Boom survey - Windsurfing Magazine
James Lee
It looks like Fiberspar is the clear winner. I am probably going to
go after a Fiberspar all carbon boom at the 210-256cm size as the sail
I am most needing it for is an 8.1 Supersonic with a boom length of
223cm and I have other aluminimum booms that will suffice for
smaller sails. Anyone selling one of these big bad booms?
Also more than a few respondents to my post mentioned an article
in Windsurfing Mag which did a review of a bunch of booms.
Can anyone tell me what issue it was and if there is any possiblity
of getting to it online either through Windsurfing Mag or otherwise.
Thanks again, this newsgroup has saved me from myself once more.
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
wrote:
Hold on, I think you are jumping the gun here.
Fiberspars, even the latest with all carbon fronts and backs, have
earned the nickname "Fibersnap" for a reason.
I have never heard of anyone breaking one of the large diameter
Chinooks, Carbon or Aluminum!
Yes, with the older design head, on the smaller diameter (1 1/8")
booms, big guys used to trash them fairly regularly. But not the new
ones.
The guys at Chinook really did their homework on the head redesign,
and from what I've seen of the new tailpiece it will set a new
standard if they get it into production.
later
Ray Lainey
hard way that alloy and carbon don't mix when it comes to booms..... There's
no reason to mix the two nowdays, and especially with large booms for big
sails, all carbon is the way to go... If Chinook ever bring out a full
carbon, then sure, its probably going to be pretty good, but like I said to
James, Fiberspar have been making carbon booms longer than anyone, and the
guys at Fiberspar are a pretty cluey lot, so I reckon that they know what
they're doing...... You know that ANY boom can break, and fiberspars do, but
when you consider how many guys are using them out there, its no wonder you
hear of a few breaking at times. I have only good things to say about
Fiberspar/Pryde booms, they have always served me well, and their warranty
policy is second to none....... Ray
Xtrsports
>
>Hold on, I think you are jumping the gun here.
>Fiberspars, even the latest with all carbon fronts and backs, have
>earned the nickname "Fibersnap" for a reason.
Roger,
c'mon I haven't broken a Fiberspar (mast or boom) in years. They're light,
stiff, easy to adjust and don't easily clog with sand. I give'em high ratings.
Better yet, most stores actually stock them so it's possible to go and check
one out before buying it.
I'm sure that Chinook is making some nice stuff but from time to time,
everything breaks. Also, if it is their first season with redesigned heads and
tailpieces, wouldn't you want them to be on the market for at least one season
before buying one?
Skip Dennis
USWA: US-SD77
Tech Rep: Neilpryde/AHD/Finworks/Okespor
Cape Cod Windsurfing Association - VP
"You're not trying hard enough till something breaks"
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
<rla...@nsw.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>OK, I don't want to get into anyones face here Roger, but I've learnt the
>hard way that alloy and carbon don't mix when it comes to booms..... There's
>no reason to mix the two nowdays, and especially with large booms for big
>sails, all carbon is the way to go...
Ray:
There are no carbon to alu alloy joints in a Chinook boom! None!
There is a plastic to carbon joint ( no corrosion) at the front end,
and an aluminum to plastic joint at the rear, but the aluminum is hard
anodized inside and out, so corrosion is not a problem here either.
The Fiberspar/NP booms have the same number of joints (2 at the head,
2 at the tailpiece.
The only interface alloy/carbon inteface is the anodized aluminum
sliding extensions, which slide in the carbon tubes. This is not a
place that is likely to fail.
So, your carbon and aluminum alloy interface argument holds no water
at all!
You aren't getting in my face, my friend, I just want to keep the
record straight.
>If Chinook ever bring out a full carbon, then sure, its probably going to be pretty good,
It's already good, in my opinion, and significantly less expensive.
I weighed a Fiberspar and a carbon Chinook this morning, and guess
what, they weigh exactly the same. In this case they were both the mid
length booms 160cm-210 cm, and they both weighed 4.5 lbs.
However, the Chinook boom had about 15 cm more adjustment (shorter)
than the Fiberspar.
>but like I said to
>James, Fiberspar have been making carbon booms longer than anyone, and the
>guys at Fiberspar are a pretty cluey lot, so I reckon that they know what
>they're doing......
I do not dispute the fact that Fiberspar makes a pretty good product,
with an excellent warranty, but they seem to have bad batches
of product from time to time.
