|Is Lightspeed overpriced compared to custom steel?||KLM|
Mar 11, 2002 9:22 AM
|I'm comparing their entry level Tuscany at $1650 to a whole host of other custom steel frames that can be had for less by names such Waterford, Seven, Independent, Steelman, etc. I currently have a Lemond Zurich and love the feel of 853 steel. Will a LS be a step up, or should I stick with custom steel?
Thanks for your advice,
|apples and oranges||gtx|
Mar 11, 2002 9:39 AM
|personally, though, I'd take a IF or Steelman over a Tuscany--the weight is the same, you get a cool paint job, great quality and save some $$$. Steelman and IF also make nice matching steel forks.|
|Ditto. Mixed fruits.||jtolleson|
Mar 11, 2002 9:56 AM
|First, I wouldn't call the Tuscany Litespeed's "entry level" ti. Their entry level offering is the Arenberg, straight gauge ti. Tuscany is shaped and butted with a 6/4 bottom bracket if I'm not mistaken, and I happen to think it is the best bike in Litespeed's stable.
People buy ti for different reasons. Some folks like the feeling that it is an indestructible forever material, or at least much more so than steel, CF, or aluminum. Some folks like the purity of unpainted ti (something you can't do with steel). Some folks believe that ti provides a superior ride quality, but honestly I think that many of our good steel builders can totally compete on that end.
Saying "which is better" is an unanswerable question. I think that MOST riders would consider the ride quality of a Tuscany to be a step up from your Zurich, but that's personal.
If you just love steel, why spend the ti $$? You can get a Dura Ace equipped IF, Waterford, Anvil, Landshark, etc. for less.
|re: Is Lightspeed overpriced compared to custom steel?||vol245|
Mar 11, 2002 9:57 AM
|You can also get the LiteSpeed frames at a discount. I recently bought a brand new 2001 Tuscany frame for $1020. Shop around (Ebay).|
|re: Is Lightspeed overpriced compared to custom steel?||SnowBlind|
Mar 11, 2002 10:12 AM
|You can't beat custom fit, regardless of what it is made of.|
|But you can tie it,||TJeanloz|
Mar 11, 2002 10:22 AM
|I'm willing to bet that I could match 98.5% of custom bike fits with strictly stock parts. And by exactly match, I mean to the tenth of a millimeter. Custom-sized frames are overrated.|
|You sure about that?||KLM|
Mar 11, 2002 10:33 AM
|What about those people that have shorter legs and longer torso who would need a silly long stem to fit right. The reason I went with Lemond was they offer a 56.5cm tt on a 55cm bike. Very interested in your opinion.
|I am one of those people...||TJeanloz|
Mar 11, 2002 10:48 AM
|I am one of those people with a very long torso and midget legs. I have custom bikes and I have stock bikes. All of my bikes have exactly the same dimensions from contact point to contact point.
But in having fit a couple of hundred people to bikes, there are really only two types who NEED custom bikes; people taller than 6'4", and shorter than 4'10". Everybody in between can have their position duplicated by a stock frame and the correct stem/stack height combination.
|Now what about me?||Ahimsa|
Mar 11, 2002 10:52 AM
|I am 7 foot 9 and three quarters and have only a 24 inch inseam. Mostly I ride unicycles here at the circus and they are adjustable, but I want to start riding a proper bike and am considering custom steel.
Can you fit me on a stock bike?
|Now what about me?||johnjohn|
Mar 11, 2002 11:04 AM
|Funny!! You sure are one stumpy Bigfoot.|
Mar 11, 2002 11:10 AM
|Well you see, that is what's really peculiar, one would assume that my feet would be rather large, but in fact I wear only a size 3 childrens shoe.
It made it difficult to learn to walk, but once I'm on a unicycle, man! Look out!
Mar 11, 2002 10:53 AM
|If any of you with custom frames is bold enough to give detailed measurements, I will waste half an hour of my precious time and tell you exactly how to get the same position using stock parts.|
|BWAH! I LOVE IT! YOU GO TJ!||Ahimsa|
Mar 11, 2002 11:02 AM
|Come on! Somebody pony up the custom goods and give TJean some room!
I really want to see this settled and TJ is just the one to do it!
Let's get ready to rumble, baby!
|yeah, and anyone can fit a BMX bike||gtx|
Mar 11, 2002 11:09 AM
|just get the right seatpost and stem. I understand your point, and agree that most people don't need custom, but...|
Mar 11, 2002 12:23 PM
|...but that's not the only reason to get a custom, of course. I not only have a great fit, but the STA, head angle, BB height, and wheelbase that suits my riding, along with tube selection and butting appropriate to my weight, application, and comfort needs.
