's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

Eddy Merckx Majestic Ti frame(10 posts)

Eddy Merckx Majestic Ti frameszybki
Aug 6, 2002 8:42 AM
Anybody have one of these? They're supposedly made by Litespeed. Is this true? Any opinions on the frame? Do they use the Merckx "century" geometry? Are they a good value? In the market for a ti bike, and came across these. Just looking for some input. Thanks.
re: Eddy Merckx Majestic Ti frameRusty Coggs
Aug 6, 2002 8:44 AM
Made by Litespeed.Merckx geometry.
re: Eddy Merckx Majestic Ti frametarwheel
Aug 6, 2002 8:54 AM
I don't own one, nor have I ridden one, but I've looked into them. The Majestic is made by
Litespeed according to Merckx specifications, and has the standard "Century" geometry. The frame also has a pump peg. Personally, I think it's a very good value for a ti frame. The best prices I've seen were at, and -- however, some of these places don't include the fork in the price for the frame. If you buy the frame from colorado cyclist, they can have it painted for an extra $200, which is a nice option if you find unfinished ti boring. The Majestic is not the lightest ti frame around, but that's part of the Merckx philosophy -- he is not as caught up in light-weight craze as other bike manufacturers and most of his frames run on the "heavy" side. What the frame "gives up" in the weight department, it probably more than makes up for in durability and ride characteristics.
re: Eddy Merckx Majestic Ti frameDINOSAUR
Aug 6, 2002 9:15 AM
Did research on them. Made by Litespeed with Merckx geometry. Input I received was favorable, but it wasn't recommeded for by weight and the long top tube would give me problems. Gary Hobbs at GHBikes Inc. has the best prices on the Majestic if he has one in your size, and the price includes a fork.
Aug 6, 2002 9:28 AM
The Majestic does not have a long top tube. In most sizes, it has a "square" geometry with top tube the same length as the seat tube. When you consider its relaxed seat tube angle (72.5 in size 56), it actually has about the shortest effective top tube of any stock frame I have looked at.
YupRay Sachs
Aug 6, 2002 10:41 AM
My 57 cm (c-c, so it's more like a 59 c-t) has a top tube that's about 56.8, already well less than square based on the c-t measurement. Combined with the very slack seat angle, as tarwheel says, a very short functional top tube.

Mine is a '98 Ti AX, the predecessor to the Majestic with what I believe is identical geometry to what they're selling today. The slightly longer than typical chainstays and shorter than average front-center makes for one stable handling bike.

Aug 6, 2002 4:10 PM
Maybe I should have said a long top tube for my anatomy. A 59 c-c Merckx has a 57.8 TT. A 59 c-t Colnago Master X-Light has a 56.9 TT. I went with the Colnago, I still feel a little stretched out even with a 10cm stem. Also the 72.5 Mercxk ST puts me too far back. The Olvalmaster would fit my ticket for a ti bike...
re: Eddy Merckx Majestic Ti frameCurtSD
Aug 6, 2002 3:39 PM
How much weight is 'not recommended'? I'm 200 lbs., so I'd guess I'm above the recommended weight too. What's the best choice for a Ti frame for a heavier rider - an Ovalmaster? What did you end up with?

re: Eddy Merckx Majestic Ti frameDINOSAUR
Aug 6, 2002 4:23 PM
I weigh around 210. It was suggested that the Majestic might be too flexly for my taste. But Merckx likes stiff BB in his frames (I'm told) and I'm not sure about the stiffness. It would be something to consider. An Ovalmster is recommended for heavier riders looking for a ti bike. I like the Colnago Geometry and if and when I go ti (My Master X-Light is only 4 months old) I'll probably go with an Ovalmaster. I really eyed the Majestic frame at GVH Bikes Inc, think I could have one built up for what I paid for my Master X-Light. Too many bikes, not enough time...
Thanks guys (nm)szybki
Aug 6, 2002 12:34 PM