RE: [CR]Was 753, now is energy recovered constructively?

(Example: Component Manufacturers:Avocet)

From: "Ken Freeman" <>
To: <>, <>
Subject: RE: [CR]Was 753, now is energy recovered constructively?
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2006 20:40:45 -0400
In-Reply-To: <>
Thread-Index: AcaoI4xu3VLZs2UPRUqiWa7bU+IjcwATG0gg

I'd think that energy return only is not lost if it contributes to propulsion, i.e. it aids the next power stroke in some way. Anybody know if that's actually the case? If it isn't, or it's only partially returned to the power stroke, then some types of frame flex imply a loss of pedal energy.

Ken Freeman Ann Arbor, MI

-----Original Message----- From: [] On Behalf Of Sent: Saturday, July 15, 2006 11:30 AM To: Subject: Re: [CR]Was 753, now is stiffness desirable?

In a message dated 7/14/06 9:32:30 PM, writes:
>That is an interesting story. It is something I always am concerned
>about when I test bikes. If a bike works for me, the whimpy guy who
>likes flexible frames, it may not be appropriate for others with
>different power outputs or different pedaling styles...

If I may comment, While there is no free lunch you do get the energy used in deflecting the frame back minus the hystersis-internal material friction-loss, which in metal is minimal but pretty high in rubber. The deflection attributed to rubber will be returned mostly as heat in the tires but the deflection in the frame will be returned mostly intact when you finish deflecting-when the sprint is done. Phil Brown Way too technical way too early in San rafael, Calif.