Stiffness Does Not Matter
#51
Habitual User
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Altadena, CA
Posts: 7,986
Bikes: 2023 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2018 Trek Procaliber 9.9 RSL, 2018 Storck Fascenario.3 Platinum, 2003 Time VX Special Pro, 2001 Colnago VIP, 1999 Trek 9900 singlespeed, 1977 Nishiki ONP
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4946 Post(s)
Liked 8,087 Times
in
3,826 Posts
Likes For Eric F:
#52
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,698 Times
in
2,518 Posts
#53
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Humboldt County, CA
Posts: 832
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 430 Times
in
286 Posts
OK, so Robin Williams' First Law of Comedy has been fully honored in the thread, but I was completely serious and not trying to generate jokes.
When we pedal, there is some displacement of the centerline of the bottom bracket relative to the centerline of the bicycle. Obviously, making that displacement happen requires an input of force. The real question is, is that force lost, to any degree that matters? The answer to that question is, so far as anyone who's ever tried to measure it has been able to determine, no.
It turns out that things like frames, crankarms, stems, seatposts, handlebars, etc are very,very efficient springs. Which makes perfect sense... they're mostly made of metal, they have few if any moving parts, and there's not a damper anywhere to be found. Metals have vanishingly low internal losses, things that don't move don't generate friction, and there's not a part whose job it is to convert force into heat, so how can the pedalling force be lost? Where's it gonna go?
It's going to be returned into the system, because we're talking about undamped springs, and that's what springs do.
Where and when is it going top be returned to the system?
This is a more interesting question. Springs release their stored energy when the force compressing them (energy being put into the spring) is less than the force the spring is exerting on whatever is loading it.
Now think about pedal loads as a function of crankarm angle. They're increasing between roughly 1:30 and 4:30, peaking at the end of the downstroke. The rest of the circle, they're not very large at all, because almost nobody pulls up in the back half of the stroke, and even those who do don't do it very hard, so not much force is being applied.
But, wait... bicycles have two crankarms and pedals, because most bicyclists have two legs. That probably matters a lot, no? So, our right pedal is at 5:00 or so, the force on that pedal is falling very quickly, (it'll be almost zero by 7:00,)
the bottom bracket area and crankarm are at their maximum leftward deflection, and there's some energy stored in that deflection. What happens next? The left crankarm is at 11:30, and the force on it is just starting to increase from its minimum. So we have a double null in the force input by the rider... the legs aren't adding much energy into the system. So, the energy stored in the leftward deflection of the crank area becomes, for a brief, glorious moment, the largest force in the drivetrain. And what it wants to do is to drive the deflection to zero. And, since it's displaced to the left, that means moving things rightward. Which is exactly what the rider's left leg is going to start doing when the left foot gets to 1:30 and the left leg becomes the dominant factor in the system.
Basically, the bicycle returns almost all of the energy stored in its flex by the first pedal stroke on all subsequent pedal strokes, minus some very-small-but-not-zero amount that gets converted to heat because TANSTAAFL. In other words, your legs only pay the full cost of distorting the bicycle once. After the first stroke, the bicycle itself helps you to deflect it, so you don't have to.
And that's why stiffness is not a factor in bicycle performance.
--Shannon
PS: I'm pretty sure this is most of what Jan Heine and the BQ crew are talking about when they talk about "planing." They go farther than I'm comfortable with in saying that bicycle flex is a net positive for performance... although they do have some data to back that claim up, and they show their work. All I'm confident in saying is that it isn't a net negative.
When we pedal, there is some displacement of the centerline of the bottom bracket relative to the centerline of the bicycle. Obviously, making that displacement happen requires an input of force. The real question is, is that force lost, to any degree that matters? The answer to that question is, so far as anyone who's ever tried to measure it has been able to determine, no.