These tend to break far too frequently!
I just don't like to see a product as good in design and value as the
Chinook boom get trashed by some magazine test that may or may not
have anything to do with how well the boom works for the majority of
the sailors out there.
I go fairly fast, using Chinook booms, and have not noticed that any
sailors, on similar boards/sails ever went smokin' by me becuase their
boom was stiffer.
Another thing to consider, stiff things SNAP, where as a design with
slighly more flexibility designed in will not snap and will last much
longer.
Regards
sailquik (Roger Jackson)
>
>>
>>Hold on, I think you are jumping the gun here.
>>Fiberspars, even the latest with all carbon fronts and backs, have
>>earned the nickname "Fibersnap" for a reason.
>
>Roger,
>
>c'mon I haven't broken a Fiberspar (mast or boom) in years. They're light,
>stiff, easy to adjust and don't easily clog with sand. I give'em high ratings.
>Better yet, most stores actually stock them so it's possible to go and check
>one out before buying it.
I've owned Fiberspars in the past, but since they do not make a small
dia. boom, I cannot sail them consistently. My hands are too small.
Many WS related long term stress wrist injuries are a direct result of
people with small hands, or who wear gloves of any sort (this group
includes many of our women sailors) who are using Fiberspars and
Gulfies because the magazine articles say they would go faster with a
carbon boom. Or they articles state that stiff is fast, and carbon is
lighter.
I'm not too sure anyone has ever proven conclusively that a smaller
sailor exerts (or even has the ability to exert) enough resistive
force to to need all this stiffness.
Big guys like you, perhaps really are faster on a stiff boom. I'm not
sure the same is true for smaller, lighter sailors.
Most stores also stock the Chinooks! In both small dia. and large,
The carbon Chinooks only come in large Dia. tho.
I bought my carbon Chinook, mostly to see if it improved my sailing.
I can tell no difference in the way my sails rig, in the speeds I'm
capable of, or in my race results. But I can sure tell, later in the
evening when my hands and wrists flare up due to having used the
larger dia. carbon boom.
As for the weight issue, my small dia. aluminum Chinooks weigh the
same as the larger dia. Carbon Chinook, which weighs very close to the
same as the Fiberspar.
>I'm sure that Chinook is making some nice stuff but from time to time,
>everything breaks.
For larger sailors, yes the older head style Chinooks (both large and
small) used to break/bend sometimes, but the new head has taken care
of this to some degree. But Chinook still recommends only the large
dia. ALU or Carbon booms for sailors over 175#.
>Also, if it is their first season with redesigned heads and
>tailpieces, wouldn't you want them to be on the market for at least one season
>before buying one?
The new heads have been out at least 2 seasons, maybe 3!!
They are a proven item in my book!
As for value, for the smaller sailor, the Chinook ALU booms cost about
1/2 to 2/3 less than the equivalent Fiberspar or Gulftech.
If they weigh the same, have more than adequate strength/stiffness for
a smaller sailor, or a non racer, where's the big value in the higher
priced all carbon booms. You can buy 2 -3 nice small dia. Chinooks
for the price of one Fiberspar.
The arbon Chinooks are about $100 less than the Fiberspar.
Everyone seems convinced Fiberspar is the best.
I'm pretty sure they are not the best for me.
Others can choose based on their own preference.
I'm only trying to point out that the "cool" factor may not apply when
selecting booms that suit lighter sailors or those with small hands.
later
James Lee
other aluminimum booms are good enough for the 'tweezer butts'. I
,of course, stole that wonderful descriptor from a previous poster in
referring to the apparent majority of windsurfers who weigh in at less
than let's say 165lbs. I would be in the hospital if I wieghed less
than 165lbs. Am I safe in saying that for non-tweezer butt sailors
all-carbon is the only way to go for the light wind (over 7.0 sail)
that a gravity challenged person such as myself (maybe about
185-190lbs today) sailors? The amount of money that we are talking
about between the best aluminum booms versus carbon, assuming that I
am buying one and not many for my largest sails, will seem rather
insignificant to me when I am out on the water feeling the difference
in stiffness/feedback with an all carbon boom. It seems to me that
this is one more area of windsurfing where the fuller figured sailor
finds him or herself outside the curve that the equipment
manufacturers have drawn as their target customer. In spite of my
'newbie-ness' it seems that one thing everyone can agree on is that
lighter=faster. As the vast majority of the weight that a sailor has
to think about is his own and in most situations that weight is
relatively fixed give or take a few pounds, can we not
draw a semi-arbitrary threshold of maybe 170lbs as the weight above
which the serious sailor should go all carbon? Wasn't there also a
time when masts were both carbon and aluminum? How long did
that take to shake out in favor of carbon. At some point sailors must
have decided that the limitations of aluminum masts did not justify
the cost savings and if I am not mistaken, today all serious sailors
use carbon composite masts of varying levels of carbon and aluminum
masts have been relegated to 'recreational' use.
