Results 1 to 5 of 5
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    79

    gunnar fastlane?

    anyone riding one? happy with it? is it a pig? too touring oriented or can it get down at a cx race?

    posted something more in depth in the gunnar/waterford forum, but that hasn't been posted to in over a year. . .
    Gunnar/Waterford

  2. #2
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    354
    looked at this extensively, looks like an outstanding frame. It's got taller stack height, and more bb drop @75mm than most cross bikes. Other than that good to go I think. If I had more $$ I would be on that bike. Good all arounder. Not sure why they aren't more popular. Someday I will get one.

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    79
    that's kind of where i'm at with this as well. the big question is, is the $$ worth it? there's a lot of recommendations that just say 'a gunnar is worth it'. what does the higher pricetag mean when compared to the vaya? 853 is supposed to be superior, but the masses praise the vaya and it's 4130. is the gunnar geometry and ride quality that much better?

    i've been encouraged to go custom, which would tick nearly all of the boxes for me. but that would be a life-long frame, and i've always looked at ti as the material for that. at the cost of a custom gunnar frameset, i could get a complete vaya 2 build. . .

    first world problems. . . .

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    354
    i don't think the fastlane and the vaya are in the same category. The vaya has touring-length chainstays at 450mm vs the fastlane at 430. Also the vaya has a much taller headtube for a a very upright riding position. And the angles on the fastlane are slightly slacker than std road bike angles, where the Vaya basically has mtn bike angles. I think the fastlane is basically a slightly relaxed road geometry vs the vaya touring geo. I wouldn't consider them in the same category personally. On the subject of Lifetime Frame, unless you leave your gunnar out in the rain, it will last forever. Fastlane = sporty fun road bike that will take big tires. Vaya = touring bike. In the end they are both great. Vaya willl be more versatile with all the extra brazeons. One final word, I bet the Fastlane is pounds lighter than the vaya. Vaya frameset is 7.3 lbs!!!! That alone steers me away from it.
    Question: do you ride a cx or road bike currently?

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    79
    El Train, thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

    i've had a gt edge, and javelin torgiano for road bikes. i had a brief stint with an ibis hakkalugi (carbon, canti). i've had two specialized fsr's, two s-works stumpjumpers, a titus carbon-x, and now riding, and loving my niner one9. i've put thousands of miles on each of these bikes. i have a decent xc racing background, i like a nimble, responsive bike. vertically compliant with a stiff drivetrain.

    you're hearing my interests in the vaya come from a friend who loves hers, raves about it, and uses it similar to what i intend. also, the cost of the frameset is a little nicer on the wallet, and better tire clearance. this somewhat allows me to overlook the differences that make the fast lane attractive. spending more money on such a frame right now is also making me hesitant because it seems that manufacturers are just starting to get into this style of a frame and i'm expecting a flood of offerings by manufacturers.

    i called gunnar today to get their opinion. they described the fast lane as a 'super commuter'. commuter mainly, can handle the light touring duty on road and gravel, max 38c tires. designed to take static loads up to 50lbs. the hyper-x is 'cx specific', max 32c tires, and uses more aggressive frame angles. it was designed to take a 20lb max static load. however, at the larger sizes (i'm 6'3", 175lbs) these models are almost identical, there is slightly relaxed geometry of the fast lane. 'heavy' was the word used at this size to describe them, both utilizing stout tubing at this size.

    'absolutely not recommended for singletrack' came out of the conversation regarding both frames. the rock tour was recommended instead. it seems too much like a fargo, which is not what i'm after.

    i'm having a hard time getting past the 'heavy' and singletrack comments, the latter more so. is this a limitation with steel frames? that unicrown fork looks stout and probably weighs as much as a boat anchor. i've seen photos of crosshairs on singletrack. is this gunnar covering themselves or is it a real risk? the ibis handled it just fine, they even have a video on their website showing a guy ripping up some singletrack. loved that bike. the only reason i got rid of it was that i didn't feel comfortable hanging touring gear on a fancy carbon frame (i don't want to use a bob. panniers or frame packs are my preference).

    the singletrack statement took me by surprise and i forgot to ask what 'heavy' was.

Similar Threads

  1. Gunnar/Waterford
    By Hand/of/Midas in forum Custom Builders & Other Manufacturers
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 09-07-2014, 05:25 PM
  2. Not much Gunnar love?
    By wxlidar in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 05-13-2013, 11:41 AM
  3. Gunnar Rock. 500$ Should I buy? New Biker. HELP! =]
    By FirstRider1212 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 07-03-2012, 08:59 AM
  4. Gunnar Rockhound vs Niner MCR
    By Polk in forum 29er Bikes
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 12-09-2011, 04:23 PM
  5. Waterford & Gunnar ?
    By ET_SoCal in forum Custom Builders & Other Manufacturers
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-14-2004, 02:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •