Gunnar Bikes :)

I have pretty much settled upon purchasing a Gunnar bike next year, and have continued my research into those beautiful bikes. I knew the steel was higher-grade than my Surly, but I couldn't find any place on their site that states what kind of steel tubing they actually use. So I sent a question through their website.

Much to my surprise, I had my answer in under 45 minutes - and I sent the question at 6am this morning! Come to find out, the frame will weight about 3.5 pounds and will be either Reynolds 853 or True Temper OX Platinum tubing. They have "a palette of custom tubes drawn for us to assure the right ride for the right size".

Nice information, and he answered a couple of other questions as well. I was surprised to note the reply came from Richard Schwinn himself.

I have a really good feeling about this. Obviously a bike's weight is about a lot more than the frame material, and there will be a lot of decisions to make as I work with my LBS on this build over the winter. I intend to place my deposit on the frame by January at the latest. This time around I think it will be easier as I trust my LBS - they have certainly proven themselves since I moved to them in June with a bike that I could not ride.

My fitter and I have started to discuss which geometry will fit me the best - I've certain physical issues with my hands that we will have to take into consideration. The fitter certainly did a fantastic job turning my LHT from something that I could not really ride into a bike that I can ride all day long :) This is going to be a lot of fun and, hopefully, unless I eventually decide to try mountain biking, my future Gunnar (Sport?) and LHT should fit the bill for pretty much any kind of riding that I would like to do :)

Awesome choice (says the owner of two Waterfords). The Waterford plant does an amazing job. DH was just at the LBS and saw this year's annual Gunnar color. He says the image on their web site doesn't do the color justice. That it is a really neat effect.

Living nearby, my Waterfords often travel to Waterford and they have participated in several of the plant rides. In fact, the first century done by both my Waterford and DH's were, coincidentally, sagged by Richard Schwinn. I call *that* customer service!

You'll love your Gunnar. They make nice bikes.

I'm in the process of getting a winter bike, and I was so tempted by the Gunnar Hyper X. It had everything I wanted. Honestly, the reason I didn't do it was it would be too precious to me to keep in my basement, which is a requirement for the new bike. I already have 2 of those kinds of bikes!

I think you'll be really happy with a Gunnar. Which ones are you thinking about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redrhodie

I'm in the process of getting a winter bike, and I was so tempted by the Gunnar Hyper X. It had everything I wanted. Honestly, the reason I didn't do it was it would be too precious to me to keep in my basement, which is a requirement for the new bike. I already have 2 of those kinds of bikes!

I think you'll be really happy with a Gunnar. Which ones are you thinking about?

---

Right now it seems to be between the Hyper-X, the Fast Lane and Sport. I think that I would like disk brakes on this bike, and both the Hyper-X and Fast Lane are set up for that. My fitter wonders if it would be better to go with a frame that was designed for flat bars - and his reasoning seems logical. I do not have to make up my mind right away.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catrin

Right now it seems to be between the Hyper-X, the Fast Lane and Sport. I think that I would like disk brakes on this bike, and both the Hyper-X and Fast Lane are set up for that. My fitter wonders if it would be better to go with a frame that was designed for flat bars - and his reasoning seems logical. I do not have to make up my mind right away.

---

Between the added weight and the added cost, I'm curious as to why you want disc brakes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indysteel

Between the added weight and the added cost, I'm curious as to why you want disc brakes.

---

To me it is worth it to have the extra power of disc brakes, and they are better in wet weather over rim brakes. My reading shows there are other advantages as well but those two are the main selling points for me and are worth the additional cost and weight. Of course they are also more complex to maintain over time, and that is something to consider as well.

In the end I may decide against them - but time will tell.

Are you going to be riding in the rain? Disk brakes are great in sloppy conditions and for heavy loaded touring. But I would think they would be unucessary otherwise.

You have chosen a good company. I know you will end up with a great bike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tulip

Are you going to be riding in the rain? Disk brakes are great in sloppy conditions and for heavy loaded touring. But I would think they would be unucessary otherwise.

You have chosen a good company. I know you will end up with a great bike.

---

I seem to be pretty good at getting caught in the rain :cool: I agree, whatever I wind up with will be a good bike :)

I just found out that you have access to the Waterford color palate, you aren't limited to the Gunnar colors of the year. Here is a example...not that I like blue or anything :cool: I am going to have to be very careful that the paint doesn't cost as much as the bike :o :rolleyes:

The nicest thing about this time is that I know what I want, and I am looking forward to the process this time, selecting components and so forth, almost as much as I am looking forward to having two bikes again!