I think that people who buy a custom just so they can achieve KOP or a comfortable reach are often wasting their money.
|That is true,||TJeanloz|
Mar 11, 2002 12:26 PM
|You will all note that my diatribe was on custom-sized bikes, NOT completely custom bikes. If you want a bike that has some special tube set up, or oddity other than size, by all means, custom is the way to go.|
Mar 11, 2002 12:40 PM
|Top tube is 55.7cm CC
Seattube is 58.3cm
72.6 STA and use a seatpost with no setback
Bar/Saddle delta of 55mm
Prefer geometry for long road race/epic rides, stable at speed, using a 43mm offset all CF fork. No more than one 1cm spacer please with a -6 degree rise stem. My experience/calcs show that I need 120mm stem to achieve my proper weight distribution. I'll be using Deda Magic bars for your reach reference.
I have a heavier built torso with a tendency to weight the front of the bike and I prefer about a 48/50 weight split front to rear. I descend aggressively and due to my running background I tend to prefer climbing out of the saddle. My race weight is 165.
Build it out of Foco/Ultra Foco/EOM16.5 or their peers. Paint it in the color of my choice with sprayed in graphics, no cheap decals, cover it in clear. Use stainless steel dropouts and braze-ons and then sell it to me for less than $1,000.
I'll be waiting.....
Custom frames are not self indulgence, it's just common sense.
Mar 11, 2002 12:46 PM
With due respect, the question at hand is purely one of dimensional fit, not one of personal preferences. Sure, anybody can say, "I want a bike exactly like this, and since nobody makes it, I NEED a custom bike." This is true, if you want something custom in every way, you need a custom bike.
But fit alone (with a few exceptions) is not reason enough for a custom bike. I hear all too often: "I have a long torso, so I need a custom bike." Which simply isn't true.
Custom frames are the absolute epitome of self-indulgence.
|Let me try again||Anvil|
Mar 11, 2002 1:54 PM
|No worries TJ. I gave you my specs for my bike which should make it easier for you to meet my fit requirements without having to boil down my personal dimensions. I left plenty of lee-way for alternatives in the critical areas. I'm just asking that you balance me properly on the bike, you know, no 57.5cm top tube with a 100mm stem. As you know, proper fit is not just the length of tubes, it's also balance over the bike. I'll entertain any reasonable alternatives to meet my fit requirements/desires. Based on how I have interpreted your comments, I could fit on a 50 or a 60cm frame but that don't make it anywhere near right for me.
As far as self-indulgence, you can get a custom frame from any number of builders, Carl Strong, Brent Steelman, Black Sheep, Crow, Focus, Teesdale, Mikkelsen, Guru, Kelly, ad infinitum for less than you can a comparable frame from any of the rack bike manufacturers. A guy spends 2 or 3 large on a frame may be self-indulgent though I'm not inclined to call any bike self-indulgent in the world of $40,000+ pickup trucks and SUVs. Getting a better bike with exactly what you want or need for a half or one third that is common sense. At least, that's the way I define it. What does "self-indulgence" and "common sense" relative to bikes mean to you?
|This is going to get argumentative,||TJeanloz|
Mar 11, 2002 2:06 PM
|Which I'd be all for, except that I have to leave work in 3 minutes...
But as soon as you qualify things by saying "my fit desires" things get more complicated, and the more desires you have, the more impossible it is to meet them with a stock bike. The definition of a stock bike is that it is a series of compromises- I can't imagine a stock bike that equalled a custom bike in every facet. And here is where we will diverge.
My narrow interpretation of the argument is that fit is independant of things like road feel and balance. Because once you bring in purely subjective things like that, it is impossible to come up with firm comparisons. My initial thought is that I can match fit to the degree that if you were blindfolded on a trainer with a stock bike and a custom- I could make the dimensional difference indescernable. Though I realize that this is an overly-narrow simplification of things, it is a simplification that has to be made for the sake of comparison.
My argument is simply that I could dimensionally duplicate your bike. I'm not saying I could make any stock bike ride like an Anvil- just that I could duplicate the measurable 'fit'.
|This is going to get argumentative,||Brad S|
Mar 11, 2002 2:29 PM
I think where your arguement is faulty, and you alluded to this, is the balance part of the equation. Bikes aren't built to just ride on a static trainer, they are made to ride in the real world where you ascend and descent steep slopes, carve tight turns, take your hands off the bar to reach for food or extra clothing, etc. So leaving out the paint, graphics, and tubing aspects of custom, the correct weight distribtion (balance) is where you arguement doesn't hold water.
