Originally Posted by
Kontact
The problem with testing "planing" is that there is no instrument that can measure all of the rider's input vs all of the real world output. A more flexible bike it going to take input not just from the pedals but also the seat and bars. An overly stiff bike is going to resist the smoothest pedaling motion - possibly decreasing rider output prior to any measurement.
The flip side to all of this is that human beings can sense a tremendous number of things at a very fine level. I'm pretty certain I could tell most of my bikes apart by the way they feel on the road. But that doesn't mean that what you are feeling is actually a positive or negative metric of power delivery. It might just be that one feels chocolate and the other feels vanilla, and you happen to prefer chocolate.
But I think it is mighty suspect to conclude that the way pedaling motion is converted to wheels turning on pavement is unaffected by the spring rate and frequency of the device transmitting it.
This is well within the bounds of the explanation given for why/how planing happens. The frame and fork are the main aspects but not the only ones. The experiments where all other components are kept the same except the frame/fork make it clear that they are the major contributors but other parts contribute as well. Heine makes it clear in his testing that tires, seatpost, stem/handlebars, and even saddle all have an impact on planing for a given bike.
Otherwise, it's possible and relatively simple to measure everything else with strain gauges. This is what some OEM carbon manufacturers have done. They design the frame with FEA, build prototypes with embedded strain gauges and other measuring devices and test them. It's part of how they are able to create different layups for professional road racers, at times.