Mike- From pretty much the explainations from frame builders like Richard Sachs, comments from Steven Thomas and Brandon Monkeyman and general armchair phyics, you will find that the comments you hold dear and true, are pretty much wishfull thinking. Its been a while since my college physics course as well, but the comment by Phil brown pretty much dials it in for us, "One word: entropy. You never get out of a system what you put in." Check it out in a dictionary or physics text, you'll see what they mean about this flex issue. Cheers, Dave--haven't been on an English Racer for years--Anderson Cut Bank MT
In a message dated 6/2/2002 7:51:54 AM PDT, bikevint@tiac.net writes:
> Acutally this analysis is not correct - when the frame springs back all the
> energy that went to move the frame one way moves it back the other - and
> that movement is augmenting the pedal stroke - energy can't be wasted - it
> has to be conserved (i.e go somewhere and steel just doesn't dissapate a
> quanifiable amount of energy as heat from what I understand). Again, we do
> "waste energy" from extra body movement, but a frame cannot absorb energy
> in any relevent extent.
>
> Many of the best riding quickest feeling bikes are very flexible - again,
> it is having the right flex that is important.
> Mike Kone in Boulder CO