TempleDancer
Active Member
I'm sure it's common of most sports, but cycling does seem to have it's fair share to utter tosh repeated ad-inifnitum and accepted as gospel because 'the man faster than me in the group ride said so'.
I'll go first with (the likely to be contentious) vertical compliance in frame design. I don't beleive it exists to any user appreciable way. Anything you are feeling is a function of tyres, seatpost and contact points on the bike. It doesn't matter if you are riding a 20 year old clunker made of gas-pipe or expensive carbon fresh out of the mould, the deflection in a rigid truss is barely worth measuring compared to that of the tyres it is rolling on and the saddle you are perched on.
But there is not a cycling-press review that doesn't have something to say about the relative compliance of one frame versus another. Unless they tested them on the same tyres, at the same pressure with the same saddles and seatpost then it's comparatively meaningless to me.
I'll go first with (the likely to be contentious) vertical compliance in frame design. I don't beleive it exists to any user appreciable way. Anything you are feeling is a function of tyres, seatpost and contact points on the bike. It doesn't matter if you are riding a 20 year old clunker made of gas-pipe or expensive carbon fresh out of the mould, the deflection in a rigid truss is barely worth measuring compared to that of the tyres it is rolling on and the saddle you are perched on.
But there is not a cycling-press review that doesn't have something to say about the relative compliance of one frame versus another. Unless they tested them on the same tyres, at the same pressure with the same saddles and seatpost then it's comparatively meaningless to me.
Last edited: