>>212159254 (OP)okay so i’ve been thinking about bikes again, and not like in the “i want to go for a ride” sense, but in the deep, structural, borderline obsessive sense. like: the triangle. the humble triangle. people don’t understand how central triangles are to the entire concept of a bike—it’s not just two wheels and a seat, it’s a finely tuned stress-distribution lattice. the diamond frame—main triangle plus rear triangle—is basically the most efficient structure you can put under a human without building a scaffolding rig. and the way every part matters blows my mind. saddle height? matters. bar width? matters. crank length, pedal spacing, stem rise—all of it tweaks how your body and the machine become one cohesive system. it’s not just fit, it’s a biomechanical handshake between man and machine, and every degree off makes the whole thing feel like wearing someone else’s shoes.
and don’t even get me started on gear systems. the derailleur is straight-up clockwork wizardry. watching it shift across 11 cogs with perfect chain tension while you’re climbing a 12% gradient feels like something we shouldn’t be allowed to do without a license. internal gear hubs? belt drives? hydraulic disc brakes that literally use fluid dynamics to slow you down from 30mph without flinching? it’s absurd. and yet most people treat bikes like toys. they’re not toys. they’re modular kinetic sculptures that solve locomotion with elegance no car has ever achieved. i was up till 3am comparing bottom bracket standards again because i think PF30 is a lie. anyway... what’s your take on this? be honest.
