built carbon frame (the original post.) Not really just in terms of weight either, the most noticable thing for me was the amount of flex you get out of the frame, especially in a sprint. I don't think the difference between it and a alum frame is that appreciable, but steel....absolutely. Not at all subtle when you are sprinting for the line. Sure, if you got a crap arse carbon frame and compared it to the finest steel out there (which I would agree is a Pegoretti) the steel would be looking pretty awesome. 
If racing is not a priority don't sweat it. The steel will prob be more comfy and reliable in the long run.


----------



## Guest (Jun 3, 2007)

zoikz said:


> I'm not saying steel is dead. In fact it's still very alive and kicking. I love the hell out of my steel cross bike that. Also the new Reynolds 953 tubeset really is going to change how folks think about steel. Unfortunately the only guys I know on these bikes are IF factory riders, who seem to dig the hell out of it. Plus the cost of this frameset far exceeds even the choicest Ti frame...tough on the pocket.
> But from a racing perspective a Eddy MX leader just is not going to be as fast as a well designed and built carbon frame (the original post.) Not really just in terms of weight either, the most noticable thing for me was the amount of flex you get out of the frame, especially in a sprint. I don't think the difference between it and a alum frame is that appreciable, but steel....absolutely. Not at all subtle when you are sprinting for the line. Sure, if you got a crap arse carbon frame and compared it to the finest steel out there (which I would agree is a Pegoretti) the steel would be looking pretty awesome.
> If racing is not a priority don't sweat it. The steel will prob be more comfy and reliable in the long run.


Good thing no-one ever tried to actually race on a steel frame ........... Oh wait ......


Never mind


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

*Whatever.....*



zoikz said:


> I'm not saying steel is dead. In fact it's still very alive and kicking. I love the hell out of my steel cross bike that. Also the new Reynolds 953 tubeset really is going to change how folks think about steel. Unfortunately the only guys I know on these bikes are IF factory riders, who seem to dig the hell out of it. Plus the cost of this frameset far exceeds even the choicest Ti frame...tough on the pocket.
> But from a racing perspective a *Eddy MX leader* just is not going to be as fast as a well designed and built carbon frame (the original post.) Not really just in terms of weight either, *the most noticable thing for me was the amount of flex you get out of the frame, especially in a sprint*. I don't think the difference between it and a alum frame is that appreciable, but steel....absolutely. Not at all subtle when you are sprinting for the line. Sure, if you got a crap arse carbon frame and compared it to the finest steel out there (which I would agree is a Pegoretti) the steel would be looking pretty awesome.
> If racing is not a priority don't sweat it. The steel will prob be more comfy and reliable in the long run.


MXL & Frame Flex in the same sentance....that is just laughable.

I guess when you're generating 2,000 watts in that sprint...........

Have you ever ridden an MX Leader?

Len


----------



## zoikz (Sep 5, 2003)

*ditto on the whatever*

raced a corsa during college. used a team-mates MX for a month waiting for a fork replacement. sold my Elite and AX last year when our team got sponsored by Ridley. As I alluded to earlier I've spent a lot of time on eddy's. 
no idea how much wattage I generate. never was a big gadget fan. generally a pretty good sprinter, but more of a leadout man. won't be upgrading to CAT 2 anytime soon. 
Len, you sure do a lot of laughing. you must be a really happy guy. 
Last posting on this, it's gotten way too long and too grumpy.


----------



## Kung Fu Felice (Apr 17, 2007)

Lance Armstrong raced his MX Leader to victory in the insanely hilly 1995 Fleche Wallone, and came close to winning the following weekend in Liege-Bastogne-Liege.

Sure it was 1995, but this frameset is a proven commodity and was tested by the best. Good enough for the "average Joe" I'd say.


----------



## Len J (Jan 28, 2004)

If you can flex an MXL....you probably should be in Europe.

More than likely you were flexing the bars/stem or the wheels.

Len


----------



## Einstruzende (Jun 1, 2004)

I always like to point this bit of info out to folks:

Lucien Petit-Breton set the hour record with an average of 25.54 miles per hour. He used what was probably a 30 pound steel bike. By the way, it was almost 102 years ago (November 1905) and had wooden rims.

The current record is just 5.34 mph faster, set just last summer. Not a whole hell of a lot of increase in 100 years, and you have to think that the biggest part of that gain was knowledge of actual fitness with HRM, Power Meters, etc.

Lance had it right when he said "It's not about the bike."


----------



## marron (Nov 25, 2002)

To start, I have to say that I always thought my MX-Leader had about as much flex as a flight of concrete steps. That's what it always felt like climbing out of the saddle. Of course I only weigh 160 pounds.

Having said that, I would buy a carbon or Ti frame from Merck in preference to the MX-Leader any day of the week. Frame weight does make a difference; subjectively for sure and objectively for most. If you have lots of excess power and ride the flats all day then the MX-L will be a good ride. But if your cruising speed is closer to 20 mph than 25mph that I would get a lighter more modern frame.


----------



## Phat&SlowVelo (Nov 27, 2004)

*ditto that*



Einstruzende said:


> I always like to point this bit of info out to folks:
> 
> Lucien Petit-Breton set the hour record with an average of 25.54 miles per hour. He used what was probably a 30 pound steel bike. By the way, it was almost 102 years ago (November 1905) and had wooden rims.
> 
> ...


to piggyback what E said: Sven Nys couldn't win if you took away his carbon C-50 cross and gave him a "heavy" lugged steel Sachs, or Zank. Please..


----------



## Kung Fu Felice (Apr 17, 2007)

Phat&SlowVelo said:


> to piggyback what E said: Sven Nys couldn't win if you took away his carbon C-50 cross and gave him a "heavy" lugged steel Sachs, or Zank. Please..


But in cross, weight IS the focus. Frequent start/stops means wheels need to be as light as possible for instant on acceleration, and carrying the bike around over your shoulder - well, obviously 2 lbs. will make a difference.

BUT, the OP appears to be posting about road riding on an MXLeader where stop and go is less frequent, and he never has to carry his bike anywhere except around his garage. Other than hills, I don't know if he'll notice a difference while pedaling 80 RPM on mostly flat terrain.


----------

