Waterford Versus Lemond
Steve Metz
club races. He has narrowed his bike choices to two models: a Waterford
2200 and a Lemond Zurich. Both are Reynolds 853 frames and will have
Ultegra. Each has some advantages. The Waterford is clearly the better
made frame. The Lemond has some superior components, including wheels (Rolf
Vector Comps versus Mavic Open Pro/Ultegra) and a carbon fork versus steel.
After a number of test rides he is pretty set on these choices, so isn't
really looking for suggestions on other bikes. What would you recommend and
why?
Qui si parla Campagnolo
club races. He has narrowed his bike choices to two models: a Waterford
2200 and a Lemond Zurich. >>
<< Both are Reynolds 853 frames and will have
Ultegra >>
Are they the same size-Lemonds often have a longer top tube and slacker seat
tube than others-has he gotten an anatomic fit first?
<< The Lemond has some superior components, including wheels (Rolf
Vector Comps versus Mavic Open Pro/Ultegra) >>
Doubt I would call them superior-ask the LBS if they have spare spokes in stock
for the wheels, and a wheelbuilder and tool that can repair them-
<< After a number of test rides he is pretty set on these choices, so isn't
really looking for suggestions on other bikes. >>
See above on fit-has he been fit?Or was it a typical, ride around the parking
lot, stanover' type fit?
Peter Chisholm
"Vecchio's" Bicicletteria
1833 Pearl ST.
Boulder, CO
(303)440-3535
http://www.vecchios.com
Steve Metz
deciding factor?
AndresMuro
would say the Waterford without a doubt. The difference in the frame is key
over here. The Lemond is a Honda (accord) and the Waterford is a Mercedez 500.
The finish in the Waterford will be a lot better. In terms of ride quality,
they both should ride well. The wheels will perform the same. The ultegras are
probably lighter. However, the ultegra wheel will probably last you a lot
longer and will take a lot more abuse. Also, if you damage the ultegra wheels,
you can take them to any shop and have them fixed. Not so with Rolfs. I don't
know the difference in components, but most components will last a while, and
won't give much of a performance difference. The key here is the frame. A
waterford 2200 is a work of art, will have a much better resale value and there
are a lot less of them made.
Dan Connelly
on the wheels -- the key there is the hubs, not the spoke pattern.
But the fork affects the ride quality substantially. Yet that
should show up in a test ride...
Steve Metz wrote:
>
> A friend has asked for my advice. He is buying a road bike for training and
> club races. He has narrowed his bike choices to two models: a Waterford
> 2200 and a Lemond Zurich. Both are Reynolds 853 frames and will have
> Ultegra. Each has some advantages. The Waterford is clearly the better
> made frame. The Lemond has some superior components, including wheels (Rolf
> Vector Comps versus Mavic Open Pro/Ultegra) and a carbon fork versus steel.
> After a number of test rides he is pretty set on these choices, so isn't
Jon Isaacs
>made frame.
> (Rolf
>Vector Comps versus Mavic Open Pro/Ultegra)
Personally I would consider that the Rolfs are better marketed by would
question if they are superior, they do look fancier but I believe
aerodynamically they are similar.
While Mike J. may have different ideas from what I have seen these wheels are
more of a marketing device than an actual technological improvement. And
certainly the Ultegra/Mavic combination will be good solid wheels that should
last a long time.
If you want aerowheels, then invest in some TriSpokes or some other serious
wheel, otherwise, if I were buying I consider the Open Pros the better wheel.
The way I look at a decision like this:
When you buy this bike the only thing that will remain the same over the years
is the frame. At some point it will need new wheels, and maybe even an upgrade
of components or a different fork. But the frame will always remain the same.
Jon Isaacs
Tim McNamara
should be slightly lighter than the Waterford. The Waterford would be
better made IMHO, as Waterford's framebuilders are the equals of anyone
in the world.
Given a choice between the two, I'd go with the Waterford. The LeMond
geometry is rather extreme, with the seat tube being really laid back and
the top tube being really long. Fit is often problematic for people
with LeMond frames, but for those whom they fit it's wonderful.
Waterford's geometry is a bit more neutral and should fit just about
everyone, as well as being very nice to ride. Those guys have bike
handling traits figured out!
Steve Metz
a frame that will last 15 years since by that time we may have
plutonium-kryptonite-fairy hair composite frames that have zero gravity and
can bear loads in the 2 ton range.
Mike Jacoubowsky
standard tools and spokes. The stock spokes are bladed, which are now
available from a variety of distributors, *but* you can sub a normal,
garden-variety everyday spoke with no ill effects whatsoever aside from
appearance. Plus, the need to repair or even true these wheels is very
rare.
As for carbon forks vs steel, all I can suggest is that someone ride each
bike and see what they think. I know of very few people who have switched
back from carbon to steel forks and thought they made the right choice (and
we do have customers who have done so, living in the backyard of Rivendell
etc as we do).
But overall, what matters is A:) what the bike rides like to YOU, and B:)
which bike is going to *beg* you to ride it, every chance you get.
--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
http://www.ChainReactionBicycles.com
"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <vecc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001112094109...@ng-cv1.aol.com...
> << He is buying a road bike for training and
> club races. He has narrowed his bike choices to two models: a Waterford
> 2200 and a Lemond Zurich. >>
> << Both are Reynolds 853 frames and will have
> Ultegra >>
>
> Are they the same size-Lemonds often have a longer top tube and slacker
seat
> tube than others-has he gotten an anatomic fit first?
>
>
> << The Lemond has some superior components, including wheels (Rolf
> Vector Comps versus Mavic Open Pro/Ultegra) >>
>
> Doubt I would call them superior-ask the LBS if they have spare spokes in
stock
> for the wheels, and a wheelbuilder and tool that can repair them-
>
>
> << After a number of test rides he is pretty set on these choices, so
isn't
> really looking for suggestions on other bikes. >>
>
Peter Guyton
- Fit comes first. The Waterford is a bit more "neutral" while the Lemond is
more "laid back". However, you can probably adjust the seat fore-aft
position and the stem length enough to get either frame to fit (though maybe
not ideally).
- Waterfords are really in a different league. Hand built, sliver brazed,
lugged vs tig welded. Not sure if the Lemond uses 853 stays, back a few
years they did not, only the main tubes were 853. Waterfords have got very
slender lugs and I think they use custom 853 tubes that are in fact lighter
than the standard issue... at 3.6 lbs without fork (some Ti bikes are
heavier), my guess is that the Waterford 2200 isn't any heavier than the
Lemond. After adding the fork is a different story. My 58cm 2200 with steel
fork and standard wheels is about 19lbs. If I felt like jazzing it up with
superlight wheels and a carbon fork with a carbon steerer (I don't), I could
probably get it down to 18lbs, maybe less. I have elected to eat less pizza
instead.
- Options: Waterford has lots, you can get a 1cm longer top tube, a head
tube extension, multiple color schemes, panels , fades etc. ... but you pay
for it. A LeMond is the car you buy off the lot, a Waterford is the one you
order and wait a three weeks for delivery.
- forks: Waterford comes standard with a Reynolds 531 fork (or they did a
year ago... that may have changed)... for my money, the best riding steel
fork around, that's why they use(d) it. Waterford will spec some carbon
forks too if you want, including the Wound Up model (which they will paint
to match the frame). I can't speak for the LeMond fork but beware of whimpy
carbon forks, there are plenty out there that can feel downright scary at
times. Make sure you ride 'em and push 'em hard into a few corners.
- I wouldn't let the wheels influence the decision, most racers end up
getting a second set of wheels anyway. Search Dejanews.com for some past
threads for wheel pros and cons, there have been some pretty lively
discussions to say the least.
That said, IMHO I'd say if he plans on keeping the frame a long time, get
the Waterford. If you think he'll be on to next "latest and greatest" thing
in a couple years, get the LeMond (assuming it's cheaper). Also look at the
Ritchey Road Logic frames/bikes. I've seen some good deals and they
supposedly have a sweet ride.
Peter Guyton
"Steve Metz" <steve...@mindspring.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:8um84s$5f0$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> A friend has asked for my advice. He is buying a road bike for training
and
> club races. He has narrowed his bike choices to two models: a Waterford
> 2200 and a Lemond Zurich. Both are Reynolds 853 frames and will have
> Ultegra. Each has some advantages. The Waterford is clearly the better
> made frame. The Lemond has some superior components, including wheels
(Rolf
> Vector Comps versus Mavic Open Pro/Ultegra) and a carbon fork versus
steel.
> After a number of test rides he is pretty set on these choices, so isn't
Robert Crim
<steve...@mindspring.nospam.com> wrote:
>A friend has asked for my advice. He is buying a road bike for training and
>club races. He has narrowed his bike choices to two models: a Waterford
>2200 and a Lemond Zurich. Both are Reynolds 853 frames and will have
>Ultegra. Each has some advantages. The Waterford is clearly the better
>made frame. The Lemond has some superior components, including wheels (Rolf
>Vector Comps versus Mavic Open Pro/Ultegra) and a carbon fork versus steel.
>After a number of test rides he is pretty set on these choices, so isn't
>really looking for suggestions on other bikes. What would you recommend and
>why?
>
Assuming your friend is going to keep the bike for a while and
assuming he is really into the sport, and assuming that both frames
fit equally well, I'd go for the Waterford.
Why? The "fancy" components on the Lemond may or may not be in style,
or even operating, in a few years, but that Waterford frame will
still be a near-classic. Upgrading components is a lot easier than
upgrading frames.
Robert......I like Schwinn Paramounts no matter what you call them.
Jeff Potter
have. You're talking bigtime classy road racer here versus club bike (maybe
somehow like a road-racer's version of a brawlin' crit bike---which is what it
would be except for the slack angles).
What the other guys said about FIT. It seems like long TT and stems are for the
flexible kids who just hinge over and like to lay WAY out. Man, that position is
harder on the crotch, too. It's more "pro"...but if he doesn't need that edge to
smoke em in the Cat 2's, why suffer it. And what's this with the 99%? leg-length
seat height I see everyone doing? Do they all do yoga the rest of the day? They
spin on tippy toes. They're young people, though. How long will they do that?
They're all extreming themselves, but it doesn't mean they can really ride. Dude.
AndresMuro wrote:
> The Lemond is a Honda (accord) and the Waterford is a Mercedez 500.
--
Jeff Potter j...@outyourbackdoor.com
"Out Your Backdoor": Friendly Zine of Modern Folkways and Culture Revival
outyourbackdoor.com ... for a full line of alternative outdoor culture books,
bookstore & forum
Cliff Oates
it develops a soul. My Waterford 2200 (lovely bike, btw -
www.coates3.com/waterford.html) which I acquired in August of this
year should only need another 3 years to meet this measure. She is
not my only bike, by the way, hence the added time.
Jon Isaacs
>a frame that will last 15 years since by that time we may have
>plutonium-kryptonite-fairy hair composite frames that have zero gravity and
>can bear loads in the 2 ton range.
I have a "Waterford" Paramount (Actually 2 plus a Chicago Paramount) built in
1991 that I consider the best bike I have ever ridden. A couple of years ago I
purchased an OCLV Trek (5200) but found that I enjoyed riding the Paramount a
whole lot more. I sold the Trek and I have never regretted that decision.
So I suggest that even if that feather weight does show up, you would still
want to ride that Waterford.
Jon Isaacs
Qui si parla Campagnolo
deciding factor? >>
Sometimes you buy the bike shop more than the bike-
Mark
Robert Crim wrote:
I love the Waterford. It was great on the rolling hills of Wisconsin and it's
great here on the significantly larger climbs in Boulder, CO.
However - I bought it three years ago, fitted at the factory, with a (single)
custom color They've painted it three times and still haven't got it right.
Uncommon? Maybe, but frame building is their main competency - not customer
service. This part of the business they don't understand. I've grown tired of
dealing with them and will have the frame repainted elsewhere (not just because
Waterford is crappy at getting things right, but also because the (re)paints
problem impact the LBS - reducing his margin, etc).
- mark
Mark
Mark
John Forrest Tomlinson
news:8um84s$5f0
> The Waterford is clearly the better
> made frame.
What does that mean? It looks better? It's stronger? I don't think that
it's at all clear that one frame is better than the other for riding.
Get whichever fits better -- I think these will fit pretty close (I have a
friend who had one of each and used them interchangeably). Other than that,
get the one that offers better value. Sounds like that is the LeMond from
what you wrote.
JT
--
****************************************
Note: reply-to address is munged
****************************************
http://www.jt10000.com/
***************************************
Jon Isaacs
>> made frame.
>
>What does that mean? It looks better? It's stronger? I don't think that
>it's at all clear that one frame is better than the other for riding.
I would agree with you from a pragmatic standpoint. But then I figure that an
old steel Trek 660 from 14 years ago is probably the equal of either frame from
a pragmatic point of view.
Better built normally means fabricated to a higher standard, the finish, the
workmanship, those sort of things.
Jon Isaacs
Russell Seaton
frame and fork cost the same as the entire LeMond Zurich bike. They
both might sport the Renolds 853 sticker, however, I seriously doubt
the tubing is the same. Different diameters, wall thickness, etc. And
of course the care in welding or brazing. Look at the lugwork and
brazing on the Waterford and compare it to the welds on the LeMond.
One bike was assembled with care. One was jammed into the jig and a
welding rod was quickly passed over the joints.
As for the fork, I find the 531 fork on my Waterford 1200 to be very
excellent. I have seen a Waterford with a Kestrel fork on it. It
looked awful. Finely lugged bikes require a finely lugged steel fork
to look proper. Why spend $1500+ on a frame and fork and have an ugly,
uncoordinated looking bike?
In article <8um84s$5f0$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net>,
"Steve Metz" <steve...@mindspring.nospam.com> wrote:
> A friend has asked for my advice. He is buying a road bike for
training and
> club races. He has narrowed his bike choices to two models: a
Waterford
> 2200 and a Lemond Zurich. Both are Reynolds 853 frames and will have
> Ultegra. Each has some advantages. The Waterford is clearly the
better
> made frame. The Lemond has some superior components, including
wheels (Rolf
> Vector Comps versus Mavic Open Pro/Ultegra) and a carbon fork versus
steel.
> After a number of test rides he is pretty set on these choices, so
isn't
> really looking for suggestions on other bikes. What would you
recommend and
> why?
>
>
--
Russell Seaton
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
John Forrest Tomlinson
news:8usosd$3ia$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> And
> of course the care in welding or brazing. Look at the lugwork and
> brazing on the Waterford and compare it to the welds on the LeMond.
> One bike was assembled with care. One was jammed into the jig and a
> welding rod was quickly passed over the joints.
How can you know the amount of care that went into welding a LeMond by
looking at it? How can you know it was "slammed" into a jig (I don't know
if that's good or bad by the way, though it sounds like you are saying it is
something bad)? And is it a bad thinkg that a welding rod is quickly passed
over a joint? I would think that welding something quickly is better than
welding something slowly.
jh...@vignette.com
> Steve Metz <steve...@mindspring.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:8um84s$5f0
>
> > The Waterford is clearly the better
> > made frame.
>
> What does that mean? It looks better? It's stronger? I don't think that
> it's at all clear that one frame is better than the other for riding.
>
> Get whichever fits better -- I think these will fit pretty close (I have a
> friend who had one of each and used them interchangeably).
The Lemond will has a proportionally longer top tube, so the fit should be
different there. They also come with fairly long handelbar stems, if he's
buying a built-up bike.
John Forrest Tomlinson
> The Lemond will has a proportionally longer top tube, so the fit should be
> different there.
The top tube is longer but the fit is the same, at least in the size my
friend rides -- about 57cm. The LeMond has a 1cm longer top tube and a 1
degree slacker seat tube angle, so the "extra" length is at the back. If
anything, a better way to describe the small fit differences between the two
bikes is in terms of seat angle. But it's a small difference.
If someone rides with the saddle way back or way forward, there are fit
differences between these frames. For average people, there are none, other
Jon Isaacs
>looking at it?
Good points. I think the drift of what he is saying is that a careful
inspection reveals welds that are not "pretty." Whether that is important is
up to the individual purchaser.
When I checked out the first Lemond 853 I ever saw I was amazed at how bad the
welds looked, they were uneven and there was splatter that had not been cleaned
off. Since then I have seen others and they were better but personally I
think a nice lugged frame or a fillet brazed frame has a far more pleasing
appearance.
Jon Isaacs
Qui si parla Campagnolo
great here on the significantly larger climbs in Boulder, CO. >>
dealing with them and will have the frame repainted elsewhere (not just because
Waterford is crappy at getting things right, but also because the (re)paints
problem impact the LBS - reducing his margin, etc). >>
Which LBS, may I ask?
Jay Beattie
Jon Isaacs wrote in message
<20001115091148...@ng-fj1.aol.com>...
>>How can you know the amount of care that went
into welding a LeMond by
>>looking at it?
>
saying is that a careful
>inspection reveals welds that are not "pretty."
Whether that is important is
>up to the individual purchaser.
>
>When I checked out the first Lemond 853 I ever
saw I was amazed at how bad the
>welds looked, they were uneven and there was
splatter that had not been cleaned
>off. Since then I have seen others and they
were better but personally I
>think a nice lugged frame or a fillet brazed
frame has a far more pleasing
>appearance.
Also, a TIG weld may be fully penetrating,
complete -- but sloppy. It is aesthetically
lacking but perfectly sound. With a lugged frame,
you take it on faith that the joint is fully
filled. A beautiful lugged frame may be held
together with nothing but brazing pins or tack
brazes. I would rather have a somewhat sloppy
looking TIG welded frame from a reputable
manufacturer than a super beautiful brazed frame
from a questionable manufacturer -- especially
when it comes time to honor the warranty. As
between Waterford and LeMond, both come from
reputable manufacturers. I could get both bikes to
fit me, but prefer the look of the Waterford.
However, I might buy the LeMond because of the
money difference. I cannot justify spending a ton
of money on a bicycle now that I no longer race.
How nice of a bike do I need to commute and do
weekend family rides? I would chip the paint the
first day out. How nice of a bike does anyone
need? If I did want to spring for a true museum
piece, I would do some comparison shopping with
Sachs, Eisentraut, Kellogg and some others before
buying. -- Jay Beattie.
Jon Isaacs
>need? If I did want to spring for a true museum
>piece, I would do some comparison shopping with
>Sachs, Eisentraut, Kellogg and some others before
>buying.
There is something to the Waterford/Paramount tradition as they have been
building racing bikes since the 30's.
Jon Isaacs
Jeff Potter
> [ ]
> when it comes time to honor the warranty. As
> between Waterford and LeMond, both come from
> reputable manufacturers. I could get both bikes to
> fit me, but prefer the look of the Waterford.
> However, I might buy the LeMond because of the
> money difference. I cannot justify spending a ton
> of money on a bicycle now that I no longer race.
> How nice of a bike do I need to commute and do
> weekend family rides?
You got it backwards, man! No you get to savor the cycling. In the race
day, it didn't matter what bike was under you. Who notices a bike in a
race? Just go! Trash that sucker. Everything should be bombproof.
When you become an old fart, that's the time to ride hand-made sewups
and beauty sweeties. Scratches are for charm. A casual use bike lasts
for decades longer than a race bike. For 100 years even. For tooling,
twiddling, touring, errands, you hardly ever crash or damage anything.
(Depending on your potholes, craziness, etc.) Not compared with racing
anyway! (Well, depending on how you race, as well!)
I'm really enjoying my retirement, personally. I can enjoy the various
aspects of all the different bikes. No need to go fast. I can stop and
smell the roses. My parts have lasted SO MUCH BETTER. I hardly ever
change a thing now.
Now, I do regret a BIT that I didn't ride hand-made CX's and such when I
raced and rode a lot, but what the hey, it's a fantasy. When ya race you
ride what you got on the one hand and jam bulk food into your mouth with
the other, and plead poverty the rest of the time.
Russell Seaton
"John Forrest Tomlinson" <jt1...@notthesewordsbellatlantic.net>
wrote:
> Russell Seaton <russell...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:8usosd$3ia$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> > And
> > of course the care in welding or brazing. Look at the lugwork and
> > brazing on the Waterford and compare it to the welds on the LeMond.
> > One bike was assembled with care. One was jammed into the jig and a
> > welding rod was quickly passed over the joints.
>
> How can you know the amount of care that went into welding a LeMond by
> looking at it? How can you know it was "slammed" into a jig (I don't
know
> if that's good or bad by the way, though it sounds like you are
saying it is
> something bad)? And is it a bad thinkg that a welding rod is quickly
passed
> over a joint? I would think that welding something quickly is better
than
> welding something slowly.
>
> JT
With welding the proper speed is important given the rod used, the
thickness of the material, and the temperature. Too fast or too slow
is bad. Too fast and the weld material does not penetrate far enoug.
Too slow and the tubes are burned through.
The aesthetics of the TIG weld or lugwork tell you about the attention
the bike was given during the building. An ugly weld can hold the bike
together, however, it makes you wonder if the bike was lined up
straight before welding or twisted into shape after welding. If they
did not care to make the weld with care, what assurance do you have
they made the rest of the bike with care. The actual welding is the
easy part of putting a frame together. Many vocational schools
graduate very competent welders every year.
As an analogy, think of the painting of your car or house. Slopping
the paint on with a brush will work. The wood or metal will be covered
with paint and will be protected from the elements. Yet no one would
buy a sloppily painted house or car because they would think the rest
of the house or car is junk if it was painted so poorly.
When I see a bike frame with chicken scratch welds, I'm leery of it.
The LeMond steel frames and the Gunnar frames I've seen had poor
looking welds. Makes me wonder about the overall quality of the bike.
>
> --
>
> ****************************************
> Note: reply-to address is munged
>
> ****************************************
> http://www.jt10000.com/
>
> ***************************************
>
>
--
John Forrest Tomlinson
> The aesthetics of the TIG weld or lugwork tell you about the attention
> the bike was given during the building. An ugly weld can hold the bike
> together, however, it makes you wonder if the bike was lined up
> straight before welding or twisted into shape after welding. If they
> did not care to make the weld with care, what assurance do you have
> they made the rest of the bike with care. The actual welding is the
> easy part of putting a frame together. Many vocational schools
> graduate very competent welders every year.
>
> As an analogy, think of the painting of your car or house. Slopping
> the paint on with a brush will work. The wood or metal will be covered
> with paint and will be protected from the elements. Yet no one would
> buy a sloppily painted house or car because they would think the rest
> of the house or car is junk if it was painted so poorly.
This in untested with new cars because they are not sold that way. With
houses, I'd imagine a more thorough inspection would be in order. Certainly
people buy old houses with the paint in bad condition all the time -- they
just don't rely on the surface but go by other measures. An inspection,
reputation of the builder, etc.
> When I see a bike frame with chicken scratch welds, I'm leery of it.
> The LeMond steel frames and the Gunnar frames I've seen had poor
> looking welds. Makes me wonder about the overall quality of the bike.
I guess I'm naive because I never thought twice about the welds on my
LeMond. It never made me wonder at all. Given what you wrote, I'm still
completely unconvinced. I know people who ride LeMonds -- me and a bunch of
aquaintences -- and they work fine. They're straight. They seem durable.
I frankly see no reason to imagine they're not.
But then I haven't been as clued in to the lore of bikes as more
knowledgeable people, I guess. Keep repeating it though, it must be true.
JT
sza...@my-deja.com
I have toured the factories where each of these bikes are built a couple
years ago, and saw much more care and time being taken in mitering, aligning
and joining frames in Waterford than in Waterloo. Not to say that Trek
(Lemond) builds bad products. That is decidedly not the case, but there is
more craftsmanship in a Waterford.
I should note, I DON"T OWN bikes from either of these companies, but
considered both when selecting my road bike and have ridden several products
from both companies.
John Forrest Tomlinson
> I have toured the factories where each of these bikes are built a couple
> years ago, and saw much more care and time being taken in mitering,
aligning
> and joining frames in Waterford than in Waterloo. Not to say that Trek
> (Lemond) builds bad products. That is decidedly not the case, but there is
> more craftsmanship in a Waterford.
Did you think there was enough craftsmanship with LeMond's that they would
ride well and not break more than Waterfords?
