Im sure it’s been stated many times in this thread but my unpopular opinion is also mechanical >> electrical, especially for MTB. Electronic drivetrains are popular because sram didn’t know how to make mechanical good and they have cornered the OEM market somehow. Shimano should double down on weight reduction and durability in mechanical systems. I mean now that people are paying $700 for a derailleur, imagine the possibilities. Titanium, plutonium, idk. Super light housing and cables, ultra light and durable derailleurs?
Other unpopular opinions of mine:
Gravel bikes used to be cobbled together builds of a mix of durable, kind of junky, road and MTB and cx parts and it made sense because you were trashing the bike by riding it through giant ATV puddles. Let’s go back to durability and repairability as main priorities for gravel bikes, not $2k drivetrains full of batteries.
You don’t need the same diameter tires on gravel bikes that I have on my full suspension mountain bike. You might want them, but don’t need them. If you need them, you’re doing something wrong. Also gravel was more hardcore when it was a cobbled together set of stuff and narrow tires.
People who say “champagne gravel” need their podcasts/instagrams taken away.
Super long cage derailleurs are a bad idea for MTB.
At repack we did not need a derailleur or cables. Bikes were simple. 1 piece cranks did not brake. And if you cooked the rear brake you just went faster.
Given the discussion in the Crux thread, here’s one.
Every road, gravel, mountain, endurance, race, TT, tri, whatever bike should have frame storage. Maybe track bikes get a pass. That’s it. Every other new bike made should have built in frame storage.
Agree! Sure, it’s an unnecessary waste on race day for some, but even for an aero road race bike… most of them cover most of their miles not actually racing. So having somewhere to stash a tube etc. and avoid needing a saddle bag or massively bulging pockets will not only be convenient but probably also more aero.
Unpopular opinion (maybe - well here in Sweden, perhaps!):
The fastest way to fitness is by training on hills.
Here in Sweden, there is a bit of a (cycling) cultural aversion towards hills. Lots of strong guys and gals here, for sure, but generally, they tend to go slower uphill than you’d expect. Sweden isn’t a mountainous place, but it’s not flat either.
My theory as to why hill training is so important is that it allows you to push into power zones that are otherwise more or less off-limits. My uphill FTP is about 40w higher than my rolling terrain FTP. But by training more on hills, it drags up my rolling terrain FTP, and also allows me to climb like someone far smaller and lighter.
In conclusion I’d say that training consistently in hilly terrain is the fastest way to get fast.
Disagree to an extent… You’ll just join the legion of indoor riders and Zwifters. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve over-performed my FTP by creating a break or bridging to one occurring, or dropping (weight-challenged) folks going over a crest because I have developed the ability to accelerate and really put down power on the flats. It requires a different kind of muscle activation where you can’t depend on the natural full-pedal-stroke resistance hills provide. You almost need to stomp (not spin) in a lower gear.
Generally think it’s best to train to your strengths and incorporate into your race strategy…
If you are continuing to put power out after you’ve completed a climb, that’s an excellent place to establish a break, because lots of riders are going to reach the top and relax slightly. Whereas if you’re prepared to put out a similar effort for just another 10 or 20 seconds, or even longer, then you’ll be riding away from them.
I think that’s different to saying that it’s good to put out power on the flat. Which I’d agree is a good thing as well.