In any case I am learning alot in spite of the 3mph average local
wind conditions.
Glenn Woodell
says...
>
>Hold on, I think you are jumping the gun here.
>Fiberspars, even the latest with all carbon fronts and backs, have
>earned the nickname "Fibersnap" for a reason.
And if you don;t believe it sheck out this photo of Chris Zeitvogel on his very
first time out with a brand new Fibersnap. Less than a minute on this boom!
Go to www.windvisions.com/windsurf2.html and check out the 4th photo. Look
where it broke.
William Fragakis
Another point that has bugged me for a while...
A few months ago, Ken Winner made the assertion that a windsurfer puts the
greatest weight on his/her rig in the hardest when marginally to fully
powered and when overpowered, actually eases up on it (sounds paradoxical
but makes sense when you think about it)
Therefore since a more flexy boom would shorten when you are fully sheeted
(ie in power mode) in and committed to the harness and lengthen
(elongating and flattening the sail) as you hike/sheet in less, wouldn't
this in fact be an argument FOR flexy booms? As you became overpowered,
the booms would get longer- effectively adding outhaul?
Just curious...
Regards,
William
Team Tweezerbutt/Small Hands
"We plane while you whine..:-)"
BTW, back in the '80s, lots of folks in the bike business used to
pooh-pooh aluminum frames as too flexible. But some guy named Sean Kelly
kept winning on one- and in sprints (where supposedly you really needed a
stiff frame) too.
ma...@my-dejanews.com
sail...@interpath.com wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Sep 1998 15:32:33 +1000, "Ray Lainey"
> <rla...@nsw.bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>
> >but like I said to
> >James, Fiberspar have been making carbon booms longer than anyone, and the
> >guys at Fiberspar are a pretty cluey lot, so I reckon that they know what
> >they're doing......
> I do not dispute the fact that Fiberspar makes a pretty good product,
> with an excellent warranty, but they seem to have bad batches
> of product from time to time.
> These tend to break far too frequently!
Interesting, how history is being revised. If I remember correctly, this is
the first or second season that Fiberspar carbon booms actually hold up under
heavy use. That means they have two seasons max of making a functioning
product. Gulftech was either close behind or ahead of Fiberspar in the race
to market a carbon boom, and there's were bombproof and stiff. Even the old
kind (with the aluminum extensions) were every bit as stiff as the
Fiberspars, with the added benefit of being usable by their target audience,
i.e., big guys exerting a lot of force on their booms. I still use my 93
Gulftech Race boom. Adjustability is great in terms of range (3 sets of
extensions; I can sail my 5.3 on this boom, or a 9.0), albeit a pain in terms
of user friendliness when adjusting.
> I just don't like to see a product as good in design and value as the
> Chinook boom get trashed by some magazine test that may or may not
> have anything to do with how well the boom works for the majority of
> the sailors out there.
> I go fairly fast, using Chinook booms, and have not noticed that any
> sailors, on similar boards/sails ever went smokin' by me becuase their
> boom was stiffer.
> Another thing to consider, stiff things SNAP, where as a design with
> slighly more flexibility designed in will not snap and will last much
> longer.
> Regards
>
Interesting point. Yep, carbon booms are stiff. If the boom is all carbon,
then it shouldn't lead to boom breakage. It may put undue stress on other
parts of the equation (I've snapped harness lines getting launched using my
Gulftech; much cheaper to replace, plus getting home minus one harness line
is easier than getting home w/o a boom), but somehow I don't see more wear on
anything in my rig due to the stiffer boom.
OTOH, for anything below, say, a 6.0 with a fairly large sailor, I don't see
much reason for the carbon premium, other than durability (as in the case of
the Gulftech booms).
