alexdi profile

Interesting point about kinematics. A larger chainring reduces anti-squat and pedal kickback. That's what you would want if you were going fast enough to use the larger ring, no? I recall this floated as an advantage of 2-by systems some years back.

STW is the only outlet that's given it a serious run. It held up admirably in UK muck; I wonder how much worse your winters could be. They'd probably send a demo unit if you asked.

You could pair it with an M8000 SGS derailleur (47T capacity) and a 10-42 or 11-46 cassette, or even a 9-44 for a truly absurd 733% range. I'd buy one to try myself if I wasn't already content with my 1X.

If you're into the Hammerschmidt, this is right up your alley:

http://vyro.com/en/products-shop/mtb-xc-en/

Same consistent chainline and full-load shifting, but no drag in the big ring and ~680g. STW gave it a strong endorsement.

I think I'd enjoy that, except... my friends are faster than me. Some of them. Enough of them. If I don't want to suck dust, I need all the help the bike can give me. Fortunately it's a Cannondale, so I've got more ridiculous proprietary parts than anyone.

I want that bike, but I already blew my wad on roadie kit: 

https://www.bikeradar.com/us/road/gear/article/the-dominator-is-the-greatest-bike-ever-made-49375/

Mate, if my trail looked like that, I'd be on a rigid too. Alas, I've only got the one set of wrists.

Sure. There's a particular "bible" with examples aplenty, especially in older editions. Like most magazines, they tend to write in a community voice: "we" discovered this and "our testers" preferred that. The sentiment matters more than the byline.

The other side of deferred candor is that the initial reviews are often fluff pieces, and not for lack of time to evaluate the product. Here's what one publication says about a recent 165mm enduro bike: 

"... an exceptionally good climber and doesn’t compromise when the trail points downward."

"...  the frame is stiff ... responding to every pedal stroke."

"... clung to loose dirt, rocks and roots effortlessly, giving us all the traction we could ask for."

"... the rear end ... soaked up big hits without a second thought."

If you're the author, where do you go from this? How could the next one be any better?

And if you're the reader, why would you buy any other bike when this one is so clearly without compromise?

While your point is well-taken (and well-written), I think the beef is less about parts than the feeling that what you're emotionally invested in has been devalued.

They told me it was great, I emptied my pockets, and now they're replacing it a year later?

How can I feel good about my ride when the new marketing is all about deficits I didn't even know it had?

Why didn't they think of this stuff before selling me on the old one?

And why is the only honest evaluation of my bike in the review of the subsequent redesign?

Oof. Terrific modulation with that housing, right up until it fails catastrophically. Glad you're still around.

I love new stuff. Addressing some real or imagined problem gives me the warm fuzzies. It's almost as much fun to mull the possibilities as it is to ride. It helps that the new gear is almost always better. Occasionally more challenging to wrench, but even that can be entertaining. Still, the old gear persists. If I hanker for a 26er with a 120mm stem and an elastomer fork, I can have one for peanuts. That's it's so cheap relative to what came later isn't a product of mass delusion.

Most innovations are market-driven. "I want a light spindle and bearings that won't bite the dust at water crossings!" DUB it is. "I want short stays and stiff 29er wheels with giant cassettes!" That's Boost. The engineering isn't always up to snuff the first try (I'm looking at you, a dozen press-fit variants), but eventually they get it right. Faulting the failures is faulting them for trying.

Excellent review, thanks for taking the time! I particularly appreciate the assembly notes.

I've made a worksheet of a potential build that brings the bike just under 27 pounds, though the bigger question is whether to go full-29 or take the plunge to a 69er.* How much flexibility did you have on the color scheme and logos?

• I just realized the 34T thing could be a problem with a 69er. I run 32T with a 29x2.5" and a 10-42. If I downsize to 27.5 in the back, the ring has to come up to 32 to keep the top end. Hmm.