You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Shimano have gone down this exact route with their Linkglide stuff, haven’t they?
That's cool, I haven't followed e-bike stuff at all
The people I work with think I’m amazing because I do a 10 km each way commute by bike on nearly flat terrain.
Well, I would suggest they aren't the target market for a Rohloff or Pinion then.
On top of that, metal is easily recycled so it’s not the case that those old chains and cassettes are just going into landfill.
Assuming the metals actually make it to facilities, recycling and remanufacturing uses a lot of energy -- why not just make something that lasts?
If I drove to work every day for a month instead of riding, that would burn more than 20 kg of petrol, so 1 kg of metal per 5,000 miles is pretty environmentally friendly compared to anyone who commutes by car.
I can't help but think you have a grudge against internal gearing, given you've now brought both Tourney mechs and cars into the conversation to dismiss it.
I can’t help but think you have a grudge against internal gearing,
Not at all, they have their place, in fact I have a 3 speed Sturmey Archer hub sitting in a box that I plan to use for a commuter bike for my daughter. I've always been tempted by a Rohloff, but the price is just too high. Maybe when I retire I'll treat myself to a Rohloff equipped touring bike.
However, traditional derailleurs are always going to be cheaper and slightly more efficient so internal gearing will always be a niche thing, it's not going to replace derailleurs in the way that fanbois imagine. I think I've broken one derailleur hanger and two derailleurs in 25 years, most people don't smash derailleurs as often as gearbox advocates seem to imagine.
Probably waaayyy too late to say this on page 5, but it's the [i]lack[/i] of standards that's the problem, if only they were standards! Cassettes, headsets, freehubs, bbs, cranksets, hub widths, so many damn configurations possible.
Those Rohloff’s that have done ~100,000 miles have likely avoided the use of about 20 cassettes, perhaps twice as many chains, and however many mechs would have broken during that time,
That was how St John Street Cycles used to market/sell their Rohloff stuff with a wildly OTT assumption on the amount of miles people were doing and some "creative" maths to show that you'd be wearing out 17 complete XTR drivetrains every year but a Rohloff would last 400 years and you should give us all your money for a Rohloff-equipped bike now.
On touring and utility bikes (and e-bikes), hub gears (and belt drives) make a lot of sense - on MTBs, especially full-sus MTBs, they're a pain in the arse to deal with the extra lump of weight affecting everything. Gearbox setups like Pinion are better but then you're tied to a very specific frame design.
I think I’ve broken one derailleur hanger and two derailleurs in 25 years, most people don’t smash derailleurs as often as gearbox advocates seem to imagine.
I'm guess I ride a totally different version of MTB to you, I've managed that in less than the last 12 months.
I think I’ve broken one derailleur hanger and two derailleurs in 25 years,
Derailleurs certainly never used to last me over 12 years, not sure how you are managing that
Anyway, I didn't deny that derailleurs can be cheaper. I just pointed out that internal gearing is increasingly competitive with the prices of modern performance drivechains (or to put it another way, the payback period is dropping), to which you quoted the price of a Tourney mech. And I pointed out that mechs are inherently disposalbe systems, and you replied by bringing in car travel as a baseline!
I've also not denied that they're inherently less efficient (although I reckon the differences become quite negligible if your drivechain is dirty and neglected -- mine often was)
If anything, having come from many years of single-speeding, the main issue I have with internal gearing for mtb is slow engagement. Not a problem for gravel, but def noticable of techy moorland trails -- the kind of terrain where my mech used to take a beating in fact
How much is a 1x12 setup? chain. sprocket and cassette? Midrange
I am convinced running a rohloff on the tandem saved money over a decade - and also meant no more broken rear hubs. HUbs used to be effectively a service item lasting only a year or so before failing
On touring and utility bikes (and e-bikes), hub gears (and belt drives) make a lot of sense – on MTBs, especially full-sus MTBs, they’re a pain in the arse to deal with the extra lump of weight affecting everything. Gearbox setups like Pinion are better but then you’re tied to a very specific frame design.
The Kindernay 7 I have is only about 300g heavier on the rear axle than SLX or Sram GX AXS. About the same as Shimano Linkglide I think
For the Pinion, that's why standards are needed I guess
I don't think my math was far out there -- just the simple assumption that a cassette lasts 5,000 miles with three chains, with a Rohloff sprocket and single speed chain lasting the same distance
And I've said it already, but my Rohloff was £550, and in a few years, it will still be worth £550
https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/i-got-a-kindernay-internal-gearhub/
but it’s the lack of standards that’s the problem
Not having standards is a good thing. It's why Rohloffs exist, it's why Honda can get creative with putting things in boxes, it's why 29ers came about, it's how derailleurs were invented in the first place.
