View Single Post
Old 03-05-26 | 02:03 PM
  #83  
maddog34's Avatar
maddog34
Senior Member
10 Anniversary
Community Builder
Community Influencer
Active Streak: 30 Days
 
Joined: Jul 2015
Posts: 7,310
Likes: 3,188
From: NW Oregon

Bikes: 1982 Trek 930R Custom, '91 Diamondback Ascent w/ XT, XTR updates, Fuji Team Pro CF road flyer, Specialized Sirrus Gravel Convert, '09 Comencal Meta 5.5 XC, '02 Marin MBX500, '84 Gitane Criterium bike

Originally Posted by AndreyT
First part of the above quote just discards the last couple of decades of bicycle drivetrain development: the Holy Grail of big-big. The entire drivetrain design in 2000s was focused on one single purpose: enabling big-big and what comes with it, e.g. reduced sifting, increased efficiency, reduced chainring-sprocket wear, reduced chain strain.

Second part of the above quote actually contradicts the first: all other thigs being equal it is specifically big-big that puts less strain on the chain (than the equivalent small-bigger combination).
hogwash...
the recent engineering changes revolved around improved shift speed, shifting under load, and increasing available wrap to allow ever-wider gearing choices..
that improved tech. always filters down to the lower ranked parts groups, over time.
those changes began well over a decade before your proposed time.
and sometimes, the major improvements get publicly tested on lesser groups, like Shimano's Mega-Range Tourney and Altus groups.
maddog34 is offline  
Reply