I'd encourage you to do some research here and on RBR's forums about disc brakes. With the right brake pads and rim brakes you should have enough braking power when you get caught in the rain. Unless you plan to commute on this bike, which you've said you don't want to do, I think they're overkill--and expensive and heavy to boot. They have their applications for sure, but not typically on your average roadbike. IMO of course. :)

This looks to me like there is more going on here than two-toned shading. Isn't there some kind of other effect? Not pin-striping or something that obvious but I don't know what to call it. I probably can't afford to duplicate this paint job, but if I could....

Note that I am thinking about color before deciding on the frame - perhaps not the practical order but it is fun :o :cool: I am going to have a long discussion about my fitting needs and the geometry of the three frames I am interested in with my fitter before I select the frame.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catrin

This looks to me like there is more going on here than two-toned shading. Isn't there some kind of other effect? Not pin-striping or something that obvious but I don't know what to call it. I probably can't afford to duplicate this paint job, but if I could....

---

My first guess is that the turquoise has some kind of air-brushing done over it and where it meets the darker blue. The darker blue appears to be solid.

Very nice bike....I think I'd sell my steel Bianchi for that....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Becky

My first guess is that the turquoise has some kind of air-brushing done over it and where it meets the darker blue. The darker blue appears to be solid.

Very nice bike....I think I'd sell my steel Bianchi for that....

---

:)

I really do want a Gunnar, but I find myself going back to the Jamis website. I may need to find a Coda Elite for a test ride just to rule it out - or not. It is certainly more cost effective - assuming their smallest size fits me - I suspect the TT is too long for me.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with tracking down a Jamis Coda. I think that you should ride anything and everything that you can find that's even remotely your size. You may find that some of your preferences change or develop as you pile on the miles, and as you ride different bikes.

Have fun with it :)

I just had an interesting conversation with staff at Waterford regarding my best options in a Gunnar bike. I've been going between three different models but wasn't sure which one might serve my wants/needs/desires the best. This will be my third bike purchase in less than two years and I want it to be my last bike purchase for some time to come - and I certainly don't want to have to sell another bike!

While the final decision won't come until my scheduled fitting next month, I seem to be narrowing my attention to only one, the Gunnar Sport. This will be my go-faster bike for club rides and centuries, but I need the same riding position that I have on my LHT and I want a lighter bike. I have given up on the attraction to disc brakes - that is a more heavy-duty bike and she explained that the focus is on the "heavy" and the Fast Lane wouldn't feel much different than my LHT.

It was a good discussion, I explained what I wanted to her and how I want it to differ from my LHT. Apparently they are quite familiar with Surly bikes and she told me that what I described was a Sport. Cool! Of course the formal fitting will determine if one of their stock sizes will fit but I've seen the stock specs and I think that we will be able to make one of their stock sizes work.

I was already leaning in this direction, so it will be interesting to see how the fitting goes in 4 weeks!

I have a Gunnar Sport. Mine is a tiny one. It was a custom -for someone else- but it fits me pretty well. The smallest stock Sport sizes have 650c size wheels. Mine has 700c wheels. Mine has a quite long chainstays, maybe 1cm longer than my Specialized Ruby bikes chainstays. I have a Surly Pacer steel fork on mine.

Mine has a sweet sweet ride. I did 4 centuries on it last year, including some 10,000+ft passes. I think you will like yours very much.

I have to say that, so far, I have been impressed at the amount of time and detail that my fitter and his counterpart at Waterford are putting into the initial design of my Sport. Gunnars are quite moderately priced when compared to Waterford frames, but the quality of the designing process seems quite intense. I am certainly learning more about bike design in this process!

Friday I head to my LBS for a fitting. They have a "fit bike" there which will allow my fitter to dial in the settings for the initial design for my frame with which to start my fitting. Unless my deposit turns out to be much higher than anticipated, I will place my money down in less than a week (or the following week if it is higher than expected).

:)

I am excited :D :) :cool:

The fitting went well yesterday. As I reported in another thread, Waterford/Gunnar is recommending a custom size for me, which does represent an upcharge, but I think it will be worth it. While I am going to call my fitters counterpart at Waterford Monday to get the sales pitch to understand why they recommend this, I already have some information from my fitter on the primary differences between my custom size and the stock Crosshair sizes they have.