Derailleurs certainly never used to last me over 12 years, not sure how you are managing that
Like @thols2 I've never bust a derailleur in 30 years of of road cycling. I can see why folks that have bust them want to change to something else, and it's great they exist, but it's not the answer to every drive train question.
Rohloffs do fit the standards. Now available in all the different axle types or most of them. Tensioner off the mech mount
but it’s not the answer to every drive train question.
Erm, it is. Well, it is if you ask it here.
I’m guess I ride a totally different version of MTB to you, I’ve managed that in less than the last 12 months.
Very few cyclists smash two derailleurs per year.
How much is a 1×12 setup? chain. sprocket and cassette? Midrange
slx is £20 + £50 + £30 for those 3 parts. Another £50 for a mech and £25 for the shifter, so £175 for the complete setup. There's no way that roloff is cheaper.
So for me that would be 2x chains per year and 1x cassette and sprocket so £120 a year minimum in worn parts compared to one chain a year plus a cheap sproket and chainring every few years. A decade is easily enough to pay back the cost of the rohloff - and as abiove the rohloff sitllis worth £500+ at the end of it
I wqas actually on midrange 2x9 which cost a lot more than that per year
WRT derailleurs and hangers - never used to be a problem to me, until I started to ride techier lines more quickly, and now I go through them much more frequently.
There’s no way that roloff is cheaper.
It's kinda of irrelevant though. For most people it's probably not worth it, for the sorts of folks for whom a gearbox hub is an attractive alternative it's absolutely worth it. That both systems exist is a good thing.
So for me that would be 2x chains per year and 1x cassette and sprocket so £120 a year minimum in worn parts compared to one chain a year plus a cheap sproket and chainring every few years.
I mostly run Deore level steel chainrings and cassettes. They last for years. I generally run the newest stuff on my good bike, then switch it to my spare bike, then finally put it on my commuter bike until it's knackered. I guess I buy a new chainring, cassette, and chain about once every two years. If I fitted Rohloffs to three bikes, it would take many decades for the cost of cassettes to work out more expensive.
So for me that would be 2x chains per year and 1x cassette and sprocket so £120 a year minimum in worn parts compared to one chain a year plus a cheap sproket and chainring every few years.
I use XO1 and GX level SRAM 12 speed, and I change everything in one go. Bike's just been to the shop for bearings and my mechanic reckoned that the drive train's about half way done. It went on in Nov '21. it's done over 5500kms so far I'll probs change it in the spring next year before it gets so bad that tweaking the stops doesn't work anymore. GX Cassette is £130, chainring is £35, and chain is anywhere between £30-50. Jockey wheels are £30 I think (without checking) plus what? Tenner for cables. I'm OK with that.
Agreed derailleurs aren't a perfect solution, neither a rohloff's, but they've both got their place.
I'm going to be interested to see if SRAM T-type derailleurs solves a lot of the problems for me. It's not so much the cost of replacing hangers as the faff involved.
Yet again, the fact that a Rohloff can be bought second hand for half rrp and sold for the same is being ignored
In fact I would never want to buy a new Rohloff as it takes 1000s of miles to wear them in to peak efficiency -- I'd rather let someone else do that
As for derailliers, it's not just about smashing them, it's about the lifetime in general (i.e. them developing play such that shifting is shoddy even with new chain and jockey wheels). And it's that when they do actually smash they can wreck a wheel as well -- although that has only happened to me once I think
Not having standards is a good thing. It’s why Rohloffs exist
I don't think Rohloff would agree at all... They can't fit a 12mm axle through their internals, that's why fitting a Rohloff to a 142mm or 148mm rear end is a bespoke job.
Newer internal gearhubs were lucky to be able to design around a 12mm axle, and thus have simple end caps to swap between the different standards (at least, my Kindernay can take different end caps for 135mm, 142mm and 148mm; although they are stupidly expensive)
It’s not so much the cost of replacing hangers as the faff involved.
Well you’re guaranteed not to have the hassle of replacing hangers. Might get a whole new world of faff and cost… time will tell.
Agreed derailleurs aren’t a perfect solution, neither a rohloff’s, but they’ve both got their place.
This is the answer.
