View Full Version : Cornering Problems on LeMond....
Cornering Problems on LeMond....
Has anyone ever had problems cornering on the LeMond bicycles? I have an older Colnago that I can corner comfortably on, but my LeMond seems to want to make the widest arc possible around the turns - way too wide, not being able to carve through the turn with ease. Just wondering if anyone else had the same problem.
I have a 2004 Lemond and yes it doesn't seem to turn well. I have tried some position changes, but it still seems make wide arcs. And I thought it was just me...
Has anyone ever had problems cornering on the LeMond bicycles? I have an older Colnago that I can corner comfortably on, but my LeMond seems to want to make the widest arc possible around the turns - way too wide, not being able to carve through the turn with ease. Just wondering if anyone else had the same problem.
LeMond geometry is all about stability: relaxed head and seat tube angles, longer chainstay, lower BB. That means the bike is going to be easier and more relaxing to ride, stable with the hands off the bars and on high-speed descents. But the trade-off is it takes a bit more to turn it into a corner.
You can check their website for more details. Would think the dealer would mention this fact before selling you a LeMond, and also want you to test ride it. It's Trek's brand line for those who don't want quick geometry.
All true, true. That said, they're not off the map in terms of serious geometry--after all, a number of pretty competetive pro teams have had success on them over the last few years alone.
I bet it'll just take some getting used to, but you'll adjust.
Lemonds are gorgeous...
LeMonds are century bikes, not criterium bikes. That doesn't mean they won't corner, they just corner differently. Find a circuit somewhere with a lot of 90 degree turns and practice.
I own a 2005 LeMond Versailles and I love it. http://www.lemondbikes.com/2005_bikes/versailles.shtml
You could say it corners like a sedan instead of a sportscar. But the intended purpose I bought this bike for is long, long road rides in the mountains. The highlight of my cycling year will be bagging 10,000 foot mountian tops and 9000 foot passes and I cannot imagine descending these roads on a bike that was intended for criterium racing.
LeMond geometry is all about stability: relaxed head and seat tube angles, longer chainstay, lower BB. That means the bike is going to be easier and more relaxing to ride, stable with the hands off the bars and on high-speed descents. But the trade-off is it takes a bit more to turn it into a corner.
You can check their website for more details. Would think the dealer would mention this fact before selling you a LeMond, and also want you to test ride it. It's Trek's brand line for those who don't want quick geometry.
Am I wrong in saying that the part of the geometry that most effects your ability to corner is simply the distance between the wheels? Seems to me that the closer the wheels, the tighter the corner with all other things constant.
Having said that I and having found what dhk just said to be interesting, I looked up the geometry’s of the Colnago, Lemond, Bianchi (because I ride one), Pinnarello, and others. From a glance, it seems that in a given frame size, the rear chain stay differences in these bikes is only a few millimeters. This doesn't seem like it would make much of a difference. Now like I said, it is overall distance from axle to axle that counts, but I can not find this measurement on the Colnago bikes. Does any one have some comparative data on the difference in wheel base in say for example a 56 cm bike on a Colnago over a Lemond?
The geometry of my 55 cm Bianchi is very close to that of the Lemond of the same size. ( To be precise I compared my xl carbon frame to that of the Zurich because I test rode the Zurich and am most familiar with it compared to other Lemonds) The wheel bases are only a few mm different. I guess that means my Bianchi is considered a more of a stable geometry than a quick geometry and I would not have thought that.
What is everyone opinion on that?
Am I wrong in saying that the part of the geometry that most effects your ability to corner is simply the distance between the wheels? Seems to me that the closer the wheels, the tighter the corner with all other things constant.
Having said that I and having found what dhk just said to be interesting, I looked up the geometry’s of the Colnago, Lemond, Bianchi (because I ride one), Pinnarello, and others. From a glance, it seems that in a given frame size, the rear chain stay differences in these bikes is only a few millimeters. This doesn't seem like it would make much of a difference. Now like I said, it is overall distance from axle to axle that counts, but I can not find this measurement on the Colnago bikes. Does any one have some comparative data on the difference in wheel base in say for example a 56 cm bike on a Colnago over a Lemond?
The geometry of my 55 cm Bianchi is very close to that of the Lemond of the same size. ( To be precise I compared my xl carbon frame to that of the Zurich because I test rode the Zurich and am most familiar with it compared to other Lemonds) The wheel bases are only a few mm different. I guess that means my Bianchi is considered a more of a stable geometry than a quick geometry and I would not have thought that.
What is everyone opinion on that?
Seat post angle, head angle, top tube length, chainstay length, the length of the headset. rigidity of the frame, forks, rear triangle, the frame material and the overall weight of the bike, etc, etc, etc, all effect the way a bike feels and corners not just the wheel base.
I test rode three other bike before buying the one I have ( cost was a major consideration ) the three I rode were high end $4000 AU + bikes, a Trek, a Bianchi and a Lemond.
I rode all bikes down a winding decent then back the same road, about 20 min on each. I felt, with out a doubt, the most secure on the Bianchi both cornering down hill and climbing. The Trek was the most responsive. The Lemond left me cold, didn't like it at all, when climbing it didn't want to stay on a straight line. The dealer said this was the set up and due to the length of the headset ?
LeMond geometry is all about stability: relaxed head and seat tube angles, longer chainstay, lower BB. That means the bike is going to be easier and more relaxing to ride, stable with the hands off the bars and on high-speed descents.
Head angle is not really relaxed and is actually somewhat steep in the bigger sizes.Besides trail is the bigger factor in front end geometry. Chainstays are not really that long.BB is not low either. In fact there was a gripe about the handling and relative high BB of 27.2 cm in an old Bicyclist test.More typical woudl be 26.5 and some are lower than that... Colnagos are noted for having more trail, which slows the steering bit, even with relatively steep seat angles and relatively shorter stays than the lemond.
LeMonds are century bikes, not criterium bikes.
You could say it corners like a sedan instead of a sportscar. Cripes,why don't you tell that drivel to Team Saturn that use to race them.
Am I wrong in saying that the part of the geometry that most effects your ability to corner is simply the distance between the wheels? Seems to me that the closer the wheels, the tighter the corner with all other things constant.
Having said that I and having found what dhk just said to be interesting, I looked up the geometry’s of the Colnago, Lemond, Bianchi (because I ride one), Pinnarello, and others. From a glance, it seems that in a given frame size, the rear chain stay differences in these bikes is only a few millimeters. This doesn't seem like it would make much of a difference. Now like I said, it is overall distance from axle to axle that counts, but I can not find this measurement on the Colnago bikes. Does any one have some comparative data on the difference in wheel base in say for example a 56 cm bike on a Colnago over a Lemond?
The geometry of my 55 cm Bianchi is very close to that of the Lemond of the same size. ( To be precise I compared my xl carbon frame to that of the Zurich because I test rode the Zurich and am most familiar with it compared to other Lemonds) The wheel bases are only a few mm different. I guess that means my Bianchi is considered a more of a stable geometry than a quick geometry and I would not have thought that.
What is everyone opinion on that?
OK, you and boudreaux caught me. I didn't take time to compare any geometries; just repeated what the Lemond website said. You mean to tell me everything they say in the ad copy isn't true? I guess when they say "relaxed head tube angle", the obvious question needs to be....compared to what?
Point I was trying to make is that the stable geometry of the LeMond is widely advertised as an advantage. The secure handling should appeal to anyone who buys the bike. If you don't like that, Trek has plenty of other choices to sell you.
And agree with boudreaux that the trail is the important characteristic, more so than wheelbase, head angle or BB height.
Head angle is not really relaxed and is actually somewhat steep in the bigger sizes.Besides trail is the bigger factor in front end geometry. Chainstays are not really that long.BB is not low either. In fact there was a gripe about the handling and relative high BB of 27.2 cm in an old Bicyclist test.More typical woudl be 26.5 and some are lower than that... Colnagos are noted for having more trail, which slows the steering bit, even with relatively steep seat angles and relatively shorter stays than the lemond.
What exactly is trail. I am not sure I am getting it.
OK, you and boudreaux caught me. I didn't take time to compare any geometries; just repeated what the Lemond website said. You mean to tell me everything they say in the ad copy isn't true? I guess when they say "relaxed head tube angle", the obvious question needs to be....compared to what?
