On gearboxes, I don’t think the average rider cares as much about efficiency as we think. We’re seeing this play out with radial tires. Less efficient...
On gearboxes, I don’t think the average rider cares as much about efficiency as we think. We’re seeing this play out with radial tires. Less efficient, more grip. Everyone wants them.
We forget bikes are products, not some B2B contract deliverable that has to meet a spec sheet. What tech could realistically convince everyone who has an amazing bike now (and probably got it on sale) to drop $6k+ on a new bike? Maybe it’s gearboxes, maybe it isn’t, but there’s no denying they’re in the running.
If the industry wants to sell me a new park/DH frame to replace my awesome lifetime warranty one I have now, then it needs to have a gearbox. It blows my mind how great and robust my tires, suspension, and brakes are yet I’m still always disappointed with my drivetrain.
The average rider does care about efficiency, most just don't know how to articulate it. They talk about the bike feeling slow, or that they're working really hard on climbs, and making improvements to how efficient the bike is (mostly by going to faster rolling, lighter weight tires since most are on traditional drivetrains) makes a huge difference to their ride experience. Can't forget the average rider isn't smashing wheels and ripping off derailleurs all the time, and shouldn't build their bikes up like a lot of us do.
https://youtu.be/D6dVxVffoPAthey actually say: ""stay tuned"" to the lead out question...do I take the bait and think a warehouse of (very old) enduro frames miraculously burns...
they actually say: ""stay tuned"" to the lead out question...
do I take the bait and think a warehouse of (very old) enduro frames miraculously burns to the ground and there is a "new Enduro" in production?? Would we even like it? there is admitted drag in the OTBB system here ....
Yes, it's coming. Brakes are ready. Cranks are ready. Pedals are ready. What's left, just hubs? There's probably just in-house arguing about cup and cone versus sealed bearing. And dealing with the width options.
seems like new saint is ready to go, anyone have an eta?will it drive a Shimano gearbox? (I jest)did they change anything (besides the Direct mount)...
seems like new saint is ready to go, anyone have an eta?
will it drive a Shimano gearbox? (I jest)
did they change anything (besides the Direct mount) about these cranks at all?
and has Shimano lost the thread when they take this long to release something?
Unfortunately, it seems like new Saint isn't close to releasing yet, at least as far as my Shimano Tech Rep knows. It's funny because that derailleur...
Unfortunately, it seems like new Saint isn't close to releasing yet, at least as far as my Shimano Tech Rep knows. It's funny because that derailleur Goldstones on looks really close to being production ready and the cranks have been around forever. The brakes (I'm assuming they're new saint, the ones with the caliper that looks a bit like a maven caliper) definitely don't look production ready so they'll probably wait to drop the whole thing as a set. I would think a year out at least.
Wild that shimano would long play something - anything for so long …
All this drivetrain efficiency/Gearbox discussion is making me think about the joy I get from riding my singlespeed.
I have both a singlespeed and Zerode Katipo with 12spd analog Pinion gearbox. Constant drive lines FTW.
Never having to worry about maintaining, hearing or shearing off a derailleur is far worth any drag compromise. Any noticeable "drag" is on gears higher than 6-7, plus shifting from say 5th to 2nd gear is instant, not a massive clunky chain moving event.
That said I don't see current gearboxes being relevant for anything less than enduro or heavy duty trail bike applications. /2c
On gearboxes, I don’t think the average rider cares as much about efficiency as we think. We’re seeing this play out with radial tires. Less efficient...
On gearboxes, I don’t think the average rider cares as much about efficiency as we think. We’re seeing this play out with radial tires. Less efficient, more grip. Everyone wants them.
We forget bikes are products, not some B2B contract deliverable that has to meet a spec sheet. What tech could realistically convince everyone who has an amazing bike now (and probably got it on sale) to drop $6k+ on a new bike? Maybe it’s gearboxes, maybe it isn’t, but there’s no denying they’re in the running.
If the industry wants to sell me a new park/DH frame to replace my awesome lifetime warranty one I have now, then it needs to have a gearbox. It blows my mind how great and robust my tires, suspension, and brakes are yet I’m still always disappointed with my drivetrain.
"We’re seeing this play out with radial tires. Less efficient, more grip." Have you seen any data comparing the same compound, tread pattern, and casing durability...
"We’re seeing this play out with radial tires. Less efficient, more grip." Have you seen any data comparing the same compound, tread pattern, and casing durability for radial vs. conventional tires? I am sure that a sticky DH radial rolls slowly, but so does a sticky DH conventional tire. More trail oriented radials with faster rolling rubber and lighter casings are only just starting to come out, so I hadn't seen any real comparisons in terms of watts consumed.
I suppose if one wanted to be really comprehensive about it, one would also need to test the radials at the same pressure as a regular casing, and then test them again with the few extra psi that are typically recommended to compensate for the more flexible casing.
And, even more complicated, is the possibility that the radials might roll slower on smooth surfaces, but actually roll faster on bumpy terrain, due to a reduction in "suspension losses" as the more compliant casing may reduce the upward deflection of the bike and rider's mass.
Slow clap. Part of the reason why road bikes came with 19-23mm tires pumped up to 120+ psi is because they felt faster than bigger or softer tires, and because of flawed test methodology (testing tires on smooth steel drums in a lab vs. testing on real asphalt).
I've heard a lot of people in the tire forum say that radials roll slower, and they certainly might. But until I see actual test results using a methodology that makes sense, I'm going to assume that no one knows the answer to that question.
On gearboxes, I don’t think the average rider cares as much about efficiency as we think. We’re seeing this play out with radial tires. Less efficient...
On gearboxes, I don’t think the average rider cares as much about efficiency as we think. We’re seeing this play out with radial tires. Less efficient, more grip. Everyone wants them.
We forget bikes are products, not some B2B contract deliverable that has to meet a spec sheet. What tech could realistically convince everyone who has an amazing bike now (and probably got it on sale) to drop $6k+ on a new bike? Maybe it’s gearboxes, maybe it isn’t, but there’s no denying they’re in the running.
If the industry wants to sell me a new park/DH frame to replace my awesome lifetime warranty one I have now, then it needs to have a gearbox. It blows my mind how great and robust my tires, suspension, and brakes are yet I’m still always disappointed with my drivetrain.
"We’re seeing this play out with radial tires. Less efficient, more grip." Have you seen any data comparing the same compound, tread pattern, and casing durability...
