IluvRIDING

@mosierman: I have seen mechanics use cordless screwdrivers during races. Probably set up to a certain torque. So technically at least some do have some torque control even then.

@turner474: Thats exactly the bike what I commute on daily (besides having multiple other new bikes). ...I understand your stance on new stuff from the industry. However sometimes new standards introduce hurdles for LBS, new people to the sport and other unnecessary expenses. The few percent gained might not outweigh the negatives.

Answer to what exactly? Industry overwhelming us with "standards"?

I would love to see some conclusive data on how 32" wheels perform on various tracks, conditions, and disciplines. I am not convinced it is going to be as clear-cut as the move from 26" => 27.5" => 29", where historically the 622 mm rim was already the de facto standard, so in a sense we only came back to it. The reasons why a 32" front wheel could be worse are poorer aerodynamics, more unsuspended weight from the rim and tire ( but also from the likely rotor size increase) resulting in greater moment of inertia. This might not be a problem in a steady-speed gravel race, but in an XC race with constant speed changes, it is a clear extra energy cost. For non-upside-down forks, there is also more leverage on the fork bushings, plus geometry challenges such as toe overlap. All of this would have to be outweighed by lower rolling resistance and better rollover. For rear wheels, it gets even worse: all the problems of the front wheel, plus severe geometry issues, especially for smaller riders, and gearing challenges. Either you enlarge the cassette by 29/32, adding even more weight, or reduce the chainring by 29/32, lowering drivetrain efficiency - which again must be outweighed by the advantages. My prediction is that full 32" setups might be advantageous on some XC marathon or gravel tracks, but for all other MTB disciplines I would expect only a front 32" wheels, and only on certain tracks and certain conditions at best.

mins ago) "Remember when we went to single chainrings and how uncluttered our bars felt? It seems like XC bikes have more handlebar clutter than ever." ...the last thing a racer thinks about is clutter. Ergonomics, performance, weight, maintenance will be far more important. Lockouts and dropper remotes are present for obvious performance reasons. This "cluter" argument has set the stage for through headset cable routing and wireless gimmicky components (Two big NO THANKS from me). Please be careful not to introduce a bias toward marketing department driven features (although the battle seems to be lost).

At first Specialized S-Works Epic looked like a bike that could potentially tick all the boxes (especially the ultralight almost non-electronic version). But then i fount out: "The Specialized S-Works Epic 9 Ultralight LTD does not have a mechanical shifter routing option. Specialized has designed the Epic 9 frame to be optimized for wireless drivetrains only as part of its weight-saving strategy. While the frame still supports cable-actuated rear shocks, there is no internal routing path or entry port for a mechanical derailleur cable." This sucks so, so badly. I can't believe it.

@dangerholm: Thanks for explaining how the new flex stay is designed. But is there any advantage from this? I don't think that the additional force from the flex stay is an intentionally designed feature, it just works as an adtitional spring at the end of the stroke, however air shocks are progressive by their own nature and you can even play with that with tokens. Combined with the leverage ratio design, it's not required to have energy stored in the rear triangle deformation for getting a good suspension tune.

@dangerholm: Ok, than it makes some sense, but the charts are really misleading when you compare the previous generation with a small chainring and the new one with the same one albeit it is meant to be used with a larger one resulting in lower o maybe simmilar (??) antisquat.

Ask AI: Upcountry: The glistening, ultra-luxurious virtual reality world where the wealthy escape. Downcountry: The crumbling, climate-ravaged real world left behind.

What really interests me is the masive increase of anti-squat. In the past two generations of the spark, the anti-squat was much lower. The 30% increase in antisquat compared to the previous generations is absolutely huge and I would like to know the reasoning behind this change. When climbing in rougher terrain, lower anti-squat numbers provide a more cushioned feel (eating up bumps) and arguably better traction. On flat rolling terrain, when pedaling, with lower AS there is less feedback of bumps through pedals. This is because AS numbers are directly tied to kickback or also in other words in how much of suspension force is transfered through the chain (and rider in the end). High AS results in less bobbing and a more hardtail like feel when pedaling without lockouts. Previous versions of the spark featured a complete or almost complete lockout, so it is surprising to se such a change.