It turns out that things like frames, crankarms, stems, seatposts, handlebars, etc are very,very efficient springs. Which makes perfect sense... they're mostly made of metal, they have few if any moving parts, and there's not a damper anywhere to be found. Metals have vanishingly low internal losses, things that don't move don't generate friction, and there's not a part whose job it is to convert force into heat, so how can the pedalling force be lost? Where's it gonna go?
It's going to be returned into the system, because we're talking about undamped springs, and that's what springs do.
Where and when is it going top be returned to the system?
This is a more interesting question. Springs release their stored energy when the force compressing them (energy being put into the spring) is less than the force the spring is exerting on whatever is loading it.
Now think about pedal loads as a function of crankarm angle. They're increasing between roughly 1:30 and 4:30, peaking at the end of the downstroke. The rest of the circle, they're not very large at all, because almost nobody pulls up in the back half of the stroke, and even those who do don't do it very hard, so not much force is being applied.
But, wait... bicycles have two crankarms and pedals, because most bicyclists have two legs. That probably matters a lot, no? So, our right pedal is at 5:00 or so, the force on that pedal is falling very quickly, (it'll be almost zero by 7:00,)
the bottom bracket area and crankarm are at their maximum leftward deflection, and there's some energy stored in that deflection. What happens next? The left crankarm is at 11:30, and the force on it is just starting to increase from its minimum. So we have a double null in the force input by the rider... the legs aren't adding much energy into the system. So, the energy stored in the leftward deflection of the crank area becomes, for a brief, glorious moment, the largest force in the drivetrain. And what it wants to do is to drive the deflection to zero. And, since it's displaced to the left, that means moving things rightward. Which is exactly what the rider's left leg is going to start doing when the left foot gets to 1:30 and the left leg becomes the dominant factor in the system.
Basically, the bicycle returns almost all of the energy stored in its flex by the first pedal stroke on all subsequent pedal strokes, minus some very-small-but-not-zero amount that gets converted to heat because TANSTAAFL. In other words, your legs only pay the full cost of distorting the bicycle once. After the first stroke, the bicycle itself helps you to deflect it, so you don't have to.
And that's why stiffness is not a factor in bicycle performance.
--Shannon
PS: I'm pretty sure this is most of what Jan Heine and the BQ crew are talking about when they talk about "planing." They go farther than I'm comfortable with in saying that bicycle flex is a net positive for performance... although they do have some data to back that claim up, and they show their work. All I'm confident in saying is that it isn't a net negative.
Last edited by ShannonM; 08-23-21 at 06:23 PM.
Likes For ShannonM:
#54
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Lebanon (Liberty Hill), CT
Posts: 8,473
Bikes: CAAD 12, MASI Gran Criterium S, Colnago World Cup CX & Guru steel
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1743 Post(s)
Liked 1,281 Times
in
740 Posts
As with many things in the cycling world we tend to see small differences and represent them as life altering.
Likes For bruce19:
#55
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,431
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4407 Post(s)
Liked 4,860 Times
in
3,006 Posts
It is a very small energy loss in absolute terms, never mind trying to compare the delta loss between two bike frames of slightly different stiffness. You would be pissing in the wind attempting to measure it!
There is a lot of BS talked about frame stiffness vs power transmission. At the end of the day if you put out 500W at the pedals, you will measure approximately 96-97% of that power at the rear hub due to drivetrain losses. So let’s say 480W at the rear hub. So how much of that 20W loss is likely due to frame flexing hysteresis? Let’s say for arguments sake it was as much as 5W. So if we then doubled the frame stiffness we might save 2.5W at a 500W output.
Frame stiffness is important, but not for raw power transmission. This idea of a stiffer frame transmitting more power to the wheel doesn’t really stack up with the physics.
Likes For PeteHski:
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,431
Mentioned: 12 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4407 Post(s)
Liked 4,860 Times
in
3,006 Posts
I’m totally with you on the energy loss in frame flexing being negligible. But there is a LOT more to bicycle performance than mere power transmission. Stiffness affects handling characteristics profoundly and therefore bicycle performance as a whole.
