# My New Ride - 2010 Motobecane LeChampion Ti SL



## akeelor (Apr 18, 2006)

View attachment 193229


I put a similar post on bikeforums yesterday and thought I would share here as well.

I have ridden this bike twice now outside and am really pleased with the ride of this bike. I swapped out the OEM wheels and put on my Easton Circuits and it is smooth as butter.

Very crisp shifting with the Ultegra and the bike fits nicely. I am 6'1" and opted for the 56cm version. I might even stick with the Ritchey saddle.

What a sweet rig. :23:


----------



## TwoHeadsBrewing (Oct 13, 2009)

Nice! Grats on the new bike, she's a beaut. What's the weight of the bike?


----------



## akeelor (Apr 18, 2006)

TwoHeadsBrewing said:


> Nice! Grats on the new bike, she's a beaut. What's the weight of the bike?


Thanks. Bike handling is really amazing. 18lbs with pedals.


----------



## MatLad (Mar 29, 2008)

I love the Eastons on the bike. Looks great!

I am just curious... at 6'1", why did you choose a 56cm bike? I am 6ft or maybe 6'1" (depending on who is measuring), and I am usually fitted as a 58cm and sometimes a 60cm.

Most people that I know who ride a 56 are much shorter than I am.


----------



## akeelor (Apr 18, 2006)

MatLad said:


> I love the Eastons on the bike. Looks great!
> 
> I am just curious... at 6'1", why did you choose a 56cm bike? I am 6ft or maybe 6'1" (depending on who is measuring), and I am usually fitted as a 58cm and sometimes a 60cm.
> 
> Most people that I know who ride a 56 are much shorter than I am.



Long top tubes on these bikes. 57.2cm on the 56cm version. 58.5cm on the 59cm version.
I am more leg than torso and my other cf bike has a 57.4cm TT that fits well.


----------



## aaronis31337 (Apr 7, 2008)

MatLad said:


> I love the Eastons on the bike. Looks great!
> 
> I am just curious... at 6'1", why did you choose a 56cm bike? I am 6ft or maybe 6'1" (depending on who is measuring), and I am usually fitted as a 58cm and sometimes a 60cm.
> 
> Most people that I know who ride a 56 are much shorter than I am.



Check the geometry. 56 is just right. I'm 6'0 and had to shorten the stemp on my 56


----------



## Christoph (Jul 10, 2009)

aaronis31337 said:


> Check the geometry. 56 is just right. I'm 6'0 and had to shorten the stem on my 56


So aaronis, I'm 5'9 1/2". 

Do you think I should go with the 53 instead of the 56?


----------



## MatLad (Mar 29, 2008)

aaronis31337 said:


> Check the geometry. 56 is just right. I'm 6'0 and had to shorten the stemp on my 56


I did check the geometry, which is why I went with the 59cm. It has a shorter top tube than my current 60cm bike. Maybe we have different riding styles or measurements. My cycling inseam (with riding shoes) is 35 inches and my height is just over 6'1". Also, I prefer comfort over long distances, which a larger frame gives.


----------



## Dresden (May 26, 2009)

Christoph said:


> So aaronis, I'm 5'9 1/2".
> 
> Do you think I should go with the 53 instead of the 56?


I think the 53 would do fine for you. I'm 5'7" and the 53 is almost too big for me--most people would probably say it _is_ too big for me, but that's the type of fit I was looking for. Great bike, btw.


----------



## aaronis31337 (Apr 7, 2008)

Christoph said:


> So aaronis, I'm 5'9 1/2".
> 
> Do you think I should go with the 53 instead of the 56?


yes, go with 53 or smaller


----------



## aaronis31337 (Apr 7, 2008)

Well, I would think that the longer frame would stress your neck. That was my problem with the 56, so I got a shorter stem and short reach bars


----------



## akeelor (Apr 18, 2006)

aaronis31337 said:


> yes, go with 53 or smaller



As I stated above, I am 6'1" and I would not want this bike to be any bigger. I don't know your proportions other than you indicated that you are 5'9+. I would have to agree that you would probably want to go with the 53.

It seems that seat tube is driving too much of the decision making on this bike. I have a Schwinn Peloton Ltd bike that I love with a seat tube of only 52cm but a TT of 57cm. The Moto is actually bigger than this bike, but not by much. 4cm in the seat tube and only .2 in the TT.


