on 7/17/11 10:15 AM, Tim McNamara at tim...@bitstream.net wrote: > Stiffness and triangulation etc. tend to be over-emphasized. The "double > diamond" frame is only approximately triangulated at best (and then only in > the smallest sizes) but the stiffness of the materials used more than make up > for this. As a guy who fits a 63 cm frame, I've never ridden a truly > triangulated bike and it's never mattered. Nor has having an upsloping TT or > "compact" frame made any difference in the riding experience or durability of > the frame. This sort of discussion tends to end up splitting frog's hairs > IMHO.
Wasn't pushing the argument - just trying to articulate how things have changed over the years. Being in and around bike shops at that time, I recall the small triangle argument repeated a lot. After that, it was the heyday of "vertically compliant and laterally stiff" which seems to be fading as a buzzword (buzz-phrase?) but gave rise to those wonky Colnago chainstays, as an example. - J -- Jim Edgar cyclofi...@earthlink.net ³Velvet pillows, safari parks, sunglasses: people have become woolly mice. They still have bodies that can walk for five days and four nights through a desert of snow, without food, but they accept praise for having taken a one-hour bicycle ride.² - Tim Krabbe, "The Rider" Cyclofiend Bicycle Photo Galleries - http://www.cyclofiend.com Current Classics - Cross Bikes Singlespeed - Working Bikes Send In Your Photos! - Here's how: http://www.cyclofiend.com/guidelines -- 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.