"We’re seeing this play out with radial tires. Less efficient, more grip." Have you seen any data comparing the same compound, tread pattern, and casing durability for radial vs. conventional tires? I am sure that a sticky DH radial rolls slowly, but so does a sticky DH conventional tire. More trail oriented radials with faster rolling rubber and lighter casings are only just starting to come out, so I hadn't seen any real comparisons in terms of watts consumed.
I suppose if one wanted to be really comprehensive about it, one would also need to test the radials at the same pressure as a regular casing, and then test them again with the few extra psi that are typically recommended to compensate for the more flexible casing.
And, even more complicated, is the possibility that the radials might roll slower on smooth surfaces, but actually roll faster on bumpy terrain, due to a reduction in "suspension losses" as the more compliant casing may reduce the upward deflection of the bike and rider's mass.
Slow clap. Part of the reason why road bikes came with 19-23mm tires pumped up to 120+ psi is because they felt faster than bigger or...
Slow clap. Part of the reason why road bikes came with 19-23mm tires pumped up to 120+ psi is because they felt faster than bigger or softer tires, and because of flawed test methodology (testing tires on smooth steel drums in a lab vs. testing on real asphalt).
I've heard a lot of people in the tire forum say that radials roll slower, and they certainly might. But until I see actual test results using a methodology that makes sense, I'm going to assume that no one knows the answer to that question.
I don’t think it’s really a flawed test methodology, but rather a lack of understanding how to interpret the results and over extrapolating.
Testing a tire on a steel drum tells you how fast it rolls. It doesn’t tell you everything that happens when you put that in a much larger system. The main thing people forgot about was the giant meat damper sitting on top of those tires. Off road it’s much more difficult to test the impact of the meat damper because suddenly the relevance of the compliance of the tire is much more variable because the surface is much more variable than pavement types. It’s the same reason why we have hardpack specific and loose specific tires. One isn’t better than the other; they succeed in different environments.
If you ride somewhere where tire compliance matters a lot, the radial might even be more efficient. But if you are riding somewhere where that isn’t the case, then it probably won’t.
This stuff is complicated, which makes it hard to properly test and show and explain. People want to hear that such and such tire is the best ever bar none, but in reality the answer is always going to be: it depends. There’s just a lot of nuance.
The only way to find out is to test on your course. And then all you’ll find out is what setup works best for you, but then that’s all that actually matters in racing. Just look at f1, some drivers talk about how they can’t even drive their teammates setups, and those are pretty fine details they are tweaking all things considered. But like last year Lando still won the championship even though his setup was supposed to be less ideal from an aero perspective, because he was willing to sacrifice aero for driver feedback.
I don’t think it’s really a flawed test methodology, but rather a lack of understanding how to interpret the results and over extrapolating.Testing a tire on...
I don’t think it’s really a flawed test methodology, but rather a lack of understanding how to interpret the results and over extrapolating.
Testing a tire on a steel drum tells you how fast it rolls. It doesn’t tell you everything that happens when you put that in a much larger system. The main thing people forgot about was the giant meat damper sitting on top of those tires. Off road it’s much more difficult to test the impact of the meat damper because suddenly the relevance of the compliance of the tire is much more variable because the surface is much more variable than pavement types. It’s the same reason why we have hardpack specific and loose specific tires. One isn’t better than the other; they succeed in different environments.
If you ride somewhere where tire compliance matters a lot, the radial might even be more efficient. But if you are riding somewhere where that isn’t the case, then it probably won’t.
This stuff is complicated, which makes it hard to properly test and show and explain. People want to hear that such and such tire is the best ever bar none, but in reality the answer is always going to be: it depends. There’s just a lot of nuance.
The only way to find out is to test on your course. And then all you’ll find out is what setup works best for you, but then that’s all that actually matters in racing. Just look at f1, some drivers talk about how they can’t even drive their teammates setups, and those are pretty fine details they are tweaking all things considered. But like last year Lando still won the championship even though his setup was supposed to be less ideal from an aero perspective, because he was willing to sacrifice aero for driver feedback.
It is less common than a smooth steel or diamond plate drum, but there are lab test setups that use a bumpy roller or drum that try to assess the rolling resistance of a tire on a bumpy surface, in a repeatable fashion. Bumpy roller tests generally indicate that lower pressure (within reason) is faster rolling, for a given casing tire, and a more flexible lighter casing is faster rolling due to some combination of better compliance and reduced hysteresis. I would expect radials to have better compliance, but the hysteresis, especially on an enduro or DH tire, is a big question mark in my mind, as the rubber is having to do more work due the casing flexibility. I wouldn't be so quick to throw out the validity of a test like that to suss out how radials compare to their traditional counterparts.
“”This stuff is complicated, which makes it hard to properly test and show and explain. People want to hear that such and such tire is the best ever bar none, but in reality the answer is always going to be: it depends. There’s just a lot of nuance“”
Wrong. The best tire is a MINION DHF. Always. Long live Colin Bailey in all his wisdom and glory.
“”This stuff is complicated, which makes it hard to properly test and show and explain. People want to hear that such and such tire is the...
“”This stuff is complicated, which makes it hard to properly test and show and explain. People want to hear that such and such tire is the best ever bar none, but in reality the answer is always going to be: it depends. There’s just a lot of nuance“”
Wrong. The best tire is a MINION DHF. Always. Long live Colin Bailey in all his wisdom and glory.
DHF sucks. Always wash out unless you really commit to the lean and never ride berms
I don’t think it’s really a flawed test methodology, but rather a lack of understanding how to interpret the results and over extrapolating.Testing a tire on...
I don’t think it’s really a flawed test methodology, but rather a lack of understanding how to interpret the results and over extrapolating.
Testing a tire on a steel drum tells you how fast it rolls. It doesn’t tell you everything that happens when you put that in a much larger system. The main thing people forgot about was the giant meat damper sitting on top of those tires. Off road it’s much more difficult to test the impact of the meat damper because suddenly the relevance of the compliance of the tire is much more variable because the surface is much more variable than pavement types. It’s the same reason why we have hardpack specific and loose specific tires. One isn’t better than the other; they succeed in different environments.
If you ride somewhere where tire compliance matters a lot, the radial might even be more efficient. But if you are riding somewhere where that isn’t the case, then it probably won’t.
This stuff is complicated, which makes it hard to properly test and show and explain. People want to hear that such and such tire is the best ever bar none, but in reality the answer is always going to be: it depends. There’s just a lot of nuance.