It comes down several things - head angle, TTT length, chain stay length, wheelbase and tire size. No Crosshair size has a short enough top tube for me, and the Sport that does have a short enough TTT has problems in other dimensions. I also want v-pull brakes and 26 inch wheels and these are part of it but of course the head angle and TTT length are more important. In my fitters professional opinion, Gunnar does not have a stock size that will fit me without odd things having to be done to the bike to make it fit. Considering what he was able to do with my LHT, I trust his opinion. Gunnar strongly recommends the 26 inch wheels for me - which is comforting considering they didn't know that was my preference.

When I call Waterford Monday, I am going to ask how my handling will differ between the LHT and the Gunnar with the noted changes. They were told that I want a light-as-possible long-distance bike that won't be loaded with any real weight. The rake on the Roadie fork is greater than what is on my LHT, but the head angle is steeper, and the chain stay length and wheel base are both significantly shorter so that probably balances out the change in rake. I sound like I know what I am talking about :o

While a fit bike isn't a real bike, it felt pretty good yesterday, so that is quite hopeful. I am looking forward to my conversation with them Monday as I learn more about some of the choices they made for the design of my bike. It is fantastic that I have direct access to my frame designer - I do not want any questions remaining once I sign off on the design in the way or justifying the expense. I know there are a lot more expensive custom frames out there, and of course there are no guarantees until I get the completed bike out on the road - in the end I am learning a lot about bikes and bike design. That is a good thing :D

Ask Waterford if they can tell you what the "trail" is on their proposedd design. That number will help you figure out how the bike is likely to handle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indysteel

Ask Waterford if they can tell you what the "trail" is on their proposed design. That number will help you figure out how the bike is likely to handle.

---

Thanks - Jonathan may have even mentioned it when we spoke this afternoon but I didn't note it though I got the others. I am going to start a spreadsheet that compares all of this between the Trek, my LHT and what I know of the Gunnar design. I really like that I have direct access to the frame designer, and that I need to sign off on the design (literally) before I am committed to it :)

Added: I have started my spreadsheet, and I now see just why the Trek was too large for me, even the new "XS" version of the 2011 7.6 FX WSD would be too long for me...it is helpful to be able to compare the numbers even if I don't fully understand what I am looking at.

You learn a lot when you start shopping and comparing bikes, don't you? Congrats on your new Gunnar, Catrin. I think shopping for a bike is almost as much fun as riding it. No wonder some of us hoard bikes :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bike Chick

You learn a lot when you start shopping and comparing bikes, don't you? Congrats on your new Gunnar, Catrin. I think shopping for a bike is almost as much fun as riding it. No wonder some of us hoard bikes :D

---

Yep - and I was quite shocked to see how different the measurements were for my Trek 7.6 FX WSD when compared with my LHT. No WONDER the LHT fit me so much better than the Trek - and the LHT is by no means a WSD! From what I can tell, Gunnar does not have a stock size for either Sport nor Crosshairs that come close to what they are recommending for me.

I just returned from my LBS where I got a few more of the recommended measurements to help me have an intelligent conversation tomorrow with Waterford when I call for the sales pitch and the difference in handling between the proposed custom design and my LHT.

I did specifically ask for the trail. They are recommending an upgraded Waterford road fork, and it has a rake of 50 with a trail of 54.7. I cannot find the trail on Surly's site for the LHT.

I found that the trail on my old Trek was 7 cm, while I am assuming that the trail measurement for the Gunnar is in mm, so it would be 5.47 cm on the Gunner. I wish I could find a comparable measurement for the LHT. Can't find the rake for the Trek, but the rake for the LHT is 45, compared with the rake of 50 for the Gunnar. I do understand what the rake is.

Edited: I did find a site that explains trail and rake (and relationship with head angle and wheelbase) - and it explains that as the rake increases, trail decreases. That makes sense to me, and the rake is certainly increased on the Gunnar over the LHT and, I strongly suspect, the Trek...I also remember that I needed 40 acres to turn the Trek around while the LHT requires much less space even though it has a longer wheelbase.

Google "rake, trail, bicycle" and you'll get a better explanation than I can paraphrase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indysteel

Google "rake, trail, bicycle" and you'll get a better explanation than I can paraphrase.

