TheRadioGuyUK
Dirt Disciple
It’s worth mentioning, when talking about flexible or how much flex a frame has - that a frame can horribly flexible which is much a reason to avoid the frame, but equally a positive ‘flexible’ is a comfortable one which (especially in fully rigid frame/fork combos) allows the bike to track well and true without feeling like it’s ‘hinged in the middle’ (to cite a description often used in the motorcycle world). In fact, with FS suspension bicycles you are entering into the borderline no-mans land between bicycles and motorcycles where some of the demands and conpromises are common to both parallel territories.
For short ride and ‘point and shoot’ sprinting a highly rigid frame that’s bordering on feeling like there is little give hence unconfortable but very true tracking - isn’t a bad thing in the moment, but if you had to use such a frame extensively for extended periods expect a quick onset of numbness and fatique to plague.
Whereas you want, for extended or extensive use, something that’s flexible enough to dull the impact of thumps and vibration making for a comfortable ride and still track true and remain true for a long life.
Frames, on the whole, are inherently a bundle of blended compromises in the design/build where there is the added compromise of meeting a component and build price points.
Some bikes end up where the design philosophy sees a frame with the least weakness and compromise is absolutely A1 necessary and lower range variants often end up equipped with equipment that makes for a cheaper build price point despite the frame being a hideously expensive small-medium volume specialist build, whereas the high end variant often is equipped with an equally uncomprised equipment choice and generally is a loss leading flagship (where they are more or less built at a loss but tenable because supply of the loss leading flagship is very limited).
So comfort and a positively flexibly forgiving nature isn’t a bad thing anywhere as much as the opposite nth degree rigid isn’t always a bad thing. It’s the actual intended use and endurance of use that really determines why some good frames aren’t a good choice for mass market bicycles but very desirable in narrower markets where full comp setup is aiming for no compromise at any cost.
Definately, i’d rate univega frames at the near borderline between comfort creeping slightly towards the low compromise territory. At least the steel/cromyl steel tubular framed examples i’ve experienced anyway - which isnt a bad place to be on a budget priced (intentionally marketted) example.
But never forget it’s actual as easy to drop the ball and make a frame so rigid as to be dangerous lethal because it actually magnifies translates bumps etc into damaging levels of discomfort or in extreme cases throw the rider. Likewise, although it’s more often a product of ‘damn the engineering’ motivation, that you can almost as easily build a highly undesirable super flexible frame that inspires little confidence and feels like it’s made of 80% ‘monkey metal’ and 20% synthetic rubber - pair that with forks that are technically just about fit for purpose and it don’t take much deviance toward hard use to realise the potentially lethal combo at play.
I’ve seen examples of both extremes, two of my early project self-build frames fell into each version of the lethal or potentially lethal extremes - thankfully they got abandoned on realisation after some FEA simulations ensured common sense prevailed and they never got beyond the structural mockup stage but became solid lessons of how a little knowledge without the necessary due context of understanding can be dangerous.
For short ride and ‘point and shoot’ sprinting a highly rigid frame that’s bordering on feeling like there is little give hence unconfortable but very true tracking - isn’t a bad thing in the moment, but if you had to use such a frame extensively for extended periods expect a quick onset of numbness and fatique to plague.
Whereas you want, for extended or extensive use, something that’s flexible enough to dull the impact of thumps and vibration making for a comfortable ride and still track true and remain true for a long life.
Frames, on the whole, are inherently a bundle of blended compromises in the design/build where there is the added compromise of meeting a component and build price points.
Some bikes end up where the design philosophy sees a frame with the least weakness and compromise is absolutely A1 necessary and lower range variants often end up equipped with equipment that makes for a cheaper build price point despite the frame being a hideously expensive small-medium volume specialist build, whereas the high end variant often is equipped with an equally uncomprised equipment choice and generally is a loss leading flagship (where they are more or less built at a loss but tenable because supply of the loss leading flagship is very limited).
So comfort and a positively flexibly forgiving nature isn’t a bad thing anywhere as much as the opposite nth degree rigid isn’t always a bad thing. It’s the actual intended use and endurance of use that really determines why some good frames aren’t a good choice for mass market bicycles but very desirable in narrower markets where full comp setup is aiming for no compromise at any cost.
Definately, i’d rate univega frames at the near borderline between comfort creeping slightly towards the low compromise territory. At least the steel/cromyl steel tubular framed examples i’ve experienced anyway - which isnt a bad place to be on a budget priced (intentionally marketted) example.
But never forget it’s actual as easy to drop the ball and make a frame so rigid as to be dangerous lethal because it actually magnifies translates bumps etc into damaging levels of discomfort or in extreme cases throw the rider. Likewise, although it’s more often a product of ‘damn the engineering’ motivation, that you can almost as easily build a highly undesirable super flexible frame that inspires little confidence and feels like it’s made of 80% ‘monkey metal’ and 20% synthetic rubber - pair that with forks that are technically just about fit for purpose and it don’t take much deviance toward hard use to realise the potentially lethal combo at play.
I’ve seen examples of both extremes, two of my early project self-build frames fell into each version of the lethal or potentially lethal extremes - thankfully they got abandoned on realisation after some FEA simulations ensured common sense prevailed and they never got beyond the structural mockup stage but became solid lessons of how a little knowledge without the necessary due context of understanding can be dangerous.