Jon Isaacs
>ride well and not break more than Waterfords?
>
>JT
I am sure the Lemonds will not break and the welds are adequate.
This is really an aesthetic issue and it is disappointing that the welds on the
Lemonds I have seen are not as nice as those on my $350 MTB made in Taiwan or
someplace. I have been told that 853 is more difficult to weld cleanly than
many steels.
If aesthetics are not important to you then I am sure you have made the correct
choice in your bicycle.
Jon Isaacs
Russell Seaton
joni...@aol.com (Jon Isaacs) wrote:
> >Did you think there was enough craftsmanship with LeMond's that they
would
> >ride well and not break more than Waterfords?
> >
> >JT
>
> I am sure the Lemonds will not break and the welds are adequate.
>
> This is really an aesthetic issue and it is disappointing that the
welds on the
> Lemonds I have seen are not as nice as those on my $350 MTB made in
Taiwan or
> someplace. I have been told that 853 is more difficult to weld
cleanly than
> many steels.
I have looked carefully at the welds on a Co-Motion Espresso frame,
made with Reynolds 853, and they are very neat and tidy. 853 can be
welded cleanly. It depends on the skill of the welder and the
attention to detail.
>
> If aesthetics are not important to you then I am sure you have made
the correct
> choice in your bicycle.
>
> Jon Isaacs
>
>
--
Russell Seaton
Ken
"Steve Metz" <steve...@mindspring.nospam.com> wrote:
> A friend has asked for my advice. He is buying a road bike for
> training and club races. He has narrowed his bike choices to two
> models: a Waterford
> isn't really looking for suggestions on other bikes. What would you
> recommend and why?
I would recommend that he continue the process of elimination and figure
out which of these two *he* likes the best. Why? Because it's going to
be *his* bike. Of all the little (or big) details that might be taken
into account in making a decision. whether it's the quality of the
welds or the color of the paint, he's the one who knows what may be
most important to him.
Ken F.
dopple...@my-deja.com
Russell Seaton <russell...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I have looked carefully at the welds on a Co-Motion Espresso frame,
> made with Reynolds 853, and they are very neat and tidy. 853 can be
> welded cleanly. It depends on the skill of the welder and the
> attention to detail.
>
>
While this is all true, you still did not answer the quetion. Do you
think the welds on the Lemond are not good enough? They are fine.
Comparing a Co-Motion to a Lemond is like comparing off the rack clothes
to hand made stuff. Lemond is a production shop Co-Motion and
Waterford are at best semi custom shops.
Waterford is just down the road from me and make some ofthe best bikes
in the world (IMHO). Waterford is a great value for what it is. Lemond
bikes are great too and are even a greater value. Even if the welds are
a little thick. Little builder like Waterford and Co-Motion would not
be able to make the art that they make at the volume Lemond puts out.
853 is not as easy to weld as 531 or others, but you can make good 853
welds.
I don't spend my time looking at how big or small a weld is. Just ride
the damm thing. You'll never know the differnce. Don't be such a bike
snob.
Todd Kuzma
> Did you think there was enough craftsmanship with LeMond's that they would
> ride well and not break more than Waterfords?
If your standard for purchasing a bike is that it rides well and will not
break, you can buy just about anything. Just about any bike shop-quality bike
fits this definition, and you can get one for about $250.
This is like comparing cars and saying "is the Ferrari more reliable than the
Hyundai?" or "does the Ferrari carry more stuff than the Hyundai?" If you look
at it as an appliance, then you should just go ahead and get the Hyundai.
In fact, Consumer Reports often does that: "we have to give the Corvette a
'not recommended' rating because of its poor fuel economy, bumpy ride, and
inadequate luggage space . . . "
Todd Kuzma
Tullio's Big Dog Cyclery
LaSalle, IL 815-223-1776
http://www.tullios.com
Raleigh-Schwinn-Specialized
Bianchi-Waterford-Heron
GT/Dyno-Burley-Co-Motion
CV2572
Gunnars?
Robin Hubert
Dmitry Yaitskov
<snip>
> I don't spend my time looking at how big or small a weld is. Just ride
> the damm thing. You'll never know the differnce. Don't be such a bike
> snob.
What has it got to do with snobbery? If you don't give a whatever
about the looks/detailing of your bike, fine. For that matter, I am
sure there are lots of frames way cheaper than LeMond that ride as
well. So what. Why call a snob somebody who enjoys other things in
bikes besides just how they ride?
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
--
Cheers,
-Dima.
sza...@my-deja.com
would
> ride well and not break more than Waterfords?"
The fact that one product is built more precisely with a tighter tolerance
and with more care and attention to detail, and that the builder is adept and
willing to build custom geometry and dimensions for a customer surely does
not mean that a competing product will fall to pieces under it's rider. If a
segment of the market is satisfied with a less expensive, simpler product,
that is great ! They will have to work less hours to pay for their bike and
can spend more time riding. If a segment of the market is satisfied to pay a
premium price for a better crafted, more personal product, that is great too,
because it allows the craftsmen who take time to concentrate on finer details
of their trade and make a living doing it.
Everyone makes tradeoffs, and has different priorities and needs. For the
same money, you can have a mass market frame with higher quality components,
or you can have a better crafted frame, with the option of having it built to
your own body with less expensive components. That choice is personal, and
the person asking the question (er, his friend) is asking what goes into
these two bikes (which are made from the same tubing stock) that should
influence his/her descision.
Priorities and bias are a sliding scale. I myself chose a mass market frame
with higher end components when I bought my road bike. For my mountain bikes,
which are a higher priority for me, I chose better crafted frames AND higher
quality components, as it was worth the sacrafise _to me_.
John Forrest Tomlinson
news:3A140B3E...@TheRamp.net...
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> > Did you think there was enough craftsmanship with LeMond's that they
would
> > ride well and not break more than Waterfords?
>
> break, you can buy just about anything. Just about any bike shop-quality
bike
> fits this definition, and you can get one for about $250.
>
> This is like comparing cars and saying "is the Ferrari more reliable than
the
> Hyundai?" or "does the Ferrari carry more stuff than the Hyundai?" If you
look
> at it as an appliance, then you should just go ahead and get the Hyundai.
My standard is that it rides well, is light and reliable, and fits me well.
I am not aware of any $250 bike that fits these criteria. If there are, let
me know.
Its not like comparing a Hyundai and a Ferrari, it's like comparing a Lexus
with a good Honda. The former is just burning money.
John Forrest Tomlinson
> "> Did you think there was enough craftsmanship with LeMond's that they
> would
>
> > ride well and not break more than Waterfords?"
>
>
tolerance
> and with more care and attention to detail, and that the builder is adept
and
> willing to build custom geometry and dimensions for a customer surely does
> not mean that a competing product will fall to pieces under it's rider.
I wasn't aware we were talking about custom Waterfords.
It's certainly completely unclear from what has been written in this thread
that Waterfords are built to tighter tolerances in any sense that affects
the ride of the bike or its longevity. It seems to me that if we want proof
of the skill of the Waterford builders, they would do just as well to, say,
just braze up some special medal from
really thin tubing and sell it along with the bike.
As you say, if the art of the Waterford floats your boat, great. If the
original poster likes that, great.
But you should be circumspect when using phrases like "more precise" and
"more care" or "better crafted" when those things are being done purely for
aesthetics. Yes, Waterfords have more care with their aesthetics. But
without qualifying your statement it sounds like you are saying LeMonds are
built with less care, are not properaly crafted, etc. No, they are built
with care for the stuff that makes a bike decent to ride.
sza...@my-deja.com
"> I wasn't aware we were talking about custom Waterfords.
>"
All waterford models are available built to custom specs (for additional
charge). "off the shelf" sizes and customs are both built in the same manner.
No real difference in the qualit of the final product.
"> It's certainly completely unclear from what has been written in this thread
> that Waterfords are built to tighter tolerances in any sense that affects
> the ride of the bike or its longevety.
Does a frame who's tubes are more accurately cut and aligned and kept in
tighter tolerance throuout the building process affect the ride and
durability? Maybe not (i honestly don't know), but it's a much better start,
and well worth paying for to many people. Is it a waste of time just because
less care can be taken to build a markettable frame ? Depends on your market
(and marketting department).
