>The most efficient system varies the deformation of the tyre as little as possible. So suspension is better for rolling resistance.
Two points.
You seem to be making the assumption that the efficiency of the tire deformation is less than the efficiency of the beam deformation. You're simply transferring the deformation from one spring system to another (And one of those spring systems is far more directly linked to my scrotum, so I'm not sure I want the high frequency deformation transferred from tire to beam. Running a supple tire that handles those deformation well seems, empirically to be both comfortable and efficient.
And second, I question whether the beam system is an efficient "impedance matching transformer" for high frequency "bumps" relative to other frame based suspension, such as the fork and stay system. Cervelo, for one, seems to have puts its money into the stay system on the R5 and its predecessors.
Two points.
You seem to be making the assumption that the efficiency of the tire deformation is less than the efficiency of the beam deformation. You're simply transferring the deformation from one spring system to another (And one of those spring systems is far more directly linked to my scrotum, so I'm not sure I want the high frequency deformation transferred from tire to beam. Running a supple tire that handles those deformation well seems, empirically to be both comfortable and efficient.
And second, I question whether the beam system is an efficient "impedance matching transformer" for high frequency "bumps" relative to other frame based suspension, such as the fork and stay system. Cervelo, for one, seems to have puts its money into the stay system on the R5 and its predecessors.