The only reason I come out defending internal gearing so much as because I think it should have a much larger place in mtb, and the main reason it doesn't is the same reason people don't insulate their houses when it would be cheaper in the long run, and why pensions are opt-out, and not so much performance as people typically claim.
As for derailliers...
Don't use them then, there are great alternatives available. It's not an either or. You don't have to justify to anyone why you choose a particular way to make it easier or harder to pedal.
Aidy
Free MemberI do like the new bike, but on the whole, I think 29 is a worse standard.
Sounds like you're comparing apples and oranges tbh? Especially "much worse at climbing out of hte saddle", that's not a 29er vs 26er thing, that's just different suspension designs surely? And weight, a 29er can be light but generally bigger hitting bikes have got heavier because parts are tougher. Like, my last 160mm 26er usually had 700g tyres on it, and 1550g wheels. And it worked for me but I can't use equivalent lightweight wheels and tyres on my current 160mm 29er because it hits things much much harder and faster. Sometimes I think "wow, 1200g tyres, that's a lot" but it's literally faster and more capable than my 26er dh bike.
@tjagain you can attach the trailer to the thru axle though https://robertaxleproject.com/what-axle-do-i-need/
I don’t think Rohloff would agree at all… They can’t fit a 12mm axle through their internals, that’s why fitting a Rohloff to a 142mm or 148mm rear end is a bespoke job.
@legometeorology
Is it? I thought the A12 hub got.round that problem.
Ta for that. I have made up some stubs with 6mm threads so can put the bobbins on the lower rack mounts which works fine. Its ruddy annoying I could not find a decent eMTB with a 135 qr rear.
@squirrelking, the Rohloff A12 is kind of like a Hope Pro4 single speed hub: the end of the axle is threaded at each side and then each side takes it's own bolt. Rohloff then need precise measurements of dropout width to make some bespoke frame inserts and/or spacers or something. A bit of a faff and it wouldn't then fit on another frame without another bespoke refit.
From talking to a Rohloff service person at Ghyllside Cycles, I think this is because there's not actually space for a 12mm axle to go all the way through, and making the space would require massive redesign.
Changing standards really screwed over Rohloff.
Sounds like you’re comparing apples and oranges tbh? Especially “much worse at climbing out of hte saddle”, that’s not a 29er vs 26er thing, that’s just different suspension designs surely?
I'm comparing a 2009 Stumpjumper FSR to a 2023 Stumpjumper - so.... I think it's a reasonably fair comparison. Granted, bikes have moved to being a bit bigger hitting over time, but it's not like I'm comparing a XC bike to a DH bike.
I think the climbing out of the saddle thing is due to longer seatstays.
@Aidy making me feel more reassured about going for a 27.5 frame over a 29er! Actually still running 26" on it til I run out of tyres or my wheels break, and it still rides great. Being a short arse with 29" inside leg, 29ers just don't interest me but I'm yet to ride a modern one. Maybe on a hardtail the bigger wheels might help with carrying momentum over the rough but for FS and what I like to ride I'm happy on smaller wheels 🙂
I never understood what was wrong with the coulomb per second...
I think the climbing out of the saddle thing is due to longer seatstays.
To put that a bit more eloquently, I think the flip side of being better for seated climbing (front wheel doesn't come up as much), due to bigger wheels and corresponding longer wheelbase is that it's harder to get weight through the rear wheel for out of the saddle climbing. Certainly for me, I feel like there's a much smaller range of body positions that work if I'm trying to go up loose/wet things.
Happy to be corrected by geometry geeks if I'm wrong.
@Aidy making me feel more reassured about going for a 27.5 frame over a 29er!
You're welcome!
Certainly for me, I feel like there’s a much smaller range of body positions that work if I’m trying to go up loose/wet things.
Happy to be corrected by geometry geeks if I’m wrong.
Well I won't say you're wrong as your experience is what it is, but generally I find a longer bike that has long CSs has a greater range of position that's ok for climbing or descending, it's less sensitive to where my C of G is between the wheels - though you still want it to be in the right place oc. It's just got more tolerance for movement either side of the ideal position.
I rode a bike with a 490mm / 19.5" approx chainstay once and it was so easy to move around on while pedalling stood up without feeling like it'd spin out. Flip side of (more normal) longer bikes is you can be further away from the ideal position as the trail changes ie coming into a flatter corner after a steep section and you need to get forward a bit. A short bike can feel bob-on up, down and round without a lot of weight shift which can be great on easy singletrack (or a gravel or road bike) but it all goes wrong fairly fast too. I think that's why longer makes sense in MTB which is more dynamic overall but not so much for drop bar bikes which are can be ridden mostly from the saddle for a long time and you don't want to have to move around too much for every corner you take. But I'm going OT.. There's no standards in geometry thankfully.
