alexdi profile

Cam, if you fancy an evening read, check this out:

https://github.com/dashdotrobot/phd-thesis/releases/download/v1.0/Ford_BicycleWheelThesis_v1.0.pdf

http://bicyclewheel.dashdotrobot.com/

It's the most definitive work I've seen on wheel theory. Very recent. 

Here's a more visceral example of wheel stiffness:

https://www.pinkbike.com/news/video-friday-fails-54.html

Skim forward to 0:46. On landing, the tire bottoms immediately. Then the fork bottoms and the rider falls off. If the wheel deforms at all in this sequence, I can't see it.

There's such variability in how people ride that I'm sure someone, somewhere can make a compelling argument for narrower rims. I suspect it'd devolve into an argument for specific old-school tires on narrower rims, or for narrower tires in general. You have to actually want a big contact patch. Some riders chafe at the perceived rolling resistance. Others seem to think a lot of overhang protects the rim. I'm dubious of both. If we emulated motocross, rim width would be 60-70% of tire width, or about 41-45mm for a 2.6" tire.

The frame price isn't bad. Good name and warranty, cable routing, dropouts, stiffness, and paint quality. That's all worth a premium, even if it's a bit heavy. 

The wheels are something else. There's a narrow sliver of XC bikes still on 2.1"-2.3" tires for which I might want a sub-30mm rim, but for literally everything else, I'd choose bigger. Even those undersized Maxxis 2.3" tires would do better at 30mm, with 2.35" and 2.4" in the mid-30s. The big 2.6" treads we're gravitating to work best at 38mm-40mm, a "plus" width not two years ago.

IME, the additional width adds sidewall stability and volume and reduces the chance of a burp. I'm aware some tires have narrow tread patterns that don't play well with wide rims, but this is changing quickly. If you're buying a bike for more than a season, I think it's hard to justify a high-dollar wheelset designed for yesterday's tires.

All fair, though I still think the same about the fork. 

How'd you like the brakes? I've heard mixed reviews on Guide R.

I have to differ on the weight sentiment. 26 pounds and change for a carbon hardtail with this build is heavy. A full-squish Tallboy is about the same. You'd never see this used for racing of any kind. I'm also not sure what to make of a build that prioritizes bling (that $100 front hub) over things that actually matter (the fork). Zero-mile upgrades shouldn't be required on a $5700 bike.

I'm at a loss why more posts don't put the pinch bolt at the lever. Terminating a cable on a part that's supposed to be buried in the frame doubles the installation complexity and puts a potential failure point out of reach. I wonder if Wolftooth's ReMote patent cornered the market for this sort of thing.

That saddle rotation is a byproduct of a steep seat tube angle. A steep STA rotates your entire body around the bottom bracket like a clock hand. To sit at that orientation, the saddle has to tilt downward (along with your feet on the pedals) or your knees won't line up with your pedaling force. You're effectively optimizing your seated position for traveling uphill. This isn't great for flat ground (your hands bear more weight from your torso when you're not cranking hard enough to offset it), but doesn't affect downhills because you're never in the saddle anyway.

The forward position of the saddle is because the STA on this bike isn't steep enough to keep the seated reach in check for this rider. (The stem can't get much shorter and there's only so steep the STA can be with that shock mount. Super-steep STAs limit how much you can tweak the suspension's leverage curve.)

How about a Keeper 512 for $7?

To me, locks categorize by the tools required to defeat them: tin snips, bolt cutters, or angle grinders. Both of these are tin snip locks, so they're about equal security. (It's surprisingly hard to finesse open even cheap combination barrel locks. Too much time and focus for an opportunistic thief, I think.)

I do think the Otto's improved ergonomics (and perhaps greater resilience to a twisting attack) are worth something. For me, though, that number might reach $40. $60ish gets too close to locks with better than line-of-sight security.

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.

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.