Gunnar Sport v. low trail rando bikes

[David Stein]

Does anyone have any experience on riding a Gunnar Sport v. various 650b low trail bikes (ocean air rambler, boulder all road, rawland, etc)? Been curious about a 650b bike, not necessarily for the low trail (though I see and appreciate the benefit), but more so for the wider tires. That being said I like my Gunnar as a go fast bike. Curious if I went for one of the modern 650b rando style bikes if they would both fill the need for handling front loads and wider tires, while still functioning as my go fast bike. Not interested in a conversion on the Gunnar. 

For context, I have been riding the Gunnar Sport for 3-4 years and love it. It is my 'go fast' road bike with drop bars, sti shifters, front rack (I use a Rivendell small trunksack for now), and 32mm compass tires (which I love). I also own a Rivendell hunqapillar for off road adventures and overnighters. I'm so used to the 42mm-54mm tires I run on the hunqaipllar that I recently went out for a ride on the gunnar and it felt too harsh on the pavement. 

I don't ride with groups often, usually solo or 1-2 other people, usually on their carbon bikes and they're already faster than me. I don't do brevets. Just 30-60 mile day rides (i take the rivendell for trail and mixed roads and gunnar for road, but I'd certainly love a 42mm tire road bike for mixed as well), and occasional overnighters.

[rcnute]

That's the bike I had before moving on to low trail 650B! I had good rides on it but haven't looked back.

Ryan

[Nick Bull]

I have an S&S-coupled, Gunnar Sport (58cm) that I got in 2007--rode it in Paris-Brest-Paris (PBP) that way.  (Because it's my travel bike, it's not my primary rando bike because I don't want to wear out the parts and then find right before (or during) a trip that parts are worn out.)  Anyway, I started experimenting with low trail & low front rack early in 2011 (thanks Bicycle Quarterly!) and had Waterford build me a new, low-trail fork back in 2011.  While they were building the fork I started reading all about 650B so I converted an '84 Trek 610 to 650B.  I liked it so much that when I got the new Waterford fork, I rode it only a couple of times as a 700 and then converted the Sport to 650B.  I rode it that way in PBP in 2011 and this year.  It works just fine but the BB is a little lower than a purpose-built 650B so I do have to be a little careful about pedal strike.

My primary rando bike from 2011 to 2012 was the Trek 610.  Then I converted an '82 Trek 728 to 650B and rode that for about a year (the 610 went back to 700C).  Decided that the extra-long rear triangle on the 728 is not as efficient as the 610, so I bit the bullet and converted the 610 back to 650B and the 728 to 700C.  But on one fateful brevet where the rear wheel got a little out of true and kept rubbing against the chainstays, I finally decided it's time to get a purpose-built 650B bike.  With two kids in college, I couldn't afford anything custom and ultimately decided to go with a Soma Grand Randonneur (58cm).  The GR effective top tube is a cm longer than the Sport, so I went with a cm shorter stem.  The two bikes are otherwise set up identically. 

The two bikes both ride just fine.  As a practical matter, I notice very little difference between them.  The GR fork is beefier than the Sport, and transmits just a little more road noise.  Perhaps the Sport is a little more efficient, based on a short test that I ran earlier this year and reported on here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/650b/grand$20randonneur$20gunnar$20sport/650b/Oebx_ObeCVw/H18ucOwTajAJ

Nick

[Philip Kim]

42 is great for pavement rides with comfort without feeling sluggish. Boulder All Road has a great reputation. A few riders I know only ride their Boulder after they got it.

The Rambler also looks like a great bike and have had a few email exchanges with Rob and he was very helpful. But ended up going with the Hillborne as they didn't have my size, which runs 650b wheels, and Riv was having a sale on Sage Green Hillbornes. The Hillborne is an awesome bike.

If you don't care about low trail, have you thought about the Soma San Marcos or the Hilsen? Both have lighter tubing than the Hillborne and depending on your size can fit 650bx42.

