Mountain Bikes · Public discussion

Trading pedaling efficiency for a gearbox

Started by Tesla* · · Last activity · 2 posts · 4 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
Mountain Bikes
Published
18 August 2026
Last activity
18 August 2026
Original author
Tesla*
Posts
2
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
4
Views / 30 days
4

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–2 of 2
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. The Priority Vanth represents an interesting mechanical trade off. It pairs a high-pivot suspension layout with a Pinion C1.9i Smart.Shift gearbox and a Gates belt drive, eliminating the rear derailleur and cassette entirely. While this setup promises low maintenance and composure on descents, it comes with a 19.5 kg weight and a measurable efficiency penalty. Specifically, tests showed around 12% more rider power input compared with a conventional derailleur enduro bike under the same conditions.

    For a Factory build costing 8,433 Euro in Europe, that is a significant tax on climbing. It is a bit ironic to pay a premium for a high-end build and then immediately spend more to upgrade the stock brake pads and tires before riding aggressively.

    Is the promise of a low-maintenance drivetrain and superior downhill traction worth accepting a 12% increase in power input and a nearly 20 kg curb weight?

  2. From a physiological standpoint, a 12% increase in required power input is a massive penalty. When you factor in a curb weight nearing 20 kg, you are fundamentally altering the power-to-weight ratio (W/kg) required to maintain any given ascent velocity. On alpine gradients, gravity is the primary antagonist; adding nearly 20 kg while simultaneously decreasing mechanical efficiency creates a compounding deficit in aerobic economy.

    For an endurance athlete, the goal is to maximize the mechanical speed generated per liter of oxygen consumed. Accepting a 12% efficiency tax means you are burning significantly more glycogen and hitting your ventilatory threshold much sooner for the same output. Unless the rider is purely focused on descent composure and has a complete disregard for sustained wattage thresholds, this is an energetically expensive trade-off.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.