The only way to find out is to test on your course. And then all you’ll find out is what setup works best for you, but then that’s all that actually matters in racing. Just look at f1, some drivers talk about how they can’t even drive their teammates setups, and those are pretty fine details they are tweaking all things considered. But like last year Lando still won the championship even though his setup was supposed to be less ideal from an aero perspective, because he was willing to sacrifice aero for driver feedback.
Let me say more clearly what was implied in my previous post: those old road bike rolling resistance tests tell me that our own internal rolling resistance gauges in our brains are not very trustworthy. I'm not convinced that radial tires roll slower because the only evidence we have is that they feel like they roll slower.
21mm tires pumped up to 120 psi feel fast as hell on asphalt. As you go faster, you get more and more vibration feedback from the tire, giving the sensation of greater and greater speed. A 32mm tubeless GP5000 pumped up to 60 psi is going to feel dead, damped, and sluggish by comparison. It's going to feel like there's a lot more tire tread on the road with the 32 (because there is), but that doesn't mean it has more rolling resistance in practice, because frictional rolling resistance is only one of many factors affecting the actual on-bike rolling resistance of tires. The reason we were trapped on horrible skinny road bike tires for decades is that the feedback riders were getting from their own internal rolling resistance gauge in their brains happened to line up with the results that the lab was getting back from their bad rolling resistance test methodology. The two flawed measurement systems were in agreement.
I bring that up because that story reminds me of the descriptions I keep hearing from radial tire users and how claim to know that their radial tires "roll slower." I've heard many people say that there's more of the tread in contact with the ground, and that it feels dead, damped, and sluggish, just like the 32mm GP5000 in my example above.
The difference is that (to my knowledge) we don't have any rolling resistance data of any sort to point to regarding that new crop of radial tires. We only have data from the flawed internal rolling resistance gauge located in people's brains. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying there's no compelling reason to conclude that they're right.
And if someone can share a link to rolling resistance data for new radial tires, I'm all ears.
I don’t think it’s really a flawed test methodology, but rather a lack of understanding how to interpret the results and over extrapolating.Testing a tire on...
I don’t think it’s really a flawed test methodology, but rather a lack of understanding how to interpret the results and over extrapolating.
Testing a tire on a steel drum tells you how fast it rolls. It doesn’t tell you everything that happens when you put that in a much larger system. The main thing people forgot about was the giant meat damper sitting on top of those tires. Off road it’s much more difficult to test the impact of the meat damper because suddenly the relevance of the compliance of the tire is much more variable because the surface is much more variable than pavement types. It’s the same reason why we have hardpack specific and loose specific tires. One isn’t better than the other; they succeed in different environments.
If you ride somewhere where tire compliance matters a lot, the radial might even be more efficient. But if you are riding somewhere where that isn’t the case, then it probably won’t.
This stuff is complicated, which makes it hard to properly test and show and explain. People want to hear that such and such tire is the best ever bar none, but in reality the answer is always going to be: it depends. There’s just a lot of nuance.
The only way to find out is to test on your course. And then all you’ll find out is what setup works best for you, but then that’s all that actually matters in racing. Just look at f1, some drivers talk about how they can’t even drive their teammates setups, and those are pretty fine details they are tweaking all things considered. But like last year Lando still won the championship even though his setup was supposed to be less ideal from an aero perspective, because he was willing to sacrifice aero for driver feedback.
Let me say more clearly what was implied in my previous post: those old road bike rolling resistance tests tell me that our own internal rolling...
Let me say more clearly what was implied in my previous post: those old road bike rolling resistance tests tell me that our own internal rolling resistance gauges in our brains are not very trustworthy. I'm not convinced that radial tires roll slower because the only evidence we have is that they feel like they roll slower.
21mm tires pumped up to 120 psi feel fast as hell on asphalt. As you go faster, you get more and more vibration feedback from the tire, giving the sensation of greater and greater speed. A 32mm tubeless GP5000 pumped up to 60 psi is going to feel dead, damped, and sluggish by comparison. It's going to feel like there's a lot more tire tread on the road with the 32 (because there is), but that doesn't mean it has more rolling resistance in practice, because frictional rolling resistance is only one of many factors affecting the actual on-bike rolling resistance of tires. The reason we were trapped on horrible skinny road bike tires for decades is that the feedback riders were getting from their own internal rolling resistance gauge in their brains happened to line up with the results that the lab was getting back from their bad rolling resistance test methodology. The two flawed measurement systems were in agreement.
I bring that up because that story reminds me of the descriptions I keep hearing from radial tire users and how claim to know that their radial tires "roll slower." I've heard many people say that there's more of the tread in contact with the ground, and that it feels dead, damped, and sluggish, just like the 32mm GP5000 in my example above.
The difference is that (to my knowledge) we don't have any rolling resistance data of any sort to point to regarding that new crop of radial tires. We only have data from the flawed internal rolling resistance gauge located in people's brains. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying there's no compelling reason to conclude that they're right.
And if someone can share a link to rolling resistance data for new radial tires, I'm all ears.
I'd love to see some type of quasi-scientific test of this. The radials sure feel slower on hard pack jump trails.
I don’t think it’s really a flawed test methodology, but rather a lack of understanding how to interpret the results and over extrapolating.Testing a tire on...
I don’t think it’s really a flawed test methodology, but rather a lack of understanding how to interpret the results and over extrapolating.
Testing a tire on a steel drum tells you how fast it rolls. It doesn’t tell you everything that happens when you put that in a much larger system. The main thing people forgot about was the giant meat damper sitting on top of those tires. Off road it’s much more difficult to test the impact of the meat damper because suddenly the relevance of the compliance of the tire is much more variable because the surface is much more variable than pavement types. It’s the same reason why we have hardpack specific and loose specific tires. One isn’t better than the other; they succeed in different environments.
If you ride somewhere where tire compliance matters a lot, the radial might even be more efficient. But if you are riding somewhere where that isn’t the case, then it probably won’t.
This stuff is complicated, which makes it hard to properly test and show and explain. People want to hear that such and such tire is the best ever bar none, but in reality the answer is always going to be: it depends. There’s just a lot of nuance.
The only way to find out is to test on your course. And then all you’ll find out is what setup works best for you, but then that’s all that actually matters in racing. Just look at f1, some drivers talk about how they can’t even drive their teammates setups, and those are pretty fine details they are tweaking all things considered. But like last year Lando still won the championship even though his setup was supposed to be less ideal from an aero perspective, because he was willing to sacrifice aero for driver feedback.