So yes, maybe you could duplicate someones custom setup with a stock frame as far as the contact points (pedals, saddle, bar) are concerned by varying stem length/height, saddle height/setback, etc. But you would end up w/ frames w/ high rise stems and lots of spacers, extremely short or long stems, saddle setback way fore or aft,etc. These compromises make for balance and handling issues when riding in the real world, which is where all bikes have to perform, not on a trainer!
So just for the point of the exercise you alluded to, fit me an a stock frame such as an Eddy Merkx. What would my stem length be to get my correct reach (keeping my saddle height and setback identical - see below)?
I have a 37 inch inseam (cycling inseam, not pants inseam). My seat height is 85.5 cm, I need 10.0 cm of saddle setback, and the reach from the tip of the saddle to the middle of the bar should be 63.5 cm, with a saddle/bar delta of 10.0 cm.
|This is going to get argumentative,||Anvil|
Mar 11, 2002 10:44 PM
|No need for it to get argumentative, in the narrow context of what you're saying now, I agree with you. I took exception to the inference and I think that your claim of matching any frame dimensionally is irrelevent to proper fit or performance cycling. I'll explain myself and try not to beat any dead horses. Oh, since you can't see my face or hear my voice, understand that I'm not pissed or anything, I'm just airing out my views based on my understanding of what you're saying.
You originally stated:
"I'm willing to bet that I could match 98.5% of custom bike fits with strictly stock parts. And by exactly match, I mean to the tenth of a millimeter. Custom-sized frames are overrated."
"But in having fit a couple of hundred people to bikes, there are really only two types who NEED custom bikes; people taller than 6'4", and shorter than 4'10". Everybody in between can have their position duplicated by a stock frame and the correct stem/stack height combination."
"...the question at hand is purely one of dimensional fit, not one of personal preferences. Sure, anybody can say, "I want a bike exactly like this, and since nobody makes it, I NEED a custom bike." This is true, if you want something custom in every way, you need a custom bike. But fit alone (with a few exceptions) is not reason enough for a custom bike. I hear all too often: "I have a long torso, so I need a custom bike." Which simply isn't true."
"My narrow interpretation of the argument is that fit is independant of things like road feel and balance. Because once you bring in purely subjective things like that, it is impossible to come up with firm comparisons. My initial thought is that I can match fit to the degree that if you were blindfolded on a trainer with a stock bike and a custom- I could make the dimensional difference indescernable. Though I realize that this is an overly-narrow simplification of things, it is a simplification that has to be made for the sake of comparison."
So, when it comes to matching dimensions on different frames, I certainly agree it can be done, but I don't see how that is relevent to how a rider drapes himself over a bike. I can easily claim that I could fit a 5'4" person on a 60cm TT frame but that doesn't mean it will be right or even relevent to performance cycling. While I probably couldn't tell the difference between dimensionally identical bikes that arrived at those dimensions by different methods, while riding them blindfolded on a trainer, I can also state I have no idea how riding any bike while blindfolded on a trainer feels. I've simply never had a cycling experience that required me to do so. We ride our bikes in a dynamic environment, our bikes are the interface between our bodies and the ground we travel over. Our bikes are not LifeCycles.
Proper bike fit is more than just a top tube or a seat tube being long enough. It is also about balance and while you can adjust stem length, seatpost setback, and bar reach to fit most any frame, you need to do so with an eye to balance, the balance of your weight over the bike to achieve a certain center of gravity. You change one thing like setback to stretch or shorten your reach to the bars, you also affect your knee/pedal spindle relationship. Raise or lower your saddle, same thing. Raise your stem, shorten your reach, lower your stem, lengthen your reach. Can you do all these things and still fit on a production bike that is close to your size? In most cases, sure you can, as long as you approach it with an understanding of what you're doing. Adjust for fit, then achieve that fit balanced on the bike.
So again, why custom? Because custom lets you have what you want whether it be fit, geometry, responsiveness, handling, resilience, material, braze-ons, aesthetics, or simply the color(s) of your choice. That's what custom is all about. People focus on fit, and justifiably so, but "custom" is more than
|This is going to get argumentative,||TJeanloz|
Mar 12, 2002 5:23 AM
|I completely agree that a custom bike is much more than the fit. But where the argument is simply about fit, custom has no advantage over stock. You say that our bikes are not LifeCycles, in the extreme case, I ask: How do you know? Maybe we just want to ride a trainer all day...
