Looking at a few Lemond bikes on eBay and there is one where the description shows the size to be 53 c-t and 52 c-c. These are generally early 2000s bikes - Zurich, Buenos Aires, Maillot Jaune, Alpe D'Huez, etc.. I know most folks indicate that they tend to run large for their size. I always thought Lemonds were sized c-c on the seat tube, but the listing I am looking at indicates the size is 53 and it is c-t. That seems wrong to me. Can some one out there confirm how Lemond sized his bikes please, particularly in the late 90's to mid 2000s time period? Thank you!

C-C. https://www.vintage-trek.com/Trek-Fis...1999lemond.pdf

I don't have a definitive answer, but I do think that the Lemond 853 frames were sized the same, except the Poprad CX bike. I have a labeled 2001 53cm Lemond Tourmalet, ST is about 51cm c-c and 54.5 c-t. I also have a labeled 52cm 2002 Poprad with the same measurements. The difference between the frames is the bb drop, with the Poprad having less drop. The Poprads are listed as 52 and 55, the the Tourmalet as 51, 53, and 55. I am guessing the size listing difference is due to the Poprad having less bb drop, ergo, the frame sits a bit higher.

Probably want to check the spec manuals at:
https://www.vintage-trek.com/trek-fi...ein-lemond.htm

The "running big for their size" may or may not be true, depending on frame size.

Great bikes..you'll like them.

They are known to be long in the top tube, hence feeling larger than their frame size. Lemond's fitting philosophy was 'long and low'.

Thanks for the feedback. Several of the catalogs clearly show that the listed frame size pertains to seat tube length c-c.

My '01 Zurich labeled 57 is 57 from center of BB to center of TT as measured along the ST.
(just went to the garage to measure)

This. A reflection of Cyrille Guimard's philosophy on bike fit.
There's a 53 cm 2007 Tourmalet in the barn that rides like a 54cm ctt with a 54.5cm ctc top tube.

Top

As someone who's had more than a few Lemonds over the years the link to the Trek Era bikes is a great source for those. Never had any that didn't match the charts.

The earlier Billato built ones I have/had match this geo:



The only exception was the Team Gan Lemond that was squarer than normal for a Lemond. The TT was shorter than expected. This one also had a number tab on it though so maybe is was custom sized for a team rider vs being a replica bike?

yep.

Ditto. I had one (a 2001 Zurich 56cm frame) that *almost* felt big enough to ride, though I'm usually on a 60+cm bike.

At least in the larger sizes, that's not completely accurate. (I don't know about the medium or small sizes; I'm tall, and I've only really looked at the 59cm and 61cm models.)

Compared to other American frames from the same time period, LeMond bikes tended to have slacker seat tube angles. Once you put the saddle in its proper position relative to the bottom bracket, though, some of the length of the top tube is effectively removed. To put it another way, the stack and reach of Lemond bikes are fairly similar to other American bikes of the era.

I had a Buenos Aires for a long while, replaced with a Zurich, both 57cm frames, I believe, and neither felt too long in the top tube (I normally prefer around a 57cm top tube). If anything, they felt too small in the seat tube and stack, and probably would have been better off with a 59cm frame.

I have a 2004 Croix De Fer 58cm. that seems to fit me perfectly. My other favorite bikes are 60cm and 62cm. Different geometry though so not necessarily definitive. I prefer out of the seat climbing on the Lemond. The bars feel farther forward giving me better balance and leverage when standing.