Is grant petersen's quote still true?
Just as steve's quote has been taken out of context and turned into a weird meme, I believe grant's garbage about unracing has also been memeified beyond any coherence. There is literally nothing wrong with going faster
Sorry, OPEven though it was on page 10, someone bumped the existing "Grant thread"There's still plenty of shitposting to be done in over there, no need for a fresh one
>>1986058Bullshit.>have steep hills all around me>slow riding, under your prefered power output sucks mayor ballsLiterally the fucked up hippies of the cycling sport
>>1986073obsessed>>1986097sports are for faggots
>>1986058>visorWhat the fuck is the point of those? You're gonna get a sunburn on your scalp.
>>1986097if you ever look at pics of grant he has gears, it's his dimwit followers who buy his shit because it's a yuppie flex not to ride, or who don't buy his shit because they don't ride but they heard he was an "unracer" on the NJB youtube channel. if you listen to how those people talk about bikes it's clear they've never used one to get around a city, because the all live in some exurban mcmansion hell in texas and are underage and they just do the "urbanism" shit to piss off their parents, as soon as they get old enough to buy a car of their own they'll be murderous road raging SUV karens with the best of them>>1986124look into 5AR inhibitors my friend, you're welcome
>>1986126Your hair isn't as thick as you think it is.
>>1986128it takes 3 hours for me to air dry my hair after a shower
>>1986118>sports are for faggotsRent free.
>>1986090this dude is 70. he sure doesn't care about racing but he seems to care enough about fillers. wrinkles and hair transplants. or maybe he actually looks this young thanks to his life and cycling philosophy.>>1986135because they're greasy as fuck
>>1986073Who's Steve? We're talking about Grant
>>1986195>Who's Steve?pic rel.>>1986118>sports are for faggotst. fat fuck
>>1986195
>>1986194it's understandable that you would be jealous of people with hair but greasy or not, it blocks the sun
>>1986141>>1986196
>>1986210I don't get it. Literally who?
>>1986247No idea either.I was looking through my Grant folder, and couldn't find any pictures of a guy named Steve.>>1986194>maybe he actually looks this youngYeah, that picture is from 2012.
>>1986247>>1986271That Steve is a prolific music producer that worked with Nirvana and other cultish bands, and had a couple edgy bands himself. Kinda the Sheldon of /mu/.
Riding in jeans is hell
>>1986058>Dutch bikeAyo aren't these bikes for women? lol
>>1986293Unracers wouldnt know because all they do is stroll 3 miles to the next cafe doing 10mph max.
>>1986058Why is his eyes so red in all his pictures?
>>1986342What ever are you talking about?
>>1986090Just two young Tunisian man on bike ride
>>1986141Greasy hands typed this
>>1986402meant for >>1986118obviously
>>1986090This one is getting stale too, we Need a fresh thread with a slight variation on the grant theme and a rare grant pic in op
>>1986430>This one is getting stale tooYeah, I don't know about that.On the plus side, looking up "Grant" in the archives turned up so many of my shitposts over the years.
>>1986403dainty faggot hands typed this. meant for this dainty handed faggot i replied to here.
>>1986058>Giant Contend: $800>Giordana short sleeve road jersey from wiggle co dot uk: $35>Louis Garneau bib shorts from trashbar dot com: $50>Bontrager Stravos Wavecel helmet: $90>Cateye computer: $40>Total: $1015>Rivendell Vrouwfiets: $5500>OD+SDA "Kasezome" Indigo x Dorozome Sashiko Jeans: $340>Iron Heart 11oz Doublecloth Selvedge Ombré Check Garrigue Tradesman Shirt: $475>Anton Krupika x Snow Peak 3-layer Rain Visor: $175>OMATA One Steampunk Analog speedo: $550>Total: $7040Yeah it is totally the mean, judgmental roadies who are being the elitists here
>>1986430I have photos I took through his window of him getting dressed
>>1986210>>1986292I almost went to the same high school as him. Love that tune about throwing a girl to into frenchtown pond>He's got the 8 track playing..... REALLY FUCKING LOUD
>>1988045Hot
>>1986058this but replace the jeans with a good jacket and the dutch bike with an old mtb and its trueer than ever
>>1986333No. They are made for riding slow through a dense flat city traffic.