Let me say more clearly what was implied in my previous post: those old road bike rolling resistance tests tell me that our own internal rolling...
Let me say more clearly what was implied in my previous post: those old road bike rolling resistance tests tell me that our own internal rolling resistance gauges in our brains are not very trustworthy. I'm not convinced that radial tires roll slower because the only evidence we have is that they feel like they roll slower.
21mm tires pumped up to 120 psi feel fast as hell on asphalt. As you go faster, you get more and more vibration feedback from the tire, giving the sensation of greater and greater speed. A 32mm tubeless GP5000 pumped up to 60 psi is going to feel dead, damped, and sluggish by comparison. It's going to feel like there's a lot more tire tread on the road with the 32 (because there is), but that doesn't mean it has more rolling resistance in practice, because frictional rolling resistance is only one of many factors affecting the actual on-bike rolling resistance of tires. The reason we were trapped on horrible skinny road bike tires for decades is that the feedback riders were getting from their own internal rolling resistance gauge in their brains happened to line up with the results that the lab was getting back from their bad rolling resistance test methodology. The two flawed measurement systems were in agreement.
I bring that up because that story reminds me of the descriptions I keep hearing from radial tire users and how claim to know that their radial tires "roll slower." I've heard many people say that there's more of the tread in contact with the ground, and that it feels dead, damped, and sluggish, just like the 32mm GP5000 in my example above.
The difference is that (to my knowledge) we don't have any rolling resistance data of any sort to point to regarding that new crop of radial tires. We only have data from the flawed internal rolling resistance gauge located in people's brains. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying there's no compelling reason to conclude that they're right.
And if someone can share a link to rolling resistance data for new radial tires, I'm all ears.
Yeah for sure, our perceptions are generally not that reliable. I was more just reacting to saying the drum testing is "flawed". I think it's more just that it's limited than flawed, which I get that you understand, but I think a lot of people don't.
Enduro mag did test radial tires. Unfortunately BRR voting is dominated by roadies and so they don't produce any data on gravity tires really, and only just cover XC tires.
They showed that in their testing the Magic Mary (the only tread pattern available in radial and non-radial) was ~5w slower in the radial form. However keep in mind I think Schwalbe said they tweaked the compounds for the radial tires to help limit the losses from going radial. You can also see the bigger difference by far seems to be ultra soft vs soft rather than radial vs traditional. The Albert Radial loses 13w going from soft to ultra soft in the same gravity casing (but the size is a bit different which in most other tests doesn't appear to be that significant). The Magic Mary actually tested faster than most of the maxxgrip tires. Maxxis tires though tend to test slow pretty much across the board though so that's not really saying much imo.
For someone like Amaury Pierron in Korea I don't know how he could avoid the radial tire. I think generally in DH racing that 5w difference is not a big consideration. But for someone who hates pedaling, it's likely noticeable, and might not be worth it. Especially in like hardpack land without a bunch of gravel on top.
“”This stuff is complicated, which makes it hard to properly test and show and explain. People want to hear that such and such tire is the...
“”This stuff is complicated, which makes it hard to properly test and show and explain. People want to hear that such and such tire is the best ever bar none, but in reality the answer is always going to be: it depends. There’s just a lot of nuance“”
Wrong. The best tire is a MINION DHF. Always. Long live Colin Bailey in all his wisdom and glory.
I don’t think it’s really a flawed test methodology, but rather a lack of understanding how to interpret the results and over extrapolating.Testing a tire on...
I don’t think it’s really a flawed test methodology, but rather a lack of understanding how to interpret the results and over extrapolating.
Testing a tire on a steel drum tells you how fast it rolls. It doesn’t tell you everything that happens when you put that in a much larger system. The main thing people forgot about was the giant meat damper sitting on top of those tires. Off road it’s much more difficult to test the impact of the meat damper because suddenly the relevance of the compliance of the tire is much more variable because the surface is much more variable than pavement types. It’s the same reason why we have hardpack specific and loose specific tires. One isn’t better than the other; they succeed in different environments.
If you ride somewhere where tire compliance matters a lot, the radial might even be more efficient. But if you are riding somewhere where that isn’t the case, then it probably won’t.
This stuff is complicated, which makes it hard to properly test and show and explain. People want to hear that such and such tire is the best ever bar none, but in reality the answer is always going to be: it depends. There’s just a lot of nuance.
The only way to find out is to test on your course. And then all you’ll find out is what setup works best for you, but then that’s all that actually matters in racing. Just look at f1, some drivers talk about how they can’t even drive their teammates setups, and those are pretty fine details they are tweaking all things considered. But like last year Lando still won the championship even though his setup was supposed to be less ideal from an aero perspective, because he was willing to sacrifice aero for driver feedback.
Let me say more clearly what was implied in my previous post: those old road bike rolling resistance tests tell me that our own internal rolling...
Let me say more clearly what was implied in my previous post: those old road bike rolling resistance tests tell me that our own internal rolling resistance gauges in our brains are not very trustworthy. I'm not convinced that radial tires roll slower because the only evidence we have is that they feel like they roll slower.
21mm tires pumped up to 120 psi feel fast as hell on asphalt. As you go faster, you get more and more vibration feedback from the tire, giving the sensation of greater and greater speed. A 32mm tubeless GP5000 pumped up to 60 psi is going to feel dead, damped, and sluggish by comparison. It's going to feel like there's a lot more tire tread on the road with the 32 (because there is), but that doesn't mean it has more rolling resistance in practice, because frictional rolling resistance is only one of many factors affecting the actual on-bike rolling resistance of tires. The reason we were trapped on horrible skinny road bike tires for decades is that the feedback riders were getting from their own internal rolling resistance gauge in their brains happened to line up with the results that the lab was getting back from their bad rolling resistance test methodology. The two flawed measurement systems were in agreement.
I bring that up because that story reminds me of the descriptions I keep hearing from radial tire users and how claim to know that their radial tires "roll slower." I've heard many people say that there's more of the tread in contact with the ground, and that it feels dead, damped, and sluggish, just like the 32mm GP5000 in my example above.
The difference is that (to my knowledge) we don't have any rolling resistance data of any sort to point to regarding that new crop of radial tires. We only have data from the flawed internal rolling resistance gauge located in people's brains. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying there's no compelling reason to conclude that they're right.