And your point about grip diameter is well taken. My wife is using small
diameter Chinooks. It was a relatively cheap way of achieving pain free, more
effort-free sailing for her. At 200#, I know better than to use her booms; so
I use a regular Chinook for my small gear. But for her to use my regular
diameter booms makes about as much sense as for her to use my wetsuit, wear
my shoes, or lift the same barbells at the gym. The industry needs to get
away from this one-size-fits-all approach, because it doesn't (case in point:
My size 12-EEEE feet barely fit into the width of my production boards'
straps; using booties means serious pinching of the toes and constant pain,
not to mention decreased performance).
Andreas
Andreas
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum
Paul Scrutton
I missed the survey in windsurfing magazine, but was there any mention of Nautix?
I'm buying a new boom soon for a NP 8.7 Z-1, and I'm still not sure whether to get
the NP full-carbon, or go with what I know (the Nautix Jumbo carbon). I know that
the Nautix is not full-carbon, but I know also that they don't break, and I've
heard that the Pryde (Fibrespar's) have had a history of this that may be somewhat
remedied by the switch to full-carbon.
Any comments to help me sway either way? I'm currently leaning towards the
Nautix, as I like them, and I know that they don't break, perhaps at the expense
of a bit of weight. I may not have the luxury of seeing the booms before ordering
either. Has anyone used or seen both in the store?
--
Paul Scrutton
My views may not agree with those of employer.
--
Paul Scrutton
My views may not agree with those of employer.
Oren Reinbolt
I would have agreed with you until last month. I ended up swimming in my
broken Chinook at Ventura beach and bought a Fibersnap all Carbon, mostly
because I can't tell when an aluminum boom is corroding due to internal
salt water. We'll see, but at least I don't think the carbon fiber will
corrode like an aluminum boom.
Oren
sailquik (Roger Jackson) wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Sep 1998 21:02:18 GMT, sas...@mindspring.com (James Lee)
> wrote:
>
> >Thanks to one and all for the information on Chinook vs. Fiberspar.
> >It looks like Fiberspar is the clear winner. I am probably going to
> >go after a Fiberspar all carbon boom at the 210-256cm size as the sail
> >I am most needing it for is an 8.1 Supersonic with a boom length of
> >223cm and I have other aluminimum booms that will suffice for
> >smaller sails. Anyone selling one of these big bad booms?
> >Also more than a few respondents to my post mentioned an article
> >in Windsurfing Mag which did a review of a bunch of booms.
> >Can anyone tell me what issue it was and if there is any possiblity
> >of getting to it online either through Windsurfing Mag or otherwise.
> >Thanks again, this newsgroup has saved me from myself once more.
>
> Hold on, I think you are jumping the gun here.
> Fiberspars, even the latest with all carbon fronts and backs, have
> earned the nickname "Fibersnap" for a reason.
Dave Crabbe
can't afford 2 carbons. The cost here is about $500 with taxes.
I've had 2 Chinook's aluminum booms. A long one with 1.25 grip
and the 4-6' one with 1.125 grip. This is the 3rd season with both
and while I expect to maybe get into the 4th season before breaking;
at $199 (plus tax, $230), they were well worth it. I agree carbon
for my 7.5 sail will perhaps work much better but cost of keeping
all this stuff going adds up too much. Chinook also replaced a friend's
boom with absolutely no problem when it bent after 8 months. (He
is 200 lbs and used the reduced diameter model ... no problem
with the thicker model)
I've had better service with Chinook than Mistral.
James Lee wrote:
> Ok. I think that we have established that Chinook Carbon or a slew of
> other aluminimum booms are good enough for the 'tweezer butts'. I
> ,of course, stole that wonderful descriptor from a previous poster in
> referring to the apparent majority of windsurfers who weigh in at less
> than let's say 165lbs. I would be in the hospital if I wieghed less
> than 165lbs. ... [snip]
sail...@ameritel.net
sas...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Ok. I think that we have established that Chinook Carbon or a slew of
> other aluminimum booms are good enough for the 'tweezer butts'.
but this "tweezer butt" thing??? Not sure I can handle that descriptor!
> Am I safe in saying that for non-tweezer butt sailors
> all-carbon is the only way to go for the light wind (over 7.0 sail)
> that a gravity challenged person such as myself (maybe about
> 185-190lbs today) sailors?
You can certainly say it, and you might be correct!
