If you have any questions about the Gunnar, go to the Gunnar or Waterford website and contact them. I have both a Waterford bike and a Waterford built Paramount and have found Waterford/Richard Schwinn very fast and willing to answer my questions whenever I ask. You could probably even call and talk in person. They'd probably be able to answer all your questions, including things like ride quality and handling characteristics. Some years back a friend wanted a Waterford and didn't know which model. He called them up, told them how he'd use it, what he wanted, and they told him which frame model to buy. I suspect they'd do the same for you with a Gunnar.

fify

Titanium is what steel wants to be. Just get a Ti bike if you must go retro. And it doesn't rust.

I don't have a Gunnar but I do have 2 Waterfords. My 531 is a very nice ride. Hundreds if not thousands of mfg's used 531 as race bikes in the Seventies. So, it is a good tubeset. My other bike is 753 which is basically heat treated 531. It is noticeably stiffer than 531. Waterford spec'd their early race bikes with it. A new Gunnar comes with True Temper Platinum OX or Reynolds 853. Both are stiffer than 753 and lighter by about a pound. I'm 140lbs and 753 is very stiff for me.

IMO, the only advantage CF has is in weight. Steel will always be heavier. I just got finished talking to somebody that built up a Waterford 2200 with Athena 11 sp. It tips the scales at 20 lbs exactly. Hope this helps. Good luck on the search.

Richard Schwinn answers the phone a lot. As above, he is very helpful. If I needed another new frame I would buy a Gunnar. It's basically a TIG welded Waterford.

There's this thing. It's called stainless steel. It doesn't rust too.

This one came in at 6.7kg.

http://blacksmithcycle.files.wordpre...1/06/viner.jpg

titanium feels better to ride. well, at least mine does.

^^^ your folder is Ti?

I like that.

I've never ridden stainless. What other steel would you compare it to?

now that's a good idea!

This thread has proven there are millions of choices. I'd add that most of them are good...whether its a few hundred dollars for a diamond-in-the-rough used 853 Reynolds bike you rebuild with new components or a high end CF bike...or Ti. I will add that I have a riding experience similar to a post a page or two back...nice steel, CF, even Ti. I'll say this: if I had to have only one bike, it would be steel - no hesitation, no 2nd thoughts, nothin'. CF is great, though, no doubt. With a good quality build - high end components, good & light wheels - I doubt there would be any downside in ability of a steel frame for anyone but the highest level pros in competition. The ride would be different, with each having it's own characteristics, but at the end no big difference. I enjoy them all, and appreciate them for the different feel & aesthetic.

One factor that's maybe only brushed on in this thread so far is value/resell. When I spend money on something like a bike, I always consider resell...can I get my money back out of it later if I change my mind or want something different. (I have a weird ethic of trying to keep hobbies self-supportive, if that makes sense). I believe steel (or Ti, though that's off-topic) are better to put your money into with a frame than CF from that standpoint. Obviously you can argue that this does not matter if you get years and tens of thousands of miles of riding out of it, but bottom line is the depreciation of a CF frame is one I would expect to have a sharper slope than that of a steel frame.

I went with the Cyrene, very happy with it but I've always lusted the Cielo as well. Sloping toptubes, not so much.

He replied to my email. Downside to all this is not really having an opportunity to test ride one. There is a shop about an hour drive from me so I may have to head down there and see what they have but unlikely to have the frame I want in the size I need all ready to demo.

No, I'm basing it on this:

The Cannondale SuperSix is closer to the Sachs, Zank, IF, or Serotta than the Gunnar is in terms of quality-of-construction and performance. That's what I meant about "nice" versus "very nice"

Show me a $900 Ti frame and I'll consider it.

http://www.bikesdirect.com/products/...0_frameset.htm


I think you should get both bikes. One now, and the other later on. Even if you go with CF you would still long for the steel bike or the opposite.
People on this forum will help you lean towards one bike or another, but at the end you WANT to have both bikes.

$895, add $40 for shipping.

http://habcycles.com/road.html

It's that old school thing I think, I have never truly learned to appreciate the looks of the sloping top tube, even though I own one.

I was up all night looking into Ti/Steel frames.
Right now, you can go full custom in Ti for as low as $1200.
Standard Ti/Apex or 105 bikes can be had for around $3000.
Maybe I'm remembering things wrong, but I swore Ti frames
started at $3K just a few years ago.

I rode a Ti bike once. I remember two distinctive qualities about it:
1) It was as smooth as my 26lb steel bike (and I tried it over cobblestones too)
2) It's about as light and as toss-able as my 19lb aluminum bike.

Guess, I haven't done much looking at Ti lately. I thought they tended to be in the $2-3000 range and I guess some still are. So is a $900 Ti frame on par with a $900 steel frame in terms of quality? Seems Ti is more expensive as a material so you would think something would have to give.

Carbon does not rust.

That ship is hot! And "only" $995? Team Issue Nuevo...Damn!

Thanks for that. :thumb:

http://habcycles.com/tinuevo.jpg

Haven't ridden one, but my understanding is that 953 is pretty comparable ride wise to 853, but lighter and won't rust.

Scooper, a poster on BF has a beautiful Waterford built 953 bike. Looks like a classic chromed Paramount.

And steel is real.

I've seen nice Ti frames (used) for well under 900 bucks. Don't know if that's an option on the table...