Originally Posted by 3alarmer

...nonetheless, they are opposed. Smoother as more efficient arguments are always couched in terms of riding surface. That's why you still see 23's on track bikes. The current crop of "more comfortable" CF frames like your Canyon are simply a recognition that bicycle frame design (for most of us non pro athlete users), has been needlessly stiff in the interests of eliminating losses due to frame flex.

The whole history of steel frame design treated this issue, using different frame tubing designs, and geometries for construction. Some of the last of the steel frames (before makers decided to abandon the effort), used oversized tubing with very thin walls...in the interest of minimizing flex so they might be "more efficient". Again, I'm not trying to argue that anything is "better" or "worse". Only that "smoother" faster" "more efficient", and "laterally stiff, but vertically compliant" are relative terms that are meaningless in choosing what to ride and how to ride it (in terms of enjoyment).

My Cannondale touring bike convinced me that I could probably ride anything enjoyably, if I introduced enough flex into the system using wider tires. But it was not a convincing argument for a personal transition to CF reinforced plastic as a frame material I enjoy riding. The few cycles made from it I've ridden convinced me it was going in the wrong direction for my own enjoyment.

But to take the thread back on topic, I don't need discs either. If I though I was going to do any more loaded touring, I might experiment with them. But I enjoy sleeping in a bed too much now. It is a firm mattress, though.