Trek 5000 or Lemond Zurich?



E

Easynews

Guest
> >Let's assume they both fit and the exact same...
>
> They won't. The geometry is quite different between Lemond and Trek.
>
> Barry


I was being hypothetical.. I wanted to know which was the better bike from a
technical standpoint.

I went with the Lemond tho... couldn't stop thinking aobut that smooooth
ride. I've very happy with my choice.

Thanks all, for your input.
 
E

Easynews

Guest
"Gerry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]
> I was torn also, but I also test rode the Lemond Arriveee which was
> titanium! All great bikes and I wanted them all including the Trek 5000.
> BUT I found the Trek 5000 kinda "dull" - not sure how to explain that one.
> As soon as I rode the Lemond Zurich, I just knew it was "the one". Price
> was also cheaper than Trek 5000. Got fitted by Chain Reaction Bicycles -
> :). AND for the last 9 months the Zurich performs, handles, and rides

like
> a dream with no problems.
>
> Hope that helps.


That's exactly the kind of information I was looking for. Thanks so much!
 
R

Rolokid

Guest
"Easynews" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]
> > >Let's assume they both fit and the exact same...

> >
> > They won't. The geometry is quite different between Lemond and Trek.
> >
> > Barry

>
> I was being hypothetical.. I wanted to know which was the better bike from

a
> technical standpoint.
>
> I went with the Lemond tho... couldn't stop thinking aobut that smooooth
> ride. I've very happy with my choice.
>
> Thanks all, for your input.


Easynews=Rolokid. Sorry, switched clients.
 
J

Jeff Starr

Guest
On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:15:50 GMT, "Rolokid" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Can someone help me decide between the Trek 5000 and a Lemond Zurich?
>
>I was just about sold on the Trek until I rode the Lemond. Because of the
>carbon/steel combo, it was a pretty smooth ride... so now I'm torn.
>
>Any input would be greatly appreciated.
>
>


Hi, I ride a highly upgraded LeMond Tourmalet, so I am a little
biased, maybe a lot;-)
I vote for the LeMond!

One reason would be, because I see fewer LeMonds on the road. I
personally like to be unique. There are way too many Lance wannabes on
Treks. That said, I do believe that the Trek is a fine bike.

Life is Good!
Jeff
 
D

Denver C. Fox

Guest
>I went with the Lemond tho... couldn't stop thinking aobut that smooooth
>ride. I've very happy with my choice.


Yeah!!

Now that is a GREAT decision.

I love my Lemond BA and envy you your Zurich.

Going to go for a lloonngg ride this am on my Lemond BA before we take off fo
CA tomorrow morning. We carry our mtn bikes in the van for traveling, as they
are multipurpose.


http://members.aol.com/foxcondorsrvtns
(Colorado rental condo)

http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
(Family Web Page)
 
C

Claire Petersky

Guest
"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:02:52 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Or the red one because red
> >bicycles are faster (that's a scientific fact, although there's no
> >proof for it).

>
> Jeeez... and we've been able to avoid the dread 'red bike thread' for
> quite a while. Have to agree though, no matter what some will say,
> especially the Bianchi people.
>
> Everything else being equal, always go with red.


As a owner of a red bike (see, for example, here:
http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/STP2002), I agree.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky
 
B

Badger_South

Guest
On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:03:28 GMT, "Claire Petersky"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 20:02:52 +0100, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Or the red one because red
>> >bicycles are faster (that's a scientific fact, although there's no
>> >proof for it).

>>
>> Jeeez... and we've been able to avoid the dread 'red bike thread' for
>> quite a while. Have to agree though, no matter what some will say,
>> especially the Bianchi people.
>>
>> Everything else being equal, always go with red.

>
>As a owner of a red bike (see, for example, here:
>http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/STP2002), I agree.


I don't understand...that photo says 2002, and you're clearly only
about 25 years old in that first picture.

I won't mention the 'grinnin' like a major fool' at 50 miles in,
though. ;-D

-B
In all my bike pictures, I'm frowning and grimacing. Somehow Claire is
riding 200miles but is always smiling like a Glamor mag cover model,
dammit.
 
