19/06/2017
I was thinking about this podcast recently, largely because after going into a bike shop over the weekend and noticing that there was quite differing philosophies from bike companies on the proportionality of bike frames and the tubes they utilise.
By global 'standards', the tubes I use (and most tube-to-tube builders use) are diminutive compared to semi-monocoque construction. Some of the frames I saw like the Pinarellos for example, I wonder if they have any movement in any direction at all, and others, such as Cervelo and Cannondale, seem more in tune with the philosophies of tube-to-tube construction.
The interesting parallel I came up with regarding frame stiffness is this.
My other sporting love is Badminton, and in respect to Badminton rackets, there are varying degrees of stiffness when it comes to the rackets' shaft. It's generally deemed that the stronger you are as a player, the more stiffness you need, and that if you can't bend the shaft adequately when you swing, the racket will generate less power and will also 'push back' on the user, increasing stress to the joints. These concepts are accepted as gospel, and seem to definitely play out in the real world from my own experience.
My other experience came in the early 1990's after riding a Slingshot for a couple of years. If you're not familiar, a Slingshot is a bike that has no downtube, but instead a flexural top tube and a cable/spring for a downtube. Sounds all sorts of wrong in the modern context and probably is, but the only time I felt like it was a detrimental design is when the flex-plate started to wear out and get TOO flexible. When it was new, it felt fine - good even - despite the fact that the bike would visually torque very easily.
So where to I stand on frame stiffness? I believe that there is a symbiosis between human and machine, and with many things there's a balance to be played out between stiffness and forgiveness. This will be different for everyone, but I think aiming for the symbiosis is what we should be aiming for, not some marketing-driven "Now 5% stiffer!" garbage.
It all lies in to a very Design Anthropology concept of - as a designer - not fighting or trying to dominate nature, but working with it. A bicycle should disappear underneath you, and work with you, not against. It should dissipate load, not concentrate it. It should connect, and resonate with you. It shouldn't be an objectified and infantilised concept of the unapproachable and the unworthy.
It shouldn't be an engineered product, but a humanised product.
CyclingTips Podcast: Does frame stiffness matter?