Steve, I am sorry but I won't spend time culling for quotes with citations. Clearly "stiffer" and "faster" are objective terms regardless of who uses them. >From reading the section of Jan's blog referenced at the start of this thread (the post and associated comments) my impression is that he is convinced a bike built with the right amount of flexibility is faster than a stiffer one because of it's greater flexibility (or equivalently the others greater stiffness), that bikes built with oversized tubes are usually or almost always too stiff in this respect, and that a bike that is too stiff is a poor (subjective term there) performance bike because its excess stiffness makes it slower than a properly designed (subjective term there) bike with the right flex. >From posts in this thread I conclude he has demonstrated this effect experimentally and does not consider it a matter of opinion.
If I have misconstrued his meaning I certainly regret it. Please consider anything I have written about what he thinks or writes retracted. On Aug 7, 11:14 am, Steve Palincsar <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 2012-08-06 at 21:42 -0700, ted wrote: > > Certainly fads or styles or whatever have ebbed and flowed over > > whether or not a noodly frame is undesirable, or how stiff is stiff > > enough, or if stiff is harsh and uncomfortable, or whatever, but I > > think Jan is fairly unique in claiming categorically that the right > > flex is faster, and enough faster that a stiff bike can't be a good > > "performance" bike. > > Citation, please. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
