I think the article is getting too much criticism really. There are some things that are maybe overgeneralizations, but its advice isn't too bad for someone loo

I think the article is getting too much criticism really. There are some things that are maybe overgeneralizations, but its advice isn't too bad for someone looking for a general-purpose bike. A lot of it is solidly within the gravel biking camp, for better or worse, that perspective isn't too bad of advice for someone who just wants an everyday bike. Some things that strike me as a little off: 1. Frame material is hard to generalize about, and I wouldn't rank order them quite the same way as the author has, or at least for the same reasons. Top-end aluminum is very very nice, very light and strong, for example. There's pros and cons to everything. ey 2. I'd maybe stick closer to 28-32 mm for a tire, but their advice isn't too far off the mark. Tire choice depends a lot on use. Gravel or some snow you might heed the author's advice, but for blacktop skinnier would be better. Skinnier tires were overrated for awhile, now wider is better is maybe overstated advice. You want the skinniest tire your typical riding surface can afford vibration-wise in general. Wider than your riding surface needs just adds unnecessary weight. By the same token, you could underestimate how much variation in riding surface you encounter. 3. They dismiss weight waaay too easily, although this is becoming common advice now, even in some racing circles. Weight matters, although there's diminishing returns to less weight, especially around 10kg or so. You can overdo it and become a weight weenie unnecessarily, and at some point losing more weight won't matter. But all other things being equal, lighter is more comfortable and easier ("all other things being equal" is the catch though). 4. The disc versus rim brake and mechanical versus hydraulic disc thing is complicated (although the way the author writes about it seems to acknowledge this). All are fine; disc brakes stop better but the difference is often not one that has much practical consequence, and disc brakes can be just as futzy in their own way (they can be harder to maintain when you do need to do maintenance), and they weigh more and are less aerodynamic. My sense is the primary reason disc brakes are being pushed is because they are easier to use with wider tires. Hydraulic disc brakes are much better now, and are more differentiated from rim brakes than mechanical brakes in terms of stopping power, but mechanical disc brakes can be much easier to service when you need to (although rim are probably easier still). Honestly, the bike community is full of myths and people pushing personal subjective preferences as if they're objective laws of nature. So you have to take everything, and I mean everything with a grain of salt. Bike companies push new products based on sketchy lab assumptions, that leads to purchasing trends based fear of loss of parts or desire for status, or to avoid feeling out of date. These then become incorrect maxims that are replaced by new FUD trends and pushback etc etc. There's constant bickering over extreme positions that oversimplify everything.