Originally Posted by Frkl

Thanks for the thumbs up.

I don't really know how much defending i can or should do.

For those who agree with me--because they have experience in international bike markets, because they might be retrogrouches or fans of classic bikes, who are just inclined via temperament to see technological change for change's sake as a gimmick, or who just didn't get the message to ditch their ATB, I don't have to defend my position.

For those who disagree with me, no defense will convince them--and yeah, I know there are arguments for laterally stiff but vertically complient frames and disc brakes, but if all this stuff was better as an objective fact, then half of the conversations on this forum wouldn't have happened and we all would be riding the stuff without question. But we aren't.

The last complete bike I purchased was in 1995. Since then, I have been so dissatisfied and disillusioned with the market that I build my own bikes. And I have built and ridden carbon bikes, and even with suspension! I just didn't keep them. When I see an article about an innovation that has as the first photo a bike that looks a whole lot like my 1992 steel, rigid, 26 inch mountain bike, gravel bikes that are less capable than was my 1993 RBT, or "modern" mtb geometry that seems like it was ripped off of a Repack beach cruiser, then it makes me wonder what all this technological progress really means.

Has it actually improved the experience of cycling? Not to open another can of worms, but boes running tubeless really send you to a nirvana that is unavailable with tubes?