tehllama

@mikekazimer: I think a bit more articulation on the concept of what the 'PB Cheap Bike Test' long term goal would be can go a long way. I love what you all are doing here, because what we probably want in the end is a $1200 bike a few years from now that has way fewer compromises, and the role that bringing the State HT into this can play towards that is massive. You all made the right call - but the narrative needs to line up on what bike you all envisioning winning the 2028-2029 version of this test and how manufacturers/product managers/distributors/designers can get there.

That's the beauty of this test, and being an annual one. Right now, the compromises are there, but might be fixable with volume. In a few years, we may actually get bikes in this (inflation-adjusted) price point that can actually do the job, survive, and weigh a similar amount. If Polygon could run a wider seat tube variant, I'd have owned that bike already (and tripled its value with add-on parts). The State is honestly closer, and might be able to close the gap on value (or at least get a $1200 offering that could enter the chat). Having a groupset that isn't just a forgotten heavy-steel version of two-generation old XTR would potentially go a long way. I think this is the best way Pinkbike can show what is possible, get maximum manufacturer participation, and also not risk making big brands squeamish (in the way a $2500 price point test could be - those bikes can actually keep up with and potentially embarass the $7500 ones).

@angryhiker: We should have arrived at the metacarcinization phase sooner by that logic, but it is basically inevitable

@brianpark: That's literally the plan I'm going with on mine, and I'm not actually concerned it'll fail. Admittedly, 32H 32" probably just makes sense for an all-season bike anyway, and the thicker layup out back is going to help because I'm on a hardtail, but honestly 148 wasn't really needed for 29" The argument I've been explaining to the nonbelievers is that if a 148 29" bike is good enough for Enduro bike loads, it'll be adequate for XC and Trail bike loads with a 10% larger wheel

@lkubica: Ah, you understand the master plan

Truthfully, this is the way. I only look at it as a retirement/side career for if I find myself in a position where I want to turn a large fortune into a small fortune.

I'm just here to laugh at the people down-voting this... imagine being sad that a tall person can have a bike that fits.

@Muscovir: The math you need to do is the square-cube law analysis on volumetric oxygen exchange efficiency. Mountain biking in any non-gravity discipline is fundamentally a specific V02max dictated activity, and tall riders are at a distinct disadvantage. This will almost add some parity, and some folks will cry foul when a 5'11" rider who was previously lurking around the top ten starts to win on a 32" bike... but to be honest, this is about as fair as it can get.

@suspended-flesh: I already made that vote with a non-trivial amount of dollars. I am not alone, nor will I be. 32" will go at least as far as plus bikes (not surprisingly, because they do what 29+ bikes can, except also handle XC duties). Once the tire ecosystem comes along, it'll make a lot of sense. I'm still equally sad that we're only recently seeing 155mm cranks and 26/650b mullet bikes for people in the XS side of things, but we finally have those now. Makes sense that the 95th percentile and taller (in North America) can actually get bikes that are proportional as well.

@brianpark: Analysis of what thing makes the marginal wallet spill more money into this particular part of the outdoor industry is the real decider... but honestly, being able to buy a thing that has A) larger number, B) looks like the slightly distinct thing that is winning at international races, and C) seems like we're progressing in any way with technology (accurate or not - at least we know the hype isn't just LLM generated slop trying to sound like an engineering undergraduate), so it's time to start deciding as industry adjuncts what roles 32" mountain bikes are good at, and which don't make sense. It's not even going to be hard - Fixed rear Gravel and XC Hardtails, they'll be an improvement for people with saddle heights over 700mm. XC-Trail travel full suspension mountain bikes, once we have decent tires, anything with up to 127mm of travel for the >700mm saddle club is going to be a hit. Doing anything beyond that is going to be for the crowd already on XL bikes (or with factory support) until we figure out some creative stuff - but this will be inherently low sales volume items and carry pricetags that seem illogical - but tall consumers who have only been able to ride bikes that vaguely fit them in the last half decade are going to open their wallets alongside gravel bikers, and it'll be a whole thing until we realize that eebs have taken an even bigger slice of the total off-road bicycle market share and go back to realizing that a 40lb, 1kW class eeb in a mullet setup with 6" of travel actually isn't that terrible a thing to ride, but isn't as cool as rocking out acoustic.