" It seems to me that if we want proof
> of the skill of the Waterford builders, they would do just as well to, say,
> just braze up some special medal from
> really thin tubing and sell it along with the bike.
>"
Do you take medication ?
> As you say, if the art of the Waterford floats your boat, great. If the
> original poster likes that, great.
>
"> But you should be circumspect when using phrases like "more precise" and
> "more care" or "better crafted" when those things are being done purely for
> aesthetics."
Those things are done because they, as a company, take pride in doing things
the propper way, and their customers are willing to pay extra for a frame
that is crafted to a higher technical standard than a mass market frame.
Yes, Waterfords have more care with their aesthetics. But
> without qualifying your statement it sounds like you are saying LeMonds are
> built with less care, are not properaly crafted, etc. No, they are built
> with care for the stuff that makes a bike decent to ride.
>
Lemond's built with less care? Yes, I would say that. But then they are also
a great riding bike.
You mentioned your friends who ride Lemonds, and your first three post's in
this thread were so defensive that I wondered if you didn't ride a Lemond
yourself. Then in your fourth post yu finally mention your lemond. All this
defensiveness and questioning of the merits of a bike like a Waterford makes
it sound like an 'it's good enough for me, so it's an anyone needs' type
situation. I have never put the Lemond line down, and in fact very much
considered their 853 frame when I bought my road bike. It has a very god ride
from my time spent on (a slightly too small) one. Had I been able to find one
locally in my size, a very well may be riding it. But to say that the only
difference between it and a Waterford (or between a Lexus and a Honda) is
finish and price tag is simply fooling yourself. Theres also resale value :)
John Forrest Tomlinson
>
>
> "> I wasn't aware we were talking about custom Waterfords.
> >"
>
> All waterford models are available built to custom specs (for additional
> charge). "off the shelf" sizes and customs are both built in the same
manner.
> No real difference in the qualit of the final product.
>
> "> It's certainly completely unclear from what has been written in this
thread
> > that Waterfords are built to tighter tolerances in any sense that
affects
> > the ride of the bike or its longevety.
>
> Does a frame who's tubes are more accurately cut and aligned and kept in
> tighter tolerance throuout the building process affect the ride and
> durability? Maybe not (i honestly don't know), but it's a much better
start,
> and well worth paying for to many people.
I'll bet that more accurate cuts and better alignment _do_ make a better
frame, but it's completely unclear from any comments in this thread that
Waterfords are better in this respect than LeMonds. If it is, great, I'd
like to hear that. There is lots of suggestions that because of external
differences there must be internal difference. But this is speculation.
> " It seems to me that if we want proof
> > of the skill of the Waterford builders, they would do just as well to,
say,
> > just braze up some special medal from
> > really thin tubing and sell it along with the bike.
> >"
> Do you take medication ?
I'm serious.
>
> > As you say, if the art of the Waterford floats your boat, great. If the
> > original poster likes that, great.
> >
>
> "> But you should be circumspect when using phrases like "more precise"
and
> > "more care" or "better crafted" when those things are being done purely
for
> > aesthetics."
>
> Those things are done because they, as a company, take pride in doing
things
> the propper way, and their customers are willing to pay extra for a frame
> that is crafted to a higher technical standard than a mass market frame.
Technical standard? Aestetic standard sounds much more accurate.
> Lemond's built with less care? Yes, I would say that. But then they are
also
> a great riding bike.
Less care for aesthetics.
> You mentioned your friends who ride Lemonds.
I mentioned a friend who has a Waterford and a LeMond to point out that as
far as he can tell that the two ride the same. And the Waterford is
prettier.
And I mentioned another guy who has been active in the LeMond aluminum vs.
853 thread to say that I was aware of one LeMond 853 that has broken. Which
is not at all defensive of LeMonds (see below).
> and your first three post's in
> this thread were so defensive that I wondered if you didn't ride a Lemond
> yourself. Then in your fourth post yu finally mention your lemond. All
this
> defensiveness and questioning of the merits of a bike like a Waterford
makes
> it sound like an 'it's good enough for me, so it's an anyone needs' type
> situation.
As far as riding goes, it sure sounds like it is (with usual caveats of
being sure the bike fits, you can fit appropriate tires, etc). Even you
said that LeMonds are great riding bike. Do Waterfords ride better? From
everything I've read in this thread and heard it sure seems they don't.
Sounds like you wouldn't say so either. So how can my statements be
defensive. In fact I'd call them offensive -- taking to task people who
claim that aesthetic difference imply differences in quality.
Bikes are for riding. For some people that evidently is not enough. They
need something more to give them pleasure with their bike. Fine, it employs
people, whatever.
KevinM23
>As far as riding goes, it sure sounds like it is (with usual caveats of
>being sure the bike fits, you can fit appropriate tires, etc). Even you
>said that LeMonds are great riding bike. Do Waterfords ride better?
JT,
How do you define "great riding bike"?
If you don't define it, it's hokum on the same level as someone coveting
Waterford's "superior craftsmanship" without defining "craftsmanship".
Much like "craftsmanship," "ride quality" is a highly subjective term used
often (in my opinion) by a people who use it to justify paying gobs of money
for bikes that have little pragmatic value over similar, but less costly,
bikes.
*Everyone* who owns a Colnago C40 *raves* about its "ride quality," for
instance.
You're falling into the same logic trap as those whose logic you fault.
-Kevin Munday
John Forrest Tomlinson
news:20001116224022...@ng-md1.aol.com...
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> >As far as riding goes, it sure sounds like it is (with usual caveats of
> >being sure the bike fits, you can fit appropriate tires, etc). Even you
> >said that LeMonds are great riding bike. Do Waterfords ride better?
>
> JT,
>
> How do you define "great riding bike"?
The bike fits.
The bike is straight -- it rides well no-handed, for example, and is easy to
steer no-handed, even at low speeds.
It turns easily at high and low speeds.
The front wheel doesn't flop much when riding out of the saddle at low
speeds.
> *Everyone* who owns a Colnago C40 *raves* about its "ride quality," for
> instance.
>
> You're falling into the same logic trap as those whose logic you fault.
Really? I'm pretty sure there are dozens or hundreds of great riding bikes
that would suit me just fine. The Colnago lovers and other people who spend
vast amounts of money on bikes tend to be much more "selective."
John Forrest Tomlinson
>
> >As far as riding goes, it sure sounds like it is (with usual caveats of
> >being sure the bike fits, you can fit appropriate tires, etc). Even you
> >said that LeMonds are great riding bike. Do Waterfords ride better?
>
> JT,
>
> How do you define "great riding bike"?
Perhaps it's when:
The bike fits.
The bike is straight -- it rides well no-handed, for example, and is easy to
steer no-handed, even at low speeds.
It turns easily at high and low speeds.
The front wheel doesn't flop much when riding out of the saddle at low
speeds.
The bike is comfortable (this is main components, not frame, but the fork
can play a big role)
> *Everyone* who owns a Colnago C40 *raves* about its "ride quality," for
> instance.
>
> You're falling into the same logic trap as those whose logic you fault.
Really? I'm pretty sure there are dozens or hundreds of great riding bikes
that would suit me just fine. The Colnago lovers and other people who spend
vast amounts of money on bikes tend to be much more "selective."
But this is all besides the point. I'm not saying that craftsmanship in the
lugwork or whatever of a Waterford doesn't exist. I'm saying that for a
bikes purpose -- to be ridden -- it is tangential.
sza...@my-deja.com
>
> I'll bet that more accurate cuts and better alignment _do_ make a better
> frame, but it's completely unclear from any comments in this thread that
> Waterfords are better in this respect than LeMonds. If it is, great, I'd
> like to hear that.
Then you weren't paying atention when you read my post about my observations
while touring the factories... ===and saw much more care and time being taken
in mitering, aligning and joining frames in Waterford than in Waterloo.
> Technical standard? Aestetic standard sounds much more accurate.
If you honestly believe that, then you are the only technically minded bike
person I know who believes that taking time to more carefully cut tubes and
align and join a frame would only be done to improve asthetics.
