LeMond v. Trek

On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:53:57 GMT, Steve wrote:


"garmonboezia" wrote in message

You'll need to check on this, but my experience has been that I needed
to
change the drivetrain over more or less completely. Triple rings need a
longer chain which in turn needs a long cage deralleur (rear) and the
front derailleur will need to be able to swing far enough to catch all
three chainrings. How the new cranks fit on your bottom bracket spindle
may be different. You might need to go a bit wider. Almost certainly
your chainline will be different. Shimano 105 comes in double and
triple
flavors. Perhaps Ultegra does too?

A more careful reading of the post would show "I believe that I can buy a
110 BCD, two-chainring crankset."

That being the case, the existing B-racket might well be fine, assuming
it's
a square taper. All other parts should be OK as well, but best to check
if
the F derailer can be lowered to match the new and smaller large ring.
Not
unusual for a this to be a problem - tapered down tube, bottle cage bolt
in
the way, braze on, etc...

Yes, I wondered about this. I believe (hope) it will work. I believe that
the crank will work.

If all goes well, a 34/50 ring set works quite well, 34 being the
smallest
ring in the middle (in this case - small) position. Or a 48 large
depending
how the gear chart works out.
SB




I was thinking 36/50. However, I'm just thinking. When I use the gear
chart, there's not much difference in mph for 100 rpm for 36 to 39
(currently, I have a 39/53). My rear cog is a 7-speed with 12-27 I think
(I know the 27 is right; I'm not sure about the 12). I have a good ride
except for certain hills, where I'd like to zoom up at 90 rpm, but I'm
either standing or pounding away at about 50-60 rpm or lower. My knee is
beginning to hurt, although the illiotibial (sp?) band stretches have
helped. Should I go 36 or 34 for the bottom?

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

baltobernie wrote in message ..

Would you urge "Jkpoulos7" to replace the steel brakes on
his automobile with carbon

No, but I certainly wouldn't stop that retro-dude from replacing
his brake fluid with something like soapy water.


The difference in weight between a 23" aluminum frame vs. steel is a few
ounces.

Sorry, but today to be competitive with guys like me you
must be riding something in the 16 - 17.5 lbs range.

Steel doesn't cut it out on the road. You'll be riding with
the B or C group, I try and keep my group showing up
with the proper bike and kit. We get respect.

Fri, 18 Jul 2003 22:59:53 GMT,
, Lance's shadow,
"Fabrizio Mazzoleni" expounded:

I try and keep my group showing up
with the proper bike and kit.

Would that be Barbie or Barney kit?

We get respect.

Not when you moving the finish line on them.
--
zk

All the hyperbole here is enough to make you sick. Find the frame you like
and the component group that gives you the most versatility. I see a number
of road bikes running huge mtb cogsets with XT or XTR derailleur. Three
rings are not optimum shifters. But then again are you looking for super
crisp shifts so you do not blow up in the peleton? Likely not.

The Lemond is a great bike. If you have doubts, try a Colnago for the same
long Euro feel.

Good luck.

"Bob M" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 19:53:57 GMT, Steve wrote:


"garmonboezia" wrote in message

You'll need to check on this, but my experience has been that I needed
to
change the drivetrain over more or less completely. Triple rings need
a
longer chain which in turn needs a long cage deralleur (rear) and the
front derailleur will need to be able to swing far enough to catch all
three chainrings. How the new cranks fit on your bottom bracket
spindle
may be different. You might need to go a bit wider. Almost certainly
your chainline will be different. Shimano 105 comes in double and
triple
flavors. Perhaps Ultegra does too?

A more careful reading of the post would show "I believe that I can buy
a
110 BCD, two-chainring crankset."

That being the case, the existing B-racket might well be fine, assuming
it's
a square taper. All other parts should be OK as well, but best to check
if
the F derailer can be lowered to match the new and smaller large ring.
Not
unusual for a this to be a problem - tapered down tube, bottle cage bolt
in
the way, braze on, etc...

Yes, I wondered about this. I believe (hope) it will work. I believe that
the crank will work.

If all goes well, a 34/50 ring set works quite well, 34 being the
smallest
ring in the middle (in this case - small) position. Or a 48 large
depending
how the gear chart works out.
SB




I was thinking 36/50. However, I'm just thinking. When I use the gear
chart, there's not much difference in mph for 100 rpm for 36 to 39
(currently, I have a 39/53). My rear cog is a 7-speed with 12-27 I think
(I know the 27 is right; I'm not sure about the 12). I have a good ride
except for certain hills, where I'd like to zoom up at 90 rpm, but I'm
either standing or pounding away at about 50-60 rpm or lower. My knee is
beginning to hurt, although the illiotibial (sp?) band stretches have
helped. Should I go 36 or 34 for the bottom?

--
Bob M in CT
Remove 'x.' to reply

"baltobernie" wrote in message
...

The difference in weight between a 23" aluminum frame vs. steel is a few
ounces. Switch to carbon and save another couple of ounces; heck, let's be
generous and call it one pound. Remember we're talking about non-rotating
weight. I can't measure the time difference between riding with one water
bottle or two. Can you? Do the math; one pound in 180 is one-half of one
percent.

You are being disingenuous, cycling equipment is all about weight. If not,
we'd be all riding steel cranks, brakes, handlebars, stems, etc., etc.

The difference between something that fits you vs. something that you fit is
indescribable. Get yourself one dress shirt custom made, and you'll see
what I mean.

I have had a lot of custom clothes made (I'm 6'10"). The reason most people
don't wear custom clothing is because off the rack is nearly as good (often
better, actually) in fit, and it's always cheaper. The same thing is true
(actually much more so) for bike frames.