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 1:18:12 AM UTC-4, David Stein wrote:

[Jon Doyle]

Have you experimented with lowering the pressure on your 32mm tires?

I weigh 155# and use 50 psi in my 700 x 32mm Grand Bois tires. For me this pressure still rolls quick, and is MUCH more comfortable than the 70–80 psi I used previously. Almost as cushy as my fat 650b tires.

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 1:18:12 AM UTC-4, David Stein wrote:

[Harald Kliems]

Have you considered converting the Gunnar? I have done so with my Gunnar Roadie and have been pretty happy. The low-trail geo works well for me; being able to run a handlebar bag is great, as is the ability to ride rougher terrain in more comfort. I do feel as if I've traded in a little speed, but a) it's hard to confirm this objectively and b) on the rear I've only run the supposedly slow Col de la Vie tires. The low bottom bracket hasn't been a problem at all so far.

More details on my blog: http://ride-or-pie.blogspot.com/2015/01/converting-my-gunnar-roadie-to-low.html and http://ride-or-pie.blogspot.com/2015/03/converting-my-gunnar-roadie-to-low.html

 Harald in Madison.

[Steve Park]

I agree with JD here.  700x32GBs, particularly on nice wheels, are dreamy for go-fast riding.

wrt 650b, I don't think the wheel size in particular would hold you back if you get a frameset that isn't overbuilt and allows fit and position for efficient powerful riding.  I do think the extra 5-10lbs of (fenders/racks/lights/bags/wheels) on my rando rig does hold be back in short fast roadie rides, but that would probably matter less for a very powerful rider.

In sum, you deserve to get yourself a Boulder All-Road with a nice component spec for this experiment.  So go ahead, we approve this N+1.

[satanas]

FWIW and YMMV. The wider 42mm tyres are great for touring and on rough or unsealed roads, but they are heavier than lightweight 700C parts, even using the lightest 650b stuff available, in my case mark 1 PL23 rims, Soma GL 300g tyres and Schwalbe 14A XXL MTB tubes. The extra wheel weight is noticeable when accelerating and climbing, and definitely feels slower. I've ridden PBP a few times now, this year on 650B, and the time before that (1991) on 700x23. This year I rode a Soma GR, last time a Specialized Allez Epic (smallish diameter lugged CF, made by Giant). IMHO, there was little if any difference in comfort on small bumps and coarse aggregate between the two bikes; for me at ~140 lbs the GR is excessively stiff and harsh. 

If you think 700x32 is too rough, even at low pressure, then I guess 650x42 is the next step, and the difference in wheel weight isn't a big problem most of the time - as long as you aren't in a hurry or it is flat. Me, I won't be taking 650b to PBP again. Next time (if there is one) will most likely be on 700x28-32.

Best of luck,

Stephen (who recommends a test ride first, especially if considering a GR)

[Jeffrey Kane]

If you like the speed and feel of your Gunner -- and are fairly sure it's the spin-up speed and not just road vibration from over inflated tires -- then testing a specifically lightweight / flexy 650b steel frame with lightweight wheels (or at least not overbuilt wheels) and an EL type 42mm tire would be enough to tell you the answer. Granted, that's not easy if there isn't one available to test ride -- I spent 4 years shaving the weight off a Saluki here and there with component upgrades (though nothing makes a bigger difference than a lightweight wheel and and Compass 42's) and well -- I'm pretty sure the Holy Grail here becomes the compliant frame, which, I've recently acquired. But I'll say this -- my sub-17lb racing bike (700c x 23) never gets a second look these days .. and I knew that the Saluki wasn't cutting it on a "go-fast" level -- but I never considered going back to 700c, either. I'm convinced that 650b allroad designs are as close to all around perfect for me as I'm going to get in this go-round. And similar to you, my rides consist of 2hr to 6 hour 30, 45, 60 and 80 mile loops on a regular basis -- sadly, 85% paved.