And if someone can share a link to rolling resistance data for new radial tires, I'm all ears.
Yeah for sure, our perceptions are generally not that reliable. I was more just reacting to saying the drum testing is "flawed". I think it's more...
Yeah for sure, our perceptions are generally not that reliable. I was more just reacting to saying the drum testing is "flawed". I think it's more just that it's limited than flawed, which I get that you understand, but I think a lot of people don't.
Enduro mag did test radial tires. Unfortunately BRR voting is dominated by roadies and so they don't produce any data on gravity tires really, and only just cover XC tires.
They showed that in their testing the Magic Mary (the only tread pattern available in radial and non-radial) was ~5w slower in the radial form. However keep in mind I think Schwalbe said they tweaked the compounds for the radial tires to help limit the losses from going radial. You can also see the bigger difference by far seems to be ultra soft vs soft rather than radial vs traditional. The Albert Radial loses 13w going from soft to ultra soft in the same gravity casing (but the size is a bit different which in most other tests doesn't appear to be that significant). The Magic Mary actually tested faster than most of the maxxgrip tires. Maxxis tires though tend to test slow pretty much across the board though so that's not really saying much imo.
For someone like Amaury Pierron in Korea I don't know how he could avoid the radial tire. I think generally in DH racing that 5w difference is not a big consideration. But for someone who hates pedaling, it's likely noticeable, and might not be worth it. Especially in like hardpack land without a bunch of gravel on top.
Test that became pointless in the radial/normal difference since they run the radial version at the same pressure, something nobody does.
If a tire rolls slower in a straight line but because it grips better it rolls faster in a corner, what is that tire? Slow or fast? Or same with over roots/rocks? I think this speaks to why some view the drum test as invalid bc it really doesn't represent how varying terrain affects rolling resistance.
Curious to see if anyone does a SB160 switch infinity vs 6finity comparison video or write up. Hopefully a credible YouTuber/publication has something in the works.
Curious to see if anyone does a SB160 switch infinity vs 6finity comparison video or write up. Hopefully a credible YouTuber/publication has something in the works.
Dario from PB was riding one at Sun Peaks July 2/3 (think they were doing a field test, saw Matt Beer and Jesse Melamed aswell). He just grinned at the question of how to compares to the old one. Dunno if was anything but I also saw a Banshee DH bike at Silverstar two days later with a bunch of telemetry related stuff on the rear of the bike, not keen enough to have noticed if it was a revised Legend or if it pertained to the rear shock (didn't recognize it)
If a tire rolls slower in a straight line but because it grips better it rolls faster in a corner, what is that tire? Slow or...
If a tire rolls slower in a straight line but because it grips better it rolls faster in a corner, what is that tire? Slow or fast? Or same with over roots/rocks? I think this speaks to why some view the drum test as invalid bc it really doesn't represent how varying terrain affects rolling resistance.
It's a good question, because how we define and categorize these terms can hopefully spare us from another dreadful, circular, definitional forum argument. I think the two scenarios you describe are two completely different qualities, which I would describe as 1) rolling speed and 2) cornering grip (or maybe just "cornering" generally).
For instance, for all our friends in the American SE who ride on super hardpacked, smooth, and relatively flat decomposed granite, rolling speed is super important for having any fun at all on your bike ride. A MaxxGrip DH casing Assegai is going to carry great speed through most technical chunky corners in the world, but it rolls like a stuffed animal in hot tar when you're riding in a straight line on flat decomposed granite. In this case, it's pretty clear that "rolling speed" means "in a straight line" and doesn't refer to traction, grip, or stability in technical cornering situations.
Let me say more clearly what was implied in my previous post: those old road bike rolling resistance tests tell me that our own internal rolling...
Let me say more clearly what was implied in my previous post: those old road bike rolling resistance tests tell me that our own internal rolling resistance gauges in our brains are not very trustworthy. I'm not convinced that radial tires roll slower because the only evidence we have is that they feel like they roll slower.
21mm tires pumped up to 120 psi feel fast as hell on asphalt. As you go faster, you get more and more vibration feedback from the tire, giving the sensation of greater and greater speed. A 32mm tubeless GP5000 pumped up to 60 psi is going to feel dead, damped, and sluggish by comparison. It's going to feel like there's a lot more tire tread on the road with the 32 (because there is), but that doesn't mean it has more rolling resistance in practice, because frictional rolling resistance is only one of many factors affecting the actual on-bike rolling resistance of tires. The reason we were trapped on horrible skinny road bike tires for decades is that the feedback riders were getting from their own internal rolling resistance gauge in their brains happened to line up with the results that the lab was getting back from their bad rolling resistance test methodology. The two flawed measurement systems were in agreement.
I bring that up because that story reminds me of the descriptions I keep hearing from radial tire users and how claim to know that their radial tires "roll slower." I've heard many people say that there's more of the tread in contact with the ground, and that it feels dead, damped, and sluggish, just like the 32mm GP5000 in my example above.
The difference is that (to my knowledge) we don't have any rolling resistance data of any sort to point to regarding that new crop of radial tires. We only have data from the flawed internal rolling resistance gauge located in people's brains. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying there's no compelling reason to conclude that they're right.
And if someone can share a link to rolling resistance data for new radial tires, I'm all ears.
Yeah for sure, our perceptions are generally not that reliable. I was more just reacting to saying the drum testing is "flawed". I think it's more...
Yeah for sure, our perceptions are generally not that reliable. I was more just reacting to saying the drum testing is "flawed". I think it's more just that it's limited than flawed, which I get that you understand, but I think a lot of people don't.
Enduro mag did test radial tires. Unfortunately BRR voting is dominated by roadies and so they don't produce any data on gravity tires really, and only just cover XC tires.
They showed that in their testing the Magic Mary (the only tread pattern available in radial and non-radial) was ~5w slower in the radial form. However keep in mind I think Schwalbe said they tweaked the compounds for the radial tires to help limit the losses from going radial. You can also see the bigger difference by far seems to be ultra soft vs soft rather than radial vs traditional. The Albert Radial loses 13w going from soft to ultra soft in the same gravity casing (but the size is a bit different which in most other tests doesn't appear to be that significant). The Magic Mary actually tested faster than most of the maxxgrip tires. Maxxis tires though tend to test slow pretty much across the board though so that's not really saying much imo.
