Yea well your ride has the Nano-power technology and no limits except the limited lateral flex.

Infinito Celeste Frameset (Or Bike)
Manufacturer: Bianchi
"This C2C (Coast-to-coast geometry) frameset carries the Infinito name, a moniker that doesn’t need explanations: this is a bike without limits: optimal riding position, completely ergonomic, and designed with the latest and best technology available. Bianchi Active Technology (B.A.T.) uses advanced structural tube shaping for maximum vertical compliance with minimum lateral flex. Bianchi K-Vid refers to the strategic use of kevlar to further enhance shock absorbtion. Bianchi Nano-power technology reduces weight and improves durability. The geometry is unique, with a taller head tube allowing a relaxed riding position and a longer wheel base for improved stability."

As already noted, they share "data aplenty" about aerodynamics. Why not frame stiffness as well?

E.g. if Giant can say "the Propel is 3% faster than the Venge because of its greater lateral stiffness at the BB," why keep it quiet?

Is this particular test that much more expensive than testing aerodynamics? Even 3rd parties (like Velonews and BikeRadar) have sufficient resources to test aerodynamic advantages of equipment. Are strain gauges now more expensive than wind tunnel time?


1) More control, especially on descents
2) Preferred ride feel
3) A belief, which may or may not be true (or only partially true) that "stiffer frames transfer power better"


Sales.

Giant's marketing materials indicate they quantified the stiffness of a dozen frames, and conclude that Propel is a) stiffer than most of the competition, and b) stiff enough that it doesn't matter that Cannondale makes a slightly stiffer frame. However, they don't quantify the performance benefits (as, again, they do with aerodynamics).

If it turns out that the performance difference in lateral stiffness between an 80s traditional steel frame and a modern frame are big, but the performance difference between two modern frames is extremely small, and the small differences in lateral stiffness are noticeable by the target market, then it makes sense not to publish power data. But in that case, the real point of reference made by the claim is obscured -- to the advantage of the manufacturers.


The question isn't "should manufacturers make stiffer frames," and no one is saying "stiffer frames offer no advantages to anyone ever." If enough riders prefer the feel of a stiffer frame, that alone is a compelling reason to invest and build stiffer bikes.

The question is whether there is any empirical data (presumably, available to the public) to prove that "stiffer frames transfer power more efficiently."

Without hard data, we can't answer that question accurately, let alone categorically. Right?

VeloNews does test frame stiffness (or at least they used to). What they don't do is transfer it into power transfer. The only people who really have the resources to do that are funded university researchers or the bike companies.

In about 6 months, with a grad student or two I could absolute put some hard numbers on this. Alternatively, I would be shocked if the bike companies don't know the answer. In many respects this is an ideal question for FEA analysis. You just need good modeling of the material properties including losses.

In regards to the Bianchi, I actually tested a Giant TCR, it was very stiff. It felt very fast, but I didn't like the ride. So there's an example of stiffer = faster but didn't sell a bike.

They know. Further FEA is for static analysis of stress/strain aka hot spots based upon 5th-95th % loading. But...I believe the top companies also have dynamic modeling capability as well. A slippery slope as discussed to turn intellectual property into marketing fodder. Its been discussed why major bike companies don't pedal this data...forgive the pun.

After reading what I was able to of this thread (there's a lot of nonsense that's hard to stomach) I'm convinced there's no reason to believe it's true that differences in stiffness between modern frames have any noticeable effect on power transfer.

Some frames are better than others at transferring power, maybe it's something else, maybe it's a placebo, I'm not sure.

People (like Bacciagalupe) arguing against "stiffer = faster" have made a much more convincing case.

You're contradicting yourself. What makes you think that some frames transfer power better, but stiffness has nothing to do with it?

Funny how people not advancing the discussion feel obligated to broadcast their loyalty to a particular position. This is not a popularity contest.

Sadly, until somebody actually produces some data, it is.

I think a lot of people have an internal contradiction regarding how they evaluate buying options. They want to buy the cheaper, second tier frames, but they are convinced they cannot live without the performance gains of the top tier; they need to keep up with the Joneses on their group rides.

It's the same impulse that drives people to buy Chinese grey market frames off ebay. They want the performance without the cost. Therefore, a narrative, whereas a sales pitch is the bad guy duping the top tier buyers, is appealing. They get to buy the cheaper frame and argue to their friends they got a great deal because everyone else but them fell for a marketing pitch.

Only for those who absolutely must have an answer, some answer, any answer. Personally, I'm okay living in a state of uncertainty, trusting my intuition where necessary.

Yet, you continue coming back to this thread.

Yep. This is why I don't think someone can simply say stiffer = better.

I learn new things every day. Why is this bad?

It will corrupt your intuition.

You have evidently not read the discussion in this thread.

I'm not contradicting myself at all.

Perhaps they aren't really transferring power better, but they're more aerodynamic and go faster for that reason. As a rider with no testing equipment, how would you know the difference? Maybe, as I said, it's the placebo effect. Maybe it's loss because the BB is gummed up. Or it could be something entirely different.

Bottom line, there's no valid reason available to any of us to believe stiffer = noticeably faster.

Intuitive reasoning which can be changed with new information deserves to be changed. So far, 90% of what I write goes unchallenged. For instance, everyone harps on the "bucket" experiment; nobody has said anything when I suggested they do the experiment again with the pedal at the 6:00 position.

The people arguing the minority opinion (I use these words carefully) have a vested interest in maintaining their counter culture narrative. Some racers have to convince themselves they are not at a disadvantage in order to keep it from messing with their heads (until they find the resources to obtain the desired equipment). Most of the people here (in the road forum) are looking for reasons to justify purchasing second tier while still maintaining their position with the Joneses of the group ride.

Funny weasel words are funny. The "no valid reason" trope can be used as a conversation stopper regardless of the subject or accuracy of the conversation. Because, you know, who defines "valid", right?

EDIT: You evidently wanted the last words on this, so I'll give them to you.

We don't have any certainty on this question. Maybe stiffer frames are measurably, noticeably faster. Maybe they're not. Nobody can demonstrate an answer. There isn't any evidence available to any of us to demonstrate that this thing we're being asked to believe is true.

It's funny you're making this bumper-sticker kind of quote implying that it's an empirical question with a certain answer ("not a popularity contest") when the truth is by all rights we shouldn't believe unsubstantiated things that people trying to sell us a product tell us.

Speaking of weasel words, you just gave a weasel-like answer to the fact that there's no evidence to show that stiff means noticeably faster. (You're sloganeering like you want to win a popularity contest or something.)

Unfortunately I did. But, in the end the better bike is the one I want to ride all the time. Certainly, there is more to bicycle peformance than frame stiffness.

Nobody has implied otherwise.

Nothing you say later on refutes this. ;)

OK, I just love the responses this generated. Heaven forbid a disinterested party who knows the industry inside and out would refute their hallowed beliefs.

Relax and save your brain power. I don't have a vested interest. I have a mild curiosity to actually see some data (or know why we can't).

But past that I'm not going change any of my bikes because of it. I like the way they all ride. I have carbon and an aluminum bike that seem adequately stiff and if somehow I have lost a race or a few positions due to it I'm not concerned. I also have a pair of steel bikes, but I don't sprint and don't climb much on them.

Nobody? Hmmm.
I don't believe you implied it, but it has been brought up throughout the thread.