K

Kaputnik

Guest
> Jeeez... and we've been able to avoid the dread 'red bike thread' for
> quite a while. Have to agree though, no matter what some will say,
> especially the Bianchi people.


Hmm, the bike I'm fastest on is my Bianchi, which is red, not Celeste,
or whatever they call that blue-green trademark color.
 
K

Kaputnik

Guest
Yes, let's all "bottom post" for the benefit of people who can't be
bothered to read the posts in order. Duh.

"S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<z%[email protected]>...
> Rolokid wrote:
> > awesome, thanks!

>
> Whoosh.
>
> >>
> >> Try this site: http://www.bikefanclub.com/
> >> All kinds of folks over there that will tell you what you want to
> >> hear.

>
> Bill "top-poster says 'What?'" S.
 
S

S o r n i

Guest
Kaputnik wrote:
> Yes, let's all "bottom post" for the benefit of people who can't be
> bothered to read the posts in order. Duh.
>
> "S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<z%[email protected]>...
>> Rolokid wrote:
>>> awesome, thanks!

>>
>> Whoosh.
>>
>>>>
>>>> Try this site: http://www.bikefanclub.com/
>>>> All kinds of folks over there that will tell you what you want to
>>>> hear.

>>
>> Bill "top-poster says 'What?'" S.


I rest my case.

Bill "Kaputnik's brain kaput" S.
 
M

MP

Guest
Sigh. Top posting actually makes more sense half the time, and no
reasonably intelligent person should have trouble following it. But
go ahead, get your jollies by criicizing other people's posting
habits. Beats staying on topic.

On Fri, 16 Jul 2004 01:40:09 GMT, "S o r n i"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>I rest my case.
>
>Bill "Kaputnik's brain kaput" S.
 
F

F1

Guest
"Easynews" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:%[email protected]
> > >Let's assume they both fit and the exact same...

> >
> > They won't. The geometry is quite different between Lemond and Trek.
> >
> > Barry

>
> I was being hypothetical.. I wanted to know which was the better bike from

a
> technical standpoint.
>
> I went with the Lemond tho... couldn't stop thinking aobut that smooooth
> ride. I've very happy with my choice.
>
> Thanks all, for your input.



You might want to put a sticker over the "LeMond" name though, after those
totally moronic comments he made yesterday...what a dipshit.
 
D

Denver C. Fox

Guest
>Sigh. Top posting actually makes more sense half the time, and no
>reasonably intelligent person should have trouble following it. But
>go ahead, get your jollies by criicizing other people's posting
>habits. Beats staying on topic.


If you are a reasonably intelligent person (?) top-posting is the only way to
go, as long as there is enough info on the bottom to jog your memory if you
need your memory jogged.

I have seen (on this NG) "bottom posted" single sentences following literally
reams of top posting, including perhaps the stuff from the last 5 posters
included. And the sentence was perfectly understandable, without all the
top-posted stuff, if you had an ounce of intelliegence, once you finally got to
it.

But, we have a self-appointed "top post monitor" to try to keep us all in order
- he/she must have a very vacuous life to be able to spend all that time on
worrying about top posting!

Sad!



http://members.aol.com/foxcondorsrvtns
(Colorado rental condo)

http://members.aol.com/dnvrfox
(Family Web Page)
 
S

S o r n i

Guest
Denver C. Fox wrote:
>> Sigh. Top posting actually makes more sense half the time, and no
>> reasonably intelligent person should have trouble following it. But
>> go ahead, get your jollies by criicizing other people's posting
>> habits. Beats staying on topic.


(WHO WROTE THE ABOVE, DF? Nice attribution.)

> If you are a reasonably intelligent person (?) top-posting is the
> only way to go, as long as there is enough info on the bottom to jog
> your memory if you need your memory jogged.


So why are you BOTTOM posting then? Because you wanted people to know what
the hell you were replying to, that's why.

> I have seen (on this NG) "bottom posted" single sentences following
> literally reams of top posting, including perhaps the stuff from the
> last 5 posters included. And the sentence was perfectly
> understandable, without all the top-posted stuff, if you had an ounce
> of intelliegence, once you finally got to it.


Just because some idiots don't know how to trim doesn't make top-posting
preferable. Ever see threads where some top-post and some don't?