For someone like Amaury Pierron in Korea I don't know how he could avoid the radial tire. I think generally in DH racing that 5w difference is not a big consideration. But for someone who hates pedaling, it's likely noticeable, and might not be worth it. Especially in like hardpack land without a bunch of gravel on top.
Test that became pointless in the radial/normal difference since they run the radial version at the same pressure, something nobody does.
John Karrasch (@flexfitbyjohn on Instagram) is doing real world rolling resistance testing (using Chung method) of the current crop of XC and gravel tyres. He’s dabbled with trail casing of XC tread like BRR has, but not into the trail, enduro, DH etc type tyres that this forum is normally interested in. I’ll ask him if he’s interested in this current question of radial RR.
Yeah for sure, our perceptions are generally not that reliable. I was more just reacting to saying the drum testing is "flawed". I think it's more...
Yeah for sure, our perceptions are generally not that reliable. I was more just reacting to saying the drum testing is "flawed". I think it's more just that it's limited than flawed, which I get that you understand, but I think a lot of people don't.
Enduro mag did test radial tires. Unfortunately BRR voting is dominated by roadies and so they don't produce any data on gravity tires really, and only just cover XC tires.
They showed that in their testing the Magic Mary (the only tread pattern available in radial and non-radial) was ~5w slower in the radial form. However keep in mind I think Schwalbe said they tweaked the compounds for the radial tires to help limit the losses from going radial. You can also see the bigger difference by far seems to be ultra soft vs soft rather than radial vs traditional. The Albert Radial loses 13w going from soft to ultra soft in the same gravity casing (but the size is a bit different which in most other tests doesn't appear to be that significant). The Magic Mary actually tested faster than most of the maxxgrip tires. Maxxis tires though tend to test slow pretty much across the board though so that's not really saying much imo.
For someone like Amaury Pierron in Korea I don't know how he could avoid the radial tire. I think generally in DH racing that 5w difference is not a big consideration. But for someone who hates pedaling, it's likely noticeable, and might not be worth it. Especially in like hardpack land without a bunch of gravel on top.
John Karrasch (@flexfitbyjohn on Instagram) is doing real world rolling resistance testing (using Chung method) of the current crop of XC and gravel tyres. He’s dabbled...
John Karrasch (@flexfitbyjohn on Instagram) is doing real world rolling resistance testing (using Chung method) of the current crop of XC and gravel tyres. He’s dabbled with trail casing of XC tread like BRR has, but not into the trail, enduro, DH etc type tyres that this forum is normally interested in. I’ll ask him if he’s interested in this current question of radial RR.
I could give this a go, would back to back race sim laps be enough to provide accurate results? At least in a way that it is consistently one way or the other?
If a tire rolls slower in a straight line but because it grips better it rolls faster in a corner, what is that tire? Slow or...
If a tire rolls slower in a straight line but because it grips better it rolls faster in a corner, what is that tire? Slow or fast? Or same with over roots/rocks? I think this speaks to why some view the drum test as invalid bc it really doesn't represent how varying terrain affects rolling resistance.
It's a good question, because how we define and categorize these terms can hopefully spare us from another dreadful, circular, definitional forum argument. I think the...
It's a good question, because how we define and categorize these terms can hopefully spare us from another dreadful, circular, definitional forum argument. I think the two scenarios you describe are two completely different qualities, which I would describe as 1) rolling speed and 2) cornering grip (or maybe just "cornering" generally).
For instance, for all our friends in the American SE who ride on super hardpacked, smooth, and relatively flat decomposed granite, rolling speed is super important for having any fun at all on your bike ride. A MaxxGrip DH casing Assegai is going to carry great speed through most technical chunky corners in the world, but it rolls like a stuffed animal in hot tar when you're riding in a straight line on flat decomposed granite. In this case, it's pretty clear that "rolling speed" means "in a straight line" and doesn't refer to traction, grip, or stability in technical cornering situations.
Being "over-tire'd" is a thing. I hate fixing a pinch flat on the trail as much as the next guy but I'm not gonna put DH tires with Cush Core on my daily driver.
Speaking of tires, Maxxis and conti have yet to release a radial ya? I vaguely remember this forum mention it in the works once or twice. I'm not interested in running them myself, but I could go for some "new release" kool-aid.
Dario from PB was riding one at Sun Peaks July 2/3 (think they were doing a field test, saw Matt Beer and Jesse Melamed aswell). He...
Dario from PB was riding one at Sun Peaks July 2/3 (think they were doing a field test, saw Matt Beer and Jesse Melamed aswell). He just grinned at the question of how to compares to the old one. Dunno if was anything but I also saw a Banshee DH bike at Silverstar two days later with a bunch of telemetry related stuff on the rear of the bike, not keen enough to have noticed if it was a revised Legend or if it pertained to the rear shock (didn't recognize it)
I posted a screenshot on page 141 from banshees ig page, they teased a few pics during a race weekend recently. They're definitely up to something as the shock cage looks v3ish but still with the traditional legend linkage. Assuming to fit metric shocks.
I posted a screenshot on page 141 from banshees ig page, they teased a few pics during a race weekend recently. They're definitely up to something...
I posted a screenshot on page 141 from banshees ig page, they teased a few pics during a race weekend recently. They're definitely up to something as the shock cage looks v3ish but still with the traditional legend linkage. Assuming to fit metric shocks.
One of the key guys at Banshee also posted on his stories a few weeks ago about testing a proto/new DH bike. Didn't get screengrabs, but it didn't show much. Probably be seen on the MSC later this year is my guess
John Karrasch (@flexfitbyjohn on Instagram) is doing real world rolling resistance testing (using Chung method) of the current crop of XC and gravel tyres. He’s dabbled...
John Karrasch (@flexfitbyjohn on Instagram) is doing real world rolling resistance testing (using Chung method) of the current crop of XC and gravel tyres. He’s dabbled with trail casing of XC tread like BRR has, but not into the trail, enduro, DH etc type tyres that this forum is normally interested in. I’ll ask him if he’s interested in this current question of radial RR.
I could give this a go, would back to back race sim laps be enough to provide accurate results? At least in a way that it...
I could give this a go, would back to back race sim laps be enough to provide accurate results? At least in a way that it is consistently one way or the other?
It depends on what question you are looking to answer. Race sim will tell you which tire you are faster on. If you want to know about rolling speed of radial Mary vs standard Mary for instance then Chung method can get you some numbers, but it's very difficult to do, especially offroad. Chung method assumes you are accurately repeating, so basically you can't use the brakes and things like that. The Golden cheetah software does have a tool to help with analysis though.
