# Justifying the Icon



## 800lbgorilla (Aug 1, 2005)

Hi all--

I've been looking around for a new frame to replace my 5 year old OCLV, probably going to go Ti. The shop I ride with is a litespeed dealer. I'm 145 lbs, built like a climber, MTB/cross racer looking looking for a reasonably light but bombproof training bike, that I may occasionally use to mix it up in the local tuesday night crit. 

I'm looking at either the Siena or Icon frames. Wondering how litespeed can justify the frame-only MSRP of $1K more for the Icon, given that it only weights about 50 grams less. The siena is also arguably slightly better fit with the longer headtube. 

Any comments from people who've ridden both, or anyone else have any positive/negative feedback about the 2006/2007 Siena?

Or should I ditch the LBS and get a Lynskey level 3 house blend--fits, is light, by all reports rides nicely, and splits the difference in price.

Thanks


----------



## omar (Sep 30, 2002)

I too was looking at the Siena vs Icon vs Archon and as related to me by my lbs, the Icon and Archon have the same 'wrap' construction at the BB and HT. The differences being the tubesets used between the frames. I have not ridden either, but the advice given by Herbert, formerly of LS, was that the Siena would have ridden very much the same as the Ardennes that i once had, which i found abit too soft. I believe the 'wrap' construction to have an 'value' above the conventional joining found in the Siena or Vortex. So betwen the 2, i would go Icon. Cheers


----------



## Juanmoretime (Nov 24, 2001)

Both are fine frames although the Icon would be stiffer.

Dollar for dollar the Lynskey is the way I went!:thumbsup: 

http://weightweenies.starbike.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=38728

No regrets!


----------



## 800lbgorilla (Aug 1, 2005)

Thanks for the replies--still a tough choice. By all reports from the DFL-cyclingnews team, the Sienas they rode last year were plenty stiff--granted they were paid to ride them. I'm just not sure there's a really tangible advantage to the Icon over the Siena, at least not $1k worth.

BTW Juan--the lynskey looks dope.


----------



## teoteoteo (Sep 8, 2002)

omar said:


> I too was looking at the Siena vs Icon vs Archon and as related to me by my lbs, the Icon and Archon have the same 'wrap' construction at the BB and HT. The differences being the tubesets used between the frames. I have not ridden either, but the advice given by Herbert, formerly of LS, was that the Siena would have ridden very much the same as the Ardennes that i once had, which i found abit too soft. I believe the 'wrap' construction to have an 'value' above the conventional joining found in the Siena or Vortex. So betwen the 2, i would go Icon. Cheers



I ridden all 3 bikes with the most time spent on the Archon and Icon. 

The wrap on the on the Archon and Icon aren't the same. The top tube and down tube of the Archon wrap the headtube more than they do on the Icon. The result is a slightly stiffer head tube on the Archon.

Both bikes share some tubes, like the seat tube and stays. The downtube is the same BUT because it doesnt wrap as much at the headtube some would argue its not 100% the same. As for the stays the Archon is manipulated more, butted more, lighter in the stays. Because the Icon is butted less in the rear end, the result is a ever so slightly stiffer BB. 

Confused yet? The Archon is slightly stiffer in the head tube, the Icon slightly stiffer in the bb, We're talking tiny amounts here. 

Why is the Archon, 1000 more? It takes a lot more work to get the last few grams of weight out and keep the ride stiff. The 6/4 top tube is a big part of that cost. Most people will opt for the Icon, but the Archon still has a customer that will pay more for that last little bit of weight, looks etc. I think most of us here all know that last few grams to shave are always the most expensive. 

The Icon costs more than Siena for the same reasons. The tube shapes are harder to produce including the wrap. 

Both Archon and Icon were the first new bikes in years from Litespeed. They weren't tweaked versions of past models, they were new from the ground up purpose built machines. A few of the breakthroughs on the bikes came from co-development between Nasa/Jet Propulsion Lab and Litespeed on a joint project between the companies. There were some shapes they had on part of their project that translated very well to bicycles. 

The Siena is a tremendous bike and very capable. Remember that the Siena was raced by a D2 squad in Europe so it can handle whatever you throw at it.


----------



## Eyorerox (Feb 19, 2008)

Teoteoteo

Have you tried the Merlin CR works?, what does the differing geometry btw the Icon/Archon and the Works translate into the type of ride one would expect? Also if Ti is so wonderful why do all of these Ti bikes have CF fronts, forks stem and bars, why no Ti stem ?


----------



## teoteoteo (Sep 8, 2002)

Eyorerox said:


> Teoteoteo
> 
> Have you tried the Merlin CR works?, what does the differing geometry btw the Icon/Archon and the Works translate into the type of ride one would expect? Also if Ti is so wonderful why do all of these Ti bikes have CF fronts, forks stem and bars, why no Ti stem ?


Only a parking lot ride. Tom Kellog designs the Merlins and I have had discussions with him about the Works CR verse the Extralight. According to Tom the Works CR is the most well recieved Merlin in the line up. The Extralight, used to hold that crown but the Works CR has taken it's place. Lots of people I trust with good amount of time on the CR have echoed Toms thoughts, having nothing but praise for the bike. 

In general the Merlin models won't be quite as aggressive in the geometry department, but I haven't studied any hard numbers on the the CR vs Archon/Icon. 

