Still haven’t seen anything that backs that up either way. You might loose some response reaction to frame flex if you’re a big power pedal mashing sprinter, or you might gain some sort of biomechanic efficiency or comfort if you’re a smooth, fluid-pedaling distance rider. I don’t believe there’s inherent power loss in normal ranges of frame flex though, and I think the bike media who go on about power delivery when they mean response to power could go and test how very stiff frames might actually be working against many of us. I’d certainly rather have some flex rather than no flex, for a hill climb bike or any other.
A valid point. That sprinters/track riders tend to favour Aluminium and Carbon Fibre frames over Steel, and certainly Titanium, tells you something. Maximum power output overrides all other considerations. Yes, I know you can get Steel and Titanium track frames, but the Olympic level riders are all on Alu or CF frames, depending on discipline. But for the rest of us, Titanium might be preferable because a frame can be designed to take advantage of that flex. I think it might have been a Moots frame that used the inherent flexiness of Ti, to provide a little ‘softtail’ suspension/cushioning. And the Ibis Bow Ti used a long flat section to produce a similar effect. Titanium is a wonderful material, But as others have pointed out, if not designed and executed carefully, the bike just feels wrong.
