April 23, 2015, 2:31 p.m. -  Toaster

#!markdown The problem isn't that you didn't ask the correct first question - you did. The problem is you didn't ask the correct second question. You asked if they're inventing things just to sell shit. They said no, their inventions have tangible benefits. This is pretty obviously true, and some basic armchair engineering shows that there is an advantage to these products. But the second questions should have been: At what cost? Does the minor benefit that Boost brings to the table outweigh the massive downside that now there's yet another axle standard requiring new frames, new hubs, and which will inevitably lead to higher costs across the board along with lower resale values. You finished the video by saying that it all comes down to me - I can buy whatever suits me best. But that's a bullshit cop-out. Of course I can buy what I want, but now every little ridiculous sub-genre is spread insanely thin, everything costs 30% more than it should because there's so many different standards, all of which require different molds and tooling, and there's even less support in the LBS for any given part of the bike since they can't be expected to stock 87 different types of axles just because Trek thinks they've come up with "something fun that they'd sell to their friends."