>>1981073As the other anon said you would want to run big chainring+medium large cog in the rear. Least efficient is either smol/smol(with some FD rub or just cross chain) or Big+big(some fd rub+worse cross chain).
My most efficient bike is a single speed since I run a 48-18 or similar and have perfect chainline+a nice single speed chain. It's quiet and fun.
If you listen closely while riding you will hear certain gearing combos are quieter. Worst example is IMO 1x with huge cassettes and thin chains.
>>1981080Alu has a bad rap historically with certain overly stiff frames(cannondale/klein) while now being relegated to mostly cheaper bikes.
Issue is it's heavier then carbon and not as cool/comfortable/vintage as steel. Like all frame materials it's based on design and builder skill to truly make a nice frame.
One of my favorite mountain bikes is a aluminum/carbon combo and it has taken a hell of a beating over the years of racing. Currently I only have 2 aluminum bikes, many steel, and 1-2 carbon ones.
Here is my take
>aluminum proslighter then steel for the same stiffness
superior shaping ability with hydroforming and other techniques
Can be more aero, or lighter then steel
>consLess effort in making nice aluminum frames since carbon has taken over
HUGE welds and tubes
cheap bikes are aluminum so there is a stigma.
>steel proscoolest material+easy to fix/weld+custom makers use it
historically the most used material and almost all bikes pre 1980's are steel
thin tubes that have century+of research
perfected rim brake bikes for a long time
>consheavier, can't do forming/shaping really, thicker tubes get FOOking heavy
>carbon prosfiberglass type repairs
carbon weave looks cool+forming+shaping is easy
lightest with the best performance
>consnot metal
mostly made in SEA
manufacturers do proprietary shit the most with carbon bikes, like not round seat tubes, integrated wires, etc
asploding meme that is part meme/part real.
>titaniumsteel but better