Longer makes it easier to ride a bike averagely, but harder to ride it the perfect way. This is why none of the pros are on particularly long bikes - they get more performance out of something shorter, but for average joe's like us, its easier. Same as slack head angles to an extent - they breed confidence, but its rare (and never really happens in any race situation) that one is necessary
Very few cyclists smash two derailleurs per year.
It was unlucky to smash two but one a year is pretty normal and looking around at my riding buddies lots of components get broken often plus wear out - example, I'm on my 3rd set of tyres this year on my Enduro bike, and it'll go through the 4th set before the year is out. Chain also is the 3rd for the year, change at 0.5.
As I said, you guys obviously ride a different type of MTB to me but what these 'new standard' are enabling is me riding quicker and across harder terrain.
Gearbox setups like Pinion are better but then you’re tied to a very specific frame design
I don’t think that is the reason they aren’t more readily available, it’s more a lack of customer demand. E-bikes need a similarly specific frame design and I definitely see one or two of those about
The only STD that I can think of that is actually worse is the ludicrous 15mm front axle which came into being when there was a perfectly serviceable (and better) 20mm DH axle standard. All the rest are either just unnecessary (35mm bars) or solve a wheel size specific problem (getting decent size tyres in a reasonable chainstay length with 29" wheels (boost/superboost).
The good news is that 27.5 and 29" wheels don't fit into 26" frames and now geometry has moved on I don't think I'd want to ride a 26" bike much anyway so the effect of the changing standards is less as time goes on.
I'd love someone to build a 26" bike with current geo and tech and see if there's actually any real difference in the way the bike rides. So much has changed since the 29/27.5 that it's genuinely hard to tell what is attributable to what. I don't for one moment believe that bikes are better now than they were 10 years ago but since when hasn't that been true? It as always going to come to this once we'd reached a reasonable level of refinement and understanding of what was important in MTB and people could start looing at the building blocks and start tinkering with those.
I think the hub gear thing is a red herring - it's good for a very specific usage case where there are few bumps and the unsprung weight isn't an issue. The way forward is a gearbox of some kind but I'm not sure there's enough will in the industry to make it happen. I do feel that the Pinion Motor/Box eTransmission could be a tipping point even for non e-bikes as it'll offer a true standard to aim at
The only STD that I can think of that is actually worse is the ludicrous 15mm front axle which came into being when there was a perfectly serviceable (and better) 20mm DH axle standard.
Totally agree, however at least we now have a single standard that works pretty well.
Things could be a lot worse.
Aidy
Free MemberI’m comparing a 2009 Stumpjumper FSR to a 2023 Stumpjumper – so…. I think it’s a reasonably fair comparison.
TBF Specialized didn't make anything in 2009 that's equivalent to a 2023 stumpjumper, it's only really the name that's similiar. Probably the Pitch or Enduro were closest overall but they don't really come close. Your Stumpy today will outdescend everything short of the old dh bikes, and be tougher and more reliable than the enduro or pitch pro were.
The Epic's the closest modern equivalent, though it's more racey. Truth is back then "trail bike" meant "slightly pumped up XC bike" and the stumpy came with outright xc race parts on some models, brain shocks... Great bikes in their day, but they were so much more limited in scope and ambition.
I think the hub gear thing is a red herring – it’s good for a very specific usage case where there are few bumps and the unsprung weight isn’t an issue.
Again though, this depends on the hub gear. My Kindernay is only ~300 grams heavier at the rear axle than Shimano SLX or Sram GX -- that's the same as adding a single Cushcore Pro
A gearbox would def be better for a full susser I'm sure
For a hardtail I'm not sure it's so clearcut, as a Pinion adds much more to total bike weight than a light gearhub
Apologies if I've missed it in the pages of hubgear chat, but may I posit four piston brakes.
Not a "standard" in the sense of interchangability, but a standard in the sense of expected specification in certain categories of mtb.
All the benefits could be equally realised in a 2 piston brake (with larger pistons if need be) but we are stuck with a more maintanence heavy, harder to align, more partial to uneven pad wear mess, with greater potential for piston friction four piston design, because "more = better"
And dont get me started on people who call 2 piston brakes "single pot" when discussing the merits of 4 piston brakes. Just deliberately and wilfully making the alternative sound twice as bad.
WTB have announced development of their 'new' 750d rim/wheel standard for Gravel bikes
Discuss.....
It's sort of double ironic because we did the exact same thing with motorbikes in, like 1997 or thereabouts. GSXR600 came with 4-pots that were lighter, just as powerful,and far more reliable but loads of people refitted the 6-pots off the bigger bike because 2 more. "The Busa has them, they must be better". I've literally never worked on a 6-pot Suzuki brake that was working correctly but the owners still loved 'em.
With pushbikes, good brakes were just a straight up solved problem, at least 13 years ago, probably longer but we let companies get away with selling absolute shit for years after that as if it weren't. Wandering bite points, leaks, random losses of power- even stuff like being hard to bleed should have been a straight up "never fit this", but they still sold, because we'd rather have carbon levers and twiddly dials than brakes that work. And most important probably they got chosen by OEMs so people would buy a £5000 bike with shit brakes on and instead of going "**** you, these brakes are shit" they thought "Well if this £5000 bike has brakes like this then it must be normal" and so that creates a perceived need, where people who've spent a fortune on shit brakes think that they have to spend even more to get adequate brakes. So OF COURSE the solution is 4-pot brakes, let's get the people who either can't make good brakes or just choose not to, to add more failure points and call it the future.
I’d love someone to build a 26″ bike with current geo and tech and see if there’s actually any real difference in the way the bike rides.
Banshee say some of their frames (Rune/Spitfire, maybe others) are still designed to work with 26" and have flip chips/dropouts to compensate for geometry changes. I was ready to get one until the CRC sale popped up.
I'm riding 26" in a relatively modern 2020 Vitus Sommet 275 frame and it feels great so far - BB maybe a smidge low but feels ok still. Not in a massive rush to fit 27.5" wheels but I will eventually when I can't get decent 26" tyres any more. Quite happy that I haven't really been forced to buy any new parts except for end caps and axle spacers to make all my old stuff fit.
Do we need a summary list so far to help move away from the internal gears thing (yes yes I'm heavily responsible for that)
So far I'm not sure there are many answers to the question. There are a lot of arguably unnecessary standards, but few that are actually worse
Off the top of my head so far, there's:
Internal cable routing (if this is actually a 'standard')
4-pot brakes
Press fit bb's
15mm front axles
Frames with flat mounts for callipers.
Edit - just noticed someone already mentioned that on page 1. Still, it's worth adding twice IMO.
Has anyone mentioned standards of living yet?
Seconded on any prior mentions of:
- flat mount - pointless, too hard to align and bolts awkward to access /easily round so always nerve wracking swapping wheels
- press fit. Creaky, faff / risky to fit
- internal cable routing. Pointless, Rattle, faff
Any other stuff has been easy enough to work around. The three above steal my riding time regularly. Piss off unnovators pls!
“I’m comparing a 2009 Stumpjumper FSR to a 2023 Stumpjumper – so…. I think it’s a reasonably fair comparison. Granted, bikes have moved to being a bit bigger hitting over time, but it’s not like I’m comparing a XC bike to a DH bike.”
You pretty much are though. A current Specialized XC bike will descend faster than your 2009 Stumpjumper and a 2023 Stumpjumper will match a 2009 DH bike for speed and stability down all but the roughest trails, whilst still being capable uphill.
“Its mad to expect a 6’4″ magnificence to a man to ride a bike that can also be ridden by Hobbits, but with a longer seat tube.
Hairy footed little boys and girls get to sit behind their handlebars, where as us taller folk have to sit up above them and reach down to them, meaning the brakes have a much greater liklihood of sending you OTB
29er goes a long way to resolving that. My first 29er was a revelation.”
It isn’t 29” wheels that make that difference, it’s longer front centres (from a mix of reach, head angle and head tube + A2C length) and higher stack height.
Most adults are tall enough to handle a 29” front wheel. Bigger wheels work better on MTBs until they get too big for the rider to fit/move around them, hence mullets for steeper stuff.
always nerve wracking swapping wheels
How so? I have two sets of wheels and I don't need to adjust between sets. On my MTB I did need to add a shim (from Cyclocross Racer ) behind the rotors on one set so they lined up the same on both sets of wheels but on the road bike both wheels align the same. Shame the callipers themselves are pish though due to the unadjustability of the flat mounts.
Has anyone mentioned standards of living yet?
