I think you’re right re: 100x. I was laying it on a bit too thick there.
Shimano 11sp usually-lubed road chains:
About 1000-2500 miles depending on the time of year for the Shimano chains to hit 0.75. Sometimes I swear it would take less than 100 miles to get to 0.5. For the bank account’s sake, 0.75 became the immediate new standard.
SRAM MTB 12sp, occasionally drip waxed and often just left dry and creaky:
About 10,000 miles on the SRAM MTB 12sp chain to get to 0.5 and honestly probably much more until it hit 0.75; I’ve simply never seen it happen.
I think a more useful “duration” metric is probably something like hours-at-watts in which case the differences in chain performance expand. Mileage probably factors in because of the amount of air and debris moved through, but I suspect it matters less than time and average power and maybe torques/cadences but that’s beyond my thinking ability today.
Now that I recall, when I took the only SRAM chain off her bike for either the Silver Rush 50 or LT 100 a month or two ago, I don’t recall it even hitting 0.5 and I thought surely I was measuring wrong (and so I pushed as hard as I could to on the chain wear checker and still couldn’t get it to slot to 0.5) so I just “called it a 0.5” because it had to be, in my mind. Couldn’t believe otherwise, so much so that I banked it as a ‘memory of 0.5.’ Apologies for that just coming to me.
Suffice it to say that the household mechanic’s user experience of the SRAM chains is 20-100x better.
Building up my latest bike (CX/gravel racer), I got 2x curious after nearly a decade on 1x and… I kind of hate it after almost a year. I’m weighing my options on whether or not I want carry on as is or figure out which of the current 1x options is the least worst for me. There’s stuff I dislike about all of them, at the moment.
Which brings me to my other unpopular opinion/preference. I hate hydraulic brakes on road/cx/gravel. To me, the benefits of hydro don’t make up for the general PITA of working on hydro, especially on road levers. I wish there was a rim brake option for the Sram AXS stuff or a 1x option for the Campagnolo mechanical stuff. Pretty much looking at Microshift or Sensah to get what I want.
In my experience (I ride both), it is a probability x severity risk calculation. That is, people that ride (fast) offroad have an incident that required medical attention once or twice each year.
People that I know that ride on the road hit the deck much less, but the injuries are more severe when they do. I also notice that the reasons for a crash seldom involve a car - - but when they do…
TR training plans are too aggressive for 99% of users. (Even on the low volume/milder side).
Too many cyclists judge other cyclists (speed/power/appearance). See above posts
Too much focus on speed in every aspect of cycling (I do it too).
90% of sports nutrition is a scam for all but the best in the world.
You will not lose a race or KOM because of Shimano Sora rather than ultegra/DA
TR podcasts involving pro gravel or race analyses are less appealing, the numbers described are completely unattainable and the lack of relatability makes them difficult to get into. Discussing “real” users accounts is more attractive. As are chats about recovery weeks/nutrition/structuring TRweeks around real life these are the topics we really want
AIFTP is a great tool. But it definitely overestimates performance.
Shimano tiagra is the best road Groupset. (I have ultegra).
Carlton Kirby is a good commentator (damn unpopular ).
Most Americans can’t pronounce pro cycling names or most words
Tubeless is worse than tubes.
Most higher volume cyclists are metabolically unhealthy. Under fuelled, osteoporotic, rhabdomyalitic, haematologically strained, muscular weakness
Wearing full pro kit is ok.
girona is far inferior to Mallorca and is not a good cycling destination.
Box hill and reagents park are both average at best. (Uk).
Not the same thing to me, but words are open to interpretation. My read was to infer “products”, not that fueling sports activity is a scam. The scam (if you subscribe to it) is taking simple carbs and electrolytes and marketing/pricing them as something special for sports nutrition. And for what it’s worth, I don’t 100% subscribe to it being a scam, but I do think it’s very marginal gains compared to substituting with “normal food” carbs and electrolytes.
Like I said, I don’t totally subscribe to it being a scam. I think some of the products are marginally better at hitting the limits of nutrition for those looking for marginal gains. But for the typical racer who isn’t even grabbing the low hanging fruit, they don’t need $5 Mauten gels to get the benefits of decent fueling.
Apologies I did mean the hyped marketed stuff. Beetroot shots, cherry juice, ketones, nootropic gels.
Fuelling of exercise is probably underrated by many athletes that strive to emulate skinny pros by basically starving during long rides and training sessions in other sports. Less so nowadays but definitely in standard club runs most will eat nothing for 2 hrs have beans on toast at cafe and then eat nothing for 2hrs.
Technological advancement in the gravel racing space has produced no meaningful speed gains, at scale.
Event organizers, playing their part in the cycling industry, seek to minimize awareness of this fact by purposefully modifying their courses every year to make comparison impossible.
