alexdi profile

Not everyone has a natural feel for cycling. Like not stopping, putting a foot down, then accidentally backpedaling the other foot and driving the pedal into your shin. I wouldn't do that. You wouldn't do that. But a lot of people would, and they rightfully fear the result from a bunch of sharp pins.

It's not hard to find decent pedals for $10. CNC aluminum or nylon plastic body, screw-in metal spikes, steel spindle, sealed bearing and bushing configuration. Most of them come with excessively thick grease on spindle, but otherwise, they're a strong facsimile of the $60+ boutique models. At OEM pricing, I'd expect the molded plastic dreck to run about $5 less. Not worth the savings, I would think.

I don't see the proposed combination working out of the box. Shimano's 12S RD ratio is 1.1. For road 11S RDs, including GRX, it's 1.4. JTEK's Shiftmate 8 can pair them.

That cassette is artwork. There are a few other 11S options from Chinese vendors that might be worth a comparison: ZTTO's 11-50 (HG, 400g, $100) and SROAD's 9-43 (XD, 300g, $150). Both have the same CNC steel, 1 alloy sprocket construction. Garbaruk's own 10-46 is a little easier on the derailleur if XD/XDR is available.

Carbon is not a low-friction material, nor particularly resilient to grit. I'm not aware of any coating that addresses this. Anodized aluminum wins on both counts. 

Here's Pinkbike: 

> When the lever is pressed the seat lowers out of the way like it should, but it's not as silky smooth as I'd like - there's a noticeable amount of friction as the carbon stanchion slides into the fixed tube.

If they did something with roller bearings like Cannondale's Lefty, it might be interesting, but at the cost of most of the weight advantage.

I was pleasantly surprised by the internal routing approach on a recent carbon Specialized Sirrus. Rather than a frame-specific cable stop on the downtube, they ran the housing all the way to the bottom bracket into an inside-facing cable stop on the plastic bottom bracket cover. There's enough room to avoid a fishing expedition with new housing, but with it protected like this, I doubt it'll have to be replaced with any frequency, and it makes running new cables only marginally slower than an externally-routed bike.

That said, I hate, hate, hate internally routed hydraulic lines, and doubly-so when the hole is too small to fit a connecting bolt. Adjusting the fit shouldn't require three hours and $50 in hose, parts, fluid, and bar tape. It's particularly irritating when these bikes become accessible to a more cost-conscious audience on the used market that would chaff at triple-digit fitting bill and two-week turnaround times.

On groomed terrain, plus tires are slower, heavier, less responsive, and have noticeable undamped rebound. There's a stronger argument for them on rough terrain, but even there, a pressure that yields the best ride quality won't be enough to support the sidewalls in turns for some riders. 

But if you can get the balance right, they can be terrific. All my fastest times on my XC bike were in a 3.0/2.6 configuration. Downsizing to 2.6/2.4 felt faster, but the clock disagreed.

These bikes are stupendously expensive. So expensive that I wonder if buyers are starting to consider depreciation in the purchasing decision. Unreliable luxury cars are analogous. Does it hurt Mercedes when a 10-year-old SL goes for 15% of the original MSRP because it's unsupported and costly to repair? What, besides a general sense of goodwill, would motivate a brand to support people who probably would never have bought new?

That last photo is extremely epic.

I have more money than time, so I'm all-in on fancy stuff. These days, it mostly cuts weight, and that helps compensate for my weekend-warrior level of fitness. I also like to know that my experience is the best it can be. While it's fun to contemplate the next upgrade, I prefer not to think about that while I'm riding.

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.