I need to clear something up (remedy a misstatement) that I'm sure the
folks at Chinook would like clarified. I made an error the other nite!
In the Chinook booms, both large and small dia.,all of the later (last 5
years) tail pieces are formed from one continuous piece of aluminum tubing,
that's anodized to prevent corrosion both inside and out. It's bent around a
mandrel, and the the pulley and cleat assembly in moulded onto the bend. So,
Chinook booms with the aluminum tail piece, have 2 less joints than the
Fiberspar. I'm not sure about the Gulfies. Perhaps this is why the Chinook
people have taken their time about producing an all carbon tailpiece. If the
go to a carbon tailpiece that has no joints, I'd imagine the tooling cost
would be outrageous. So maybe they are looking very hard at the "if it ain't
broke, don't fix it" aspects of producing an all carbon tailpiece with
joints, as the joints are undenieably the weak points.
> The amount of money that we are talking
> about between the best aluminum booms versus carbon, assuming that I
> am buying one and not many for my largest sails, will seem rather
> insignificant to me when I am out on the water feeling the difference
> in stiffness/feedback with an all carbon boom.
How will an all carbon boom provide more stiffness/feed back than a boom
with carbon arms, and a continuous aluminum tailpiece with no joints to flex?
> In spite of my 'newbie-ness' it seems that one thing everyone can agree on is
>that lighter=faster.
I'd agree to that, but the Chinook Carbon large dia weighs pretty much the
same as the equivalent Fiberspar. I put one of each, on the same scale
Saturday morning, and while it wasn't the best or most accurate of scales,
the weight was precisely the same! As the vast majority of the weight that a
sailor has
> to think about is his own and in most situations that weight is
> relatively fixed give or take a few pounds, can we not
> draw a semi-arbitrary threshold of maybe 170lbs as the weight above
> which the serious sailor should go all carbon?
I agree with the arbitrary weight of 170#, (Chinook recommends the large dia.
for bigger sailors) but we'll have to agree to disagree on the "all carbon"
thing. As long as were are talking continuous alu. tailpieces, the it doesn't
make any difference in terms of reliability, unless we go back to point
loading/ joint failure, and the the continuous rear has a distinct advantage.
Wasn't there also a
> time when masts were both carbon and aluminum? How long did
> that take to shake out in favor of carbon.
Yes, and it took almost 10 years before the cost came down, and the quality
controland manufacturing process specs were done right so that carbon became
reliable. Some batches were good, others weren't. Some manufacturers did it
right from the outset and had almost no failures, others did not.
Sorry, I didn't know you were a big guy! But I do think you'd be very happy
with a Chinook carbon, and for my money that boom is as bomb proof as carbon
booms get! later
Jonathan M Richardson
: BTW, back in the '80s, lots of folks in the bike business used to
: pooh-pooh aluminum frames as too flexible. But some guy named Sean Kelly
: kept winning on one- and in sprints (where supposedly you really needed a
: stiff frame) too.
Wait a minute... I thought that most racers complained (and still
complain) that aluminum bikes are too stiff. People still talk about
how stiff aluminum bike frames are. I don't notice it much myself.
Interestingly enough, I have heard many cyclists complain that carbon
bikes are too soft. Perhaps the newer one-piece frames have become
accepted.
I find it interesting that carbon is used for fishing rods, which have
to be quite flexible.
I suppose that, in the case of windsurfing booms, the question is
weight-to-stiffness ratio. Given enough weight, either carbon or
aluminum can be made with arbitrary stiffness.
-Jonathan.
Dean Liu
> Wait a minute... I thought that most racers complained (and still
> complain) that aluminum bikes are too stiff. People still talk about
> how stiff aluminum bike frames are. I don't notice it much myself.
>
> Interestingly enough, I have heard many cyclists complain that carbon
> bikes are too soft. Perhaps the newer one-piece frames have become
> accepted.
>
> I find it interesting that carbon is used for fishing rods, which have
>
> to be quite flexible.
>
> I suppose that, in the case of windsurfing booms, the question is
> weight-to-stiffness ratio. Given enough weight, either carbon or
> aluminum can be made with arbitrary stiffness.
I guess the public are equating the words carbon = stiff & strong...
which doesn't necessarily have to be. Yes, products made out of
composite material (carbon) *can/could* be very stiff and very strong...