Last rant: 

Mid to long trail bikes always feel great without weight on the front but man, what a drag if you try and convert them to take 5 (+) lbs in a rando bag. I suppose you can get used to it but ...

Low trail bikes feel just fine (to me) without weight in front -- or at least are really easy to get used to -- and, of course, are purpose built for weight in front.

So why not low-trail from the get-go then?

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 1:18:12 AM UTC-4, David Stein wrote:

[satanas]

The problem with lists like this is that those who contribute are generally self-selected, so are not likely to be unbiased observers. (Idoubt I'm unbiased either.) What I can say for sure is that after several thousand km this year, including touring, PBP qualifiers and PBP itself, I never really got used to low trail handling. On a Soma GR, with the original fork (31mm actual trail as out of spec) I found the handling weird at all times, and worst with just a bar bag due to shimmy tendencies. After a few months of frustration a new fork was built which increased trail to ~46mm. This (IMHO) improved handling out of sight, with things generally being way more predictable and stable, however there was still occasional shimmy with just a bar bag.

So, my suggestion is to test ride something low trail and see how you get on. I assumed at the start that I'd adjust; I did not. It seems like most others here have had the opposite experience, but Grant Petersen of Rivendell/Bridgestone doesn't seem to like low trail handling either, so I'm not the only one. I've not had major issues in the past with bar bags and normal steering geometry, including one PBP, no adjustment required.

Note that I'm not suggesting any particular person won't like a low trail bike, but it can be an expensive experiment, so best to check first. There's no doubt that 42mm tyres are way more capable off-road than <=32mm though, and that having a bike that is flexible enough in the BB area to plane is a large plus. Hopefully the next frame will hit the second nail on the head.

Later,

Stephen

[Jeffrey Kane]

Stephen, 

Agreed -- this is an opinion driven forum … and I catch that you caught my slight dig at GP's "you can get used to anything" philosophy … and as you can tell, I'm, not buying it. Unlike you, when I started riding low trail forks I honestly could't tell the difference -- I kind of shrugged my shoulders at the whole thing thinking maybe I just wasn't that sensitive to it (similar to me and low-Q cranks, actually). And, I've often sung the praises here of my mid/long trail Saluki (it has a beautifully compliant fork), even with 2 to 3 lb. front loads. Yes, it shimmied a hair now and again but I consider that part of the package, practically. 

But I've recently repurposed that bike as a daily commuter with never less than 5 lbs on the front and more like 6 to 9 depending on the day, and well … it's simply become a pig. The steering feels like it has barbells hanging from the handlebars and I'm pretty bummed about it actually. I've been on a lowly V/O Polyvalent for the last couple years deftly carving in and out of NYC traffic with the same loads while only just wishing the fork was more compliant -- but I can see now that fork compliance hardly matters if your steering is compromised by weight. I'm not sure what to do now -- maybe have the fork re-raked? -- maybe a new fork? -- or maybe just move on from the Saluki altogether ... It's hard, once spoiled, to go backwards and I'm one of those people that doesn't want to send 2400 (+) miles per year commuting on an inadequate bike (or bomb-proof tires, etc) … life is just too short.

(My apologies for hijacking the thread!)

[Steve Palincsar]

On 10/01/2015 11:28 AM, Jeffrey Kane wrote:
>
>
> But I've recently repurposed that bike as a daily commuter with never
> less than 5 lbs on the front and more like 6 to 9 depending on the
> day, and well … it's simply become a pig. The steering feels like it
> has barbells hanging from the handlebars and I'm pretty bummed about
> it actually. I've been on a lowly V/O Polyvalent for the last couple
> years deftly carving in and out of NYC traffic with the same loads
> while only just wishing the fork was more compliant -- but I can see
> now that fork compliance hardly matters if your steering is
> compromised by weight. I'm not sure what to do now -- maybe have the
> fork re-raked? -- maybe a new fork? -- or maybe just move on from the
> Saluki altogether ... It's hard, once spoiled, to go backwards and I'm
> one of those people that doesn't want to send 2400 (+) miles per year
> commuting on an inadequate bike (or bomb-proof tires, etc) … life is
> just too short.
>

Reraking the fork isn't likely to be a good solution, given the slack
head angle of the Saluki and its corresponding high flop factor. I
suggest you consider adding a lowrider rack and carrying some of that
weight in small panniers rather than in a handlebar bag. A lowrider
rack is a whole lot less expensive, too.