Likes For PeteHski:
#57
Disco Infiltrator
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 13,446
Bikes: Stormchaser, Paramount, Tilt, Samba tandem
Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3126 Post(s)
Liked 2,105 Times
in
1,369 Posts
Seriously, I'm no physics expert, but it's only logical that if the exertion you're putting into moving your bike across the ground is also causing some flex in the frame, then part of your effort is wasted in bending the frame back & forth. Or, the frame is absorbing some of the force instead of putting it fully into the pedals. I'm sure someone might show some science to prove me wrong, so have at it...
Science!
__________________
Genesis 49:16-17
Genesis 49:16-17
Last edited by Darth Lefty; 08-23-21 at 06:59 PM.
Likes For Darth Lefty:
#58
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: San Diego, California
Posts: 4,077
Bikes: Velo Orange Piolet
Mentioned: 28 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2228 Post(s)
Liked 2,011 Times
in
972 Posts
I think the human factor of getting the response immediately is significant in the racing/marginal gains world. A stiff frame will be an advantage in a race where tactical acceleration is in play (i.e. not a time trial).
#59
Newbie
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 2
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time
in
1 Post
My only thought to add to the pile is Sean Kelly didn't seem to be hampered on his old twist -o -flex Vitus. I thought mine was down right scary in a sprint. My second worst bike I had the builder "Make it as stiff as possible". I was a big guy (165 lbs) at the time. It was fun to ride for about an hour on a smooth crit course. An hour on a bumpy road was more than plenty and I just wanted off. So my final answer is yes and no. Horses for courses.
Likes For Moke:
#61
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,949
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3952 Post(s)
Liked 7,297 Times
in
2,947 Posts
Since you know so much about this, maybe you can tell us the time required for the bottom bracket to naturally return to it's unstressed position and the damping time for side-to-side motion of a bottom bracket. In other words, what are the resonant frequency and Q factors for side-to-side motion of a typical bottom bracket?
#62
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,238
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18415 Post(s)
Liked 15,545 Times
in
7,329 Posts
Since you know so much about this, maybe you can tell us the time required for the bottom bracket to naturally return to it's unstressed position and the damping time for side-to-side motion of a bottom bracket. In other words, what are the resonant frequency and Q factors for side-to-side motion of a typical bottom bracket?
#63
Randomhead
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Happy Valley, Pennsylvania
Posts: 24,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Liked 3,698 Times
in
2,518 Posts
I know someone who had his students do a survey of the resonant frequency of bike frames. They never found one that had a resonance less than 10Hz. They don't resonate much at all when fully assembled. Putting the wheels in eliminates the lower resonant frequencies. The motion is dominated by the static loading, not any kind of vibration phenomenon. I have never quite understood how the deflection of the bb would store energy that would be dissipated by moving the chain in a productive way. But then again, it probably can't take that much energy to get it into the deflected position in the first place. So you can't expect to get anything out of it.
I have seen a slow motion video of fork deflection when someone did a bunny hop. It was scary as all get out. I think the fork did a couple of heavily damped cycles and then stopped.
I think the main thing that changed as frames got stiffer was less problems with chains rubbing on front derailleurs.
I have seen a slow motion video of fork deflection when someone did a bunny hop. It was scary as all get out. I think the fork did a couple of heavily damped cycles and then stopped.
I think the main thing that changed as frames got stiffer was less problems with chains rubbing on front derailleurs.
#64
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Humboldt County, CA
Posts: 832
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 430 Times
in
286 Posts
Since you know so much about this, maybe you can tell us the time required for the bottom bracket to naturally return to it's unstressed position and the damping time for side-to-side motion of a bottom bracket. In other words, what are the resonant frequency and Q factors for side-to-side motion of a typical bottom bracket?
Intuitively, I'd think that the ~3 Hz input from the rider's legs would dominate, but I don't know if that's true. I can't imagine how it would matter... how is the frequency domain behavior of the frame supposed to generate significant losses that would vary directly with frame stiffness?
