Mike Holland <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
[snip]
Quoted message said:
No, not if the flexing is elastic. Then you get the energy back. Just like a diver or gymnast does
from a springboard.
[snip]
Dear Mike,
I blush to admit that I'm familiar enough with some of your points to imagine that I follow you. I
assure you that I wasn't arguing for or against any of them (who would listen to the likes of me?),
just whining that the first flurry of posts about the strange Colnago chain-stay were just calling
it names, not explaining what was wrong.
Later posts have offered far more content, the kind that even I can parrot. I'm perfectly willing to
throw stones at Colnago, but I need help with my aim.
To put it another way, your post was far more interesting than any snide remark that I can come up
with (like how those bulging cut-outs resemble tail-fins). They may be useless, but I wanted to read
about what the use was and why they don't work.
However, one of your points that I repeated above troubles me a little.
Elasticity involves restoring absorbed energy, but it's always imperfect and energy is lost in the
form of heat and sound and so forth, even when steel balls bounce off steel plates.
I may have snipped too much, but where does your thinking lead? That is, do you favor increasing the
elastic lateral flex of the metal frame, heading toward the diving board board end of the spectrum?
Or would the most efficient frame reduce lateral flex as much as possible, which is what Colnago
claims to be doing?
Isn't all lateral flex and elasticity wasted in terms of making the bike go forward? Arguments that
the effort involved doesn't amount to much should address the question of how much actually is
involved--and my understanding is that it takes a surprising amount of force to deflect the rear
frame of a bicycle.
I long for detailed reassurance that Colnago is right or wrong. The voting is strongly against them,
but I'd hate to have someone who actually addressed the design in question prove me to be wrong.
Is Colnago's weird frame going to be noticeably better, roughly the same, or noticeably worse than
good old God-fearing round chain-stays? Why?
(I admire Sheldon Brown's web site, but I'm not up to applying it to a new design and I'm much too
impatient to wait for widespread testing. Lord, how I love this business of getting expert opinions
for free!)
Thanks,
Carl Fogel