>>1986058>*charges you $5000 for an obsolete piece of shit in your path*nothin personnel kid
tells you a lot about his character that he bases his purely capitalistic marketing approach on shitting on what others enjoypeak neoliberal faggot
>>1986346When you realize Grant is stoned out of his mind 24/7 you begin to understand Rivendell
>>1994224where's REEEE THE MARIHUANA JUNKIES REEEEEE guy when you need him
>>1986058He's actually right
>>1992590He’s not. His point is that Anglo bicycling culture is fucked, stiffed between families going 12kmh on the footpath swerving side to side, extreme lycra racers and full sus mtb. I don’t think Riv frames make any sense for anyone, but Grant knows how to take the middle path and I trust his opinions.
>>1994563>make sensethey make sense if you have a handlebar moustache and haul a 1940's typewriter into starbucks to write poetry
>>1994571Sure, but there are better value frame options for casual riders, regardless of how hipster you are. Obviously, value isn’t always a key part of a purchase decision. I just don’t find what their offering worth it, and I ride a Velo Orange Rando frameset, I’d consider myself in Rivs target audience.
For less than the cost of a rivendell you can get 3 decathlon bikes which you will enjoy much more
>>1994708Or just find a nice lugged frame on eBay.
>>1986293How so I commute in jeans on a mountain bike never had issues other than a cheap pair I had ripping on the sprocket
>>198605815 years ago, road bikes had narrow 25mm tires and a brutal 39 x 25 hill gear. They were designed for athletic sufferfests. Who is defending that exactly? Modern road bikes have evolved to fit comfortable 35mm tires, even people racing routinely spec 28,30,32mm tires and the gearing is usually a very wide 11-34 cassette with a 34 or 36 chainring. The entry level road bikes have rack mounts. You won't find anyone saying oh lets go back to mid 00s road spec. Of course not. But there's some kind of strange cognitive dissonance towards people who actually suggested the change before it happened. You should be thankful. I think the anger is not actually towards what a bicycle should be like, but how a bicycle might be used (for transport, or, for casual fun). $5000 taiwanese gaspipe shitters are an absolute red herring. Most unracers spend less than $500 and ride something old. The fixation the hyper expense of boutique unracers stuff is basically just projection by people who are deeply insecure about cycling and need to signal their wealth while doing it so as to not be viewed as a bum or a child.
>>1994720yeah, and then cold set it >15 speed>how...?>oh, you can't really see the second ring in the picture but it's a triple crank>3x5>5lol
>>1994732>tires and a brutal 39 x 25 hill gear. They were designed for athletic sufferfests. Who is defending that exactly?Me. I want a bike designed for athletic sufferfests.(Of course, fatter tires and lower gearing have made their way into the pro peloton because they generally allow riders to work harder for longer. On the other hand, I have a 2004 CAAD and it's fuckin great.).
Hybrid bikes are so cheap now. They are cheaper than even women's bikesLike a Trek FX is less than most grandma bikesIt's only a question of Road bike vs hybrid bike
>>1994732There is no cognitive dissonance, the changes were possible thanks to hydraulic disc brakes and increasingly precise 11 speed, 12 speed, now 13 speed cassettes. All things hated by the retrogrouch and the unracer. Furthermore, the hostility towards idiots who performatively spend more than the average crabon fred on something slow and heavy is fully justified. Being a snob about being slow is worse than being a snob about thinking you're fast while actually being slow. At least the latter guy wants to improve.Don't forget, Hitler loved animals.
>>1995486> improveImprove what exactly? Why does owning a carbon bike improve you? All I hear is the screeching of a certified fred in his pain cave.Grant never said you should ride slow just because you're slow. He wants you to ride as fast as you feel like, because you want to have fun, go nice places and exercise. Not cause you want to do some Strava bullshit. Grant did nothing wrong.
>>1995489Look at how angry you're getting over the idea that a fellow pudgy slowpoke might not actually be PROUD to be a pudgy slowpoke. I believe aussies call this "tall poppy syndrome". Go buy your $5000 surly from a washed up hippie in walnut creek, knock yourself out, just remember that to cagers you still look like you got a DUI and you're "blocking traffic", same as the rest of us.
>>1995498You don't know what tall poppy syndrome is. Nothing I said was bragging and I don't care how you want to ride your bike, only that you should have fun doing it, whatever that means to you. You're inventing your own persecution. Sometimes I dress up in full kit like the average club faggot and ride, most of the time I don't.On a side note I find the cagers are a lot more polite if I'm wearing athletic clothing, as opposed to full kit.
