I think this whole frame flex business has something to do with rider power and weight also. I don't believe a super light tubed frame would last long with me riding it and would most likely develop cracks sooner. Were I 165 pounds again maybe not but the average beginner male cyclist over 40 who is able to afford a pricey frame probably doesn't weigh that either......probably closer to 200 I'd wager. Just wanted to put a dose of reality into perhaps why the G-man makes stouter frames that many. Do they perform significantly worse than a skinny, thin tubed frame? I don't know but I'll bet we'd be splitting some pretty fine hairs.
On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 10:26:55 AM UTC-8, Patrick in VT wrote: > > On Tuesday, January 15, 2013 12:18:52 PM UTC-5, Steve Palincsar wrote: > >> >> For a mind-blowing example of the above, be sure to read the road test >> of the titanium road bikes in the current issue of BQ. (I'm going to >> leave the big reveal to Jan, if he wants to pick up on the cue...) >> > > i'm inclined to believe that frames of any material can have "optimized" > frame flex characteristics as far as performance is concerned. all the > talk regarding stiffness with respect to racing bikes seems a little > overdone, if not a little misleading, since removing material - be it > steel, CF or Ti - from the frame to put them at combat weight must also > reduce stiffness to some degree, esp. when that the bulk of that weight is > in the main tubes. i'm not 100% on that, but would agree with Jan that it > points to a correlation with weight and flex. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rbw-owners-bunch/-/oQ9-E59_Yo4J. 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.