Who knows haven't read a single post.
My pal asked me to advise on a new set of forks for his old Orange Clockwork. He looked at me like I was mad when I started explaining all the different standards for a set of Rockshox forks. From wheel size, axle type, steerer tube type, hub width, fork travel and fork offset.
I had a similar experience when buying a pair of hubs to build up a pair of wheels for my 2018 Scalpel SE.
The front was 110mm wide, 15mm axle and 28 hole.
Rear was 142mm wide, 12mm axle, 32 hole and XDR freehub.
BTR and Curtis still build 26", Tora flung a set on their DH rig and said it was a hoot.
He looked at me like I was mad when I started explaining [s] all the different standards for a set of Rockshox forks. From wheel size, axle type, steerer tube type, hub width, fork travel and [/s] fork offset.
He was probably right.
How so? I have two sets of wheels and I don’t need to adjust between sets. On my MTB I did need to add a shim (from Cyclocross Racer ) behind the rotors on one set so they lined up the same on both sets of wheels but on the road bike both wheels align the same
This didn't seem to work well enough for me sadly. I have tried to use some shims off Etsy
Rounded off bolts on two occasions trying to fine tune with a packable tool when doing this away from home. Only thing I've found that seems to get adequate tension / undo without slipping on the shallow t25 slots (SRAM) is one of my sockets with an extension bar on t-handle holding decent torx bit. Do it up any looser and the calipers seem to migrate out of alignment after any intensive braking
The way forward is a gearbox of some kind but I’m not sure there’s enough will in the industry to make it happen. I do feel that the Pinion Motor/Box eTransmission could be a tipping point even for non e-bikes as it’ll offer a true standard to aim at
They won't become a standard because they are expensive and put some big constraints on frame design. They are already well established as a niche product but they aren't going to replace the derailleur for the vast majority of bikes because of the cost.
Speeder
Full MemberI’d love someone to build a 26″ bike with current geo and tech and see if there’s actually any real difference in the way the bike rides.
Just find a 650b bike that has a high BB? The difference in radius between the two is only about 12mm with comparable tyres.
I do believe 29 inch is a worthy difference but I reckon it's definitely the case that the really important change was that making a good 29er meant making bikes longer. That change might have come even without the wheel size change but it became essential because of it. (though even then lots of manufacturers were still trying to squeeze 29 inch wheels into short wheelbases, the first 29ers I rode all had toe overlap ffs)
I’d love someone to build a 26″ bike with current geo and tech and see if there’s actually any real difference in the way the bike rides.
You don't really need to. Bigger wheels are faster, smaller wheels are more manoeuvrable.
How much is the question and whether that matters and what preference you have makes the decision.
I have recently gone back to riding just a brakeless fixed gear so can once again laugh at different standards as I am on 100/120 9/10 hubs and BSA BB just as I would have been for the last 50 years. The only 'modern' part of my bike is the internal headset with 1 1/4 & 1 1/8 and ahead stem but that is better than cupped headset and quill stem (I know I have had bikes with them.)
WTB have announced development of their ‘new’ 750d rim/wheel standard for Gravel bikes
Discuss…..
Well it's been mildly entertaining reading the media reports on it. 'The larger diameter means more momentum' and 'the bigger contact patch means .. ' etc. C'mon, that's basic stuff to get right, be a bit more accurate / correct or stop trying to simplify to the point where it sounds like some marketer's line. It's like half the industry doesn't understand the basic physics of something crucial to how bikes work (disclaimer, physics isn't my strong point either but this isn't high level stuff)
Is 750d better or worse .. probably worse for most of us Vs other options we already have but fair dues to WTB for making it available to be experimented with. I thought 29" was worse, at first. Cool company imho.
I don't really have anything to add other than to congratulate @dangeourbrain on this line, which is a great description:
"people trying to figure out why their banana tastes of pineapple"
The only 'standards' which have briefly annoyed me in the past are asymmetric chainring bolt patterns, and when Shimano changed the diameter of their BB cups so I needed a new tool (although they did at least supply the plastic adaptor ring with it).
Unless I've missed it posted alreaady. Going to throw integrated seatpost wedge clamps into this but to say they should be standardized! (Or binned as an idea for non aero bikes)
Just overlooked this on my new CX bike purchase and realizing i've got this delicate looking part that is critical, proprietary, gets hammered in a CX race and if it breaks its down to whether the company still has the part. They currently have none in stock. The seatpost is creaking in frame from new. Doh