Moose,

I'm sorry if my tone sounded condescending - not the intent. Guess they call me Cactus for a reason. Why don’t you help me understand what I should have phrased differently.

Do I detect a conspiracy? No. However, they have figured out a pitch that sells (stiffness) - and they push the dickens out of it. Do you ever see objective tests of the stiffness of bikes? Do you ever see objective claims as to how stiff a given frame is, in what direction? No. Only vague nebulous claims like 10% stiffer with greater vertical compliance. What does that mean?

It's interesting to note that all the big MFGs are trying to increase stiffness generally, except they want to increase vertical compliance. Look at a diamond frame. It's built like a bridge truss - that is to be stiffest in reaction to vertical forces. Heck, we could leave the top tube off if the goal was vertical compliance.

So, the manufactures are generating consumer needs, as they should to make money, by creating advantages – even specious ones. Caveat Emptor. You can buy into their claims or not.

One of the things that Jan Heine has pointed out is this: Back when the top pro racers could and regularly did choose their own frame-builder (always hidden by the sponsor’s paint job), the inevitably choose the lightest frame possible. This was due to experience with what worked. Jan’s theory is that frame flex can work sympathetically with varying pressure applied to the pedal during its rotation, allowing one to stay in a higher gear longer when climbing.

I hope this hasn’t sounded condescending. I’m just trying to share the benefit of the experience and thinking of many folks who are smarter than me. Its your prerogative to disagree.