RustyGates

I'm looking at two Lemond Tourmalet bikes on Chicago CL. Both sellers are asking about $300 but one is from 2000 in with 525 tubing, one is from 2003 with 831 tubing.

Should I strictly focus on the '03, all else being equal? ....

mstateglfr 

With a quality used bike, I would focus on fit first. Then comes paint and frane condition. Next is component condition(not just clean, but what is near wear out).
after all that would be tubing since both bikes will be well made and within probably 9oz, given identical spec builds.
853 is heat treated so it gets stronger at the welds. It can, if chosen, be butted thinner due to it being 'stronger.
but 525 is plenty nice too.

the build is more important to ride quality than which tubing is used since both will be double butted OS tubing.

RustyGates

Thanks. Of course I knew the condition of components is key, but I didn't consider the paint job. In this case both bikes appear to be the same size (and the right size in the lineup to best suit me), though the sellers have them labeled differently.
I guess I know deep down I'd be satisfied with either frame if they fit, but the 853 seems to have much better resale value based on eBay sold listings. 9 oz sounds inconsequential to me, but I know people must pay quite a bit to shed 9 oz.

Colnago Mixte

Never heard of Reynolds 831. I do have a Lemond Tourmalet in Reynolds 525. Fine fine bicycle. My understanding is that weight is the main difference between Reynolds 525 and 753, as well as heat treating (525 not heat treated). The principal reason for using 525 is that it takes less skill to weld it than 753, bringing the price down a few bucks.

So a slight weight penalty of a few ounces would be the main difference. My 525 Lemond rides phenomenally, I have ridden 753 Lemonds and while lighter due to a number of things, the tubing weight being only one, the ride felt pretty much the same.

I think 753 probably has a better resale value, might get you an extra 50 bucks, but if you will be hanging on to the machine, I see little practical difference.

Bandera

No such thing as "831", read Reynolds website for info:

Cycle Tubing & Tube Sets - Reynolds Technology

fishboat

I think the numbers folks are seeking here are 853, 725, & 525 (not 831 nor 753).

The 2000 Tourmelat is a 525 frame & stays, cro-moly fork, tiagra
The 2003 Tourmelat is a 853 "Designer Select" frame & 525 stays, carbon fork, tiagra

While there's nothing wrong with either bike, I'd lean toward the 2003 if fit & finish is right.

Colnago Mixte

Correct, 853. Never owned one, plus I tend to lose track of the numbers once they get above 531.

I wonder if there will ever be a Reynolds 1031 or 1053 tubeset?

RustyGates

Whoops, 853 is correct.

RustyGates

You know what mstateglfr, judging by the headtubes they do look like different sizes so thanks for emphasizing the fit issue. Interestingly the shorter headtube (frame forms triangle vs quadrilateral) is estimated at 53-54cm and the other with a little head tube showing is advertised confidently at 51cm.

....and the bigger one's gone anyway.
​​​​

mstateglfr 

https://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/b...657834506.html

assuming this is the bike, that's pretty nice. Quality tubing, carbon fork, and modern enough to update in places if needed.

Colnago Mixte

One of the really great things about Lemonds of that era, is the generous tire clearance. You could probably fit some brands of 32 mm tire, and certainly any brand of 28 mm road tire, including my favorite, Continental GP 4000's in 28 mm.

WizardOfBoz

Any bike made of any of the Reynolds alloys implies a manufacturer that was willing to spend extra on making a little bit better bike. I'd say that if you test drive a bike with one of these alloys and like it, it will last and give good performance.

But if you insist, I'd read up on the different alloys on the Reynolds site and other places. Google is your friend here.

One interesting fact is that, while the "better" grades of Reynolds alloys have higher tensile (breaking strength), all steel alloys have about the same Young's modulus. That is, they're all about the same stiffness. This is true of pretty much all carbon and alloy steels. The point is, if you lower the tube wall thickness because you're using stronger steel, the tube will be less stiff (more flexy, absorbs more energy). This limits how thin you can get with steel frame tubes. So the point is, you may get slightly different riding characteristics with 853, which is much stronger than say 753, it won't be as pronounced as the difference in tensile strength. There is one design improvement that can be used with thinner wall tubes, and that's to use bigger tubes. There was a run of Paramounts with OS tubes that exploited this.

Another difference in alloys is whether they are heat-treated and whether you can weld them. Some steels are eminently weldable, and the joint is as strong as the parent metal. In some steels, the alloy elements in the weld zone migrate, or the heat of the weld affects the grain structure of the base metal and you get a weaker joint, or a joint that corrodes easily, or a joint in which the heat-affected-zone has had it's original heat-treat destroyed. So you can't weld those. So if you like welded frames your choices are limited to weldable tubesets. If you like lugs (or what is called fillet brazing) you could pretty much choose any metal.

A third difference is whether the tubes are stainless steel or not. Improved corrosion resistance.

A fourth difference is how the metals harden. Super-exotic metals called maraging (martensitic aging) steels and precipitation hardening steels are heated then cooled in air. These are stainless steels, but there are other steels (for example 853) that are also air-hardening. As they cool they strengthen and get harder. All of the heat-treating traits affect weldability, repairabilty, and such.

There are slight differences from aerospace-quality Chrome-Moly (excellent in the hands of a competent frame builder - Reynolds offers 525 and 725, versions of AISI 4130) and chrome-manganese (of which 531 is a bike-optimized example). One aspect of 531 is that it would be difficult to weld (impossible to make the joint as strong as the base tube material). So its lugged and silver-soldered. For a long time, Reynolds aficionados would claim that a lugged 531 frame was the best possible construction. Reynolds is one of the pre-eminent "name" tube manufacturer, but there's been competition. You could also point out Columbus, or Tange. And bike/frame manufacturers were pushing for steels that they could build great bikes more cheaply with. So they couldn't sit on their laurels. That's why you have all the different alloys.

