# Killer Deal, But Right Size Lemond?



## Tschai (Jun 19, 2003)

I can get a new 2006 Lemond Victoire 55 cm complete for less than $2,000. However, I am not sure it is the right size. I am definately an in-betweener. Using Wrench Science and Competitive Cyclist, the 55 is the right size. Bike shop also says 55. However, I am still unsure. 

I am 71.50 inches tall (5'11.5"). Inseam is 32.5 inches. Arm length is 23 inches. I borrowed another 55 Lemond with the same geometry and it seems to fit. The effective top tube has enough room and I am not bunched up. Exposed seatpost is not excessive, although a bit higher than my old bike, which was a 1986 Colnago Super. However, my buddies 57 Lemond (non-compact) also seems to fit.

I have not been on a road bike since about 1995, so the compact geometry seems funky. Looking at the bike, it seems small. 

I do not intend to race, go fast or hammer. Been there, done that. Just want to cruise and maybe do some long rides. On the mountain bike side, I always go with the larger frame when I am in-between sizes.

I am concerned that the 57 may be better suited for my intenede use (more stable, slower steering, softer ride), but on the other hand, am concerned I will be too stretched out on the 57. 

Any thoughts? What size are you and what size is your Lemond?


----------



## Ken Wells (Mar 21, 2007)

Why would you buy a 2006 when you can buy the full carbon 2007 Triomphe frame bike for a similar price. I am selling the 950 gram frame with Campy components and Bontrager Race X aero wheels for 1700.


----------



## harvestlaser (May 13, 2004)

reply i am sure the 2006 is brand new from the dealer.

i would go with the 55 i am sure in the long run you will love it. i dont think moving up to the next frame size will make it ride any smoother/ handle slower.


----------



## mschol17 (Jun 11, 2006)

It all depends on whether you can get the right saddle-to-handlebar drop. If you can, the 55 is fine. If not, you need a 57. I'm about the same dimensions as you, and I ride a 57cm Sarthe, FWIW. I only have 3-4 cm drop, though.


----------



## WhiskeyNovember (May 31, 2003)

mschol17 said:


> It all depends on whether you can get the right saddle-to-handlebar drop. If you can, the 55 is fine. If not, you need a 57.


Best advice yet! Good call, mschol17.


----------



## Ken Wells (Mar 21, 2007)

Once again. Are you talking about the new carbon 2007 frames or teh older ones. Carbon is new for 2007 and not available in 2006.


----------



## VaughnA (Jun 3, 2003)

I'm exactly the same size as you and I ride a 55 Tete De Course (Carbon/Ti) and 55 Fillmore. But fit is a VERY personal thing.


----------



## NFALLEN (Jun 11, 2007)

*go for the 2006*

I hope you went ahead and got the 2006. It's sad that they couldn't keep the ti/carbon frame going. It was market dynamics. The excellence of the concept and the execution were never in doubt. It's a better frame than an all-carbon frame imho. A lot of other people agree. (And I'm sure a lot of others disagree, too!)

I have an extremely long inseam and usually require 63cm+ bikes. I fit natrually on Lemond's biggest frame, which is only 61cm. So for my build at least Lemond sizing seems to run large.


----------



## MCF (Oct 12, 2006)

*Hate to Hi-jak....*



NFALLEN said:


> I hope you went ahead and got the 2006. It's sad that they couldn't keep the ti/carbon frame going. It was market dynamics. The excellence of the concept and the execution were never in doubt. It's a better frame than an all-carbon frame imho. A lot of other people agree. (And I'm sure a lot of others disagree, too!)
> 
> I have an extremely long inseam and usually require 63cm+ bikes. I fit natrually on Lemond's biggest frame, which is only 61cm. So for my build at least Lemond sizing seems to run large.


But how tall are you and what frames have you found to fit well? I am 6'5" and currently ride a 61cm Lemond Alp D Huez....I am afraid to go to a Trek or Specialized as they have shorter top tubes.......I do like the '08 Victoire though....


----------



## kneejerk (Feb 2, 2007)

Tschai: that totally sounds like a fit, the Lemond having a little more slacked "seat tube angle" may require moving the seat further forward compared to "steeper seat angle" bikes,......... which will make the top tube shorter, 
as others have said....... bike fit is highly subjective, what works for one doesn't always work for others, 
for me.......... the most important fit consideration is the "seat tube angle"..... which will allow me to position my legs over the pedals for comfort and power, then I consider the reach factor,

MCF: Trek is now making a 64cm size in some road models, that would likely fit you, 6'5" is pretty much at the top end of finding a production frame,


----------



## MCF (Oct 12, 2006)

*Thanks...*



kneejerk said:


> Tschai: that totally sounds like a fit, the Lemond having a little more slacked "seat tube angle" may require moving the seat further forward compared to "steeper seat angle" bikes,......... which will make the top tube shorter,
> as others have said....... bike fit is highly subjective, what works for one doesn't always work for others,
> for me.......... the most important fit consideration is the "seat tube angle"..... which will allow me to position my legs over the pedals for comfort and power, then I consider the reach factor,
> 
> MCF: Trek is now making a 64cm size in some road models, that would likely fit you, 6'5" is pretty much at the top end of finding a production frame,


Looking at the TREK 64cm frames, their effective tt length is actually shorter than the Lemonds. I believe the headtube length is shorter also which will result in a more 'aggressive' position. I have about 1.5" of spacers and a Bontrager 130 x 17 stem on my Alp and I have about 3/4" drop from saddle to bars. Would prefer to not increase the drop on any new ride....getting old....35 going on 36...


----------



## kneejerk (Feb 2, 2007)

I just checked the online geometries......... Sure the Lemond shows about the same top tube length for the 61cm compared to the Trek, although the Trek shows an inch taller (or so) head tube length, which should work better for you (that is the Trek "performance fit" frame).


----------



## MCF (Oct 12, 2006)

*Thanks...*



kneejerk said:


> I just checked the online geometries......... Sure the Lemond shows about the same top tube length for the 61cm compared to the Trek, although the Trek shows an inch taller (or so) head tube length, which should work better for you (that is the Trek "performance fit" frame).


Would the Pilot fall into the 'performance fit' frame? Not sure I want the aggressive fit of the Madone. I probably could deal with a slightly shorter top tube as my saddle now is actually more forward than back (and plan on moving a tad bit more forward this evening)...

Nevermind..just checked out Trek website..I see the Madone's have the performance fit with the taller head tube...actually, the Trek head tube is 25cm compared to Lemond 21cm and Trek Top tube is 61cm vs. Lemond 60.6cm..boy would I like the Madone 5.2....but I don't think I can justify $3500 for 2-3 20-30 mile rides a week.....is it possible to get any of the Madone frame only (all the non pro Madone frames are the same except the colors I believe)?


----------



## kneejerk (Feb 2, 2007)

It's not really cost effective to buy one of the new Madone frames. You are basically getting the components for next to nothing when you compare the prices. 

MCF: I'm not sure what you are riding now, but the carbon Madone's ride hella sweet. It's a bit of a knumbing feeling on the road that can turn those 30 mile rides into 50 mile outings. (I have become quite an OCLV believer)....... Just find a rough road somewhere and compare with an OCLV bike........ that is how I got convinced of the effectiveness of spending the $ on a full carbon Trek!


----------

