XC-Only

Part of the reason these comparisons seem to fall apart is that there is a lack of framing of the question involved. The major, and obvious, thing that a motorcycle has and a bicycle doesn't is an engine. I'd be a fool to assume that the cost of a motorcycle is 50% engine/transmission, but let's assume that for a second. A Honda CRF 450 costs just under $10,000 usd new. Let's assume that the Honda minus engine and transmission is down to $5,000 usd. Now consider that there are only really only a dozen, if that, direct competitors to the Honda. Now compare that to a $5000 trail mountain bike, for which there are now AT LEAST 3 different sizes, and more than 3x the amount of bikes to choose from, with a myriad of different suspension designs. Now, look at the level of componentry. The stuff on the motorbike wouldn't even compare to the same quality of parts that you would find on an entry-level trail bike. I have ridden, and owned mulitple motorcycles to date, the most expensive one is just over $12,000, but I would say that based on the comparison I've outlined above, the componentry of that bike is about on par to what you would find on a $3000 hardtail. So while there are differences in cost, we're not talking 10x the difference in cost.

@hllclmbr: That's a load of BS. You're telling everyone that running up a 10% hill is faster than riding up the same hill at a given heart rate and power?

I've found that people in general have difficulty paying for a service, where the product is not a physical object, e.g. a bike fit, training program, coaching--despite the fact that all that I've mentioned are objectively going to make anyone a better, faster rider (sometimes in the span of an afternoon if it's skills coaching). I don't think it's the cost, because it's clear that cyclists will pay more for parts than what a professional bike fit or coaching costs.

@vinay: @vinay: having been a professional bike mechanic for 14 years, a good ERD (effective rim diameter) tool with the actual diameter printed on the tool (or scale that you fit against the overlapping rods) and a fast online spoke length calculator is what makes wheel builds go smoothly. Unless the rim is out of round beyond normal, gradual, systematic, and deliberate tensioning brings most wheels up to within +/- 2mm (round or true) with about 75% of final tension. Most people (and mechanics) are just too impatient to wind 1/4 turns of the spoke at a time when approaching 100% tension. Of course an accurate tensiometer helps, and should be used by all professional wheel-builders and shops, but you get a pretty good feel for tension within different spoke gauges with time, and the tensiometer is just a verification.

@onawalk: let's put aside the subjective practicality / usability of vehicles for a moment. The primary reasons I have heard for most people to dislike mid-size and larger trucks and SUVs are vehicle footprint (size) and fuel economy. The argument is always "you can achieve what you are doing with that truck with a van." The problem is that the closest thing that can carry what a long-bed (6'), crew-cab pickup truck can carry, both people and cargo, is a crew van. Those things start at $55k USD, have a larger footprint than my Tacoma, harder to see around when you are following, the fuel economy is a toss-up, all the while I lose the 4wd and ground clearance. And for the "I don't need 4wd/AWD group": if you have even tried to park at Wolf Hill at the Sea Otter on a Sunday morning, it's hilarious how all the 2wd/FWD vehicles have to zig-zag up that first dirt hill--a seemingly easy climb that deteriorates as more traffic creates moguls on the road. Now imagine having to drive even 2-5 miles of "easy" terrain like that on a weekly basis where you don't have room to cut back-and-forth across the road and I bet you would be running to get some sort of 4wd/AWD vehicle with some clearance.

@notthatfast: I would happily buy a "not a truck." I've had extended usage of an old Datsun, 1st gen Tacoma, and have owned a Frontier. I currently drive a '22 Tacoma TRD. The only thing the Tacoma and a lot of midsized trucks lack for my usage as a stock vehicle is a canopy over the bed to keep the bikes away from weather. Problem is, no one can point me to a 4x4, high-clearance vehicle that can seat 4 people and carry 4 bikes more or less within the profile of the vehicle (i.e. without having to add racks to enlarge the dimensions of the vehicle significantly), and for around $40,000. I think there is something to be said or definite market for a high-clearance, 4x4 van, about the size of a 15 passenger van, flexible seating for up to 7, between $35k-$45k USD. However, once all of that criteria is satisfied, I bet you are not going to be improving fuel economy nor are you decreasing the vehicle footprint--it's just a more practical version of a pickup truck.

@nozes: I think many of us even used 1X with 11-34 cassettes in the right conditions with a 32T front chainring. While my cardio is still good for that ratio, the joints in my legs may not be up to the task.

@pixelguru: it would be more drag than a dead racoon, I can guarantee that! Regarding 2X--I've never had any issues either. I was running 3X on my hardtail until 2018, then I gave in and converted to 1X the following year. Still running 2X on my gravel and road bike, and probably will not change that for the sake of "simplicity".

Underrated comment. Former industry employee here as well; well into 14 years in he bike business with quite a few of those years at retail. In the early days of women's specific bikes, those brands that did more than just spec shorter stems and anatomical saddles just adjusted their unisex bikes for shorter top-tubes, and pretty much left everything else along. The assumption being that women typically have shorter torsos. Right around 5'4"-5'8" is where it could be a tossup between whether a shorter top tube was beneficial or not. Beyond that height, most women preferred standard bike sizing. On the other end of the scale, anyone shorter than 5'-2" men or women, simply didn't have much of a choice. I believe it was an engineer from Cervelo that stated that it doesn't matter much wether the top tube ratio to height was correct with smaller bikes because there were simply not enough small bikes made to begin with. I think he further sated that unless you are outside of the 95% of proportionality for height, +/- 10mm of stem length can account for any variance assuming bike sizes didn't have such large steps.

Weight always matters. As light as possible, as strong as necessary. You will run into a point of diminishing returns then, either your finances or competition rules will tell you when you have to stop.