Originally Posted by
tomato coupe
Energy (temporarily) stored in the side deflection of a bottom bracket is not (necessarily) redirected to the drive train in a beneficial way.
Actually, bicycle frames are more complicated. Hand waving arguments that equate the two (very different) systems don't amount to much.
Like this gem, where you once again say "nope", by way of naming my posts and saying that you disagree. But you never demonstrate how, you just appeal to the implication that other things are at work that YOU CAN'T NAME.
This is not information:
"That's wrong."
"It's different than what you said."
"I disagree."
"That's not right."
"It's complicated."
If you want to pretend to argue about something, propose what you think is actually happening and why that invalidates what someone else has said. But you don't, can't and have never done that.
Maybe I'm giving you too much credit for being deceptive or lazy, but I guess it is possible that you justs don't understand the difference between simple denial and making a counterargument.