Ever click on a post and it starts off with "Well that isn't what I meant"
(or something), and you have NO IDEA what the person is talking about? Only
thing worse is if they don't quote ANYTHING (plenty of them around, too).

> But, we have a self-appointed "top post monitor" to try to keep us
> all in order - he/she must have a very vacuous life to be able to
> spend all that time on worrying about top posting!


There are quite a few people who detest top-posters; I usually only speak up
if the person /seems/ to have some redeeming qualities, and just doesn't
know any better (the rest I just dismiss as idiots).

Hell, *I* top-posted when I first tried Usenet -- it IS the way OE
encourages, after all -- but then some kind (and not-so-kind :) folks like
GT pointed out why it's stupid, and I saw their point. Logical, effective
communication DOES require some standards and etiquette, like it or not.

> Sad!


If you took a poll of "regular" Usenetters, I bet 80% or more would prefer
that people post coherently. Sad that you don't care, I guess.

{ubiquitous condo rental spam snipped}

Bill "GT showed me the light (as opposed to GE?)" S.
 
R

Rick Onanian

Guest
On 16 Jul 2004 11:02:53 GMT, [email protected] (Denver C. Fox) wrote:
>I have seen (on this NG) "bottom posted" single sentences following literally
>reams of top posting, including perhaps the stuff from the last 5 posters
>included. And the sentence was perfectly understandable, without all the
>top-posted stuff, if you had an ounce of intelliegence, once you finally got to
>it.


Not trimming is just as bad regardless of where you add your bit.
The only difference is that if you top-post, nobody is encourages
you to trim.
--
Rick Onanian
 
D

DRS

Guest
"Denver C. Fox" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]

[...]

> If you are a reasonably intelligent person (?) top-posting is the
> only way to go, as long as there is enough info on the bottom to jog
> your memory if you need your memory jogged.


Top posting is always wrong. The answer should always follow the question.

> I have seen (on this NG) "bottom posted" single sentences following
> literally reams of top posting, including perhaps the stuff from the
> last 5 posters included.


That is also wrong, but two wrongs do not make a right.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
S

S o r n i

Guest
MP wrote:
> Sigh. Top posting actually makes more sense half the time, and no
> reasonably intelligent person should have trouble following it. But
> go ahead, get your jollies by criicizing other people's posting
> habits. Beats staying on topic.


If you'll re-read the thread, you'll see the POINT of my post was that
"Rolokid" totally missed the point that "Diablo" made (namely, that he
furnished a link that would tell Rolo what he WANTED TO HEAR, as opposed to
useful info).

The top-posting poke was just icing :)

Bill "and without it (the tp-ing), we could actually FOLLOW ALONG NOW quite
a bit easier" S.
 
K

Kaputnik

Guest
Perhaps we can agree on one thing. Arguing with fools is a waste of
time. We'll just have to disagree on who the fool is.

I'll argue no more.

"S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:

(A lot of foolish things. Look it up for yourself if you're really
interested.)
 
C

Claire Petersky

Guest
"the black rose" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Claire Petersky wrote:
> > As a owner of a red bike (see, for example, here:
> > http://www.geocities.com/cpetersky/STP2002), I agree.

>
> Hey Claire, is your bike women-specific?


No -- the next bike I buy, if it's not a custom, is going to be a
woman-specific design. I have very long legs (32" for a Levi's inseam) and a
relatively short torso, even for a woman. I have a shorter stem and raised
handlebars to try to get where I need to be with my current bike, and it's
still not quite right. I rode a WSD Specialized Dolce Elite in Vegas a
couple of weeks ago, and if the handlebars had been raised up about 3/4" (I
like a more upright position while on the tops), it would have been a great
fit. I'd consider the Dolce Comp, maybe the Terry Isis -- if you have
suggestions, I'm listening. I'll probably go shopping after I finish RSVP
the first week of August.

And hey -- tomorrow's STP 2004! I am so so so very psyched! Husband's
upstairs right now, cooking me up the spaghetti dinner.


--
Warm Regards,

Claire Petersky
Please replace earthlink for mouse-potato and .net for .com
Home of the meditative cyclist:
http://home.earthlink.net/~cpetersky/Welcome.htm
See the books I've set free at: http://bookcrossing.com/referral/Cpetersky