The simplest way to compare rolling speed is with a section of trail with a U shaped elevation profile on a surface that is representative. You start from a standstill, coast down, and then finish by coasting back uphill and record where you stopped. Obviously you want to be as consistent as possible with how you do it.
When I've done this here, it has been kind of crazy how consistent the finishing position is despite traveling ~150m. It's very convincing because you can finish in the same spot within a few inches 5 times, swap only tires and now your finishing clusters shifts by feet or meters. However you don't get numbers, just a ranking. The hardest part is honestly finding the section of trail. If you can find two sections of trail, one with roots/rocks that the tire has to absorb and another smooth to see how the radial tires compare, that would be fascinating (if it works). Otherwise on smooth trail, in my experience, you're just going to see the order the drum testing shows.
Flexfitbyjohn I think does most of his testing on a small loop in a park that's flat. I think he tested on a mtb trail once, because he said he found the perfect section of trail (it was a climb IIRC) after looking and thinking about it for like a year. It's really hard, it's very impressive what he's doing.
The average rider does care about efficiency, most just don't know how to articulate it. They talk about the bike feeling slow, or that they're working really hard on climbs, and making improvements to how efficient the bike is (mostly by going to faster rolling, lighter weight tires since most are on traditional drivetrains) makes a huge difference to their ride experience. Can't forget the average rider isn't smashing wheels and ripping off derailleurs all the time, and shouldn't build their bikes up like a lot of us do.
But, but, but... To do that you have to stand up to climb, which apparently is too hard for people to do nowadays.
Yes, it's coming. Brakes are ready. Cranks are ready. Pedals are ready. What's left, just hubs? There's probably just in-house arguing about cup and cone versus sealed bearing. And dealing with the width options.
Wild that shimano would long play something - anything for so long …
I have both a singlespeed and Zerode Katipo with 12spd analog Pinion gearbox. Constant drive lines FTW.
Never having to worry about maintaining, hearing or shearing off a derailleur is far worth any drag compromise. Any noticeable "drag" is on gears higher than 6-7, plus shifting from say 5th to 2nd gear is instant, not a massive clunky chain moving event.
That said I don't see current gearboxes being relevant for anything less than enduro or heavy duty trail bike applications. /2c
Global mountain bike network joins pinkbike as vital forum stalkers. Here is a derailleur versus gearbox test posted just a few days ago
https://youtu.be/FgQb1GWJMTw?is=lxjFyTPbcGw6F1aj
Slow clap. Part of the reason why road bikes came with 19-23mm tires pumped up to 120+ psi is because they felt faster than bigger or softer tires, and because of flawed test methodology (testing tires on smooth steel drums in a lab vs. testing on real asphalt).
I've heard a lot of people in the tire forum say that radials roll slower, and they certainly might. But until I see actual test results using a methodology that makes sense, I'm going to assume that no one knows the answer to that question.
I don’t think it’s really a flawed test methodology, but rather a lack of understanding how to interpret the results and over extrapolating.
Testing a tire on a steel drum tells you how fast it rolls. It doesn’t tell you everything that happens when you put that in a much larger system. The main thing people forgot about was the giant meat damper sitting on top of those tires. Off road it’s much more difficult to test the impact of the meat damper because suddenly the relevance of the compliance of the tire is much more variable because the surface is much more variable than pavement types. It’s the same reason why we have hardpack specific and loose specific tires. One isn’t better than the other; they succeed in different environments.
If you ride somewhere where tire compliance matters a lot, the radial might even be more efficient. But if you are riding somewhere where that isn’t the case, then it probably won’t.
This stuff is complicated, which makes it hard to properly test and show and explain. People want to hear that such and such tire is the best ever bar none, but in reality the answer is always going to be: it depends. There’s just a lot of nuance.
The only way to find out is to test on your course. And then all you’ll find out is what setup works best for you, but then that’s all that actually matters in racing. Just look at f1, some drivers talk about how they can’t even drive their teammates setups, and those are pretty fine details they are tweaking all things considered. But like last year Lando still won the championship even though his setup was supposed to be less ideal from an aero perspective, because he was willing to sacrifice aero for driver feedback.
It wont this year. They made the mistake of designing it without a gearbox. Scrapping the whole lower half of the bike.
It is less common than a smooth steel or diamond plate drum, but there are lab test setups that use a bumpy roller or drum that try to assess the rolling resistance of a tire on a bumpy surface, in a repeatable fashion. Bumpy roller tests generally indicate that lower pressure (within reason) is faster rolling, for a given casing tire, and a more flexible lighter casing is faster rolling due to some combination of better compliance and reduced hysteresis. I would expect radials to have better compliance, but the hysteresis, especially on an enduro or DH tire, is a big question mark in my mind, as the rubber is having to do more work due the casing flexibility. I wouldn't be so quick to throw out the validity of a test like that to suss out how radials compare to their traditional counterparts.
“”This stuff is complicated, which makes it hard to properly test and show and explain. People want to hear that such and such tire is the best ever bar none, but in reality the answer is always going to be: it depends. There’s just a lot of nuance“”
Wrong. The best tire is a MINION DHF. Always. Long live Colin Bailey in all his wisdom and glory.
Stoked to see what kinda analog gearbox yeti and shimano can come up with
DHF sucks. Always wash out unless you really commit to the lean and never ride berms
Let me say more clearly what was implied in my previous post: those old road bike rolling resistance tests tell me that our own internal rolling resistance gauges in our brains are not very trustworthy. I'm not convinced that radial tires roll slower because the only evidence we have is that they feel like they roll slower.
21mm tires pumped up to 120 psi feel fast as hell on asphalt. As you go faster, you get more and more vibration feedback from the tire, giving the sensation of greater and greater speed. A 32mm tubeless GP5000 pumped up to 60 psi is going to feel dead, damped, and sluggish by comparison. It's going to feel like there's a lot more tire tread on the road with the 32 (because there is), but that doesn't mean it has more rolling resistance in practice, because frictional rolling resistance is only one of many factors affecting the actual on-bike rolling resistance of tires. The reason we were trapped on horrible skinny road bike tires for decades is that the feedback riders were getting from their own internal rolling resistance gauge in their brains happened to line up with the results that the lab was getting back from their bad rolling resistance test methodology. The two flawed measurement systems were in agreement.
