's Forum Archives - Cyclo-Cross

Archive Home >> Cyclo-Cross(1 2 3 )

Trek or LeMond?(5 posts)

Trek or LeMond?jw
Mar 19, 2001 4:54 AM
I apologize for the multiple posts (here and "old board"), but am a new visitor and wasn't sure which board is getting the most use. Anywho, on to the post: I'm trying to decide between the 2000 Trek XO-1 and the 2001 LeMond Poprad (can get good deals on these through a LBS so am not considering anything else), and would like to hear some experienced riders opinions. I've been strictly a mtn biker for the past 10 years, and have decided to get back into road riding, and am looking for a good general purpose bike that I can commute on, train with, and use for longer casual rides, and perhaps even touring. The Trek is equipped with slightly better components (RX 100/RSX) and wheels (Rolf Vector) than the LeMond(Sora), and would cost about $150 more. I've test ridden both (in a parking lot) and liked both, but the Trek felt livelier and quicker. However my concern is that this will translate to a harsher ride on rough roads and trails. I'm not planning on doing any racing, so my priority is comfort over speed, and feel the LeMonds steel frame will have the edge here. So, I guess my question is: will the Trek's frame be noticably more harsh, especially when combined with the Rolf wheels? Whaddya' think?
re: Trek or LeMond?mtnrogue
Mar 21, 2001 2:13 PM
Recently got a Poprad in Jan. Haved raced it and used on dirt roads some sofar. The frame/fork weights 3.1 lbs(per Lemond), so it's not a tank, and should be pretty quick with right wheels and rubber. Can't comment on the trek, but have seen a lot on the local cx circuit.

re: Trek or LeMond?Ray Sachs
Apr 10, 2001 4:59 AM
The Poprad frame AND fork weigh a combined 3.1 pounds??? That's very light for a superlight steel road FRAME, let alone a steel cross fork. I'm sure it's a reasonably light bike, but if the frame and fork really only weigh 3.1, I'm keeping my 170 pounds off of it. I can't believe the most optimistic manufacturer would make this claim.

3.1 lbs - No way!bike_junkie
Apr 17, 2001 5:32 AM
The frame alone is claimed to be 3.1 lbs, the fork is over a pound alone, so do the math. The chainstays/seatstays aren't even 853, so 3.1 lbs must be the smallest size, frame only.
Instead of arguing about the weight answer his question!Nacho
Apr 18, 2001 9:33 AM
Of course that was a missinterpretation of someone's claim on the weight. That frame should be around 3.6 to 4 pounds on a decent size.

Which bike would I choose? I'm an eternal upgrader, I would go with the better frame, which of course is steel.

If you do not plan to change a thing on the bike setup, and don't plan to take long trips off-road or through choppy streets, then I would consider the Trek.