Maybe I am missing something on the last question, or you have Litespeed confused, but the kits spec'd on the bikes feature alum bars stems, on the high end kits you'll get a carbon WCS post. Carbon forks are an industry standard but ABG makes some fantastic ti forks for Jeff Jones, I'm sure you could get a great ti fork for a road bike if you'd like.


----------



## luke1511 (Jan 21, 2008)

referring to the OP...I love my Icon. I got it Feb 1st. Took a week to fine tune the ride, But the only thing keeping me off it now is this years wacky Socal weather. It rides like a dream, it inspires confidence, rock solid in the turns and descents seems to climb on its own. The frame is stiff but comfortable, it erases the harsh road feedback and vibration I had experienced on my other ride. It seems to be encouraging me to ride further, longer and harder. It's sexy as He!! and well worth what I spent.


----------



## Eyorerox (Feb 19, 2008)

Thanks teoteoteo 

Does that mean the works is better suited to long comfort orientated rides
as opposed to racing?
Even my bike has a carbon fork, what I really meant was that if Ti is such a fantastic material to make a bike from why stop at the forks or handlebars or stem?


----------



## eazyrider08 (Sep 21, 2006)

*I currently race a Merlin CR Works....*

Hi Eyorerox,

I currently race a CR Works and I could tell you it is plenty stiff but very forgiving. I was hesitant at first to race a Ti bike since I've been racing carbon bikes and been very happy with it. It was recommended by friend who race for Rite Aid team last year. He said that it is one of the best bikes he's ever ridden and I have to agree with him on that.

I also have done a couple of centuries on the Works and found it very comfortable on long rides. I definitely recommend looking at it...though I have to admit the Archon looks really "sexy".


----------



## Juanmoretime (Nov 24, 2001)

Eyorerox said:


> Thanks teoteoteo
> 
> Does that mean the works is better suited to long comfort orientated rides
> as opposed to racing?
> Even my bike has a carbon fork, what I really meant was that if Ti is such a fantastic material to make a bike from why stop at the forks or handlebars or stem?


There is a huge difference between being a great material for a frame verses a bike. All materials are not well suited for every component on a bike. Carbon stems still have to be made heavier than alloy stems to avoid being flexy and breaking.


----------



## ClimberMan (Feb 27, 2008)

I also looked at the Icon to be "new friends" with my 06 CR1, but like Juan went with a Lynskey instead. I just got a better vibe from the Lynskey company and felt that they can build as fine of a bike as anybody.

Alv


----------



## Mattbikeboy (Feb 18, 2004)

I saw this today:

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech.php?id=tech/2008/reviews/litespeed_icon08

mbb


----------



## Eyorerox (Feb 19, 2008)

Thanks
also published in Cylce Plus
when do they ever post a poor review of any bike?


----------



## Mattbikeboy (Feb 18, 2004)

Eyorerox said:


> Thanks
> also published in Cylce Plus
> when do they ever post a poor review of any bike?



Okay, if you were getting free test bikes --would you ever pan them?  

mbb


----------



## ProudDaddy (Apr 19, 2006)

*Can you test ride?*

I've been quite pleased riding my 2006 Siena for the last two years. It is fast and plenty stiff (for me at least) and has been a great all around bike for all uses. I chose it after also test riding other LS available at the time. You can find my review if you do a search. Team DFL had their choice of any LS and chose the Siena. Of course I, nor DFL I believe, had the Archon or Icon available at the time - and I have not ridden these models myself. I know the Archon and Icon are new models and quite possibly better, but the 2006 Siena was a major re-design from past models and is a proven very capable bike. Try to test ride the different models if possible and make the value judgment. Of course, if you have the extra cash and want the latest LS bling, then go for it!


----------



## 800lbgorilla (Aug 1, 2005)

Thanks for the input. My LBS has a Siena I can ride, but not an Icon. They have an Archon, as well, but I really can't justify the extra expense of that beast.
Thanks again.


----------



## Eyorerox (Feb 19, 2008)

The Icon and Archon have the same geometry' so you could get some reasonable input from test riding the Archon.
How far and what sort of terain do you think gives an adequate test?
More than just around the carpark' and the components should be the same at least the tyres?


----------



## 800lbgorilla (Aug 1, 2005)

Thanks. The siena has the same geometery as well, except for a slightly longer head tube. I'm not as much concerned about fit (they all fit pretty the same, and fit me well)--it's more an issue of ride quality, so you're right that similar wheels/tires are in order.


----------



## Richard (Feb 17, 2006)

Road Bike Action (if memory serves me) did a side-by-side test of the Icon and the Archon.

They came away liking the Icon better.


----------



## teoteoteo (Sep 8, 2002)

Richard said:


> Road Bike Action (if memory serves me) did a side-by-side test of the Icon and the Archon.
> 
> They came away liking the Icon better.



One thing to note on the test is that Icon was tested with Zipp 404's while the Archon was equipped with Fulcrum 1's. While the Icon can be changed to come with 404's that is not standard spec in any of the Litespeed kits. 

At the same time of the tests I had both and Icon and an Archon with the same wheels as they were testing. Whichever bike I had the 404's on felt better in terms of ride. In fact after 2 rides on the Fulcrums I never used them, I would just put the 404's on whichever bike I was riding.


----------