My point is that IF you could isolate dimensional fit, it wouldn't matter whether your frame was stock or custom. Furthermore, to bring in arguments like balance is difficult at best, because it is purely a subjective measurement of 'feel'. And these subjective measures bias the estimator towards need for a custom bike.
The other thing we've left out is that we have presumed that all custom builders are capable of building what you want. How many custom builders can actually achieve the desired effect? I daresay that there aren't very many who can design and build the perfect custom bike.
|for some reason it cut off my post, here's the rest....||Anvil|
Mar 12, 2002 6:24 AM
|"So again, why custom? Because custom lets you have what you want whether it be fit, geometry, responsiveness, handling, resilience, material, braze-ons, aesthetics, or simply the color(s) of your choice. That's what custom is all about. People focus on fit, and justifiably so, but "custom" is more than..."
...that. It's having something unique, something made to meet your requirements with no compromise made to the marketing department or the "one tubeset for any size rider" mentality...insert broken record here...
I guess my problem is that I can't see a way to separate proper "fit" from "ride" or "handling." A bike that "fits" yet handles like hell because of fit compromises is no better than a bike that doesn't fit. We all buy bikes because they have certain qualities we desire/need/prefer. It is not self indulgent to want both proper fit and ride anymore than it is to own multiple bikes or to spend a couple grand on a frame alone. If you can have both for equal or less money than a rack bike that may force you to compromise, what's your common sense tell you to do? Obviously I'm biased, but I have a hard time understanding how a custom frame can be self-indulgent when they're a better product and better value than many, many rack bikes. Folks spend near 3K on a Litespeed Vortex frame alone. For that amount of money a custom steel frame builder can sell you full custom steel, full Record 10, Ouzo Pro fork and other quality parts for a bike ready to ride. So TJ, what's your definition of self-indulgence? I'm not trying to harsh your mellow, just trying to understand where you're coming from.
|On self indulgence...||TJeanloz|
Mar 12, 2002 7:12 AM
|I can see where it would be hard for a custom framebuilder to seperate 'fit' and 'handling', and admittedly, it's hard for me to do it. But I think the line can be drawn with the static/moving argument- not that I think a perfectly fitting, ill-riding bike is a good thing.
As to self indulgance, I think a $3000 Vortex frame is just as self indulgant as a $3000 Richard Sachs frame. But, in my mind, the issue are the people who have justified a 'need' for a custom fit bike. The people who say: a cheap steel bike is all I want, but I NEED a custom frame because my legs are 1mm longer than normal for my torso length. And I'm guilty of it- I have the worst: a custom Vortex. I however, have no illusions of 'needing' such a bike. I wanted it, so I bought it, and it was entirely self indulgant.
Mar 12, 2002 10:24 AM
|Nobody (ok maybe a top pro who earns his $ this way) "needs" any bike. All bikes allow you to sit on them and pedal down the road just fine. After a certain point you get diminishing returns. I'd say a custom Vortex vs a stock Vortex has extremely diminishing returns unless your dimensions, weight or other factors are way out of the norm for this type of bike but it's your $ in the long run. Heck...I'm sure I don't "need" my Colnago MXL either. My other bike--a Bianchi Eros was/is just fine for my intended uses, but I sure like pedalling that Colnago better than the Bianchi. Before the COlnago I had a Merlin XL (wrecked in a car/bike accident unfortuantely) which was a great bike, but a bit flexy for my tastes. I could definately see doing a custom Merlin XL with bigger tubes to make it a bit stiffer. I don't see what the big deal is with custom/noncustom. People buy what they want and most of the reasoning is not rational. How else do you explain people shelling out big $ for something like a Colnago C-40 that may or may not be right for them when they could get a full custom Calfee with a 10 year warranty for less $? Must be that Colnago paintjob.|
|a 57 cm Merckx with an 11cm stem would work fine||gtx|
Mar 11, 2002 1:12 PM
|72.6 STA with a 56.8 tt. Not sure about getting his exact stem requirements in terms of rise and spacers, though.|
Mar 11, 2002 2:06 PM
56 tt 12 stem
53 cc seat tube
10 cm headtube
74 cm cbb to top of saddle
|Quil stems or threadless?||Spoke Wrench|
Mar 11, 2002 11:44 AM
|One of my personal bikes has a Tectronic long quil stem to raise the handlebars to match the height and reach of my other bikes. The Tectronic stems come in a variety of reaches so I've found them useful in fitting several people including one guy who was 6'9".
