Old 08-16-14, 10:43 PM
  #17  
Six jours
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 6,401
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 13 Times in 13 Posts
Originally Posted by meanwhile
Not really, no. Read

Metallurgy for Cyclists | Technical Articles | Support

Kirk Frameworks Custom Bicycles - frame flex and bicycle design

..Wall diameter has only a small effect on flex; the most important factor is tube diameter.

And honestly, trying to make a flexy frame to eat road shock is silly. That's what you have tyres for. They do the job very well if choose the right ones - most people simply don't:

Tech FAQ: Seriously, wider tires have lower rolling resistance than their narrower brethren - VeloNews.com
I agree that thickness has a smaller effect on stiffness than does diameter, but wall thickness does have a very significant effect. I have built frames that are nearly useless for my size and weight simply because the wall thickness was inadequate. The exact same size and geometry made with the exact same steel of the exact same diameter, but with a wall thickness .2 mm greater, becomes an absolutely wonderful frame for me.

And you are correct re. shock absorption and tubing thickness, but that is not what I was alluding to. Many folks, myself included, enjoy the feel of a frame with a certain amount of lateral flex. It has nothing to do with road shock and everything to do with how a bike feels to my legs; how it responds to pedaling input. If the frame is too stiff, it feels heavy and "dead" to me. Other people, of course, aren't bothered by that at all, but to me, it makes the difference between a remarkable frame and one that is just "doing a job".
Six jours is offline