On Jan 18, 2009, at 10:18 AM, Steve Palincsar wrote: > On Sun, 2009-01-18 at 08:04 -0800, Jim Thill - Hiawatha Cyclery wrote: >> Curious, since, among the more mass marketed race-style bikes, >> stiffness (especially in the BB area) is one of the primary selling >> points. > > Right. I've seen comments like "it's impossible to have too much > stiffness" and stiffness has been one of the big selling points since > the 1970s. One of the biggest contributions BQ has made, I think, has > been to call this into question.
And it's a good assumption to question. Stiffer = better is an article of faith and seeming common sense, but there's not really much data to support it. Sean Kelly's favorite racing bike was the Vitus 979; he won hundreds of pro bike races on those. If more flexible = worse, he'd have been losing those races and would have switched to a different frame. But it seems to me that there's an equal danger in going with the other article of faith, that frame flex and "planing" (I really wish he'd picked a more suitable metaphor) is a benefit. The main difference that I can tell between the various standard and OS tubed bikes I've ridden over the years is that my OS frames don't have as much derailleur rub and ghost shifting. My stiffest bike (a Ritchey) is also the best climbing bike I have ever ridden, just the opposite of Jan's experiences and Steve's. It is probably a matter of "horses for courses." What works well for me might be execrable to the next person. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