I'd hate to try to duplicate that position using threadless. So far I've avoided using things like steerer extenders (ugh), but the day may come. Do you have any innovative ideas?
I agree with you that the vast majority of people can be accomodated on stock bikes, especially if they don't put too many restrictions on equipment, but it's always nicer to start with a bike that has the right porportions.
Mar 11, 2002 12:03 PM
|This is the reason I would consider a custom frame -- the threadless stems/forks installed on most new bikes make it very difficult to raise the bars to a comfortable height (for me) without lots of spacers and a riser stem. With a custom, the builder could add an extended headtube and eliminate the need for all those spacers.|
|And there's yet another sound argument against||scottfree|
Mar 11, 2002 1:37 PM
|these really silly and annoying threadless stems/forks. No one yet has given a sensible reason for using them, except that they look cool and cost a lot more money than the sane and perfectly functional (and adjustable) quill stems that served us well for decades.
How most people get a good fit given the limits of the damn things is beyond me.
|I think you're right, but||dzrider|
Mar 11, 2002 12:55 PM
|I have long arms and torso relative to my legs. With some time I can get the triangle formed by contact points the same on the 55 and 56 cm bikes I have owned. The problem comes with how long a stem it requires. Long - 13cm or more - stems make me feel like my body weight is too far forward and I'm out of balance on the bike.
That being said, the only custom bike I've ever owned was built for somebody else with similar dimensions and purchased used. There have been plenty of bikes such as Vitus, Eddy Merckx and Lemond that would fit me fine. Custom, like ti or c.f., is a luxury. As such its value is not the same for everybody.
Mar 11, 2002 10:36 AM
|Tried that already. At 5' 11' and a 30 inch inseam, it was impossible to fit a stock bike to my body and not make a major compromise.
Either I ended up with poor fore/aft balance, or I ended up with a compressed chest, or bad knee position or ... well you get the picture.
And before you say it, the fitter did not sell me the custom bike.
The custom has a very long top tube with a slight drop. The cockpit is identical to the custom Seven my riding partner (6'2") has, and yet I cannot even stradle his bike without risking sterilization.
Just my 1.5% worth.
|SnowBlind, please help.||KLM|
Mar 11, 2002 10:45 AM
|I am also 5'11" and have a 31 inch inseam. It would be a great help to me if you could fill me in on the specs of your current custom bike. Who made it, tt and st dimensions, angles, whatever you're willing to give. Also, what other bikes have you had positive experiences with regarding fit?
Thanks enormously for your help,
|SnowBlind, please help.||SnowBlind|
Mar 11, 2002 1:02 PM
|The builder is Curtis Inglis in Napa, CA.
You can reach him through Palisades Mountain Sport at 1-707-942-9687. Actually, they will put him in touch with you.
Curtis is a real artist, he does perfect work when you give him the time( i.e. don't rush him, expect 10-12 week turnaround. Cost was $1519, with a Alpha-Q fork and a spiffy paint job that added $115 to the cost. It is built from Zona tubing, so it is fairly light, ~20 full built with Chorus and Open Pro's.
As for exact spec's ... well as I said, Curtis is an artist, so he has yet to send me the drawing I requested. Oh well, the bike is perfect, so I forgive him. :)
Some general sizing/geometry: "slack" head and seat tubes, 45 rake on fork, 76 degree sound very familiar.
The following mesurements are close as I could get with a tape measure:
Top tube: 30 3/4 inch, including slope. 10cm stem.
Seat tube: 23 1/4 inch
Wheel base is 38 1/2 so it handles the turns very nicely.
Compact geometry in the triangle, so chainstay is 16 inch
Seatstay: 20 inch
I specified to Curtis that I wanted a bike that was an all-rounder, what used to be called a club bike. I just rode Solvang on it and had no problems with comfort. I have also done short crits on it, handles very well.
Very stiff, easily as stiff as the AL-90 Gios that one of the guys has here. One hell of sprint platform. Sticks like glue at high speeds, very confident at ~70 kph on the decents.
I've included a photo of the bike during the build. Don't have a newer one here at work, sorry.
Mar 11, 2002 10:47 AM
|I'm built the exact opposite from you (6'1" 36" inseam) and totally agree on the value of a custom frame. If I wanted a stock frame I'd need one with a 56.5cm top tube which means I'm riding between a 55 and 57cm frame. I'd have a lot of seat post showing and a lot of spacers.
