I saw this link today here on the TR forum somewhere (too few working neurons to figure out which thread it was on) but I really enjoyed reading it and I think most of you would too. It also details a lot of information and history as to why and how, over 15 years ago, Josh was already seeing benefits to larger tires while working on carbon wheels at Zipp.
1 Like
I don’t disagree with any of that……my point re: Rene Herse was mostly that his testing protocols have always suspect, IMO, if not 100% contrary to well established results ( see his claims re: his HB “box” being more aero than a bike without it, as one example).
Do I think RH is dishonest? Not a bit. Do I think he is passionate, sincere and well meaning in his positions? Absolutely. Does that mean I therefore trust his test results and claims? Nope.
2 Likes
Yes, I understand you, and I also got your point earlier. I have no quarrel with what you said and meant, which is why I tried (but apparently failed) to explain in the first paragraph that I was not disagreeing with you nor directing the rant at you. Appreciated you sticking up for Josh, and totally understand that you don’t feel the same way about Jan.
Your post was simply a useful reference, but my reason for posting was a bunch of other posts in the thread. Apologies for any misunderstanding.
1 Like
I thought that was an actual thing tested in the wind tunnel?
Joe
He did….or claimed he did. I have no reason to doubt he did, but he also didn’t include his protocols or the numbers associated with the test results. He just made lots of vague claims about the performance of his products.
As to his specific claims re: the HB bag, I’ll even grant that there may have been some aero benefit……on his bike. That thing is an aero nightmare, so it is entirely possible that putting a big square box in front improved the aerodynamics of what could possibly be the least aerodynamic bike ever.
The idea that his HB bag is therefore universally more aerodynamic is somewhat laughable, IMO.
1 Like
thank you!
all I heard was you aren’t loading your coach’s workout on the bike computer. And that the UI has colors/layout is from 20 years ago.
It actually doesn’t suck that bad. But hey, its your $$$ and free buys you a great archiving solution and some features you despise.
good luck with that!
If you didn’t celebrate Valentine’s Day mid-week, do it tonight! No excuses!
The majority of all bikes being sold should be 1x
6 Likes
Oh I’m definitely a hooker
The removal of a safety feature to make something lighter and cheaper isn’t in the best interest of the end user in my opinion.
I’m not sure I understand how they are stronger?
Edit: I also think there is plenty of information out there that proves hookless rims are perfectly safe - but it does bug me when “hookless” is marketed as a benefit.
3 Likes
It’s supposedly stronger because it is simpler and all moulded.
No material to be removed or added for hooks.
I do agree, hookless isn’t really a benefit on its own. I think there’s a tiny efficiency gain but most of it is in making faster, lighter rims more cheaply.
1 Like
No, I fully understood your point. I was just expanding on the conversation. 
1 Like
The one think I’d say that is actually a legitimate benefit for the customer, is the internal width of the rim is effectively wider when you ditch the hooks, without having to make the outside bigger.
If my road bike was 1x I’d quit cycling.
10 Likes
The only time I’m ever in the small ring on my ‘road bike’ is when I race cross haha. I dont touch the small ring a single time from January to September.
Must be nice living in an area with no hills. 
Also funny that cross is the only bike I own that I run 1x.
3 Likes
To quote a prior podcaster: “Never met a gear I didn’t like.”
That’s why I run a triple on my commuter… so I can stay more or less in active recovery whilst climbing the ~5% hill I live on, which also has a couple of 10% pinches. Also I took it on a 200km audax with 3600m of climbing, all key climbs over 5% (most around 8%) & including some 15-20% pinches. I felt pretty smug at the 180km mark, sitting & spinning at 90rpm & 9kph up a 3km 8.5% grade at “endurance” when everyone around me was standing, grinding, & zig-zagging to get up the hill. 24T chainring, 36T sprocket for my lowest gear. Gears that have no business being on a road bike. 
Happy to give the finger to convention to make things easier.
8 Likes
Couldn’t agree more.
2 Likes
Or headwind…
I honestly despise 1x. I have it on one bike, my gravel bike, and I’m giving it one more chance by switching from SRAM 1 x 11 to Ekar. We will see how it goes but I’m not optimistic.
2 Likes
Also you could possibly try this.
The large chainring BCD is 110mm; the smaller 74mm. Advertises being okay up to 11sp, & you have more choice in chainrings than say a GRX crank. Question mark whether they’ll work with a 13-speed chain. The KMC chain I’m running on my 11sp setup runs fine over the teeth of the 9-10sp TA Zephyr & Zelito chainrings (i.e the teeth are narrow enough for 11sp) but I’m currently having a problem with the shifter/FD/chainring combination. Also you’d have to check that the RD can take up enough chain to run a double.
1 Like
I do quite like 1x - I only have it on one bike - my gravel bike and it is ekar - so hopefully you will like it 
That bike gets a lot of road miles and I find the range of gears works extremely well.
I’m in the UK though, our hills are short and sharp. I think the larger jumps between easier gears would be annoying on long steady climbs common elsewhere.
2 Likes
Yep, the gear range is why I’m giving it a go.
My biggest issue with the 11 speed is the jumps are way too big and I find myself between the gears constantly