I agree but there will still be added costs. Tools. Because no company will stick to a common std you need more tools. I won’t even go on about brake fluid.
- Seems SRAM is finally making the move to follow Shimano, which makes life easier down the road.
I wonder if I get a trade-in allowance on my 4 month old brake set?
I spin out my 52/11 multiple times every ride. And I’m not even that strong. I’m just big and heavy and any slight downhill I’m looking for bigger gears.
Shots fired!
Why do you need to keep pedalling at 70km/h (which is about 120rpm at 52/11) on every ride? You’re probably faster just tucking in anyway. Or are these very shallow downhills and you are trying to bomb it? But then spinning out at that gear at shallow gradient means you are pushing a lot of watts, every ride.
Don’t misunderstand, you do what you want to do, just that it’s bizarre to me.
It’s the only way I can do long intervals. Otherwise I get big time gaps in my work intervals. I also just like to keep pressure on the pedals. I aim for >90% pedaling, that is, less than 10% of my ride time coasting. I’m also a sprinter with a decent kick. 50t definitely wasn’t cutting it there.
But also, like @wintermute said, it’s more efficient to be in the middle if the cog. Smaller chainrings mean I’m on the edge (smaller cogs) more frequently.
Crank length, bar width, stem length and saddle are all things that should only be finalized when a particular bike is sold.
Agreed, but requiring the shop or the customer to purchase the parts they don’t require smacks of profiteering at worst or thoughtlessness or laziness at best on the part of the manufacturer. They already sell bikes without pedals. Cassette type, derailleurs, shifters, brakes, wheel type/width don’t really affect fit. Bundle those things, okay put some “standards” for the parts you mentioned on the demo model but let the customer choose them for their own purchase without the expense of buying the parts they don’t need. I think this every time I see some junior who is clearly too short for the 165mm cranks fit to their XS frame, arms out like a parachute holding onto the way-too-wide 42cm bars that somebody in R&D somehow decided it was appropriate for such a frame. 
You’ve posted in the wrong thread, I think that would be pretty popular.
It would be a nice way to allow a LBS to add significant value in the sales process vs. the direct to consumer model where a bike basically comes from a factory in Asia to your door without anyone ever opening the box. Although, I’d like to see it in direct to consumer as well. And there are some smaller bike companies doing it (at least for some components). When I did a Trek Project One frame many years ago, I was able to pick width/length for an integrated bar and also pick the seatpost setback. The Project One price was a pretty cheap add-on back then if you didn’t go crazy with paint, more than paid for itself since I got the bar/stem/seatpost I needed vs. having to buy the right sizes separately. And I recall it only being ~$200 premium for a project one frame vs. standard frame back then. And it wasn’t something they advertised for frame only, you had to use the Trek dealer portal to configure a frame only purchase. I have no idea what they are doing these days, but it wouldn’t be that hard to set up an assemble to order operation and it would also help with demand planning (rather than having to forecast how many medium red frames need to be built with SRAM force AXS, etc., etc.). So many combinations just create inevitable excess inventory. I’d gladly pay a premium if I could order a bike with the exact components I wanted as long as it’s still cheaper than me buying a frame and components and building it myself.
You can pedal with the brakes on. Not saying you should, but it’s an option and I much prefer doing it that way than trying to pedal 70 kph during an interval when I’m seeing stars and may not have the best road sense.
If you care about performance, you don’t want to be in the small rings at the back for long periods for chainline efficiency. You should size your chainring so that you’re in the middle of your cassette most of the time, not try to convince everyone it’s fine that you’re forced to push 130rpm in the smallest cog just to keep up.
Cadences and speeds are often exaggerated (stating the max rather than what people are actually riding at for any period of time). 130 would have you going ~45mph with a 42 or 44 ring in the 10 cog. The average cyclist just isn’t pedaling that often when they are going over 40mph. Even running a fairly small chainring on the front, most people are not hanging out in the small cogs too long (which would mean rolling along at 30mph+). Maybe if they are 5w/kg types, but again my point is “most people”, which is going to be closer to the 3.5w/kg club. If someone like riding with a big chainring, all good, I’d just argue it isn’t usually not because they need it to avoid being dropped. At least that’s been my personal observation. If you live somewhere that’s very flat with crazy winds and pushing 40+ mph for extended period, that sounds like fun (until you turn around) and I could see the need for big gearing.
Unbound if overrated
Here is my rip on gravel coming from someone who has been riding and racing bikes for 35 years (old man rant). I also spent 10 years in the bike industry working for one of the major bike companies.
People who think riding gravel on technical and single track is fun have never really ridden a mountain bike or ridden one well. Its not fun. I think most gravel riding is a bore. You are either riding a little too slow on some dirt road, or you are riding some tech wishing you had suspension, which is part of the reason why there has been a progression toward larger tires and other ride softening technology. For noobs who have never really mastered other bicycle flavors this is interesting, but for me its not. For me road riding is more thrilling. And mountain biking on a real mountain bike. Even riding my TT bike doing average 22mph rides is more fun. Gravel is meh.
Also not an opinion but a fact is Gravel has been lifted up on the perpetual tribal lie that “road riding is just too dangerous and getting more so.” The US data doesn’t support that claim, but 80% of gravel riders I know keep repeating it until it seems truthful.
I agree. I have a long torso and short legs, my last 3 bike purchases have been from American Bicycle Group (Obed, Quintana Roo, Litespeed) because they let you pick exactly what you want, stem length, bar width, crank length) and you dont have to have all of the crappy house brand wheels and other parts. You can get exactly what you want. If bike shops did this it would be great.
You’re making the assumption that people are riding gravel to race. The vast majority of people I know who ride gravel (or light single track on a gravel bike) do it because it’s fun, because they enjoy the challenge of being “underbiked”, or to avoid cars, not to “win”.
Also, interestingly, all the things in your first paragraph are the things the original TdF entrants faced, although their odds to DNF were a lot higher than 40%.
I agree it allows someone to particpate in a “race” that is really just a ride (but you can tell your friends you race and you can post lots of selfies of you doing it). I recently got asked by a friend to sign up for a gravel “race” in Vermont that cost $135, was un-supported, un-marked, and was not timed. But the coffee was free at the end. How do people come up with this sh–?
I’m not sure how this could be an actual race. Might have race in the title but without timing and being unmarked there is no accountability for a winner. Here in Texas most gravel events are not called races even though some are timed with awards. They usually have a gps file to use as a route guide. They are basically fundraisers for local communities. Free beer and bbq at the end. $ 135 is a bit steep. Maybe it got too popular over the years and they wanted to keep it manageable.How many entrants were there?