|   Litespeed Pisgah vs. Gunnar rockhound | lawmanjr
Apr 11, 2002 11:59 AM | | Looking at buying a new hardtail and it is down to these two frames - difference ends up being about 300-350 in price - both are brand new 2002 - what do you all think? I'm 175, want to race it xc, the difference in weight is only 1/2 lb and wife will be much happier with the gunnar (since it's less $) - I'm wanting ti because it is ti, and I'm sick of having to deal with touching up the paint on a steel frame so as to avoid rust. But, the additional 300 saved would enable me to buy a new fork (which I won't be able to get with the Litespeed) and I'd get to support my LBS (since the litespeed at that price is mail order). Finally - any thoughts on whether one can really feel the difference between a steel 853 ht lite the gunnar and a reynolds 531 like the new Soma bikes (which look real nice and are real cheap)? Thanks all -- Adam |
| Litespeed | DCS
Apr 11, 2002 12:46 PM | | Assuming they both fit you well, get the Litespeed. It rides really well, being laterally stiff but vertically compliant, and you don't have to worry about corrosion or scratches at all, so you'll have it for a long time. You can therefore afford to wait to get a new fork. It's being about half a pound lighter is also a plus. |
| Litespeed | Hank
Apr 11, 2002 1:41 PM | | there is almost no difference in verticle compliance between different frames, regardless of material used. There can be a big difference in lateral stiffness. For more on this read here:
http://www.sheldonbrown.com/frame-materials.html#ride
the biggest difference between these bikes is the geometry. The Gunnar has steeper angles and shorter chainstays, which you may or may not like--if there's one at the LBS, I would suggest a test ride. For Gunnar money I'd also look at Teesdale and Curtlo. If you want affordable ti also check out Dean and TST. Good luck. |
| Clarification of Article | DCS
Apr 11, 2002 6:21 PM | | Actually, the article does not say that there is almost no difference in vertical compliance between different frames. It merely states that the differences are not attributable to the material used, as opposed to the design of the rear triangle. While one might or might not fully agree with this, it is clear that design and implementation are more important than frame material in terms of ride quality. |
| It does say: "The seat stays (the only part of this system that is actually part of the frame) are loaded in pure, in-line compression. In this direction, they are so stiff, even the lightest and thinnest ones, that they can contribute nothing worth mentioning to shock absorbency."
Now, there is a ton of marketing bs that would have people believe otherwise. I typed in "vertacle compliance" and "bicycle" into google and found this:
http://www.cannondale.com/bikes/INNOVATION/perfcomf.html
I think the biggest factor in perceived comfort/ride quality is c-stay length--which is explained well by Sheldon's bus example. In other words, the more your butt is centered over the real wheel, the more harsh the ride will be. I think that bikes made out of steel or ti can have a nice springy feel to them, experienced mostly through the cranks/bb as flex, but in terms of what travels up to your butt--the vertacle compliance part--they are all pretty close, and any differences would be nearly unperceivable.
I liked the way this guy put it on the framebuilder's forum:
http://phred.org/pipermail/framebuilders/2000-September/001823.html | Hank
Apr 11, 2002 7:57 PM | | approved |
| re: Litespeed Pisgah vs. Gunnar rockhound | mooseknuckle
Apr 11, 2002 2:08 PM | | I race and tried the Pisgah a couple of years back and the geometry didn't agree with me. Material doesn't make the frame. For the price of a Pisgah, you can get a custom steel frame from Carl Strong dialed in to your riding sytle and intended use. If you thought of steel, I thought I would throw that out as another option.
Good luck. |
| Litespeed geometry changed | FredK
Apr 11, 2002 6:11 PM | | I believe it was last year that Litespeed finally changed their antiquated geometries. For example, the 2002 16.5" Pisgah now has a 22.6" TT, I think the older 16" Pisgah had a 22.0" TT. Pretty nice ride, IMHO. If you fit stock gemoetry, you're Kool and the Gang. If not, Strong Frames and Curtlo as others have mentioned, are good custom choices for steel bikes.
I don't think that corrosion should be an issue with steel bikes. When you buy it either ask for Framesaver or rustproof it yourself. I think this is covered in Zinn's bike maintenance book, or Bicycling's book on bike maintenance by Jim Langley. Some of the super steels like 853 and Foco dent rather easily if the frame has extremely thin tubing. This becomes more of an issue if the frame weighs around 3 lb.
FredK |
| |