---

I found some interesting discussions at Bike Forums & TE ...I am starting to get the idea :)

Deposit is made, designed has been signed off on, frame and fork are expected in 5-6 weeks. Now it is time to start obsess....errrrrr....thinking about components :) In order to kick-start the discussion, after talking about assorted options today my fitter is going to put together an initial parts list that we will discuss next Friday. The final list won't be the same, but it will get the discussion started.

This is getting quite exciting!

After reading assorted threads on various sites re: compact double vs triple, I've decided that I really need to get a test ride of some kind so I can feel what it is like to shift a compact double. This isn't the best of test riding weather, for sure, so a trainer at the LBS seems better than nothing.

My LBS has no shortage of road bikes with double cranks, but I need something with trigger shifters. Thankfully they have ONE FS mountain bike with a compact double that is probably small enough for this purpose. If we can get the saddle down far enough for the test. Of course it will likely have a different crankset than I would choose, perhaps, but at least it will give me an idea on how it might shift differently from my triple. MY LHT has an 11-34 cassette, so the rear cassette shouldn't differ unless it has an 11-36 - and I don't think many bikes come with that yet outside of the Fargo and Niner bikes.

So this Friday will be interesting

Good! i really think that test rides are the way to go on any major decision, and I'm glad that you were able to find a mountain bike that's set up with a double. The gearing will definitely be different than what you'd put on the Gunnar, but it will give you a good approximation.

Out of curiosity, what are the specs of the crank that's on the FS MTB that you're trying? I know there are are other compact doubles with combinations different from the one I use on my roadbike (50-34), but I don't specifically know what they are.

For what it's worth, I personally would not like a compact set up with a wide cassette. As it is, I'm not overly fond of my current set up of a 50-34 compact and a 13-26 cassette because half of the time on the flats, I simply can't find a gear that makes my knees/lungs all that happy. I do have the climbing gears that I need most of the time, but the vast majority of my rides don't involve much climbing. Frankly, the only reason I'm running a compact to begin with is that my IT band wasn't happy with my triple. I know Jonathan has discussed Q factor with you and doesn't feel that you're as bad off as I was with a triple, but what do you/he think you'd otherwise gain by running a compact over a triple? Weight savings? Crisper shifting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indysteel

Out of curiosity, what are the specs of the crank that's on the FS MTB that you're trying? I know there are are other compact doubles with combinations different from the one I use on my roadbike (50-34), but I don't specifically know what they are.

For what it's worth, I personally would not like a compact set up with a wide cassette. As it is, I'm not overly fond of my current set up of a 50-34 compact and a 13-26 cassette because half of the time on the flats, I simply can't find a gear that makes my knees/lungs all that happy. I do have the climbing gears that I need most of the time, but the vast majority of my rides don't involve much climbing. Frankly, the only reason I'm running a compact to begin with is that my IT band wasn't happy with my triple. I know Jonathan has discussed Q factor with you and doesn't feel that you're as bad off as I was with a triple, but what do you/he think you'd otherwise gain by running a compact over a triple? Weight savings? Crisper shifting?

---

I will find out the specs Friday, it will be an interesting comparison especially if I find I like it - though from what I have read I suspect I won't care for it but I want to give it a chance. Your comment seems to be a common one regarding a double compact.

I do not appear to be having IT band issues, or at least I did not seem to prior to my injury in September. I am going to ask my PT what the symptoms are for a tight IT band to verify that - I had so many issues with my legs... Jonathan is encouraging me to look at different drive trains - but he has held back on a direct recommendation as of yet.

It will need to be a good reason to switch from a triple - I will be saving weight from the lighter frame and custom 26 inch wheels that I do not think the weight of the triple crank would hurt. I will be quite curious to see what he specs for me in the initial parts list he is presenting me Friday to start the discussion.

FWIW, my primary symptom of IT band irritation was a sore knee. While it can present in the hip, my understanding is that knee pain is much more common.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by indysteel

FWIW, my primary symptom of IT band irritation was a sore knee. While it can present in the hip, my understanding is that knee pain is much more common.

---

I have had this on the spinning bike recently, though a little on the bike. Was it any particular portion of your knee? I have noted this in the lower right front section of one knee - but my knees have sounded like Rice Krispies for years, so I've attributed that to very minor arthritis (PT agrees it is quite minor, thankfully).

