I well remember the Tarantula test rig and the Finite Stress Analysis effort done by Bicycling. Bike Tech was an interesting read until it became more of a marketing rag for it's sponsors. IIRC the Tarantula had some bike holding issues, as in not allowing complete freedom of motion due from the pedal pressure. There was a review of it some years later in one of the mags describing in better detail the short comings.


But all this focus of stiffness is, IMO, miss guided and not really wanted by the sporting rider masses. Just look at the very fast acceptance of the road bikes with some sort of shock damping designs (Specialized Roubaix and the Trek Domane come to mind), the call for deeper padding on (now) oversized and stiff bars and the search for lower pressure tires.


So I never gave the stiffness tests much importance in how I looked at how to design my frames. Instead I look at how a bike's design can benefit the rider over the long term, not in the imaginary sprint we dream of winning.


Timmi- I suspect we are closer in mind as to design and fit then it looks like in this thread. I do raise my comments because I saw some overly broad claims and a bit of word play that IME isn't what is really going on. I do find it interesting that you're aiming toward the goal of frame building. I hope you both make it happen and keep us in that loop. I also will find it interesting to see how your views evolve over time and hands on experience in building for clients as well as now having to be part of the greater market place.


While this forum is interesting I find that over on Velocipede Salon the business and personal motivation info is better. Also there are more real builders who chime in, including more then a few carbon builders. Have you checked it out? Andy