amschroeder555

This is the exact same philosophy as the prior silca drip lube... aqueous carrier, which then meant it was relatively poor at tolerating water. I do want everyone on wax end of the day, but this seems pretty 10/10 marketing a 3/10 product.

Here's the opportunity for PB to show up John's vibe endorsing cult of ignorance worship. Push Moots to give the real delta.

Exactly this. They are not doing that anymore and so it seems basically all their 'changes' are related to a different measurement method.

Sigh... so since Moots didn't bother responding on other websites.... what are the actual direct changes to the bike generation to generation? [Its in the article you say] No. It isn't. The old Moots was sized/advertised as measured at 25% sag and these measurements are at 0%. For example, the HT lengths and ATC between the old and new bikes are the same for both generations. This means IF the HT angle actually slacked, the stack would have to fall (they also use the same headset so no bonus there). Since they are claiming the stack has increased, despite the slackening HT, despite the HT length being the same and the fork being the same... that can only mean they are comparing sagged to unsagged. Which also means the ST angle might not be any different. Tire clearance isn't different. The BB **might** have dropped, and the ST did get shorter, but I can't actually tell anything else having changed. --- Why do you care? Because calling out companies for misleading marketing since they think the new numbers will sell better is something we should all care about. Either misleading last gen or this one, gotta pick a side.

@spaced: yes? But I meant even in the much broader bike industry reviewers beyond pinkbike. They seem to spend all their time at top support and then bitch and moan about no one needing all this power instead of idk... seeing if its fun/easy to ride at lower support levels...

Honestly it's a gigantic problem with a lot of ebike reviewers. The avinox system is actually impressively customizable for low assistance use. I've done 40 mile rides with 0 (actually 0.00) assist and 65 mile rides averaging less than 40W of assistance before each with ~200W average human power. My current eco config gives ~30% assist, auto 80%, and trail ~200%. It's just that the wider top end power means you (can) get that same assistance across a much wider range of cadences and still have the **oh shit** boost button if you really want to get somewhere in a hurry. My experience on the Bosch CX has been different. Its quite refined at high power, but felt... not good (to be blunt) at adding low % assistance. The TQ60 being the opposite (where the limited top end makes the % assist feel very inconsistent at higher efforts, but super nice at low levels)

@Hoverp: i was being facetious, obviously.... the much much more dangerous vehicle somehow isn't speed limit regulated. Or power regulated. And kills literally 100x or more as many people per year, but somehow we think very agressive speed limit control is the right behavior here.

If you are just going to give it the same damn weight and geo, don't bother limiting travel. A 20 kg spec would not remotely hard with the focus on lighter travel, and steepening it to 67-68 at 130mm travel would make it much less lethargic at low speed maneuvering... Make it an actually dynamically different bike than all the alternatives.

The "bad thing" is them forcing a segmentation in the market that has no reason to exist while they claim some bullshit high ground they have 0 leg to stand on. On trail, 20 vs 28mph is utterly irrelevant. Even emtbs end up on roads, a behavior we should actually encourage tbh, given the value in riding to the trails instead of driving to them.

More than trails. More than anything else, we need awareness, community enforcement of proper behavior, and teaching good habits. Don't worry though, as long as Trek can justify selling you a 4th bike. It's all good.