(ps: i apologize for my 'medication' comment. It was uncalled for)
John Forrest Tomlinson
> > I'll bet that more accurate cuts and better alignment _do_ make a better
> > frame, but it's completely unclear from any comments in this thread that
> > Waterfords are better in this respect than LeMonds. If it is, great,
I'd
> > like to hear that.
>
> Then you weren't paying atention when you read my post about my
observations
> while touring the factories... ===and saw much more care and time being
taken
> in mitering, aligning and joining frames in Waterford than in Waterloo.
I'm sorry to sound like I'm nitpiting, but things like more care, more time
are inputs -- production elements to achieve an end. I think the important
factor is output -- accuracy and alignment. If Waterfords are indeed better
in this respect -- the _result_ of the extra work, then Waterfords are
better bikes. But that wasn't clear (to me) from what you wrote.
> > Technical standard? Aestetic standard sounds much more accurate.
>
> If you honestly believe that, then you are the only technically minded
bike
> person I know who believes that taking time to more carefully cut tubes
and
> align and join a frame would only be done to improve asthetics.
Again, I am being rather particular -- taking time is irrevelant to me --
it's the alignment and the joining that matter. In this thread there have
been comments that Waterfords have more care, more time. But are they
straighter? Do they break less? Do they ride straighter? That's the issue.
Again, if Waterfords are straighter, great, they're better. Are they?
If I built a frame (it would be my first) it would probably take me _days_
to do it. "That JT -- he spends days carefully mitering his tubes." Would
that make it ride better than someone with a big machine operation that does
it in a few minutes?
John Forrest Tomlinson
business, sort of, for decades, via Schwinn. I knew guys who had really
nice oversized steel lugged Paramounts in the early 1990s and said they rode
very well, as does my friend who has a Waterford right now.
Jon Isaacs
>Just wanted to mention that I am aware that Waterford has been in the bike
>business, sort of, for decades, via Schwinn. I knew guys who had really
>nice oversized steel lugged Paramounts in the early 1990s and said they rode
>very well, as does my friend who has a Waterford right now.
I have one of those Paramounts and I think it has the "best ride" (whatever
that means) of any bike I have ever owned or ridden.
However I think that it is important to separate function from aesthetics. I
think functionally the LeMond is probably comparable to the Waterford. A few
years ago I had a Univega Steel frame which was one of their better frames and
I built it with some old DA stuff and it was a sweet ride. I also had (and
still have) an Eddy Merckx and at the time it seemed to me that functionally
those two frames were identical.
However aesthetically, this was not true, clearly just the Eddy Merckx on the
downtube was enough to make me more excited about riding that bike.
With the Waterford/Lemond issue, again I think it is the aesthetics. The deep
green paint on my 1991 Paramount is really a thing of beauty, the sort of paint
that one can just sit and admire. This is something that I have not seen on
the Lemonds.
Is that beautiful paint worth the extra money? That is up to each of us to
decide for ourselves. I am sure from the subjective point of view that is
reality, that it does make the bike ride just a little bit better but it would
not show up in a blind test.
So I think I agree with JFT, there is nothing wrong with a Lemond and it will
serve its purpose well and is functionally the equivelent of the Waterford.
But I also think that aesthetics are important and in reality they are a good
part of the reason I am willing to spend money on bicycles.
Jon Isaacs
Joel Solomon
counts for alot. The first order of business is proper fit, after that, it is
whatever aesthetics make you the happiest. I am in the middle of this process
myself. I am riding a perfectly adequate steel Bianchi, but a Litespeed has
been whispering in my ear for a while. I ride enough (in my mind) to justify
upgrading. How much happier will it make me? I will let you know.
Joel Solomon
Tim Casazza
Is it not possible to make beautiful welds on a crooked
mis-aligned frame?
I thought a frame is tacked together in alignment using an acetylene
torch and then TIG welded after.
Tim
Todd Kuzma
> KevinM23 <kevi...@aol.com> wrote in message
> >
> > How do you define "great riding bike"?
>
> Perhaps it's when:
> The bike is straight -- it rides well no-handed, for example, and is easy to
> steer no-handed, even at low speeds.
>
> It turns easily at high and low speeds.
>
> The front wheel doesn't flop much when riding out of the saddle at low
> speeds.
These are characteristics of frame geometry more than alignment.
Todd Kuzma
> My standard is that it rides well, is light and reliable, and fits me well.
> I am not aware of any $250 bike that fits these criteria. If there are, let
> me know.
Sure, a $250 Schwinn Frontier is light, reliable, and can be set up to fit most
folks very well.
Weight and reliability are mostly functions of component selection. The
difference in different frame weights is very small relative to a complete
bike. Frame failures are pretty darn rare. So, it comes down to components.
You could put lighter components on that Schwinn Frontier frame, but the
resulting bike would cost more. The functional differences between a Schwinn
Frontier frame and, say, a Moots titanium frame that sells for several thousand
dollars is relatively small. The weight difference may be a couple of pounds.
If you could build a 20 pound bike with the Moots frame, you could likely put
the same components on the Frontier and get a 22 pound bike. They will both be
equally reliable.
So, by your standards, you should be riding a Schwinn Frontier. For the rest
of us, we look for other factors that make bike riding exciting for us. For
me, I like a frame that is made by hand and requires considerable skill to be
made correctly.
Have you ever looked at Waterford crystal? All of the cuts in the crystal are
made by hand. A Waterford crystal goblet will cost about 5 times what a
machine made crystal goblet will cost. However, if you look at it closely,
you'll see minor imperfections that are the sign that it was made by hand.
This is what makes it beautiful. The machine-made goblet is technically
better. It's lines are always perfect, but there is no sign of craftsmanship.
Eric Salathe
> Have you ever looked at Waterford crystal? All of the cuts in the crystal are
> made by hand. A Waterford crystal goblet will cost about 5 times what a
> machine made crystal goblet will cost. However, if you look at it closely,
> you'll see minor imperfections that are the sign that it was made by hand.
> This is what makes it beautiful. The machine-made goblet is technically
> better. It's lines are always perfect, but there is no sign of craftsmanship.
Todd-
I think this analogy makes JT's point precisely; you are discussing
visual qualities that have no effect on performance. The question is
whether the two bikes can be said to perform differently by
quantitative measures. Quantitative measures are those detectable if
the frames were wrapped with paper to obscure their visual
qualities. Properties that can have a numerical value assigned to
them, such as alignment errors, fatigue cycles to failure, etc. That
is not to say that one could not visually infer quantitative
properties, such as by observing voids in a welded joint.
Waterford crystal proves that people are willing to pay considerable
amounts for objects with no functional qualities or whose functional
properties are vanishingly small compared to their cost. There is
nothing wrong with that and all of us are willing to pay for aesthetic
qualities to some degree and on some things.
But we should be honest on this. No one has said a Waterford is not
worth the money, but JT is trying to make clear what differences are
aesthetic and what differences affect performance and durability.
Read the original question; it was not about which was
prettier. Presumably that would have been obvious, but not necesarily
your choice as some people prefer the look of tigs to lugs. The claim
of better workmanship has about as much credibility as the claim steel
is whippy or aluminum is harsh unless it is clear that one does not
imply that pretty lugs will allow faster descents, less crash damage,
or greater longevity.
The Schwinn Frontier analogy misses the mark since there are
measurable differences between that and the frames under
consideration. In fact, it is a bogus analogy since this is an
MTB/comfort bike and wholly unsuited to high-performance road riding
no matter what components one hangs on it. Could you build a suitable
frame of similar materials and similar construction methods? That's
purely hypothetical.
Personally, I'd far rather have a frame made of Henry James stainless
lugs and 531 tubing than a tigged 853. I also do believe that
heat-treated and lugged frames will not exhibit the durability of the
traditional lugged frames that continue to go strong after 20 years of
use. But crashing is what kills frames and it is seldom worh the money
to put a new front end on a frame and doubtful there is much
difference between a LeMond and Waterford in that respect. Handling is
a matter solely of the location in space of various points on the
frame and the stiffness of the tubing.
Then again, you can pay Eisentraut or Davidson a lot more for a tigged
frame than a lugged Waterford costs. And how do you justify Waterford
when there are $650 Marinonis and Torellis out there indistinguishably
as good.
