Ha! No intent to induce panic on my part, I promise. I was actually re-reading those last few paragraphs myself, trying to figure out what I missed, because I knew you weren't trying to laud Giant's mid-2010s design team, but I couldn't figure out what the broader point you were making was. I think the nuance that I missed was that you were making a separate point at the beginning of the piece -- that "_some of the most exciting meat-powered rigs on the market right now aren't a huge leap from the thinking behind Andrew's version the SX,"_ which I 100% agree with, and really don't think is up for debate given how lively the "downcountry" category is right now_\-\-_ than you were at the end of the piece, when you brought up the Process 111 et al. Let me admit, Andrew: sometimes my mid-work-day ability to digest your insights is a bit dulled; I recant my testimony! :-)
The even more nuanced point you're bringing up about _"fully-people-pedaled bikes"_ is, I think, worthy of a future editorial -- whether here or on MeatEngines. I live in an extremely un-eBike-friendly area, and we haven't come close to reaching blender-bike saturation here, but when we do I imagine many of the meat-powered riders may be switching to lighter, shorter-travel machines instead of hopping on motorized all-mountain/enduro category rigs.
The Path Podcast did a great segment on this topic, pondering what will change about the buying habits of highly evolved MTB consumers if they continue to resist the encroachment of motorization. As one of the podcast hosts noted, once the buyer has recognized that they're \*not\* getting the most expensive, most technically-equipped, most "advanced" (heavy scare-quotes) bike on the market, why continue choosing a bike that's at the upper tier of the pyramid in terms of suspension capability, when a lighter short-travel bike will make for a more immediate, lively riding experience, and go uphill faster to boot?!
Aug. 1, 2022, 1:24 p.m. - gubbinalia
Ha! No intent to induce panic on my part, I promise. I was actually re-reading those last few paragraphs myself, trying to figure out what I missed, because I knew you weren't trying to laud Giant's mid-2010s design team, but I couldn't figure out what the broader point you were making was. I think the nuance that I missed was that you were making a separate point at the beginning of the piece -- that "_some of the most exciting meat-powered rigs on the market right now aren't a huge leap from the thinking behind Andrew's version the SX,"_ which I 100% agree with, and really don't think is up for debate given how lively the "downcountry" category is right now_\-\-_ than you were at the end of the piece, when you brought up the Process 111 et al. Let me admit, Andrew: sometimes my mid-work-day ability to digest your insights is a bit dulled; I recant my testimony! :-) The even more nuanced point you're bringing up about _"fully-people-pedaled bikes"_ is, I think, worthy of a future editorial -- whether here or on MeatEngines. I live in an extremely un-eBike-friendly area, and we haven't come close to reaching blender-bike saturation here, but when we do I imagine many of the meat-powered riders may be switching to lighter, shorter-travel machines instead of hopping on motorized all-mountain/enduro category rigs. The Path Podcast did a great segment on this topic, pondering what will change about the buying habits of highly evolved MTB consumers if they continue to resist the encroachment of motorization. As one of the podcast hosts noted, once the buyer has recognized that they're \*not\* getting the most expensive, most technically-equipped, most "advanced" (heavy scare-quotes) bike on the market, why continue choosing a bike that's at the upper tier of the pyramid in terms of suspension capability, when a lighter short-travel bike will make for a more immediate, lively riding experience, and go uphill faster to boot?!