All

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...

“”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.

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 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, 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...

I think some of it has to do with both the sport and its participants aging. When I first started riding in the late 90's, I didn't know anything about geometry. I based my bike preferences around what I saw in Mountain Bike Action and on the racks at my LBS. When looking at spec's of a bike, I usually looked at what fork it had and what "level" rear derailleur. Does anyone remember the days when bike brands would spec a bike with a rear derailleur that was 1 level higher than the rest of the drivetrain? There must...

I think it’s important to remember in the tech rumors forum that we all have dope bikes, tailored specifically for where we ride, and that it’s never the same everywhere for everyone and that minion DHF is still the best tire ever always

Effigear had or has the option of a nonconcentric output. Cavaliere bikes used it in the past. As for two cassettes in a box, you actually need like two 11-25 cassettes to get 516% of range if you run them "back to front" like in the shimano patent. Two 10-50 cassettes, besides definitely not fitting, would give you 2500 % of range. That's a bit much.

that’s a YOU problem then

No Lycra here. All XC and downcountry all the time since I'm in the midwest of the US. Pedaling matters 100% of the time to me. It doesn't matter to you and that's cool. Most people on mountain bikes (not ebikes) do some amount of pedaling where they'd find themselves less happy if their experience pedaling were noticeable made worse. Remember, Vital's forum is where the most enthusiastic of the enthusiasts hang out. The MOST obsessed enthusiasts who are often pushing themselves and their gear to greater and greater heights in the pursuit of mountain bike progression and achievement are...

Question for the peanut gallery, inspired by this Nick Bentley pic from the other site- it seems like every Shimano team is running an Ochain on the old Saint M820/825 cranks, despite the fact that those cranks come from the factory with a very permanently installed 104 BCD spider. How do we think they're doing this? Do you think Shimano corporate is modifying the cranks for the teams, or are all the teams doing a garage bodge job like this?

There's the Priority team running them this season and Hattie Harnden already won a womens EWS round on a Nicolai gearbox bike last season.

As though the the gearbox wasn't also invented in the 1800s... Feel free to hate the lightest, simplest, most serviceable, most efficient method of changing gears on a bicycle that humanity has invented so far, but the rest of us will accept derailleurs where they make sense.

1860s technology = a horse ? 🫣

Great thread idea; I can't wait to see how it develops. I'm going to throw a wrench into it right away though, and say I DON'T care that much about geometry. Here are my thoughts: I come from a motocross background. For all the years I've been doing it, there has only ever been one size of MX bike, and every rider had to adjust to that size. Same with geo: it's different from brand to brand, but there are no flip chips or mullet options (well, they are all technically mullets - let's call it a "same-size wheel option.")...

Because they consume 2+ % more of your wattage, and that only gets worse the worse your chain maintenance gets! In addition, the idler produces more noise and potentially a rougher feel when pedaling, which can create a greater than 2% change in a subjective sense. Those losses are from chain link articulation on the highly tensioned top run of the chain: https://www.pinkbike.com/news/tested-how-much-slower-are-idler-bikes-wh… If you find evidence that electronic suspension will provide 2% gains, then it could offset the idler losses, when compared to a non idler/non electronic suspension bike, but you would still be 2% behind a non idler...

I typically use the climb switch once per ride. I like to turn it on halfway up the climb when I remember I have it and might as well use it. I tend to turn it off halfway down the descent when I’m puzzling over why my suspension isn’t working. I suspect I am not in the minority.

No ageism in here! I'm 40, and the bike I ride most is my Singlespeed. So I, in fact, do stand while climbing, a lot.