With apologies to the guys at Singer Porsche, everything does not matter.
--Shannon
#65
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,949
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3952 Post(s)
Liked 7,297 Times
in
2,947 Posts
#66
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Humboldt County, CA
Posts: 832
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 430 Times
in
286 Posts
Around 500 Hz for a 1" diameter thin-walled tube around 22-24" long, according to the people who make wind chimes. Q would be quite narrow, or tubular bells couldn't work.
As this is almost 200 times the pedaling frequency, it would seem to be irrelevant to the discussion.
Why do you think it matters?
--Shannon
As this is almost 200 times the pedaling frequency, it would seem to be irrelevant to the discussion.
Why do you think it matters?
--Shannon
#67
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,949
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3952 Post(s)
Liked 7,297 Times
in
2,947 Posts
Around 500 Hz for a 1" diameter thin-walled tube around 22-24" long, according to the people who make wind chimes. Q would be quite narrow, or tubular bells couldn't work.
As this is almost 200 times the pedaling frequency, it would seem to be irrelevant to the discussion.
Why do you think it matters?
As this is almost 200 times the pedaling frequency, it would seem to be irrelevant to the discussion.
Why do you think it matters?
#68
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Humboldt County, CA
Posts: 832
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 405 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 430 Times
in
286 Posts
And you still haven't answered the question of why this number that you're demanding is relevant to the question at hand. Do you think there is some frequency domain mechanism at work that would make "flex wastes energy" a true statement? Like, what... phase cancellation? Resonant heating, like a 3 Hz microwave? Harmonic distortion in the rider's 5th chakra?
In other words, do you actually have a point to make at all?
--Shannon
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,949
Bikes: Colnago, Van Dessel, Factor, Cervelo, Ritchey
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3952 Post(s)
Liked 7,297 Times
in
2,947 Posts
Sorry, I thought you were asking about the steel itself. Mea Culpa, my bad, whatever.
And you still haven't answered the question of why this number that you're demanding is relevant to the question at hand. Do you think there is some frequency domain mechanism at work that would make "flex wastes energy" a true statement? Like, what... phase cancellation? Resonant heating, like a 3 Hz microwave? Harmonic distortion in the rider's 5th chakra?
And you still haven't answered the question of why this number that you're demanding is relevant to the question at hand. Do you think there is some frequency domain mechanism at work that would make "flex wastes energy" a true statement? Like, what... phase cancellation? Resonant heating, like a 3 Hz microwave? Harmonic distortion in the rider's 5th chakra?
#70
I’m a little Surly
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Near the district
Posts: 2,422
Bikes: Two Cross Checks, a Karate Monkey, a Disc Trucker, and a VO Randonneur
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 699 Post(s)
Liked 1,294 Times
in
647 Posts
You made a broad statement about frame losses that directly involve the side-to-side motion of the bottom bracket. If you can't even provide rough estimates for the parameters that determine the motion of the bottom bracket, you have no hope of describing the dynamics of the bike+rider system.
Likes For Germany_chris:
#71
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Minas Ithil
Posts: 9,173
Mentioned: 66 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2432 Post(s)
Liked 638 Times
in
395 Posts
My only thought to add to the pile is Sean Kelly didn't seem to be hampered on his old twist -o -flex Vitus. I thought mine was down right scary in a sprint. My second worst bike I had the builder "Make it as stiff as possible". I was a big guy (165 lbs) at the time. It was fun to ride for about an hour on a smooth crit course. An hour on a bumpy road was more than plenty and I just wanted off. So my final answer is yes and no. Horses for courses.
https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/l...tus-979-194179
#72
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2018
Posts: 786
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 338 Post(s)
Liked 408 Times
in
252 Posts
If I need a bit more suspension, I can just put 5 psi less in the tires, it seems like the most logical place to have, well, flex.
