S
SYJ
Guest
Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > IRRC, when compact frames were first introduced, proponents argued that
> > the extended seatpost made things stiffer, as the seatpost was stiffer
> > than the seat tube. That seemed to be questionable, but this new
> > arguement.....well, what can I say?
>
> Fascinating argument. A strut clamped at one end is
> stiffer than a strut pinned at both ends.
>
> --
> Michael Press
I think this is something of a distortion, as Ozark does not
acknowledge what was supposedly 'made stiffer'. As I understood the
argument (and I do not give it any particular credence), the compact
frame allowed for stiffer diamond structure (both front and rear
triangles), and as such a stiffer bottom bracket, as the tube spans
were shorter. Because cyclists (or more accurately, those who market
to cyclists) view BB stiffness as paramount for proper power
transfer/efficiency, any potential losses due to seatpost flex were
conveniently ignored (I have no clue as to whether flex from the
unsupported strut actually results in any such losses of efficiency).
SYJ
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Ozark Bicycle" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> > IRRC, when compact frames were first introduced, proponents argued that
> > the extended seatpost made things stiffer, as the seatpost was stiffer
> > than the seat tube. That seemed to be questionable, but this new
> > arguement.....well, what can I say?
>
> Fascinating argument. A strut clamped at one end is
> stiffer than a strut pinned at both ends.
>
> --
> Michael Press
I think this is something of a distortion, as Ozark does not
acknowledge what was supposedly 'made stiffer'. As I understood the
argument (and I do not give it any particular credence), the compact
frame allowed for stiffer diamond structure (both front and rear
triangles), and as such a stiffer bottom bracket, as the tube spans
were shorter. Because cyclists (or more accurately, those who market
to cyclists) view BB stiffness as paramount for proper power
transfer/efficiency, any potential losses due to seatpost flex were
conveniently ignored (I have no clue as to whether flex from the
unsupported strut actually results in any such losses of efficiency).
SYJ