>>1995513>wearing athletic clothingWho the fuck you think you are, Larry Bird? This isn't the NBA super bowl, uuuurrrrgh this extreme sports athlete anglophone anglo american uuuugh AMERICAN competition sports culture is RUINING my fun STOP BEING BETTER THAN ME this is spozeduh be a JUDGMENT FREE ZONE
>>1986210RIP ;_;
>>1995486You're not going to be slow because you're only rocking 2x9. That would happen because you're slow.
>>1995825This thread will live on
depends on where you're cycling. In a city? He's probably correct since you will be stopping a lot at intersections crossings, etc. If you're riding on actual bike paths without stopping for miles? A road bike will be much more fun and much faster.
>>1995486you can certainly find ways to despise unracers but you cannot deny that they were advocating for changes to road bikes which have now happened, which you probably appreciate. The broad sentiment that road bikes should not be as brutal as they were, came from unracers. Progressing technology bought in these changes, yes, but the more significant thing was the popularity of gravel bikes, which for a while ate up a chunk of the road market, and made these aspects appreciable to normies and richfags and has now been assimilated into it. Road bikes having wide tire clearance, that especially, is not an inevitable factor of the progress of technology. Long reach dual pivots could easily have achieved the same thing en masse on entry level road bikes 25 years ago, and there are equally many ways in which it might still have been avoided, including aerodynamic arguments. Your actual road race bike is not going to fit 35mm tires, but the consumer models do.
>>1995486likewise, wide gearing is not a new idea. It has taken off on road bikes due to technology at the top end allowing close steps and wide gears, but should have been more broadly introduced to the lower and middle of the market LONG ago, we had the technology, to pretend otherwise is delusional.
>>1998867this falls apart when you realise how much easier filtering traffic is on a road bike [with highish bars] because you're that much more narrow
>>1986210Roast in Beef, Steve
>>1986073Not a race
>>1998902They weren't though, they were hostile to the changes and only started to relent when the changes became the norm and they attempted to take credit for it
>dutch bikeIs that a fancy name for city bikes?
>>2004603you misspelled "shitty" but yes
>>2002177unracers were hostile to wider tire clearance, wider gearing, and rack mounts? you're delusional.
>>2004617They were certainly hostile to the technological advancements that made the first two possible, yes, absolutely. And now of course you'll tell me how unracers invented it.
>>2004627>technological advancementshow many years of R&D were required to use a wider fork bridge and add an extra cog?
>>1986058Rivendell sell overpriced mediocre bikes which old people buy and don't ride. If Rivendell gave a fuck about getting the miles up among their customers and "just riding" they'd make gearbox and belt drive models.The only way Grant Petersen's actions and words become congruent is if you assume he's primarily concerned with aesthetics. Unracer doesn't fit, "just ride" doesn't fit, "I want to be a young postman in 1950's rural Cambridgeshire" is about right.
>>2004650Hydro brifters only became affordable within the last few years zoomie. And if you actually shift ever (you obviously don't) you'd know that smaller jumps are preferable and there are practical limits unless the chain can get narrower. Got anything else?
>>2004657>they'd make gearbox and belt drive models.Iono, how many marginal miles do squeaky chains and not-quite-right derailleurs cost? The price thing is a mucj bigger deal imo.>>2004627iirc bigger tires and slightly slacker angles were common on pre-1980ish race bikes
>>200465830-32 mm tires fit in many shimano dual pivot brake calipers. How exactly was wider tire clearance technologically impossible before road disc brakes? >you'd know that smaller jumps are preferableSmaller jumps are preferable to wide gearing? Why is it then, that 1x is so popular, and that entry level 8/9 speed road bikes now spec compact cranks, and 11-32/34 cassettes?
>>2004698>How exactly was wider tire clearance technologically impossible before road disc brakes? The technological impossibility was having the full checklist without compromising. For example:>Why is it then, that 1x is so popular, and that entry level 8/9 speed road bikes now spec compact cranks, and 11-32/34 cassettes?Same reason hybrids come with suspension forks and chunky knobby tires. Entry level bikes are spec'd to appeal to people who don't have the experience to know a good configuration from a bad configuration. But those bikes are probably not going to be shifted much anyway because the shifting experience will suck, which will convince the user that shifting sucks, or road bikes suck, and then they'll be back a year later screaming about how everyone should ride a dutch bike/fixie and modernity is a scam.
