Originally Posted by
Banzai
Talking about the very minor energy loss from frame flex regarding city bikes where one soft-pedals around town at a leisurely and non-sweat-inducing pace is silly. It’s just not a real factor.
Also, under those conditions the twist isn’t much of anything anyway. And it’s why thinner-tubed steel mixtes still have a top-tube, albeit near the BB, while AL ones are built large diameter.
Why do you think mixtes exist? Because they flex less than step throughs and that's important. It's especially important for the non sweat inducing pace because that same pace will induce sweat when you have to use energy to flex the frame.
Originally Posted by
FrontFive
Thanks for the reply. I have to admit that I preferred the upright position and lazy geometry more than I preferred the step through itself. I wasn't worried about going fast so the weight of the bike was probably advantageous as it steam-rollered over and through everything.
Up to 20 km/h they are probably more efficient in use than other non aerodynamic bikes.
The bikes I used in Helsinki were aluminium and seemed more than stiff enough (I weigh 105 kg). However the cycle paths in Helsinki were universally smooth which is not something that can be said of the roads and paths in the UK, so I may be better off looking at steel frames.
Maybe height is more important than weight, I hadn'tt noticed it for years with all those step throughs I've ridden but these days I'm more like a 20 km/h non sweater than at 15 km/h pace before. I noticed it after I had bought a step through in good condition for city use and it turned out be hard work to keep a decent pace. I told a friend who is about the same height and he was surprised, as a top tube was about his only requirement for the cheap bikes he always uses.