I'm sure stock frames fit many people but there's a fair number of people who need a custom frame.
|LITESPEED IS NOT OVERPRICED||Lazywriter|
Mar 11, 2002 5:06 PM
|Once and for all, settle this argument. If you pay retail for things, then everything is potentially overpriced. There is no reason why someone cannot get a Litespeed Tuscany or Classic with Ultegra in the $2500-3000 range. That is not a lot to pay for a lifetime bike.
If you know how to shop you can get the high end at a good price. My 2002 Vortex was had for $1000 less than "retail" with Dura Ace and x2s included. Being a good customer and paying cash helped, or just wait until the end of the year and to get a Vortex for $3999 at CC is a great deal on one of the best bikes ever made.
|speaking as a steel-loving-titanium-riding guy...||sprockets2|
Mar 11, 2002 6:49 PM
|First, if you are diggin' the Lemond, why not ride it for a while longer? There are plenty of ways to blow your $$ that meet actual needs rather than lust. There are rapid advancements going on in bike frame tech so holding on for a couple of years might really work out.
If, however, you must plunge, note that when you buy Ti you are getting the benefits of ride and weight savings (some would disagree, but it seems true for many comparisons), and you are buying the higher production costs of a Ti frame, and you are buying some hyper-buck status, too.
In larger frame sizes especially, the Ti ride is superior to a good steel bike-assuming that the steel bike handles as well and is about as stiff in power transmission. That is what sold me on Ti when I got my Litespeed Classic. It handled as well as any steel bike I rode to compare it to, and the ride is great.
I sometimes think, in retrospect, that I should have gotten a custom steel-a Waterford, or perhaps a Serotta, most likely. I do like steel's feel, especially when you are really hauling and carving hills. And the steel fork is somehow more satisfying than a carbon fork, even though the carbon fork usually rides better.
You had better do a bunch of riding before you buy. If you fall under the spell of the Ti bike, you will be happy. It is a great material for a bike frame.
If you decide on steel, I don't think that you will be any less happy if that is your choice. Personally, I would buy from a bigger steel builder, and here is why: experience, choice, economy of scale, true customization-not what tubes they have on hand (it happens), refinement of design, to name a few. Most smaller steel guys you mentioned-and I have dealt on a preliminary basis with a few-did not impress me. It seemed like they lacked in some of the areas I noted, or could not provide any evidence to the contrary. Lots of people can braze a frame together, not too many can build superbly crafted frames of excellent design, and designed to really fit you.
I was impressed by Waterford's willingness and ability to really find out what design would work for me, right down to multiple tube choices. They seem big enough and old enough to have impressive know-how, but still be small enough, and up-to-date to do a personal job for you.
A couple of the smaller builders I have dealth with have what I call "hermit complex". They have operated on their own for too long, surrounded by underlings but no true peers to act as reality and ego checks, and they have started believing all of their own ideas and utterances, even without a firm basis for them. I am reminded of a very well (nationally) known builder of bikes who is local to me, and he tried to convince me that his tandem felt like a noodle because of the wheels, not the frame. As I had just changed out the wheels to heavy touring rims during my demo ride and saw no improvement, in my opinion, this builder fell right out of the starry sky of famous builders, a place where most people unknowingly place him. Just an example.
Mar 11, 2002 6:50 PM
|I bought a 2001 Tuscany frame with Campagnolo Chorus 10 speed, Record headset, Reynolds Ouzo Pro fork and Campagnolo Proton Wheels for $2650. This included shipping and a Cateye Astrale computer. If I bought this bike at full retail, with sales tax it would have been around $4000. So...shop around.|
|As usual, go with what you feel.||Leisure|
Mar 12, 2002 1:15 AM
|Depends on what you want. Test ride them and see what you think. You probably already know the other pros/cons of Ti versus steel (weight, price, etc). What are your priorities?
As far as Lightspeed being overpriced on an absolute scale, I think they may arguably be at full retail, but you are generally going to get them at something less than that so you break even. Lightspeed has largely become one of those companies that will quote a suggested retail higher than they intend to sell at to make consumers feel they're getting their money's worth. That's fine. The end result is you get what you pay for either way.
|re: Is Lightspeed overpriced compared to custom steel?||harry hall|
Mar 12, 2002 7:57 AM
|Apples and oranges and I'd rather have steel, but for the costs involved in titanium production and fabrication Litespeed is very reasonably priced--I'd figure that you shouldn't trust any ti frame that's cheaper than an entry level Litespeed.|| |