>>2004701What is the compromise, of having a rim brake road bike, that fits 32mm tires? (I have one of those) It's less aero and it's a teeny tiny bit heavier, but that is true for disc bikes too.
>>2004702I thought dick brakes were the less aero ones. Now they're more aero so they're bad because only racers go for aero? Anyway I suppose you will now say no one needs clearance for more, or for fenders, because this is not a race, I mean it is a race, wait what were we arguing about again? Oh right. Thing I don't have? Ha! Who needs that kind of stuff? Oh, to do that? Lol! Why would anyone want to do that? Works on my machine.
>>2004701>don't have the experience to know a good configuration from a bad configuration. But those bikes are probably not going to be shifted much anyway because the shifting experience will suck, which will convince the user that shifting sucks, or road bikes suckLets say in the 9 speed era, that instead of the ubiquitous 11-2511 12 13 15 17 19 21 23 25Road bikes should have routinely been specced with 11-3411 13 15 17 20 23 26 30 34As they are now. Compare to the most popular gravel gearing, like a SRAM eagle cassette:10 12 14 16 18 21 24 28 32 36 42 50If 2t gaps at the top end are -so bad-, then why are cassettes with 2t gaps, so popular for gravel racing? BTW i have had several road bikes with 1t gaps, and 1t gaps are magical. Would I rather have 1t gaps, or wide gearing, for road riding? It depends, but as a default, 100% wide gearing. As for the fact that we should have had compact over std cranks earlier, that is a complete no brainer, there is no arguement to be made there. Some people who do fast group rides might legitimately want that top gear but no one else does.
>>2004703You said having wider tire clearance on road bikes back in the day would have been a compromise and I asked how and you didn't have an answer.
>>2004705Considering you seem to be making an argument for "unracers" it's baffling to me how I have to point out that the vast majority of users will get little to no benefit from being able to run a 52t chainring on a 10t cog. Clearly (I hope), having lower gearing is beneficial, so why not make space those cogs between 16t and 34t? Or something in that range, at least. How many people who are not fairly athletic cyclists or road-rage tier commuters would spin out on such a configuration and feel like it's holding them back in a significant way?
>>2004709That's a 1x cassette...
>>2004709You also just seem to have admitted that the switch from std to compact or semi compact cranks was positive. Why exactly could this not have happened earlier?
>>2004710And therefore, what? 46t? Still optimized for an unrealistically high speed. 75% of cyclists will start riding the brakes at 20mph.2004711 (You)
>>2004712>expensive 1x gravel race bikes have an excessive top gearI don't care. Maybe, maybe not. They have 2t gaps at the top end. You said that was so awful it would scare people off. Pure histrionics from a retardo.
>>2004713The retardo here is the one (You) who was arguing for 8 speed 11-34
>>2004714That's what you'd get now with $1000. Claris and Sora are great. I think most riders would prefer wider gears to close gaps, and i'm not even going to give the caveat of 'serious' because it's really more, people who ride big climbs, and those are the serious cyclists. What held this change back was not technology but machismo.
>>2004716Machismo is putting skippy clunky grindy gearing on a bike because "real men" would totally bomb down the other side mashing against a thick wall of atmospheric resistance like the space shuttle. Low gearing for 10% climbs is a must-have on any bike. High gearing for 10% descents is larping. Only recently have we had the technology to make both possible on the same bike without a shitty user experience.
>>2004717>Low gearing for 10% climbs is a must-have on any bikeOk so you DO agree that the standard tight road gearing of the past was retarded. >Only recently have we had the technology>a shitty user experience.What the fuck are you even talking about?
>>2004718I do not agree with that at all, no. It was entirely use case dependent. This guy for example got a good result from "retarded" gearing. Most consumers/amateur cyclists did not, but the problem was not the tightness, it was the range of speeds at the optimal RPM (another issue was that people pedaled too slowly back then, probably as a coping mechanism for hard compromises that only allowed for ideal results in an extremely specific set of circumstances).
>>2004720>Most consumers/amateur cyclists did notYeah ok so actually, you do agree. >but the problem was not the tightness, it was the range of speeds at the optimal RPM (another issue was that people pedaled too slowly back then, probably as a coping mechanism for hard compromises that only allowed for ideal results in an extremely specific set of circumstances).now you're just being pedantic and trying to backpedal by writing in the most annoying convoluted way possible. No doubt you will grasp onto this rather than actually saying anything.
