dominic54

@timlake: true, but I’m not really sure that’s the right comparison though. If you’re looking at stuff like this you’re probably optimising to the nth degree. I have a lightweight carbon trail wheel set that weighs 1250; and a garbaruk 10-52 weighs 350. 1600 total. That’s a pound less, which is a huge amount in the xc mindset, and a whole other system to not have to maintain or go wrong. And the loss of range is less than 4%. Even accounting for the improved cadence control of more finely spaced ratios, I think that’s a pretty tough sell.

And the last question… what if you DO ride to the nearest trailhead? Or isn’t that useful data? It’s literally the title of the article and then the question is missing altogether.

So much experimentation in frame design, suspension layout and material choices. It just amazes me that in all that developmental period seemingly no-one ever thought to look at rider positioning, or consider incoming force direction. It’s so weird that it took so long for bikes to get longer and stems shorter. Just looking at most of these makes me feel like I’m endoing.

That Chilean one looks like it has about 40 pumps in it, if you pumped everything. Assuming that’s fairly average, then over 10 years they’ve built over 21,000 pumps. Almost 6 pumps a day. So many pumps. Pumpin’.

Really wish I had this skillset, almost more than improved downhill ability. It'd open up new types of ride, and keep me going over stuff that knocks me off now and breaks the flow. Super impressive. And what an inspiring setting!

@threehats: sure; and I guess this speaks to the point below about descending stance, but pedalling (which, like it or not, is the vast majority of most peoples riding) has a lot more in common with walking, biomechanically, than it would with weightlifting, rowing etc. Perhaps a narrower stance which applies forces closer to the centre line also means that you have to perform fewer subtle upper body shifts, or slight steering corrections, to compensate for off-plane movement.

@gtill9000: I’d agree with that for descending. A wider stance probably gives more leverage and control. Where I live, though, there’s a lot of pedalling… and the climbing tires me out long before the downhill does! So I tend to optimise for that, on the basis that it keeps me fresher for the fun stuff.

@mikekazimer "there isn't any clear evidence that a narrower Q-factor is better" Really? That's surprising. It's something the bike fit gurus and road/track world have been pursuing forever. It'd be reasonable to think that the biomechanics of the most efficient pedalling stance would relate to those of walking; and a walking gait has a much narrower stance than even the narrowest Q factor (e.g. as reported here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/nursing-and-health-professions/stride-width ). So getting as close to a natural gait whilst working around the constraints of chainstays/tyres/clearance would seem a reasonable approach. Anecdotally I find a narrower Q factor more comfortable and less fatiguing than a wide one on longer rides.

Sounds appealing. What did you get?