----------



## MatLad (Mar 29, 2008)

aaronis31337 said:


> Well, I would think that the longer frame would stress your neck. That was my problem with the 56, so I got a shorter stem and short reach bars


Normally a larger frame, as long it is within your fit range, will be more comfortable for your neck and shoulders. If you pick a frame on the small size, you have to raise the seat higher in relation to the frame, which usually means the seat will be much higher than the handlebars (more aerodynamic, but less comfortable). Remember that having the seat higher, increases the distance from the handlebars (vertically and horizontally). So often, a smaller frame will have the rider reaching farther than a larger frame. While having a smaller frame is usually better for racers, it is not usually as comfortable for longer distances. However, a frame that is too large will also not be comfortable. The trick is finding the fit range. At 6'1" with a 35 inch cycling inseam, I am comfortable on 56 through 60 cm road bikes, with being most comfortable on a larger frame. I have personally felt cramped on every 56 cm bike that I have tried. 

However... this being a semi-compact frame adds another twist, so hopefully the 59cm Moto Ti that I ordered fits well, or I will have to eat my words.


----------



## Brayne (Jul 17, 2009)

I have this bike and kit. Had it a month now with my first 300 miles on it. I'm 5'7" (& 1/2 on a full moon) I opted for the 53cm. I have a 31" standover w/o shoes. I'm 45 and just starting out, so I'm more interested in comfort, and so... I flipped the stem. Yes my stem points up and it feels great. TMI?

I've got a saddle bag with a repair kit, 2 co2s, 1 tube, couple of tools, and it's weighing in at 18.75. 17.25 w/o the bag-o-stuff. With only my old crappy mtb(The Station Wagon) to compare to, This fits nicely. I'm doing 20-25 per day and My avg speed is at between 17.5 and 18. I'm very pleased with it. No lower back pain, Neck is fine, Now the muscles are another story. Bring on the vino!


----------



## chas0039 (Jun 26, 2007)

I got the 59cm frame alone as I wanted to fit this out with all Campy. I happen to be almost 6'2" but with a shorter than usual inseam so the longer top tube was a plus. Also I like the seat very close to the frame. In this case I still needed to go with a 90mm stem because the seat needed to go back a ways to get the peddle reach correctly set up.

From my perspective, given that seat set back is the very first thing that needs to be set after seat height, most "factory" stems will be wrong for most people. 

In any case, I can confirm is is a very good ride.


----------



## girona10 (Feb 1, 2010)

*For Shorter Riders*

I'm just shy of 5' 7" but opted for the 48cm because of the TT length (53.5). I do have a 
30" inseam so I have the post really high. I will try flipping the stem up so I can have a more upright position.


----------



## easyridernyc (Jan 10, 2008)

aaronis31337 said:


> Check the geometry. 56 is just right. I'm 6'0 and had to shorten the stemp on my 56


shorten the stem?


----------



## easyridernyc (Jan 10, 2008)

easton circuits...yesss good idea


----------



## akeelor (Apr 18, 2006)

akeelor said:


> View attachment 193229
> 
> 
> I put a similar post on bikeforums yesterday and thought I would share here as well.
> ...



Thought I would do a 1K follow-up.

Overall, I really like the way this bike handles. I replaced the saddle with E3 Form that fits my arse well. I also swapped the handlebars for FSA Wing-Pro shallow drop bars. Really great bars.

Bike is lively and climbs and descends equally well. A couple of "noise makers" have driven me slightly mad but ultimately I discovered the culprit, just like on my other bikes.

A very small disappointment is the bolt that holds the cable guide under the bottom bracket is rusted. Clearly not stainless or Ti. Not sure why BD would go cheap on such a small item.

Right brifter has been a bit sticky but that is a Shimano issue.

Enjoy the rest of the summer.


----------



## cs1 (Sep 16, 2003)

aaronis31337 said:


> yes, go with 53 or smaller


I was all set to get the flamer out but actually checked the geometry chart http://www.motobecane.com/rdti/lti.html#geo and the 53 has 550mm TT. The 56 is 572mm. The only problem I see is the seatpost is going to way up there for guys like me.


----------



## a_avery007 (Jul 1, 2008)

what are the head tube lengths?


----------



## chas0039 (Jun 26, 2007)

My 59 comes in at 185cm which is substantially yaller than any of my other bikes.


----------



## mikeyp.1 (May 24, 2006)

Congrats on your new bike! I bought the Ti Heat(Rival Version), I also fitted lighter wheels,Neuvation m-28 SL mine weighs 17.3 with pedals and a carbon cage-lovin it!