>road bikes back in the day should and could have had lower gears [as standard] [for consumers]>no, wrong, they should have had a different range of speeds at the optimal RPM and acshually they couldnt have had wider gears for reasons that I can't say
>>2004721How am I backpedaling? Have you lost the plot? Nothing I have said contradicts what I said originally that you took issue with: >>2004627>>2004658>>2004701>>2004703etc
>>2004723You just lack reading comprehension. Modernity is how the industry succeeded in creating bicycles that were capable of making everyone happy. Prior to that, it was unracers defending bad compromises, like insane jumps between gears, to wit: "would I rather have good shifting, or 10-36 on a 6 speed, lolol stupid noob obviously teh 11-34!!!!!"
>>2004725AHA you have finally said it>would I rather have good shifting, or [wide gears]You think the technology did not exist back in the day to have good shifting AND wide gears. It did. In the 7, 8 and 9 speed eras. That is 35 years ago. Repeatedly I have defined our argument as being much more recent than that. But is that your last defense, you are talking about the pre-modern era of road bikes, about 40+ years ago?
even fucking then you're wrong lmao
>>2004726If you're falling back on "we just needed to fiddle with 3x" then you've lost sight of the requirements. Why are you so desperate to defend antiques? Is it because you paid $5000 for one after being told it would make people stop judging you for being slow?
As soon as we had an 11t cog (the 80s) we could have had 50/34 cranks instead of 53/42 and as soon as we had hyperglide and indexing (also the 80s) wide cassettes shifted well. You think old XT didn't shift well?
>>2004729I think you need to go for a ride and calm yourself down, you're having a breakdown and it's clear you can't hold more than one simple declarative sentence in your head at one time due to the excess cortisol or something
>>2004728No dude, i've said it over and over again what i'm talking about.
>>2004730I think there's a term for this style of argument lad and it's a concession.
>>2004731Yeah and you've been wrong over and over again because you can't seem to decide if you're saying "I don't have it so no one needs it" or "actually it existed all along, which is why I'm so angry about it existing now"
>>2004734I like modern road bikes.
>>2004695>how many marginal miles do squeaky chains and not-quite-right derailleurs cost?People often don't ride simply because maintenance is too much of a ballache. Also, people will be less hesitant to use an expensive robust thing, rather than an expensive fragile thing.Gearboxes and belts are clearly superior for most non-competitive purposes.
Hi It's Russ from PathlessPedaledToday, I want to complain about anything that makes you go faster, because that's bad, because I don't like going fast so you shouldn't either. Why would you buy electronic shifting when it's far more reliable to use, less maintenance, quicker shifter, more pleasurable to use when you can buy this new chink slop friction shift lame rehash of a Suntour group that was made in 1988 for almost as much money? It just makes so much more sense to use dogshit than stuff that is new and better, because we are losing the point of biking I feel with things that are better. Biking is about riding at 10mph on shitty overpriced, overhyped steel frames that pound your ass and fumbling about for 2 minutes trying to find the right gear and having to deal with shitty cable maintenance multiple times a year. Hell, why would you use hydraulic disc brakes that are effortless to use and cost 200 dollars, when you can buy some shitty boutique mechanical calipers for 700 dollars that give you hand cramps after an hour from the force needed to squeeze the lever?
>>2004910It's my pet theory that he moved to Spain because a lisp is just part of the language.
>>2004910thanks but I'm going to buy a late-80s touring bike for $200 instead and put some $30 indexed shifters on it
>>2004910Hi it's Anon from /n/I complain about mechanical brakes being overpriced and high maintenance but simultaneously shill expensive early adopter electronic shifting horse shit that ceases to function if you forget to charge your bike for a week.
isn't this just richard stallman's quote with the words swapped around to bicycle things?
>>2005071>>1986210
>>2004910That's great but if I need parts I can just buy a used bike for under 100usd and stash the spares.Never forget that gravel is basically hybrid 2.0
>>2005059>I have to >Put the plug in the wall once a month for an hour???????????????>How can any one deal with that??????????????????????????
>>2004910>shits on electronic because it's the 'next best thing' >goes through new groups, frames, tires, wheels once a week what did he mean by this?
