I have a Gunnar Sport, I like it. The Bob Jackson Audax models look nice as well. If you choose the Gunnar, look closely at the sizing info on their website. I was able to use a size larger than I expected, apparently because of the taller headtube.

Thanks.

I've ridden 853 and found it too soft for my taste. That was when I was much younger so it might appeal to me now.

I'll file that one away for later.

853 soft!!! Them there fighting words! :lol::lol:

In all seriousness I don't get this feeling myself. Even with the longest chainstays on the LeMond. Of course I am getting old so what do I know?;)

I've only had one LBS quality steel frame that was not stiff enough for my taste. 1988 Trek 400T. True Temper CrMo w/ Really long chainstays on that one, touring length stays. Super spongy bottom bracket area.

I don't get this. I've got nothing against Cannondale, but how is an off-the-shelf mass produced bike equal in quality of construction to some of the best hand made frames?

And what exactly is wrong with a Gunner. Can someone clarify this for me? Seriously. I want to know before I drop a grand on a frame.

I think this may have something to do with the geometry of your bicycle versus the material being used.

+1 ^ This ^

Does not compute to me....

Waterford (Gunnar), makes some of the finest riding machines known worldwide. I have NEVER!...I repeat!... I have NEVER heard of any complaints about ride quality with respect to any bike coming out of the Waterford facility.

- Slim :)

PS.

Then OTOH, there's Cannondale...

No one is going to be able to clarify that for you because they are super.

And you can pick the colour! I like the charcoal/gold rush myself.

I was coming from SL/SLX mixed tube frames so I think anything would have felt soft to me at that point.

This thread has gotten me curious about newer steels. I'd like to spend some time on one but I don't think I'd choose anything other than carbon to race on at the moment.

Both were similar enough geometry. This was back in the day of square frames and where everyone measure c-c. As I said I think it was more a function of what I had been riding previous to the 853.

Columbus SL/SLX is good stuff. I have an interesting bike made out of Columbus something, maybe SP. My friend's Basso was a joy to ride, especially with the Colnago fork. Besides all this talk with steel though, a top end carbon bike is hard to beat

A Gunnar is a Waterford with stock (as opposed to custom) sizes, colors and geometries. You cannot buy a "nicer" tig welded frame, only different.

I didn't say it was "equal" to them, I said it was closer to them than the Gunnar was.


edit: I'm basing this on the comments of a couple Gunnar owners I know who suggested the QC on their frames was less than stellar. I have no direct experience with a Gunnar frame, and if my two associates happened to get the only two lemons that actually came out of the Gunnar/Waterford factory, than I stand corrected & that's a smoking deal.

But Cheap Bike != Expensive Bike regardless of the material.

The tread says Carbon or steel how is that all you talk about is TI?

this is BF!!!!

I'm too much of a noob for anyone to care, but fit is all that matters, the rest is details and debating it is a waste of time that could be spent riding.

i agree. the composition of the material will not affect the ride quality.

i stay classy on my drop-bar Hercules.

Yup, you are new around here.

Jamis steel line of bikes....