|
|
|
|
|
by ols
2034 days ago
|
|
It feels like you are not really following the trends in bike designs. Carbon frames are really common now, and are available in mid-range road, mountain or gravel bikes. You can even order one on AliExpress for cheap and build a decent road bike around it. And it’s not only the weight that carbon frame bike owners are after - the material gives much better ride quality than aluminium. Deep rims are nothing spectacular either, their weight penalty is nicely offset by aero gains, and this effect is noticable even at non-pro speeds. With disc brakes there is less concern about the longevity of the carbon rim - so why not use it? One chainring is all the rage in bikes now - since the advent of super-wide casettes with multiple cogs (reaching 13!) there is no real need to add a front deralieur. It’s a component that breaks down frequently, multiple chainrings weight a lot, the chain wears down more… The recent popularity of 1x11 or 1x12 drives is very well-deserved. Mudguards and simple handlebars make this bike utilitarian and well-suited to commuting, while the other stuff is a collection of things that are common and highly praised by cyclists nowadays. |
|
> it’s not only the weight that carbon frame bike owners are after - the material gives much better ride quality than aluminium.
The affect the frame has on the ride quality is significantly smaller than other components of the ride like the tires and seat post[0]. Carbon often has a very small weight improvement over a well made steel or aluminum bikes, so if you're buying an e-bike because you want pedal assist, I don't understand the need to shave 1 or 2 pounds off the bike.
> Deep rims are nothing spectacular either, their weight penalty is nicely offset by aero gain.
This appears to be true. Most of the aero penalty of the bike comes from the wheels and having deeper wheels does reduce the drag a lot.
> One chainring is all the rage in bikes now
It is all the rage, but it's not clear yet whether it's justified or just a ploy by the manufacturers to save costs on their end. The gear ratio of this bike goes from 1.0 on the low end to only 3.64. 1.0 is pretty good for going up hills, especially with the motor assist, but 3.64 is really low, especially for a bike trying to tout itself as really fast! I don't understand this choice. Most road bikes have a top end ratio of around 4.54.
> Mudguards and simple handlebars make this bike utilitarian and well-suited to commuting
The mudguards are nice, but I don't understand the choice of handlebars. Why do you want a super aero light-weight bike but then put flat handlebars on it so you can't get in an aero position like you can with drop handlebars. This doesn't make sense. Furthermore, the bike doesn't have mounting points for a front or rear rack, which is a huge downside for commuting, if not a dealbreaker.
[0] https://www.cyclingabout.com/why-impossible-steel-frames-mor...
[edit] you're right that trends do matter when affecting people's purchasing decision since most people aren't very informed about the actual pros/cons of the tech they're buying, but this doesn't undermine the original commenter's opinion that this bike doesn't make sense from a technical standpoint.