I bring that up because that story reminds me of the descriptions I keep hearing from radial tire users and how claim to know that their radial tires "roll slower." I've heard many people say that there's more of the tread in contact with the ground, and that it feels dead, damped, and sluggish, just like the 32mm GP5000 in my example above.
The difference is that (to my knowledge) we don't have any rolling resistance data of any sort to point to regarding that new crop of radial tires. We only have data from the flawed internal rolling resistance gauge located in people's brains. I'm not saying they're wrong. I'm saying there's no compelling reason to conclude that they're right.
And if someone can share a link to rolling resistance data for new radial tires, I'm all ears.
Id Happily never experience riding the DHF again - Had some scary moments on that tyre.
I'd love to see some type of quasi-scientific test of this. The radials sure feel slower on hard pack jump trails.
Maybe chainless A Line and measure average speed?
Yeah for sure, our perceptions are generally not that reliable. I was more just reacting to saying the drum testing is "flawed". I think it's more just that it's limited than flawed, which I get that you understand, but I think a lot of people don't.
Enduro mag did test radial tires. Unfortunately BRR voting is dominated by roadies and so they don't produce any data on gravity tires really, and only just cover XC tires.
https://enduro-mtb.com/en/mtb-tire-test-weight-rolling-resistance-puncture-protection-stats/
They showed that in their testing the Magic Mary (the only tread pattern available in radial and non-radial) was ~5w slower in the radial form. However keep in mind I think Schwalbe said they tweaked the compounds for the radial tires to help limit the losses from going radial. You can also see the bigger difference by far seems to be ultra soft vs soft rather than radial vs traditional. The Albert Radial loses 13w going from soft to ultra soft in the same gravity casing (but the size is a bit different which in most other tests doesn't appear to be that significant). The Magic Mary actually tested faster than most of the maxxgrip tires. Maxxis tires though tend to test slow pretty much across the board though so that's not really saying much imo.
For someone like Amaury Pierron in Korea I don't know how he could avoid the radial tire. I think generally in DH racing that 5w difference is not a big consideration. But for someone who hates pedaling, it's likely noticeable, and might not be worth it. Especially in like hardpack land without a bunch of gravel on top.
Test that became pointless in the radial/normal difference since they run the radial version at the same pressure, something nobody does.
If a tire rolls slower in a straight line but because it grips better it rolls faster in a corner, what is that tire? Slow or fast? Or same with over roots/rocks? I think this speaks to why some view the drum test as invalid bc it really doesn't represent how varying terrain affects rolling resistance.
Skill Issue, try harder.
Dario from PB was riding one at Sun Peaks July 2/3 (think they were doing a field test, saw Matt Beer and Jesse Melamed aswell). He just grinned at the question of how to compares to the old one.
Dunno if was anything but I also saw a Banshee DH bike at Silverstar two days later with a bunch of telemetry related stuff on the rear of the bike, not keen enough to have noticed if it was a revised Legend or if it pertained to the rear shock (didn't recognize it)
We all think radials roll slower because that's what Schawbe told us
It's a good question, because how we define and categorize these terms can hopefully spare us from another dreadful, circular, definitional forum argument. I think the two scenarios you describe are two completely different qualities, which I would describe as 1) rolling speed and 2) cornering grip (or maybe just "cornering" generally).
For instance, for all our friends in the American SE who ride on super hardpacked, smooth, and relatively flat decomposed granite, rolling speed is super important for having any fun at all on your bike ride. A MaxxGrip DH casing Assegai is going to carry great speed through most technical chunky corners in the world, but it rolls like a stuffed animal in hot tar when you're riding in a straight line on flat decomposed granite. In this case, it's pretty clear that "rolling speed" means "in a straight line" and doesn't refer to traction, grip, or stability in technical cornering situations.
John Karrasch (@flexfitbyjohn on Instagram) is doing real world rolling resistance testing (using Chung method) of the current crop of XC and gravel tyres. He’s dabbled with trail casing of XC tread like BRR has, but not into the trail, enduro, DH etc type tyres that this forum is normally interested in. I’ll ask him if he’s interested in this current question of radial RR.
I could give this a go, would back to back race sim laps be enough to provide accurate results? At least in a way that it is consistently one way or the other?
Being "over-tire'd" is a thing. I hate fixing a pinch flat on the trail as much as the next guy but I'm not gonna put DH tires with Cush Core on my daily driver.
Speaking of tires, Maxxis and conti have yet to release a radial ya? I vaguely remember this forum mention it in the works once or twice. I'm not interested in running them myself, but I could go for some "new release" kool-aid.
I posted a screenshot on page 141 from banshees ig page, they teased a few pics during a race weekend recently. They're definitely up to something as the shock cage looks v3ish but still with the traditional legend linkage. Assuming to fit metric shocks.
One of the key guys at Banshee also posted on his stories a few weeks ago about testing a proto/new DH bike. Didn't get screengrabs, but it didn't show much. Probably be seen on the MSC later this year is my guess
It depends on what question you are looking to answer. Race sim will tell you which tire you are faster on. If you want to know about rolling speed of radial Mary vs standard Mary for instance then Chung method can get you some numbers, but it's very difficult to do, especially offroad. Chung method assumes you are accurately repeating, so basically you can't use the brakes and things like that. The Golden cheetah software does have a tool to help with analysis though.
The simplest way to compare rolling speed is with a section of trail with a U shaped elevation profile on a surface that is representative. You start from a standstill, coast down, and then finish by coasting back uphill and record where you stopped. Obviously you want to be as consistent as possible with how you do it.
When I've done this here, it has been kind of crazy how consistent the finishing position is despite traveling ~150m. It's very convincing because you can finish in the same spot within a few inches 5 times, swap only tires and now your finishing clusters shifts by feet or meters. However you don't get numbers, just a ranking. The hardest part is honestly finding the section of trail. If you can find two sections of trail, one with roots/rocks that the tire has to absorb and another smooth to see how the radial tires compare, that would be fascinating (if it works). Otherwise on smooth trail, in my experience, you're just going to see the order the drum testing shows.
Flexfitbyjohn I think does most of his testing on a small loop in a park that's flat. I think he tested on a mtb trail once, because he said he found the perfect section of trail (it was a climb IIRC) after looking and thinking about it for like a year. It's really hard, it's very impressive what he's doing.
Post a reply to: 2026 MTB Tech Rumors and Innovation - Longer and Slacker