The moral of this story kids; always offer tradesmen a cuppa at regular intervals.
A bit of a long story but, I found the car sitting in a driveway with a flat tire and saw the registration had expired 2 years ago. knocked on the door of the house and ended up buying it for $5000, I was told it ran when parked but not very well and the owner just didn't have the time to deal with it. Well after a lot of work and about $1300, she is ready for the road!
I made a little build series on the car and thought the reddit community might like to see an STI saved from a sad life of rotting into a gravel driveway.
the first drive and a good look at my purchase https://youtu.be/0gm7dJsLZ0w
part 1 of the repair process https://youtu.be/jakE2rqxKSM
part 2 of the repair process https://youtu.be/LMYTYdKrX58
part 3, doing all the cosmetics https://youtu.be/68xSW8FmxGA
the car could still use a nice catback exhaust system but for a grand total of $6300 Canadian, I am very happy with it, and I'm pretty sure this has to be one of the cheapest STI's rolling around Ontario.
It seems like 2x drivetrains (i.e. with front derailleurs) are becoming "uncool" -- or at least much less popular -- on gravel bikes. That's my impression, anyway.
In my mind, gravel bikes are all about versatility and the ability to move between fast-moving paved rides and moderately rough dirt/gravel/trail rides. With a simple change of tires, you can optimize your bike for maximum speed on anything from smooth pavement to cross country trails -- or somewhere in between.
In that context, I think that a 2x setup provides greater versatility and flexibility. You can have high gears, low gears, and closer spacing between gears to keep a good cadence on fast-paced rides. 2x drivetrains have generally been tested to have slightly better drivetrain efficiency, too (aside for cross-chained gear combinations). And the 10T sprockets that give a higher "go fast" gear on some 1x drivetrains is a worse-case scenario in terms of drivetrain efficiency (to the point that bike racing teams sometimes lock out the 10T sprocket).
Does 1x have a few advantages? Sure. But none that I find truly compelling for the mix of paved and off-rode riding that I do, given the other tradeoffs involved.
- You can certainly get low gears on both 1x and 2x. For 2x, there are now a number of subcompact cranksets (anything from a 24/40 to a 34/48 set of rings).
- And there is no major weight savings with a 1x, because most (or all) of that weight savings gets eaten-up by the weight of the extra-large cassette cogs required to provide a similar gear range as a 2x setup.
- I suppose it is simpler, but when did a front derailleur suddenly become all that complicated?
- While many people claim chain retention is better on a 1x, that's not necessarily a big differentiator. You can get clutch rear derailleurs on a 2x setup and a front derailleur is actually a pretty handy chain retention device. Combine those two things with a chain catcher and you shouldn't be dropping many chains on a properly setup bike 2x drivetrain. And both drivetrains can drop chains.
- If your "complicated" front derailleur fails in the woods, so what? You'll probably be stuck in your small chainring and still be able to make it home as a 1x bike anyway. And how often does that happen?
So... Are there other 2x drivetrain appreciators among the gravel bike crowd? And do you also get the feeling that 2x drivetrains are becoming less "cool" -- or at least less common -- on newer bikes?
====... keep reading on reddit ➡
Cold beaches near or above the Arctic Circle in the real world often seem to form with gravel and/or darker-colored material more often than sand so maybe snowy tundras, snowy taigas, some taigas, etc. could generate with gravel beaches instead of using sand.
Examples: (street view won't embed in reddit, open in a new tab)
Point Barrow, Alaska (photo)
[Honningsvåg, Norway (street view)] (https://firstname.lastname@example.org,25.9951215,3a,75y,142.71h,77.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRuE5cngqQNa_n37-SL7m0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Tuktoyaktuk, Northwest Territories (street view)
Kugluktuk, Nunavut (street view)
Pevek, Russia (street view)
Dikson, Russia (photo)
Longyearbyen, Svalbard (street view)
[Grise Fiord, Nunavut (street view)](https://email@example.com,-82
RI: The Gravel Institute and Richard Wolff argue that Capitalism hasn't reduced global poverty, but instead has exacerbated it or at most not helped mitigate poverty. Where poverty has reduced, like China, this is a result of socialist policies, not capitalism. Countries that have adopted "American style Capitalism" have been unable to reduce poverty. Many of the Gravel Institutes claims derive from ignoring the policies of countries like China that reduced their poverty rate and real reasons why absolute poverty has risen and why proportional poverty is difficult to measure and reduce.
I also personally felt that u/Parasat16 response was lacking in areas
I want to make a video in response, but considering the amount of sources and subjects, it'd be valuable to get some feedback and corrections from people more astute on the subjects than my layman's understanding.
the Gravel Institute's video and the channel more broadly, is meant to be a response to the arguments provided by PragerU, Libertarians and free market fundamentalists. By claiming that Capitalism and reducing poverty are diametrically opposed is both highly reductive and misunderstands economic development and the role of markets.
*Markets, will always exist. From merchant traders in ancient Phonecia to financial traders in the London stock exchange, each accrued and reinvested the wealth generated from their activities, whether speculating on commodities or shipping luxury goods through the Mediterranean. Rather capitalism should be better seen as a net of various functions and policies that can support markets and the degree to which they operate. There is no purely free market society as there is no society truly devoid of free markets as people seek to trade and accumulate wealth.
What’s so greatly misunderstood by the Gravel institute and other free market fundamentalists is that capitalism isn’t an ends onto itself but a tool wielded by policy makers and governments in how they use the wealth acquired from commercial activity. Markets can be relegated or deregulated through an almost endless series of choices in order, in theory at least, to create a prosperous society or in the case of dictatorships and monarchies, at least support them and their cronies.
I want to look at Wolff's objections to the global poverty rate and what he believes reduced it, something that even with all the goal pos... keep reading on reddit ➡
R1: Very simply, if all workers could make x% more starting their own business then they will. It is very disingenuous, obviously, there is a reason why every hamburger maker does not become a boss in order to not get "thieves" upon. That reason is a risk. The capitalist also bears the full cost of their business fails and is stuck with debt the workers will get paid regardless.
Furthermore, it is not the case where most owners of businesses do not contribute to the business other than paying people to make hamburgers for them. Most likely if the owner does not substantially contribute to the business, the business will fail.
That being said it is easy to see some failings of the capitalist system incentivizing poor working conditions and exploitation of labor. I think there is a better way to say this than going after all business owners, incidences such as Labor Exploitation of undocumented immigrants. can give strong cases of actual labor exploitation and some call to regulatory action.
Maybe Richard Wolff could give an argument of how more workers should become business owners but are limited someway in terms of access to credit, safety net, etc, and thus can be exploited more and more. however, that wasn't the argument being made. This could have also been a much better video that showed the capitalist incentives to busting unions but instead, this video was very simplistic and disingenuous.