>>1382727I’m saying that “long, low and slack” isn’t advice for the sweet spot of bikes, it just describes any mountain bike in the late-2010s. I have a long low a slack bike modern bike and I have a 2007 short, not-low and very steep (due to an incorrectly short fork) bike, I love my slack bike, but 80% of a companies mtb lineup uses the same headangle, it doesn’t give much info to a buyer
>>1382707Well you’re obviously more of a climber than me, I use the bottom 3 gears 90% of the time and occasionally want a higher gear (32t front 11-50 cassette), the low climbing gears feel absolutely absurd to me and I literally can’t imagine using the 32-on-50 eagle gear for anything other than a 5-second punch over a rock, “climbing” dirt roads on a gear like that is wildly spinning at slower than walking pace. I had a 2x setup a long time ago and I don’t remember it ever being as low gearing as 32-to-50 feels, it had a lot better top end though.
Maybe it’s the different chainrings but going from 2x and 11-36, to 1x and 11-50 feels like I gained a lot more climbing gears, and lost my top end gears.
I guess I just don’t care about the perfect in-between ratios enough to give up chainring clearance (which is a huge, real, constantly appreciated benefit over my 2x setup, especially on an extra-low slack bike). I just see the downfalls of bigger rings and finicky shifting more than the upsides of perfecting your ratio, but like I said I don’t climb very far very often.
And yes, I too am used to the days where the $30-40 cassette was as good as any other cassette, front derailleurs are dirt cheap nowadays too, I’m not talking about prices though