Eric Salathe <esal...@cascade.org>
Seattle WA
Todd Kuzma
> Then again, you can pay Eisentraut or Davidson a lot more for a tigged
> frame than a lugged Waterford costs. And how do you justify Waterford
> when there are $650 Marinonis and Torellis out there indistinguishably
> as good.
That's my point. There are lots of reasons for choosing one brand over another
that are not performance-related but still perfectly valid. For example, many
people may prefer a Bianchi or Colnago over a Torelli or Waterford because Bianchi
and Colnago have an extensive history in the Eurpean peloton. Torelli and
Waterford may be just as good technically but lack the same emotional appeal. To
me, that difference is a valid reason to choose one over the other.
Some may choose a Waterford because of its craftsmanship where others may choose a
Lemond because they perceive it as a better value or just prefer a bike associated
with Greg Lemond. Either is a good choice.
My point is that different people have different considerations when choosing a
bike. Weight and reliability are just two.
Jon Isaacs
Or of course some may prefer Waterford because of its connection with Schwinn
and the famous Paramount line of racers with its US racing heritage.
However, JFT's point is really that from a practical, pragmatic point of view,
blind fold test and all that, the two bikes may well equivelent.
And that I agree with. However, since I don't ride blindfolded, I tend to make
personal choices based on my personal preferances.
But in a technical forum, my personal preferences are really not at issue.
Jon Isaacs
PS: I told the guy to get the Waterford. You will probably change every thing
else but you can't change the frame.
John Forrest Tomlinson
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> > My standard is that it rides well, is light and reliable, and fits me
well.
> > I am not aware of any $250 bike that fits these criteria. If there are,
let
> > me know.
>
most
> folks very well.
>
> Weight and reliability are mostly functions of component selection. The
> difference in different frame weights is very small relative to a complete
> bike. Frame failures are pretty darn rare. So, it comes down to
components.
>
> You could put lighter components on that Schwinn Frontier frame, but the
> resulting bike would cost more. The functional differences between a
Schwinn
> Frontier frame and, say, a Moots titanium frame that sells for several
thousand
> dollars is relatively small. The weight difference may be a couple of
pounds.
> If you could build a 20 pound bike with the Moots frame, you could likely
put
> the same components on the Frontier and get a 22 pound bike. They will
both be
> equally reliable.
If I could get the bike the same weight (within a few ounces) as my current
bike and the same fit (no stupid short or long stem) and it would fit with a
stock AC seatpost (I move my post back and forth for road and TT riding and
like the fact that I don't have to mess with seat tilt) with nothing odd
about the fixture, then I'll certainly consider it. And downtube shifter
bosses for my front derailleru. I'm checking Schwinn.com now -- I don't see
it. Where can I get info?
BTW, isn't Moots a very expensive frame? Like thousands of dollars? I
certainly haven't spent that much for my Lemond -- the frame was about $540.
> So, by your standards, you should be riding a Schwinn Frontier. For the
rest
> of us, we look for other factors that make bike riding exciting for us.
Despite what is said at analyticcycling and sometimes in this group, I care
a bit about weight -- if this Schwinn you describe is more than a pound
heavier than the LeMond that would veto it for me. That's not worth saving
$300 for me. I also care about the bike not breaking. Many bikes can break,
I even reported in this thread about a LeMond that broke. But there are
some cheap light bikes that scare me -- they're made in with tubing specs
that haven't been tried much until recently.
For my next bike I am considering the Giant racing frames and Cannondales,
among others, which are good value. Though there are niggling things I don't
like about them.
> For
> me, I like a frame that is made by hand and requires considerable skill to
be
> made correctly.
Why does the fact that it _requires_ skill to make appeal to you?
JT
--
****************************************
Note: reply-to address is munged
****************************************
http://www.jt10000.com/
***************************************
>
> Have you ever looked at Waterford crystal? All of the cuts in the crystal
are
> made by hand. A Waterford crystal goblet will cost about 5 times what a
> machine made crystal goblet will cost. However, if you look at it
closely,
> you'll see minor imperfections that are the sign that it was made by hand.
> This is what makes it beautiful. The machine-made goblet is technically
> better. It's lines are always perfect, but there is no sign of
craftsmanship.
>
Todd Kuzma
> If I could get the bike the same weight (within a few ounces) as my current
> bike
If you need to get within a few ounces, the Frontier won't do it.
> BTW, isn't Moots a very expensive frame? Like thousands of dollars? I
> certainly haven't spent that much for my Lemond -- the frame was about $540.
Yes, much more expensive. I was just using the Schwinn and the Moots as
extreme examples to show that there may not be that big of a difference. If
the Schwinn frame were available separately rather than as a coi don'tmplete
bike would probably retail for around $75. Something like the Moots maybe
$2500 (I don't know for sure - I'm not a Moots dealer). So, the Moots costs
approx. 33 times more money but does not provide 33 times more performance.
I wrote:
> > For me, I like a frame that is made by hand and requires considerable
> skill to
> be
> > made correctly.
>
> Why does the fact that it _requires_ skill to make appeal to you?
I don't know. Call me a romantic. I like hand made stuff. I like
craftsmanship. Something like that is also more exclusive. Unique.
I like to eat at locally-owned restaurants rather than chain places. I shop at
the local hardware store instead of Menards or Home Depot.
John Forrest Tomlinson
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
> > If I could get the bike the same weight (within a few ounces) as my
current
> > bike
>
> If you need to get within a few ounces, the Frontier won't do it.
>
> > BTW, isn't Moots a very expensive frame? Like thousands of dollars? I
> > certainly haven't spent that much for my Lemond -- the frame was about
$540.
>
> Yes, much more expensive. I was just using the Schwinn and the Moots as
> extreme examples to show that there may not be that big of a difference.
If
> the Schwinn frame were available separately rather than as a coi
don'tmplete
> bike would probably retail for around $75. Something like the Moots maybe
> $2500 (I don't know for sure - I'm not a Moots dealer). So, the Moots
costs
> approx. 33 times more money but does not provide 33 times more
performance.
I just noticed that this Frontier is some sort of upright bike -- I
didn't find it earlier because I was looking under road bikes on the Schwinn
site. Weight aside, that's a rather disingenuous suggestion in terms of ride
and cost.
Todd, do you genuinely think that I could set this up to fit
the same as my racing bike and it would steer the same as my racing bike?
It doesn't look that way. Maybe the fit would work, though it would mean
new bars, stem, seat, brakes -- that's not insignificant or cheap. And new
tires, perhaps new wheels. New lots of stuff.
And while it would certainly work for the little commute I just did, I
really doubt that the bike would handle properly the way _I_ use my bike --
for racing and training for racing.
Jon Isaacs
>Todd, do you genuinely think that I could set this up to fit
>the same as my racing bike and it would steer the same as my racing bike?
I don't think it is possible.
I think JFT's point is that functionally the two bikes are essentially
identical. I would agree. To a racer, it would probably make no difference.
Aesthetically there is a difference, but that is really up to us to decide.
Todd mentioned the fast food analogy. If your food at the Hotel del Coronado
and Jack in the Box, look the same, tasted the same and in a blind test one
could not tell the difference, the only difference was the color of the plate
and the "mystique" of the chef and the "quality" of the preparation, then could
you justify the extra $40 for the Hotel del??
This is the difference between the Waterford and the Lemond.
Personally I try to get the best of both worlds because I like to buy my
bicycles used, someone else takes the hit on the cost.
I normally do not buy used food.
jon isaacs
Brian Lafferty
Brian Lafferty
Russell Seaton wrote in message <8v0qdu$b53$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>...
>In article <20001116084150...@ng-fz1.aol.com>,
> joni...@aol.com (Jon Isaacs) wrote:
>> >Did you think there was enough craftsmanship with LeMond's that they
>would
>> >ride well and not break more than Waterfords?
>> >
>> >JT
>>
>> I am sure the Lemonds will not break and the welds are adequate.
>>
>> This is really an aesthetic issue and it is disappointing that the
>welds on the
>> Lemonds I have seen are not as nice as those on my $350 MTB made in
>Taiwan or
>> someplace. I have been told that 853 is more difficult to weld
>cleanly than
>> many steels.
