|LS Classic and Tuscany||John S.|
Aug 23, 2001 1:07 PM
|What are the differences in ride qualities between these two bikes. I'm looking for something that has the ride quality of a good steel frame, without the rust problems or durability problems of thin-walled AL bikes. I know there are other Ti Frames out there, but these two are closely priced and have frame geometries identical to my current bike, save chainstay length.
|re: LS Classic and Tuscany||Slothike|
Aug 23, 2001 3:00 PM
Like others on the board have already heard, I own a Classic for about 4 years and I can honestly say that I love it more now than ever. The new bike bug has bitten me, but I will always keep my Classic. The ride differences between the Tuscany and the Classic are next to nothing. Some people buy into the shaped tubing of the Tuscany thinking it gives a stiffer ride, but it really doesn't. They have identical ride feel for the most part but I like the classic lines of the Classic.
The curved seat stays are a little of a fad. Case in point, I heard a rumor that the new Ultimate will have carbon seat stays and that was the bike to make the curved stays famous. In fact, I read in the old Bicyclist magazine that the curved stays were a way for the bikes to "stand out" in the Peleton which is a brilliant marketing move but not really necessary. The Classic has remained essentially untouched for years and still remains there most popular frame. I respect what Litespeed tries to do as far as innovation, but the yearly tweaking of frames is unnecessary. I think the shaped tubing gives the illusion of a more "high tech"/ "cutting edge" bike, when in reality the most important tube manipulation is the tapered and butted that the Classic has along with other high end ti bikes from Serotta and Seven (butted only).
The Tuscany is a nice bike though and is quite worthy of consideration, but the Classic has a few finish options that set it apart from the Tuscany with regards to tradition and aesthetics. I have the highly polished (mirror finish) that looks great all the years later. It truly does all things very well to excellent. It climbs great, sprints well and descends without fear and tracks perfectly. There are stiffer frames of course, but at the cost of comfort and the longer chain stays give you an unbelivably comfortable ride. I have had very stiff aluminum frames and the Classic gives me all the performance without the bone jarring ride. New aluminum is better, but still on the harsh side regardless of what people's rationalizations are with regards to this topic. Compared to ti or carbon, aluminum is uncomfortable, but I know some people need and like the ride.
I am like you in that when I bought the Classic, I contemplated a steel Colnago, but for the price, couldn't rationalize buying a bike that could rust as my steel frames all have done. The classic is also a little lighter according to the catalog figures.
Test ride them and I am sure you will see no big difference, it will come down to your preference.
Aug 24, 2001 6:06 PM
|Thanks Slothike--I thought that there probably wasn't a big difference looking at the geometry. I think i'll go with the classic, since I prefer the style. Your post was really helpful and put things into perspective, unlike all the hype and literature out there.