----------



## SilentAssassin (Jul 29, 2010)

I've been thinking about ordering this bike! I do not know what the heck is different with the ultegra sl vs rival. I hear the 2011 sram rival is lighter, but the ultegra sl shifts smoother and is quieter. The ultegra can't be worth $400 more than the rival can it?


----------



## mikeyp.1 (May 24, 2006)

The full Ultegra comes with lighter fork-Carbon steerer- and slightly lighter wheels.It is 3/10s lighter-wether this is worth $400 IS UP TO YOU-I got Rival 53 and Neuvation wheels,(260),and my bike is half a pound lighter than full Ultegra model.


----------



## aaronis31337 (Apr 7, 2008)

I have ultegra SL and Rival. The Ultegra is smoother and quieter, but not nearly work $400 more. Not even close.


----------



## SilentAssassin (Jul 29, 2010)

akeelor said:


> View attachment 193229
> 
> 
> I put a similar post on bikeforums yesterday and thought I would share here as well.
> ...


I'm considering this bike. Any chance we could see you on the bike to get an idea of what a 6'1 guy looks on a 56cm frame. I am trying to decide on the 56 and 61, and I am about as tall as you.

I understand you want your privacy, so maybe you can just use photoshop to blot out your face or something. I just want to get an idea of how you look on a 56cm frame if possible. Thanks.


----------



## aaronis31337 (Apr 7, 2008)

I'm 6'0 and have a 56. I had to shorten the stem just a bit, and I think my legs are too far back. I would get the 53 next time, but you'lre a bit taller than me.


----------



## ilovebikes (Aug 13, 2007)

*Can the decals be removed?*

Can you tell if the decals are removable? Are they above the epoxy or under it?


----------



## peetsjunkie (Jul 29, 2010)

Damn.. on the fence between Ti or Carbon.....


----------



## aaronis31337 (Apr 7, 2008)

They are not under epoxy. You can remove them but I haven't.


----------



## ilovebikes (Aug 13, 2007)

*Head tube length*

Can you measure your head-tube length from top-bottom? Motobecane's website lists the 56's HT at 165mm, but yours looks longer than that. I'd prefer a taller head tube, so knowing yours would really help my purchase decision.


----------



## tonkabaydog (Jul 22, 2010)

Really funky sizing on this bike and pretty lame that they provide a very limited geometry chart.... seriously. I am a BD fan, but come on. They would do themselves a favor by providing more data so we can all make educated decisions and telling people that these frames run much much larger. This comes from their website: "Compare the Geometry Sizing chart against bikes you have ridden. In general, bikes with similar effective top tube lengths will fit similarly".... True, but they should say the frames run VERY large for the stated sizes versus the norm.

I have created a spreadsheet of 7 different brands geometry in a 54cm. I am riding a Windsor Trent in a 54cm and look at how this frame "listed" in a 51cm stacks up. Amazing how far off it is versus the standard. 


Size: Trent54 CM vs Ti SL in 51cm
B. Horizontal Top Tube Length:	55 vs 54
C. Seat Tube Measured Size:	51 vs 51
D. Seat Tube Angle: 73 vs 73
F. Head Tube Angle: 73 vs 74
G. Chainstay Length: 41 vs 40.5
H. Fork Rake:	
I. Bottom Bracket Height:	29 vs N/A
K. Wheelbase: 99 vs 97.5
L. Trail:	
M. Standover: 77.5 vs 76 they actually list this on the website in inches.... 29.9 kinda lame.
N. Bottom Bracket Drop:	
O. Front Center Distance:	
P. Head Tube Length:	
Q. Stack:	
R. Reach:


----------



## SilentAssassin (Jul 29, 2010)

Rival version is better. Sell the Aksium Race and get Easton EA90 SLs.


----------



## BluesDawg (Mar 1, 2005)

Agree that there should be more clarification and more complete geometry info. The sizing standard has been in a flux since sloping top tubes became popular. Some brands go by the actual seat tube length (like the Ti SL in the example above). Others go by the size that the bike would have been with a level top tube (like the Trent above). It is not that the sizing is unusual, it is just that the examples given use different naming conventions for their stated frame sizes.
I like what SOMA does which is to list what the traditional size would be along with the seat tube length.


----------



## tonkabaydog (Jul 22, 2010)

Many suggest Stack and Reach are the best measure.... few are using it.


----------

