Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewsuzuki
Mark, I'm 100% with you on frame compliance (at least for metal bikes). But forks are clearly different because they're cantilevered. Just like how Josh mentions they had to control for seatpost geometry...because seatposts are cantilevered as well (though he didn't mention controlling exposed seatpost length, but I assume they were all compact geometries). Though most rigid forks, including steel ones, are so stiff that they can basically be factored out of the overall comfort equation, and I'm guessing that was the case for all of the frames they tested.
|
Sure, a cantilevered fork can be made with some meaningful compliance. Well, meaningful if the rest of the components are very stiff. But in the video, the fork is mated with a wide and very compliant tire, and it can be seen that there is far more compliance in the tire than in the fork, making any fork flex less meaningful. Like in Josh Poertner's test, it is likely that adjustments in air pressure can influence compliance more than the fork.
For years, bike manufacturers clung to the myth that rigid frames/forks can be built with built-in "ride compliance" (remember all those "stiff yet compliant" claims?). But more recently they've given up on this myth, and there are now frames that incorporate moving/flexing joints (such as Trek's IsoSpeed), which can actually create meaningful compliance.