Trek vs. Gunnar: Throwdown at Babler

So at some point I bought a Trek Madone 5.2 Project One bike, tricked out in orange with Sram Rival component group and Easton Circuit wheels.  Recently it was upgraded with a set of Red shifters I had lying around:

At some later point I bought a Gunnar Roadie frame in sparkly blue from my buddy TK.  It was built up by yours truly with SRAM Force components and Mavic CXP33 wheels:

 

The Trek is a modern bicycle of bonded carbon fiber.  The Gunnar is a "new classic" bicycle handcrafted from the finest of modern steel.

My curiosity leads me to constantly compare the two.  Steel vs. Carbon.  On flats and moderate inclines, I could tell little difference.  Both transferred my leg power to the wheels effectively, both were silky smooth.  The Trek has a lot more drivetrain noise - whether this is from amplification of noise through the ginormous frame tubes, or less exacting frame alignment I cannot say.  Aside from the noise, though, both are comparable.

Recently, I took each to Babler Memorial State Park with the intention of comparing them on the brutal climbs there.  Grades around 20%, where pedal mashing at VO2 max is the name of the game.  I do not "spin" up those hills, I grind and slog up them as best I'm able.

In the end, I'd say the Trek is marginally more efficient.  It was also noticeably more stable on the high-speed (40mph is common) descents.  This is not to say the Gunnar is a slouch, we're talking very fine degrees of difference.  Some or all of which could easily be in my head.  Except the downhill stability, which was pretty obvious...but also could be attributed to wheel or fork characteristics and not just frame material.

So which is my favorite?  That's a tough call.  I prefer the Gunnar's quiet ride.  And the steel bike does feel "springier", and "more lively".  Traits that are hard to quantify or even describe, but there you are.  For all out speed the Trek holds the edge.  It also weighs a couple of pounds less, which makes a difference.  For longer or more leisurely rides I'd choose the Gunnar in a heartbeat.

In the end, though, I'm quite impressed with the modern steel alloy.  The steel frames of yesteryear were quite noodly and flexible beneath my enormous bulk, and I wasn't sure what to expect from the Gunnar.  It is astonishing how competitive it is with the aerospace marvel of carbon fiber.  The Gunnar craftsmanship is miles ahead of the Trek's mass-produced but advanced technology.  In the end it comes down to your style of riding.  If you're racing, carbon fiber hands down.  Everything else, modern steel.  Or if you're really lucky, one of each.

Post Cave Debrief

Saturday's ride was exactly what I was going for.  Figure-8's around Babler State Park.  Ride the ridge a while to warm up, then bomb down the center road and alternate veering left or right at the Y.  The shorter climb to the left was manageable for me.  The longer climb past the horse stables, that's the one that gets me.  Past the "Y" there's a short, steep climb, then a short downhill, then the long slog back up to the ridge-top.  I don't even remember half of the last time up that climb.  Heart rate was close to max'd out, legs were dead, and I was thinking I should probably stop or my heart would just quit.  Being an idiot, I just put my head down and thought about one pedal stroke at a time.  Next thing I remember I looked up and was 20 meters from the top.  Oxygen deprivation is a beautiful thing.

So beautiful, I think I'll go back on Tuesday.  "Base miles" be damned.