I think lemond is just caught up it the vortex of their own BS. HT angle on a 57 is 73.5 and 45mm rake, 58 trek is 73.8 with a 45 rake, Cdale 57 is 73 with a 40.5 rake,Colnago 58 is 72.2 with 43 rake. If you like generalizations, 73 headtube and 73 seattube in medium to medium large sizes is often considered middle of the road. Like I said, it's trail that really matters and the colnago has more than many,but yet I don't really notice it on my 2.
What exactly is trail. I am not sure I am getting it.Check Sheldon Browns glossary of bike terms.
Head angle is not really relaxed and is actually somewhat steep in the bigger sizes.Besides trail is the bigger factor in front end geometry. Chainstays are not really that long.BB is not low either. In fact there was a gripe about the handling and relative high BB of 27.2 cm in an old Bicyclist test.More typical woudl be 26.5 and some are lower than that... Colnagos are noted for having more trail, which slows the steering bit, even with relatively steep seat angles and relatively shorter stays than the lemond.
Bordy! Well done; I think this is your longest ever post :D
Check Sheldon Browns glossary of bike terms.
Thanks. A picture always helps me.
I think lemond is just caught up it the vortex of their own BS. HT angle on a 57 is 73.5 and 45mm rake, 58 trek is 73.8 with a 45 rake, Cdale 57 is 73 with a 40.5 rake,Colnago 58 is 72.2 with 43 rake. If you like generalizations, 73 headtube and 73 seattube in medium to medium large sizes is often considered middle of the road. Like I said, it's trail that really matters and the colnago has more than many,but yet I don't really notice it on my 2.
Good info. Surprised to see the Cdale has such little rake in the fork. Even accounting for the difference in head tube angles, looks like it would have a little more trail (~1mm) than the Colnago. Yet, have never heard anyone say the Cdale has slow steering. Do you notice any difference in steering response between Colnago and Cdale?
Or, is something else at work here, maybe different headtube heights or weight distribution on the bike? Not asking which one is "better", just if you can notice a difference between the two.
Good info. Surprised to see the Cdale has such little rake in the fork. Even accounting for the difference in head tube angles, looks like it would have a little more trail (~1mm) than the Colnago. Yet, have never heard anyone say the Cdale has slow steering. Do you notice any difference in steering response between Colnago and Cdale?
Or, is something else at work here, maybe different headtube heights or weight distribution on the bike? Not asking which one is "better", just if you can notice a difference between the two.Even my best fitting Cdale didn't feel right.May have had more to do with the relatively high 27.3 BB than anything else. I don't seem to be real sensetive to small changes in trail and I swap forks in the 40-45 rake range with out worrying alot about it.
What I am hearing here is the perception of the bikes' handling not the actual handling capability of the bike. Trends in bike geometry go from relaxed to tight and back again, always settling somewhat near the neutral.
73x73 degrees with 40 chainstays constitue neutral as a generality.
If the maker varies from this the fork rake is sometimes changed to compensate, keeping things in the neutral side.
One of the fastest descenders I ever followed rode a Merckx century with relaxed angles, and I have personally whipped by roadies on an MTB with super long wheelbase and relaxed angles to match.
I once aske a team mate, masters district 5 champ crit sprinter if agressive geometry was an advantage, he replied if you get bumped you will wish for neutral geometry as it is more forgiving.
Realize this guy had seen the advent and decline of crit specific geometry bikes.
All this being said, the bike I've been riding most, a Wilier, has pretty tight geometry, I need a Look Ergopost to get enough saddle setback, and it may be considered on the twitchy side but it feels telepathic to me now.
LeMonds are century bikes, not criterium bikes. That doesn't mean they won't corner, they just corner differently. Find a circuit somewhere with a lot of 90 degree turns and practice.
I own a 2005 LeMond Versailles and I love it. http://www.lemondbikes.com/2005_bikes/versailles.shtml
You could say it corners like a sedan instead of a sportscar. But the intended purpose I bought this bike for is long, long road rides in the mountains. The highlight of my cycling year will be bagging 10,000 foot mountian tops and 9000 foot passes and I cannot imagine descending these roads on a bike that was intended for criterium racing.
vBulletin, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by
vBSEO 3.3.0