BUT, it all depends on how the engineer decided to design the fiber
orientations and how the layers lay-up, *and* how well the quality
control is during the composite manufacturing process. (This is not *as*
important w/ "old" materials like Alum., but *very* important in
composite!) Any types of fiber in a composite structure (fiber + resin)
is simply a string. It is strong in tension, but nothing else! Depending
on how these "strings" are oriented and layered, a composite structure
can be as flexible as a fly-fishing rod, or as stiff as your stiffest
mast!
And, YES, stiff things tends to break more than flexible things. Look at
an airliner wing during take-off the next time you are flying! Or notice
how stiff oak trees are always the ones breaking during a wind storm,
instead of flexible pine tree?
On the other hand, Alum is an "isotropic" material... which means its
internal strength property are equal in all directions (as opposed to
"strings"). Even with this, engineers can design an Alum mast to be
stiff, or soft, by varying cross-section geometry.
Hope this does more clarification than confusion...
Dean
--
---------------------------------------------------
Ding-Jen 'Dean' Liu
dea...@geocities.com
www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/4857
---------------------------------------------------
TCSadt
this thread just turned engineering on me. seeya
Dan - Fairfax Station, Va.
William Fragakis
Richardson) wrote:
> William Fragakis (nospamf...@mindspring.com) wrote:
>
> : BTW, back in the '80s, lots of folks in the bike business used to
> : pooh-pooh aluminum frames as too flexible. But some guy named Sean Kelly
> : kept winning on one- and in sprints (where supposedly you really needed a
> : stiff frame) too.
>
> Wait a minute... I thought that most racers complained (and still
> complain) that aluminum bikes are too stiff. People still talk about
> how stiff aluminum bike frames are. I don't notice it much myself.
Jonathan,
The complaints usually involve the larger tubed AL frames- eg Klein,
Cannondale . (Sprinter extraordinaire Super Mario Cipollini rides
Cannondale). Larger tubed AL bikes came about because conventionally sized
tubed bikes such as Vitus (what I ride), Alan etc where considered "too
flexible." AL bikes went from being "wimpy" to possibly "too stiff".
Moral of the story: Flexibility is more than a function of material. Its
also a function of structure- a larger diameter tube is stiffer than a
smaller one of the same weight. Of course, the problem becomes that if
you get too large, the walls become too thin and safety/durability is
compromised. The constraint in boom design is, of course, the diameter.
You have to be able to get your hands around the thing.
Best Regards,
William
dcro...@us.ibm.com
<nospamfragakis-...@user-37kbvq9.dialup.mindspring.com>,
nospamf...@mindspring.com (William Fragakis) wrote:
>
> Another point that has bugged me for a while...
>
> A few months ago, Ken Winner made the assertion that a windsurfer puts the
> greatest weight on his/her rig in the hardest when marginally to fully
> powered and when overpowered, actually eases up on it (sounds paradoxical
> but makes sense when you think about it)
....
>
> Therefore since a more flexy boom would shorten when you are fully sheeted
> (ie in power mode) in and committed to the harness and lengthen
> (elongating and flattening the sail) as you hike/sheet in less, wouldn't
> this in fact be an argument FOR flexy booms? As you became overpowered,
> the booms would get longer- effectively adding outhaul?
>
Then it must be true. Ignore the fact that you more inclined to the
horizontal and hang more off the rig, your legs and arms carry more load, the
board is going faster because the force on the sail roughly increases as a
square of the wind velocity. Forget that a flat landing from a fully wound
jump in the harness puts enough load through the sailor's feet and rig to
break the board in half. Ever try and sail without a harness? When it's
really windy? Notice how much more your arms hurt?
>
> BTW, back in the '80s, lots of folks in the bike business used to
> pooh-pooh aluminum frames as too flexible. But some guy named Sean Kelly
> kept winning on one- and in sprints (where supposedly you really needed a
> stiff frame) too.
Aluminum bike frames are known for being very stiff, uncomfortably so. Don't
neglect that maybe the rider had something to do with this. The "flexible is
fast" following went the school of junk science. Energy loss is always slow.
Don't forget that most of the people in these sports are non-engineers and
still believe in fairy dust.
Nope, I'd say you're on to something -- want to trade your stiff carbon boom
for my nice flexible one? I've also got a bike frame made of bamboo which I
might be willing to part with for the right price.
Dave