[Jeffrey Kane]

Steve, I suppose you're right about hub area weight -- unfortunately, that won't work for me as a commuter. 

I considered the re-rake idea because the fork is wonderfully compliant and I wondered if the required additional 25mm of rake to bring it to a trail figure of around 38 would make enough of a difference? I'd prefer the low 30's but just for the discussion's sake, according to the yojimg.net Trail Calculator, the flop factor would decrease from 20mm to 12mm. And, I'm assuming that the head tube would steepen as well since we're not lengthening the fork. Am I off-base here about the head tube? It supposedly sits at 71 now and if the front end drops wouldn't that move it towards 72, 73, etc.? Or am I reading this backwards? And if I'm not, wouldn't that make the actual trail figure a bit of a moving target at the same time?

(Really sorry I've hijacked this one, now)

[Steve Palincsar]

On 10/01/2015 01:00 PM, Jeffrey Kane wrote:

Steve, I suppose you're right about hub area weight -- unfortunately, that won't work for me as a commuter.

I'm curios - why not?  I loved it.  Here's my commuter as was:

I considered the re-rake idea because the fork is wonderfully compliant and I wondered if the required additional 25mm of rake to bring it to a trail figure of around 38 would make enough of a difference? I'd prefer the low 30's but just for the discussion's sake, according to the yojimg.net Trail Calculator, the flop factor would decrease from 20mm to 12mm. And, I'm assuming that the head tube would steepen as well since we're not lengthening the fork. Am I off-base here about the head tube? It supposedly sits at 71 now and if the front end drops wouldn't that move it towards 72, 73, etc.? Or am I reading this backwards? And if I'm not, wouldn't that make the actual trail figure a bit of a moving target at the same time?

http://www.phred.org/~alex/bikes/Fork%20Re-raking%20Summary.pdf     Re-raking might, according to Tom's article, change the head angle by 1/2 degree. 

[Jeffrey Kane]

Convenience, mostly -- locking up to poles and street signs and moving in and out of NYC buildings .. that sort of thing. I can handle a single bag, rando bag, etc .. but not three.

[Steve Palincsar]

On 10/01/2015 01:20 PM, Jeffrey Kane wrote:

Convenience, mostly -- locking up to poles and street signs and moving in and out of NYC buildings .. that sort of thing. I can handle a single bag, rando bag, etc .. but not three.

I could have done with fewer bags than the four shown below.  Managing two panniers like the ones I used (Lone Peak Sundance) is easy: they're held onto the rack with an elastic with a hook at the bottom and plastic brackets at the top:



Flip the bracket lever, grab the carry strap, lift up and over, then unhook the hook at the bottom and you're done.  The handlebar bag was a convenience for sunglasses, etc. and I used the Carradice mainly for tubes & tools in the side pockets and as a place to put booties once the day warmed up, so no need to put possibly dirty & muddy booties into the same bag as office clothes.

This kind of a setup is much easier to manage in practice than perhaps it might look in pictures, and as far as stability and lack of disturbance to steering go, smallish panniers on lowrider racks are really hard to beat.

But I'll admit, about locking up to poles and street signs in NYC I know nothing at all, and never will.  I did that for a while in Buffalo -- until somebody stole my saddle and seat post.  In DC, I locked up in a bike parking room in the parking garage of a secure federal building, a few feet from a guard desk manned 24x7 by armed guards.  The only way I'd leave a Saluki locked to a pole on a city street would be if I were standing right next to it the whole time.

On Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 1:17:10 PM UTC-4, Steve Palincsar wrote:

On 10/01/2015 01:00 PM, Jeffrey Kane wrote:

Steve, I suppose you're right about hub area weight -- unfortunately, that won't work for me as a commuter.

I'm curios - why not?  I loved it.  Here's my commuter as was:

I considered the re-rake idea because the fork is wonderfully compliant and I wondered if the required additional 25mm of rake to bring it to a trail figure of around 38 would make enough of a difference? I'd prefer the low 30's but just for the discussion's sake, according to the yojimg.net Trail Calculator, the flop factor would decrease from 20mm to 12mm. And, I'm assuming that the head tube would steepen as well since we're not lengthening the fork. Am I off-base here about the head tube? It supposedly sits at 71 now and if the front end drops wouldn't that move it towards 72, 73, etc.? Or am I reading this backwards? And if I'm not, wouldn't that make the actual trail figure a bit of a moving target at the same time?

http://www.phred.org/~alex/bikes/Fork%20Re-raking%20Summary.pdf     Re-raking might, according to Tom's article, change the head angle by 1/2 degree. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "650b" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 650b+uns...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to 65...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/650b.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Philip Kim]

Not sure if a rerake would work given the headtube angle. Might need a new fork. Joel at Clockwork Bikes does an excellent job.

If you want to move on from your Saluki, maybe check out the Ocean Air Rambler. It has 40mm trail, which I have found to like for heavier loads as well as  unloaded riding. Specs seem nice, and seems to bridge the gap between utility and performance very well. I think they are low on stock right now, but once they replenish I'll have to spring for one. The Paul Racers included are also nice.

[Bill M.]

I can see how 31 mm trail might not be to your liking.  I can (and do) ride bikes with 35 mm trail, but tend to think that 40 would be more of the sweet spot.  That's after owning two Kogswell P/R's (1st and 3rd gen), and currently riding a Rawland Nordavinden and an rSogn.  The rSogn in particular is unresponsive compared to my old Rivendell Road, or my Calfee.  I like it better with fatter tires than 42's, probably due to the added geometric and pneumatic trail.  I'm waiting for Schwalbe's Big One tires to hit the market, a reasonably light 60 mm tire might feel right on that bike.

That said, I have ridden both Rawlands uphill and down, completely unloaded and with light front loads, and have had no problems with shimmy, nor have I had any issues with cornering on descents at 30 - 40 MPH.  No excitement, no drama, no wobbles, full speed ahead.   I prefer the Calfee's racing-bike handling for high speed descents and pacelines, but my health now basically precludes me from riding like that and I'm quite comfortable on the low trail bikes for the riding I can do.  Should I ever feel wealthy enough to do a custom, I'd shoot for a bit more trail than the Rawlands have, even if I invoked the possibility of the dreaded toe overlap.

Bill

[Steve Palincsar]

On 10/01/2015 08:39 PM, Bill M. wrote:
> I can see how 31 mm trail might not be to your liking. I can (and do)
> ride bikes with 35 mm trail, but tend to think that 40 would be more
> of the sweet spot.

Depends on your load (40 definitely better than 31 for heavy loads) and
preferences in handling: BQ has tested two bikes with different forks
for two different trail amounts; both he and Peter Weigle preferred the
lower trail options. YMMV, of course.

[David Stein]

I completely forgot about this post and just checked in. Thanks for all the valuable feedback. The 32mm tires on the Gunnar are fine and were plush and way wider than the tires on my previous bike. Funny how all it takes is some time on a 42mm bike to feel that even 32mm is too skinny! I've got a mountain bike on order so no changes for now, just looking down the road to what's next in a year or two. Kinda thinking a Rivendell Roadeo or an Ocean Air Rambler or Boulder 650b. I guess the best thing to do is try it out for myself! Will report back when I get to that point. On a side note Nick - I am kinda thinking of doing couplers on the Gunnar to have for travel.