The power losses may be negligible, but you just couldn't argue in favour of "more frame flex".In the modern days of CF goodness you can have a nice, stiff bike which is also light and aero (and good looking to boot), and which feels really solid when you're descending at speed.
The power losses may be negligible, but you just couldn't argue in favour of "more frame flex".In the modern days of CF goodness you can have a nice, stiff bike which is also light and aero (and good looking to boot), and which feels really solid when you're descending at speed.
#73
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2021
Posts: 4,083
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2333 Post(s)
Liked 2,097 Times
in
1,314 Posts
OK, so Robin Williams' First Law of Comedy has been fully honored in the thread, but I was completely serious and not trying to generate jokes.
When we pedal, there is some displacement of the centerline of the bottom bracket relative to the centerline of the bicycle. Obviously, making that displacement happen requires an input of force. The real question is, is that force lost, to any degree that matters? The answer to that question is, so far as anyone who's ever tried to measure it has been able to determine, no.
It turns out that things like frames, crankarms, stems, seatposts, handlebars, etc are very,very efficient springs. Which makes perfect sense... they're mostly made of metal, they have few if any moving parts, and there's not a damper anywhere to be found. Metals have vanishingly low internal losses, things that don't move don't generate friction, and there's not a part whose job it is to convert force into heat, so how can the pedalling force be lost? Where's it gonna go?
It's going to be returned into the system, because we're talking about undamped springs, and that's what springs do.
Where and when is it going top be returned to the system?
This is a more interesting question. Springs release their stored energy when the force compressing them (energy being put into the spring) is less than the force the spring is exerting on whatever is loading it.
Now think about pedal loads as a function of crankarm angle. They're increasing between roughly 1:30 and 4:30, peaking at the end of the downstroke. The rest of the circle, they're not very large at all, because almost nobody pulls up in the back half of the stroke, and even those who do don't do it very hard, so not much force is being applied.
But, wait... bicycles have two crankarms and pedals, because most bicyclists have two legs. That probably matters a lot, no? So, our right pedal is at 5:00 or so, the force on that pedal is falling very quickly, (it'll be almost zero by 7:00,)
the bottom bracket area and crankarm are at their maximum leftward deflection, and there's some energy stored in that deflection. What happens next? The left crankarm is at 11:30, and the force on it is just starting to increase from its minimum. So we have a double null in the force input by the rider... the legs aren't adding much energy into the system. So, the energy stored in the leftward deflection of the crank area becomes, for a brief, glorious moment, the largest force in the drivetrain. And what it wants to do is to drive the deflection to zero. And, since it's displaced to the left, that means moving things rightward. Which is exactly what the rider's left leg is going to start doing when the left foot gets to 1:30 and the left leg becomes the dominant factor in the system.
Basically, the bicycle returns almost all of the energy stored in its flex by the first pedal stroke on all subsequent pedal strokes, minus some very-small-but-not-zero amount that gets converted to heat because TANSTAAFL. In other words, your legs only pay the full cost of distorting the bicycle once. After the first stroke, the bicycle itself helps you to deflect it, so you don't have to.
And that's why stiffness is not a factor in bicycle performance.
--Shannon
PS: I'm pretty sure this is most of what Jan Heine and the BQ crew are talking about when they talk about "planing." They go farther than I'm comfortable with in saying that bicycle flex is a net positive for performance... although they do have some data to back that claim up, and they show their work. All I'm confident in saying is that it isn't a net negative.
When we pedal, there is some displacement of the centerline of the bottom bracket relative to the centerline of the bicycle. Obviously, making that displacement happen requires an input of force. The real question is, is that force lost, to any degree that matters? The answer to that question is, so far as anyone who's ever tried to measure it has been able to determine, no.
It turns out that things like frames, crankarms, stems, seatposts, handlebars, etc are very,very efficient springs. Which makes perfect sense... they're mostly made of metal, they have few if any moving parts, and there's not a damper anywhere to be found. Metals have vanishingly low internal losses, things that don't move don't generate friction, and there's not a part whose job it is to convert force into heat, so how can the pedalling force be lost? Where's it gonna go?
It's going to be returned into the system, because we're talking about undamped springs, and that's what springs do.
Where and when is it going top be returned to the system?
This is a more interesting question. Springs release their stored energy when the force compressing them (energy being put into the spring) is less than the force the spring is exerting on whatever is loading it.
Now think about pedal loads as a function of crankarm angle. They're increasing between roughly 1:30 and 4:30, peaking at the end of the downstroke. The rest of the circle, they're not very large at all, because almost nobody pulls up in the back half of the stroke, and even those who do don't do it very hard, so not much force is being applied.
But, wait... bicycles have two crankarms and pedals, because most bicyclists have two legs. That probably matters a lot, no? So, our right pedal is at 5:00 or so, the force on that pedal is falling very quickly, (it'll be almost zero by 7:00,)
the bottom bracket area and crankarm are at their maximum leftward deflection, and there's some energy stored in that deflection. What happens next? The left crankarm is at 11:30, and the force on it is just starting to increase from its minimum. So we have a double null in the force input by the rider... the legs aren't adding much energy into the system. So, the energy stored in the leftward deflection of the crank area becomes, for a brief, glorious moment, the largest force in the drivetrain. And what it wants to do is to drive the deflection to zero. And, since it's displaced to the left, that means moving things rightward. Which is exactly what the rider's left leg is going to start doing when the left foot gets to 1:30 and the left leg becomes the dominant factor in the system.
Basically, the bicycle returns almost all of the energy stored in its flex by the first pedal stroke on all subsequent pedal strokes, minus some very-small-but-not-zero amount that gets converted to heat because TANSTAAFL. In other words, your legs only pay the full cost of distorting the bicycle once. After the first stroke, the bicycle itself helps you to deflect it, so you don't have to.
And that's why stiffness is not a factor in bicycle performance.
--Shannon
PS: I'm pretty sure this is most of what Jan Heine and the BQ crew are talking about when they talk about "planing." They go farther than I'm comfortable with in saying that bicycle flex is a net positive for performance... although they do have some data to back that claim up, and they show their work. All I'm confident in saying is that it isn't a net negative.
https://www.bikeforums.net/22196241-post13.html
#74
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 15,489
Bikes: 2015 Workswell 066, 2017 Workswell 093, 2014 Dawes Sheila, 1983 Cannondale 500, 1984 Raleigh Olympian, 2007 Cannondale Rize 4, 2017 Fuji Sportif 1 LE
Mentioned: 144 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7652 Post(s)
Liked 3,473 Times
in
1,834 Posts
I love it when people use principles of physics and engineering .... without any experimental data.
Great that you have studied science .... might I suggest that we review Bacon's scientific method? Until you have done experiments and observed the outcomes, and checked whether your results support your hypothesis .... this is all just, to use the precise scientific term, "used food."
Great that you have studied science .... might I suggest that we review Bacon's scientific method? Until you have done experiments and observed the outcomes, and checked whether your results support your hypothesis .... this is all just, to use the precise scientific term, "used food."
#75
Senior Member
Some interesting comments so far. Some not so. One thing I know for certain from personal experience, frame flex is overplayed as a way to sell. Two guys in the local race circuit that were amazingly fast and won crits all the time, along with mountain bike races, were on Sling Shots. If any of you have ridden one of these creatures it is at first scary, but when your body and mind acclimate to it, all is well. These flexible fliers performed quite well under the legs of two seriously powerful riders and never seemed to hinder their performance.
Eventually they took their Sling Shots to national level races and found another level of talent out there, but they still faired well considering they had zero altitude living in their lives. Flat landers that rode frames designed to flex an inch or more laterally as well as vertically. It worked for them!
Eventually they took their Sling Shots to national level races and found another level of talent out there, but they still faired well considering they had zero altitude living in their lives. Flat landers that rode frames designed to flex an inch or more laterally as well as vertically. It worked for them!