Finally, some one who asks the right question instead of just spouting off irrelevant non-sequiturs!

I have to assume that those of you defending this bad design have never had any mechanical or aeronautical engineering training, so I'll try to keep it simple.

Classic lightweight truss structures consist of triangles (a stable shape) that try to put the sides of the triangle in tension or compression, not bending. This allows the use of "slender" elements in the truss and the lightest truss.

The classic truss also places elements "far apart" at the extreme positions in the truss - say the top and bottom of a bridge truss, like the one shown. This is because the loads put into the truss are carried by the outermost elements and the farther apart these elements are, the lower the stresses in those elements.



The classic bicycle diamond frame is close to having the most efficient triangular shape. The spacing of the top and
front tubes on the head tube causes some bending there (as does the fact that the joints aren't pinned). But that classic
design tries to place the tubes in the main triangle far apart to lower the loads in the main triangle tubes.

The stupid design in question essentially joins 2 triangles at their points. The outer elements in each triangle run down to join at a point. (This is much different that the classic truss with widely spaced top and bottom elements.) So all the bending load on the front of the bike now has to go through that very low height "point" where the triangles join. To take that load, the tubes have to be much, much heavier - and notice the twin tubes. The same load in a classic diamond is taken by tubes that are much, much father apart - so they can be much lighter. The stresses in the diamond tubes could hundreds or even thousands of times less those concentrated in that little point.

That artsy fartsy design (and the Cannondale/Origin 8 Bully I previously complained about) just waste weight in the name of stylin.' Have you ever asked yourself why the lightest road racing frames don't look like this stupid thing and are all the classic diamond?

If you want something different, that's you free choice. But as a mechanical engineer and especially as an aeronautical engineer, I'm apalled at these overweight designs that sacrifice proper lightweight engineering for style. In my mind, Mother Nature is saying Nonononononononononono. The people who put out these bad designs are counting on the public being almost completely technically ignorant.