I am starting to develop a series of stretches to do every evening at home - especially on riding days. I am looking forward to the new season and trying to prevent a repeat - can't take advantage of my lovely bikes with more over-use injuries :o

I vaguely remember it being just underneath the left side of my kneecap on my right leg. But, honestly, the details are fuzzy as it's been a couple of years since I dealt with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catrin

Thankfully they have ONE FS mountain bike with a compact double that is probably small enough for this purpose.

---

The term "compact double" doesn't apply to mountain bike cranks. A MTB double is almost always just a MTB triple with the big ring removed (and probably replaced with a bash ring.)

There are now some MTB cranks designed as doubles ever since SRAM introduced their XX race groupset. That's a 2x10 setup designed to save weight over a more conventional 3x9 setup.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by laura*

The term "compact double" doesn't apply to mountain bike cranks. A MTB double is almost always just a MTB triple with the big ring removed (and probably replaced with a bash ring.)

There are now some MTB cranks designed as doubles ever since SRAM introduced their XX race groupset. That's a 2x10 setup designed to save weight over a more conventional 3x9 setup.

---

Apparently they do now have a true compact double for MTB, at least that is what the owner of my LBS said - they are apparently just now starting to come out with it. Do you know how the 2x10 setup would compare with a triple in shifting? I will see if they have one that I could try on the trainer, just to see what it feels like...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catrin

MY LHT has an 11-34 cassette, so the rear cassette shouldn't differ unless it has an 11-36 - and I don't think many bikes come with that yet outside of the Fargo and Niner bikes.

---

I'm running a 50/34 with a 36 XX on the back on a tourer. Same pull ratio, lighter and simpler than a triple with better Q (for me). Now that Apex is available (and the second 10sp mtb set should be out), that sort of set up is even cheaper. Just make a mental note of the crank length you're testing if it's not the right one for you.

edit: you might be interested in the SRAM website to have a look at the specs; both 32 and 36 in XX, and p to 32 in Apex.

I am considering three different parts lists that my LBS put together for me to consider for my Gunnar. One is a full XT drive-train, and the other two are SRAM. They did have a bike with SRAM trigger shifters that went on the trainer to give me an idea what it is like to shift them.. I think I would have no problems adjusting to it, though what I tested was the entry level SRAM - I wouldn't put entry level on my Gunnar.

For those that are familiar with SRAM trigger shifters, would I be able to tell the difference between X7 and X9? They tell me that SRAM is easier to adjust and to keep adjusted - less finicky than XT. X9 would be quite close to the same price as XT, X7 would save me a couple of hundred - but I don't want to be penny wise and pound foolish.

I also realize that even XT trigger shifters would be different over what I have - my LHT has a special kind of trigger shifters that Shimano makes for road bikes - they are in their own category and are different from XT shifters - so whatever I decide it will be different from what I have on my Surly.

I think that I will move this to a new thread on SRAM - that might make it easier...

My frame is in my frame is in my frame is IN :D :D :D

No pictures yet because my frame and fork must remain in their packaging until they have the parts and are ready to work on it. I am getting it via layaway and it won't come home before MAY so it will likely be awhile before I get a picture.

They did, however, open the box and we took it outside so I could see the color in the natural light. It is the most incredibly beautiful deep, deep, deep rich purple with metallic flake in the depths - at least that is what it looks like :)

Squeeeeeeee! I am so excited! I wish I had the money so I could pay it off sooner....but May will be here sooner than I think. At least I hope so!

Yayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!

Hip hip, HOORAY!!!!!!!!:D:D:D
Can't wait to see it built up in all it's glory!!!

Oooooooooooo How exciting!!!! I can not wait to see this beauty. I am sure it will be stunning:D

As stunning as the frame is in the box, I can't imagine what it will look like with all of the parts put together! I will be able to get a picture before I bring it home, though it will likely be some time before they get around to building it. I can hardly wait!

In the end, I settled upon a SRAM X9 drive-train with X0 twist shifters. The crank will be a mountain triple (22-32-44) with an 11-34 9-speed cassette. :) My fitter was concerned I would find the X0 shifters overly aggressive, but I really like how they feel and REALLY like how they shift! Apparently the X0 twist grips for 2011 are less aggressive/large than the 2010 version.