>
>I have looked carefully at the welds on a Co-Motion Espresso frame,
>made with Reynolds 853, and they are very neat and tidy. 853 can be
>welded cleanly. It depends on the skill of the welder and the
>attention to detail.
>
>
>
>
>>
>> If aesthetics are not important to you then I am sure you have made
>the correct
>> choice in your bicycle.
>>
>> Jon Isaacs
Brian Lafferty
$850 or a UK made 531 (Terry Dolan, Graham Weigh to mention but two) that
sells for around $300?
Brian Lafferty
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote in message ...
Brian Lafferty
Jon Isaacs wrote in message
<20001117083910...@ng-fp1.aol.com>...
>With the Waterford/Lemond issue, again I think it is the aesthetics. The
deep
>green paint on my 1991 Paramount is really a thing of beauty, the sort of
paint
>that one can just sit and admire. This is something that I have not seen
on
>the Lemonds.
>
>Is that beautiful paint worth the extra money? That is up to each of us
to
>decide for ourselves. I am sure from the subjective point of view that is
>reality, that it does make the bike ride just a little bit better but it
would
>not show up in a blind test.
The same debate raged on in the 1970s as to French bikes (particularly
Peugeot & Gitane) vs. Colnago and Masi. The latter were works of art, the
former functional tools that also won major races. I bought two Peugeots
with 531 for less than the cost of one Colnago. Of course, I later bought
an AD Ultima and that was an aesthics/desire decision more than
functionality. The Daimler didn't ride any better than the Peugeot 531.
Remember that old saw, "It's what's in your legs, not what's between them,
that counts."
Brian Lafferty
John Forrest Tomlinson
news:%o_R5.9145$xd3.7...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> I have a question. Which Reynolds 531 frame is better, a Waterford for
> $850 or a UK made 531 (Terry Dolan, Graham Weigh to mention but two) that
> sells for around $300?
I'm curious about that, not just in terms of frame quality but also if
anyone in the US has experience mail-ordering one of those UK bikes.
Brian Lafferty
but that the paint was not great. Another poster had problems with one
company as to shipping but did not give the name.
FWIW, these suppliers also have 853 frames that cost around $650 plus
something like $60 for shipping.
Brian Lafferty
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote in message ...
John Forrest Tomlinson
> Some time back someone posted that the Grahm Weigh frames were well made
> but that the paint was not great. Another poster had problems with one
> company as to shipping but did not give the name.
>
> FWIW, these suppliers also have 853 frames that cost around $650 plus
> something like $60 for shipping.
>
I also wonder about customs but know nothing about that? Were there any
costs like that?
Brian Lafferty
As I recall, you're in NYC. Pick up a copy of Cycling Weekly and you'll
find most of the major UK builders/dealers have ads placed. Most of them
now have web sites, eg., St John Street Cycles, Claud Budler, Donohue.
Brian Lafferty
John Forrest Tomlinson wrote in message ...
>Brian Lafferty <jav...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:kf8S5.13325$n9.8...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> Some time back someone posted that the Grahm Weigh frames were well
made
>> but that the paint was not great. Another poster had problems with one
>> company as to shipping but did not give the name.
>>
>> FWIW, these suppliers also have 853 frames that cost around $650 plus
>> something like $60 for shipping.
>>
>
>I also wonder about customs but know nothing about that? Were there any
>costs like that?
>
Jeff Potter
(probably the same people) were arguing about custom frames, angles, weights
and such and one day George Mount posts in....and says that of the dozens of
bikes he rode in his pro career....custom and stock....he never knew what any
of their angles or weights or tubing were, or who made them. Maybe not even
their size. He thought they all rode pretty good. Somehow that put the damper
on things.
A bit like the other time he chimed in, creating what might be the Greatest
Thread Incident Ever, where everyone (you same guys?) were arguing about Greg
stealing the World's from Jock. George posts and says "Hey guys, I was there
that day, riding at the front with them, I asked Greg, I asked Jock, then the
attacks went. They were both cool with what happened."
That REALLY put the damper on THAT!
I'm still laughing about those threads. They don't get any better than that.
--
Jeff Potter j...@outyourbackdoor.com
"Out Your Backdoor": Friendly Zine of Modern Folkways and Culture Revival
outyourbackdoor.com ... for a full line of alternative outdoor culture books,
bookstore & forum
Brian Lafferty
When it's your own hard earned money, my question is, is the $850 Waterford
531 frame twice+ as good as the $300 UK Reynolds 531 frame?
Brian Lafferty
Jeff Potter wrote in message <3A194D42...@glpbooks.com>...
Brian Plouffe
dead-horse thread?
"Jeff Potter" <j...@glpbooks.com> wrote in message
news:3A194D42...@glpbooks.com...
Todd Kuzma
> I have a question. Which Reynolds 531 frame is better, a Waterford for
> $850 or a UK made 531 (Terry Dolan, Graham Weigh to mention but two) that
> sells for around $300?
Let's not start this thread again! Well, OK.
First, not all 531 is the same. My guess is that the UK frames you mention use
a much cheaper tubeset than does Waterford.
Second, Waterford sells through dealers who stock the stuff, offer test rides,
and can fit you properly. This costs extra. The UK companies sell direct thus
cutting out the middleman.
Third, there is a definite difference in paint jobs. Environmental laws in the
US make even basic paint jobs relatively expensive. Plus, the Waterford paint
job is very nice, and costs $300 as an aftermarket service.
You also mentioned that these firms offer 853 frames for around $650 plus
shipping. Waterford offers the Gunnar 853 frame for $550. Gee, those UK guys
must be ripping you off. They don't even have any dealer margin in that
price! :-)
Brian Lafferty
Todd Kuzma wrote in message <3A197A73...@TheRamp.net>...
>First, not all 531 is the same. My guess is that the UK frames you mention
use
>a much cheaper tubeset than does Waterford.
Do discourse to us on cheaper 531. Are we talking 531 millenium?
>
>Second, Waterford sells through dealers who stock the stuff, offer test
rides,
>and can fit you properly. This costs extra. The UK companies sell direct
thus
>cutting out the middleman.
Maybe Waterford should sell direct then and cut the middleman's cost out
of the equasion.
>
>Third, there is a definite difference in paint jobs. Environmental laws in
the
>US make even basic paint jobs relatively expensive. Plus, the Waterford
paint
>job is very nice, and costs $300 as an aftermarket service.
And what is the profit margin on that "aftermarket" $300 paint job? It's
the old 70s Peugeot vs. Colnago paint issue. I can do will a less than
artistic paint job if the price is substantially lower than the higher
priiced frame if they both function equally well.
>
>You also mentioned that these firms offer 853 frames for around $650 plus
>shipping. Waterford offers the Gunnar 853 frame for $550. Gee, those UK
guys
>must be ripping you off. They don't even have any dealer margin in that
>price! :-)
The question begs. How is the Gunnar different from the 853 Waterford at
$1000+ or an Independent Fabrications 853 at around $1300? Did they learn
something from the Brits? Were they loosing sales to them and others who
could undersell them like our friend in Florida with $600 ti frames? Must be
the expensive $300 paint job. :-)
Brian Lafferty
Jon Isaacs
>of the equasion.>
I suspect they are not a Costco mass marketing type operation. For Waterford,
he middleman obviously performs a valuable function for them. The dealer not
only fits the customer and helps the customer select the right bicycle but also
provides after sales services.
Certainly in some cases, the bicycle that is chosen will be a Waterford, that
is if someone wants what Waterford has to offer. But most often I am sure, the
buyers go for a different bike with maybe a bit less aesthetics.
> And what is the profit margin on that "aftermarket" $300 paint job? It's
>the old 70s Peugeot vs. Colnago paint issue. I can do will a less than
>artistic paint job if the price is substantially lower than the higher
>priiced frame if they both function equally well.
Sound to me like you are not in the market for a Waterford.
There are plenty of bikes out there with simpler, less attractive paint jobs
that most likely provide equal durability, weight and stiffness as well as
costing less.
In fact the Trek Lemond 853's might be a good choice for someone not interested
in the fancy paint and lugs.
Jon Isaacs
Steve Metz
wall in one of the classrooms was a banner that read, "There's no horse so
dead that it can't be beaten a little more."