# Litespeed 2001 Catalog?



## RFC

Hi,

I am trying to comfirm that my Appalachian is a 2001. Litespeed does not have the 2001-03 catalogs on its site. Any other online sources?

Thanks


----------



## TurboTurtle

I have the paper catalogs - post pics and/or give specs. - TF


----------



## RFC

TurboTurtle said:


> I have the paper catalogs - post pics and/or give specs. - TF


Thanks for the response. I don't want you to go to any inconvenience. What I'm looking for are digital copies of the Appalachian page and the geometry page.

Many Thanks

RFC


----------



## TurboTurtle

I'll copy them for you, but let's be sure we do the right one. 2000 has a 1" head tube, 2001 has a 1 1/8" head tube, 2002 has the disc brake tabs on the left rear. - TF


----------



## RFC

Good point. Here is a pic.

What I need to do is to remove the cable guide from the BB and find the SN. I'm just being a wimp because I now have the DRs doing what I want.

The decals are clearly 2001, however, that is not conclusive by a long shot. And it does have a 1" HT.

I'm back to thinking '98 or '99, but definitely not '00 because of the bullet ends on the stays, which show up in the catelogs and Bikepedia for '98,'99 and '01, but not '00.

So don't go to the trouble of copying the 2001 catalog. I've got all of the earlier ones.

Thanks Again,


----------



## TurboTurtle

I can't see much detail from this pic. Good looking build. Is the top tube sloping or is that just the angle? - TF


----------



## RFC

Yes, there is about a 2-3cm drop from the HT to the ST.

If you want to see an HD pic of the bike, email me and I'll send it on reply.

[email protected]


----------



## Oregonic

*Sorry to Resurrect This Thread....*

I have been looking for the geometry on the 2001 and 2002 Appalachian and Blue Ridge for some time, and can't seem to find the info anywhere. 

If it's not too much trouble, would you be able to scan and post the geometry pages for these 2 years? I've had my eye out for one of these for a while, but need a bit more sizing info.

Almost everything else can be found online, but for some reason these 2 years are missing. Thanks in advance!


----------



## TurboTurtle

Oregonic said:


> I have been looking for the geometry on the 2001 and 2002 Appalachian and Blue Ridge for some time, and can't seem to find the info anywhere.
> 
> If it's not too much trouble, would you be able to scan and post the geometry pages for these 2 years? I've had my eye out for one of these for a while, but need a bit more sizing info.
> 
> Almost everything else can be found online, but for some reason these 2 years are missing. Thanks in advance!


I'll get you some data, but note that the Ap & BR are the same frame. There are some geometry differences, but that is because they used a different fork. What size(s) are you lokking at? - TF


----------



## Oregonic

I had heard that they were the same frame, so either chart would do. 

I could potentially fall anywhere between a 57 and a 61, depending on the year.
The geometry changed some time between the 2000 catalog and the 2003 catalog (both of which I have found online). Sometime in between they went to a longer TT, chainstays,and wheelbase, taller head tube, slightly different angles, etc. I have been looking for the 2001 and 2002 geometry charts, to see when it changed over. Also, I can't tell when they went from the 1" steerer to the 1 1/8". It also seems that for 03 (and possibly 02), there are disc tabs too - which year those were added seems to depend on who you ask... 

My preferences are a virtual TT from 57-59ish (and then make up the difference when picking a stem), a taller head tube, a 1 1/8 steerer tube (important), and if possible, canti and disc tabs (optional). 

So if I went with an older model (circa 2000) I would be on a 59 or 61 (but probably wouldn't have tabs, and might have a 1" fork), but if I went with a newer model (circa 2003) I would be better off on a 57 or 59, and would have probably have a 1 1/8" steerer and maybe disc tabs. 

I'd like to use it for the gravel fire roads out here as well as cross racing in the fall. 

Any info you have would be helpful.


----------



## TurboTurtle

Oregonic said:


> I had heard that they were the same frame, so either chart would do.
> 
> I could potentially fall anywhere between a 57 and a 61, depending on the year.
> The geometry changed some time between the 2000 catalog and the 2003 catalog (both of which I have found online). Sometime in between they went to a longer TT, chainstays,and wheelbase, taller head tube, slightly different angles, etc. I have been looking for the 2001 and 2002 geometry charts, to see when it changed over. Also, I can't tell when they went from the 1" steerer to the 1 1/8".


Taller head tube and 1 1/8” in ‘01



> It also seems that for 03 (and possibly 02), there are disc tabs too - which year those were added seems to depend on who you ask...


Disc tabs in ’02 only.



> My preferences are a virtual TT from 57-59ish (and then make up the difference when picking a stem), a taller head tube, a 1 1/8 steerer tube (important), and if possible, canti and disc tabs (optional).
> 
> So if I went with an older model (circa 2000) I would be on a 59 or 61 (but probably wouldn't have tabs, and might have a 1" fork), but if I went with a newer model (circa 2003) I would be better off on a 57 or 59, and would have probably have a 1 1/8" steerer and maybe disc tabs.
> 
> I'd like to use it for the gravel fire roads out here as well as cross racing in the fall.
> 
> Any info you have would be helpful.


I have a ’00 Blue Ridge and a ’02 Ap.

I had discs front and rear on the Ap, but removed the rear for a Power Tap hub. (Note that it is for a 120mm hub, not 130mm – I spread mine.) There is a huge difference in stopping power between the front disc and canti/adapted-V, but I did not notice much difference without the rear disc. Your stopping power is at the front.

The BR is set up with adapted (Travel Agent) Vs front and rear. Better than road brakes, but far from discs.

Send a PM with your email and I’ll send the 2002 geometries. I’ll work on the 2001 – ‘scanner’ challenged’ at the moment.

TF


----------



## Oregonic

Wow, thanks for the info! 

I didn't even think about the rear hub spacing... interesting that they woud put disc tabs on a 120 spaced bike - there can't be many (if any) disc hubs out there at 120mm.

Do you happen to know when they went to the 130 road standard?


----------



## TurboTurtle

Oregonic said:


> Wow, thanks for the info!
> 
> I didn't even think about the rear hub spacing... interesting that they woud put disc tabs on a 120 spaced bike - there can't be many (if any) disc hubs out there at 120mm.
> 
> Do you happen to know when they went to the 130 road standard?


Sorry, not thinking. Spaced at 130mm (road), not 135mm (most disc hubs). - TF


----------



## Oregonic

Ahh, that makes more sense. Thanks for all of your help, I really appreciate it.


----------

