Old 02-13-19 | 12:06 PM
  #119  
Johno59
Banned.
 
Joined: Oct 2016
Posts: 854
Likes: 334
From: Cambridge UK

Bikes: 1903 24 spd Sunbeam, 1927 Humber, 3 1930 Raleighs, 2 1940s Sunbeams, 2 1940s Raleighs, Rudge, 1950s Robin Hood, 1958 Claud Butler, 2 1973 Colnago Supers, Eddie Merckx, 2 1980 Holdsworth, EG Bates funny TT bike, another 6 or so 1990s bikes

Originally Posted by ljsense
I've heard this frequently and forever -- the idea that some amount of power vanishes into frame flex, and a stiffer frame would put more energy into the rear wheel. The energy used to flex the frame, though, is released when the frame unflexes -- it doesn't just disappear or get turned into heat or sound. And as the frame unflexes, it actually applies force to the drivetrain. GCN did a feature where they demonstrated that a frame unflexing drives the chain forward, spinning the rear wheel.

It's worth checking out: https://thebicycleacademy.org/blogs/...lex-gcn-tech-1
The unflexing energy can go anywhere. Some of it may even go up your backside, hands, or even the rear wheel. One thing for sure going straight into the drive train from the pedals has to be the most efficient path.
But your genersl point is correct, the advantages are miniscule and only exert themselves at the elite level.
Johno59 is offline  
Reply