A thought I had on yesterday's ride as I crossed county lines back in to home county: I wondered if heavier bikes were inherently more comfortable on wavy chip seal. I had just come off miles of excellent rolled asphalt and knew I would be seeing this chip seal for just as long. In past Cycle Oregons, when this happened, there would be a near universal refrain of despair, with the calls coming from riders of carbon fiber and aluminum bikes. For me yesterday, the ride of the bike was different. I had to get used to feeling all this input. But 5 miles later I thought about it again, and you know, this input wasn't bad; it was just there. Doing another 10 miles? No big deal.
Obviously frame material choices have a lot to do with comfort. Titanium was famous for being more comfortable than steel or aluminum on rough roads. Carbon fiber allows the designer a lot of latitude to do almost anything. But on rides, I hear complaints of road surfaces far more from riders of light bikes that heavy. My engineering mind says that as CF bikes get lighter, they out to flex more. Granted it is not a linear function as the materials typically change to higher modulus fabrics, better aligned fibers and probably a higher fabric to resin ratio. Still, less ought to flex at least as much vertically, esp if that was considered in the design. Yet, judging from the complaints or lack of, those of us on 20+ pound steel or ti bikes seem to be riding in more comfort. (And I am doing this with steel forks that don't damp anything on all of my bikes.)
So: I wonder if weight by itself could be measured as a comfort aid. And if so, might a heavier bike be a better match for a rider on flat, less than perfect roads, even for high speed or competition?
Ben