Again: if you find a bike whose ride you like and has your desired features (e.g. lugged or welded construction), and its made of Reynolds or Columbus or Tange alloys, the frame is probably pretty good. You could ignore the alloy. Or you could infer that the more expensive tubesets were made by better craftstmen, I guess.

Koyote

I've got a 2003 Tourmalet, which does have a main triangle made of Reynolds 853 and a cf fork. (As others have noted, there is no Reynolds 831.) It is a terrific frame, and I actually prefer it to my newer and more expensive Specialized Tarmac. But, as others have noted, the bike's condition and fit are the key variables - if it doesn't run properly or fit properly, then the frame material doesn't matter.

One thing to be aware of with those old LeMonds: they have a real road race geometry, with relatively short headtubes. I still have all of the spacers under my stem, and the stem is flipped up, and there is about 4" of drop from the saddle to the handlebar. That was great when I was racing it, but not so great now that I am well into my fifties and have a wonky spinal column.

Koyote

Hmm. I've got a 2003 Tourmalet with 25s, and I don't think I could squeeze in tires that are much wider. Maybe some 28s if they ran on the skinny side.

fishboat

I'd agree. I run 28's on my MJ and it looks like I could get a 32 on there, though it may be tight depending on whether the tire runs large or small. I doubt you'd get a 32 on the titanium frames though. A 28 already fits pretty tight. I run Panaracer GK slicks on my Victorie and they tend to run small.

carlos danger

525 is unhardened 4130
725 hardened 4130
853 is very likely hardened 15CDV6 Alloy 15CDV6 / WS 1.7734
631 is unhardened 15CDV6
the hardened tubes are often made thinner and lighter.

931 is/was 17-4ph
953 is maraging/martempering/precipitation hardening ss. most likely carpenter cartech custom 465 (or close relative).
https://www.cartech.com/en/alloy-tec...g-applications
CarTech® Custom 465® Stainless

kthnxby

carlos danger

Imo the 853 and 725 tubes seems to have more zing to them, they feel more springy and lively. but it could be all in my head.

jamesdak 

This is exactly right. I have a 2000 Zurich, a 1999 customized (by the man himself) Zurich, and a 2003 Tourmelet. They all fit Continental GP 4000s II 700 x 25 but none will fit the same tire in 700 x 28. That is definite because I have tried it with various sets of wheels. Now we know the Conti's run big in most cases so maybe an undersized 700 x 28 will squeeze in there in some cases.

jamesdak 

Nope, not happening in my experience. Maybe one of the Lemonds with a steel fork but not the Carbon Fork ones. I have tried repeatedly on three different Lemonds.

Have you actually done this? If so please share the details as I've never heard of anyone actually pulling it off.

I am able to run a GP 4000s on my 1989 Italian built Greg Lemond Ventoux but only in the front.

jamesdak 

To the OP, I haven't met a Lemond I haven't liked so it is hard to go wrong with these. The 853 frames are awesome, no denying that.

I actually had my 2003 Tourmelet out for fun 26 mile ride yesteday. It's a 53 cm re-outfitted with Dura-Ace and Ultegra and really flies. It sometimes get's lost in the shuffle with my other 20+ rides. Then I take it out again and realize just how good it is. i would definitely hold out and find a nicely equipped 853 frame in your size. They are amazing bikes.







Under 20 lbs as pictured above.

fishboat

Quote:
Originally Posted by Koyote
Hmm. I've got a 2003 Tourmalet with 25s, and I don't think I could squeeze in tires that are much wider. Maybe some 28s if they ran on the skinny side.

Pics below are Panaracer GK Slicks, 700 x 28 on H+Son Archetype wheels on a 2001 Maillot Jaune. GK Slicks tend to run a bit small at 26.5-27mm, but a reasonable amount of room yet.

Colnago Mixte

Yeah, I run 28mm GP 4000's on mine, no problem. Must be a steel fork thing, I stand corrected.

I just remember reading all the literature about Lemond and how he designed his bikes to do this and do that, and I thought that the ability to run large tire sizes was part of his bike building philosophy. The thinking was to allow the bike to be used by entry level racers who might need to run wide tires during off-season training over bad roads / in bad weather, as I recall.

My Tourmalet came stock, pretty spartan equipment-wise, steel fork, Shimano RX100, Mavic CXP rims. But the ride is one of my favorites, made more versatile by the fact I can run fairly wide tires. That Reynolds tubing has a pleasing spring to it that none of my Japanese bikes have.

jamesdak 

@fishboat, Well that's a good data point to know. I'd be comfortable with that clearance. I usually measure the GP4000s 700 x 28 to be 30mm or bigger according to what rim they are on. For me they don't clear the brake body. I think I have run some Vittoria 700 x 27 on the Tourmelet in the past.

jamesdak 

Yeah, no worries. Probably a lot of variances to figure into all this. I have 3 of the pre-trek era Lemonds but can fit a 700 x 28 on the front of only one of those. So obviously variations per models I reckon.

That's a beautiful Tourmelet by the way!

fishboat

I need to pick up some GP4000 28s..never run them. I've heard the 25s/28s can run big..but are also a very nice tire. My MJ has the stock Air Rail carbon fork)..the GKs are snug in and out of the brakes, but they work...just loaded up and leaving now for a 40-50 miler..first ride with the H+ wheels.