I've read lots of reviews about frames from various manufacturers. A lot of the time the reviewers state how "responsive" a frame is or isn't. What does that mean--"responsive"--in terms of frames...exactly?

Thanks.

Dunno what they mean, maybe nothing, it is sort of a fluff word.

Personally, what I would mean is
- When you increase pedaling force, the bike accelerates quickly
- As you continue pedaling hard, the bike reaches high speeds quickly with relatively little effort from you
- The bike is very sensitive to tiny changes in body lean and steering input, changing directions quickly

The first is about light weight and stiffness, the second is about low rolling resistance (tires mostly) and low aero drag (body position mostly), the third is about bike geometry, light weight, and to some extent skinny tires.

And context matters, a responsive mountain bike would be a slug compared to a responsive road bike.

It means "give us your money, suckers."

If they could say something positive and factual about their product, they would. It's just the marketing blather that people love so much.

I have two steel bikes of similar size, design and intent (Marinoni Sport Tourer and Rivendell Rambouillet), equally well constructed, very similarly equipped with nearly identical gearing, similar overall weight, and very similar fit. Even under my modest efforts, the Marinoni clearly and always feels more responsive than the Rambouillet. It conveys a feeling that encourages me to pedal a little harder, shift up to a bigger gear, and push myself. The Rambouillet is very solid, but just doesn't give that feedback.

I've swapped wheels and tires between bikes, and that doesn't change the inherent differences in feel. And FWIW, the Rambouillet is made from oversize Kaisei tubing and the Marinoni is standard size Columbus SLX tubes, so the former is probably stiffer. Also notable is that on my 37-mile round trip bike commute, both bikes tend to result in the same average speed over that distance. What makes a speed difference over the entire distance is my motivation (am I running late?), the wind, and how tired or not I'm feeling that day so am I willing to push that bigger gear longer. But for fun, the Marinoni is always my preferred ride.

Responsiveness is something hard to quantify, but it's a real thing. For an inexperienced rider it might compare to cars, where the differences can be big.

First there's steering response, or how quickly and precisely a car will turn in response to steering inputs, both haw much force on the wheel, and how much you move the wheel. A large family sedan or SUV will be slow to respond and fight to hold it's preexisting straight line course, on the other hand a sports car will be nimble and quick to turn easily. Auto makers and writers test for this with things like a slalom course marked out with traffic cones, and the nimble car can run the course at much higher speed than the less nimble one.

There's also throttle response, brake response, and all other measures for how quickly and precisely the driver's inputs translate to action.

So using the same concept with bikes, you'll find that some are much more responsive in terms of steering and general handling, and more rear triangle stiffness makes them more responsive to your power inputs (but not magically faster, which is a function of engine power).

BTW- while responsiveness is a good thing, it's not a deal where more is always better. More responsiveness may come at the expensive of comfort on rough roads, or long term rider fatigue, and we also have a word for too much responsiveness -- twitchy.

That's the concept, though as I said it's hard to quantify, so there's usually plenty of advertizing fluff in the claims. Read these with a grain of sane (or more) and think in terms of the big picture of what kind of bike they're selling and to whom it's targeted.

As to handling, "responsive" may be "twitchy" to us old folks.

Speaking of marketing- What I find so interesting is how consumer mags write up bike test reviews. You'll see tow bikes with the same component yet one gets a very positive report to the, say, braking. But the other with the same part gets a poor report. One bike's brakes were called "powerful, solid and well modulating" and the other was "flexi and not inspiring". I've read similar about the handling of bikes.

But it is the job of the marketing depts. to make one believe that there is a large difference between their bike and the other brand's bike. And that this difference will be important and make a difference in your life. So using terms that have no ability to be quantified is the norm. Andy.

I think it has more to do with bike geometry than anything else. Maybe "twitchy" as already mentioned vs. "stable" - can respond quicker to your changes (than you may want, depending).

I expect this was a typo but it really does describe a good approach to the advertising claims.

Mostly hype.

"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'" - Lewis Carroll

sometimes typos just work out.