Or more like , the history of Kestrel. Anyway, I had to come back and post this comment. Somewhere in this long video (not sure where, you'll have to find it), the "engineer" mentions frame flex is totally bad for a bicycle. I'd like to point out that most of the flex in a bicycle is elastic and the stored energy is not "wasted" as some think, its rather released, for example in the BB area, in the form of a push to the chain and the rear wheel. Although this energy is not 100% given back, the amount taken by the fram e (strain energy) is very miniscule and irrelevant. Again, in top level competition, a .0001 % increase in efficiency by making a frame "not flex" could be everything to the rider. But its a nice thing he gestured the quote marks, which probably means he doesn't necessarily believe in it, rather its just the hype floating around in cycling circles. I haven't come across any reputable tests done to show flex is bad. C'mon, otherwise everyone would be better off riding reinforned concrete bikes with no flex at all...
Seems to be a few people claiming to be the first users of carbon. Kestrel seems to be the most accepted though.
Ron, Just like your blog, I was just recently added to Bike Blog Collection. So, when I saw the Cozy Beehive I checked it out. It's now on my blogroll. Thanks for the informative and entertaining posts. Look forward to reading more. Donald
Chris - I think both Kestrel and Trek were on the same boat on this in the 80's.Don - Thanks for adding me. Keep blogging and keep reading (and riding).
Thank you. I read every single comment.
Your email address: