My favourite bikes have always been the ones that suck at everything. Short travel or hardtail, noodly forks, saint brakes, DH tires and wheels. Or what we used to call Mullet bikes... DH frames with all mountain build kits. Idiosyncratic. Oxymoronic. Imperfect.
But by god do they bring a smile to your face. Once you get over having the perfect bike for everything and just focus on making it durable and easy enough to hop on and go on any adventure with... Smiles for days.
Ride enough, you'll break shit and wear it out, and you'll never have to stress about buying something new for performance because you'll be so fixated on needing to replace parts just to maintain function.
I think that's quite common for most brands. I've certainly seen it in North Vancouver, Quebec, and even the brief time I was in Switzerland it's apparent. It makes a lot of sense to gather data and stoke out the community. Anywhere where there a company has a head office, you'll see bikes months before wider launch.
If you're asking me, my answer is entirely unscientific. I ended up using WT on my Banshee with an XX1 chain, Boeshield on my Chromag with an XT chain, and Dumond Tech on my road bike (10spd XT), and spending more time on skis than bikes. Ultimately I think the WT stuff is my favourite, if only because it seems to keep things cleaner. I ride that bike the most and in the worst conditions and the chain sparkles like new. Across the range I've seen less wear on my drivetrains than I'm used to. So, my conclusion is that giving a shit does infact make a difference, but I think cleaning is equally as important as lubing
One of the best things I ever did was move away from Vancouver and decouple myself from riding for a few years. I love bikes. I missed my bikes often. But it was an opportunity to discover myself outside of cycling. That might sound crazy, but it happened. I spend 10 years working in the industry and 20 riding. For many many years Sanesh = Cycling. I developed a fashion sense that wasn't cycling clothes. I hiked. And camped. And gymed. And xc skied. And windsurfed. And got really good at cooking. And travelled. And loved it all. Not as much as I loved bikes, but I did love it. It reminded me what I love about bikes - nature, tough climbs, great people, solitude, big rock faces - let me be ok with the things I was supposed to want but didn't - lift access, hucking, adrenaline. My break from bikes actually let me learn how to have fun outside of cycling. Bikes became a choice to me again, not just the only thing I knew.
Im really glad Trek put out this report. I've been doing a little LCA recently and it's an immense amount of work. It really takes committment.
The report is far from perfect, it would have been great if it was done to iso 14001 and the system boundaries discussed. This type of work is utterly meaningless without system boundaries (except for comparative effects). My only source of confidence here is that the numbers are largely similar to those released by Specialized and Duke university, so the methods must be similar.
I would have liked them to evaluate more parameters other than CO2.
One other thing is durability. From my experience the number one killer of longevity is bearing bores. I bought an aluminum frame because I find I can put more bearings into an Alu frame. Besides that, is recyclability. I'd like to see companies create a more circular system. Imagine if you're 7000 series Alu MTb could be recycled into a cheaper casual bike. The dream.
But yeah. Bikes are small. We need to look at the driving involved in the sport too. Ride your bike from home. It's more possible than you think.