All

Guy who owns bike company trashes competitors bike. Shocking.

I know I’m in the minority here but I’d take a slightly cheap feeling shifter that feels like a shifter over one that feels like adjusting the volume on a cheap bluetooth speaker any day.

Can you imagine a female in that pit with those three egos...lol. No woman would want to be around that shit.

Loic, Finn and Jordan dynamics aside, it's still wild to me that a company the size of Specialized doesn't have an elite woman on the elite downhill team.

I was thinking about the 2x transmission in the BB area, in an effort to keep unsprung mass of the rear axle down, so I suppose sort of a fusion of conventional and GB solution. I'm not sure a geared rear hub plus cassette and DR will be a win in that aspect. I suppose it could be electric shifting, but if the 2-speed BB gave you something close to 2:1 gearing, there would be little overlap, and you might just shift when you change from climbing to descending, and mechanical shifting would be easy enough. Most of us did...

In all seriousness, I’d like to see what/how good a 2026 2x8 drivetrain would be if sram or shimano put some serious resources into development.

Three gears in the front and seven in the back could be the perfect ratio for mountain biking! It's almost like it would give you three different gear "ranges" using the front shifter- one for climbing, one for descending, and one for everything in between. And the chain alignment could be so much straighter without having to pack all your gears onto one super wide cassette. I wonder why no one's thought of that yet? I can't think of any downsides.

I havent seen any reviews or tests where intend, fox and push were pitched against each other. That would really interesting to see how all the kings of the usd would compare to each other.

I’m joking, appreciate that it’s not clear over text. There was a long inane discussion about this previously; of course one can choose to spec lighter tires, less draggy hubs or pound one less post ride beer to be more efficient but none of that is relevant to a discussion on friction losses in a gearbox. @sspomer @jeff.brines Really enjoyed the podcast especially the bits on how some of these gearboxes work. I agree that it’s unlikely they’ll come to pedal bikes that you actually want to Pedal- years and capital have gone in to CVT gearboxes to get them...

What if we tried putting a small derailleur on the front cogs, may be just like 2-3 gears, then a 5-7 speed cassette on the rear with another smaller derailleur? Same ratios but better weight distribution?

F1 AND aerospace technology on a same product, that's one fast shock!

I think you have it backwards regarding their argument. I think they are saying that left foot forward means your right is back, which would likely put it in the way of most danger-eating objects first. You are more aware of what might strike your foot/pedal and try to veer away. If you are right foot forward, nothing else stands in the way through the whole wheelbase, then smacks the der der.

The prize is for the belt, not the gearbox. It just happens you need a gearbox if you want to run a belt.

do you need to post your annoying ad into every fucking thing you post? no i don‘t need a place to store my suspension settings, thanks for asking

i miss hand crafted memes. insta-upvote for you, sir. so is it time to discuss the speshy gravity team dynamic? or are we just gonna chalk it up to coincidence? personally i was trying to ignore it until they went 4 in a row... (with 2 diff riders)

For what it's worth - here's Google's AI snippet asking about belt CVT efficiency: Belt-driven CVTs are 80% to 88% efficient in cars, and 70% to 75% efficient in scooters. They are less efficient than traditional manual transmissions (which hit 97%) because they rely on sliding friction to transfer power. However, their ability to keep the engine at its most optimal power zone balances out these losses.

Just because it's patented doesn't mean it works or is a good idea.

The Virginia Tech test protocol are the best thing we have right now, but no doubt there's room for improvement. Like you said, the VT Tech test protocol (and to my knowledge the test protocol for all safety certifications) only test for narrow velocity ranges, which means that a Moto helmet is great for running into a wall at 40 mph and an MTB helmet is better for tipping over from a dead stop, but we don't currently have a good formal way of answering how those same helmets would do in the reverse scenario. There are some helmet manufacturers...