Wasn't the firm going to be rescued or has that disapeard completely ?

I used to really care about this. Now I'm over the sadness. Don't get me wrong, Softrides were nice in their time. I have owned five of them but, none of them (and for that matter, no bike I have ever owned) can compare to what I have now. I finally got a TitanFlex. Now I am no longer concerned about any other bike manufacturer. TitanFlex straight-out rules and I challenge anyone to take a test-ride if you don't believe me. You won't be wondering about Softride anymore.

Do you, or anyone, know if there has ever been a direct comparison test of a Titanflex against a Softride in the wind tunnel. I use a Softride TT7 as a time trial bike but it isn't going to last forever so I'm interested in this.

---

Azby

I do know that some ST participants have contacted Softride as to the terms and conditions of selling the company :-) They are not unreasonable, as the folks from Softride only want the brand to continue as a high end frame manufacturer (read: the brand does not turn into a Walmart favorite). While one of the inquiring parties is interested, the last he heard was that his potential partner had some other things to attend to around Christmas time. As far as I know, the company has not been sold (nor the intellectual property, inventory, etc.).

There still is hope for Softride technology to still appear under the umbrella of someone else (probably the best location for it)...so only time will tell.

---

Craig Preston - President / Preston Presentations
Saving the world with more professional, powerful, and persuasive presentations - one audience at a time.

I do think if someone updated and modernised the design using modern materials there would be a market for it. I think the next big thing will be non UCI legal bikes. The market I think is ready to support this.

In my opinion the rocket beam was the best riding beam Softride came up with. I wish I had a wind-tunnel test.

I can tell you, having owned both a TT7 and a TitanFlex; that my TitanFlex feels like a rocket beam, but it is better in many ways:

1-more narrow in the down-tube
2-the head-tube is shorter
3-uses a skinny 1" (if memory serves the TT7 was 1-1/8)
4-internal routing on the TitanFlex Vetran.
5-about two pounds lighter for the frame+beam
6-easier and more adjustment (rocket beam adjustment was a nightmare!)
7-more reliable (no issues with glue on the rocket beam)
8-inventor responds to emails and calls in the SAME day the are made
9-more beam options
10-better warranty
11-more bottle braze-ons.
12-more paint options

If you like the rocket beam you would love a TitanFlex.

When I moved up from my PowerWing to my current TT7, I was interested in Titan Flex. The deal killer for me was there was no place local to see an actual Titan Flex in person or take it for a test ride. Still love my TT7. Don't know what I'll do when it's time to move on.

---

-----

Blazeman Warrior - so others may live
Live more than your neighbors.... Bark at the moon like the wild dog that you are.... And by all means, whatever you do, get it on film.

I was a beam fan and had both the Softride Powercurve & Zipp 3001. The Softride provides more comfort but is heavier and you really have to learn pedalling without bobbing. The Zipp had minimal suspension but always was faster.

If anyone wants to sell their 3001 in a 700c large beam, large frame format i would be very interested.

regards,

Bryce.

Wow! That's an awesome side by side comparison shot. Do you have anymore? I would love to see them how they compare. It always looked (to me) like Softride's Power V copied Zipp's 2001 frame idea. I would also like to see comparison shots of those bikes with the 1992 Zipp (with Allsop Beam). Very interesting stuff. Thanks!

If memory serves me correctly, Softride made the beams, and was only interested in sellling the beams back in '93. Zipp made a frame around the softride beam, and then after a year or so, softride started making a bike as well out of tubing (was the first model the qualifier?) followed by the carbon power V. I always liked the look of the Zipp with the new beam design better; although I had the impression that softride did more aero testing, as their frames were around a little longer (but I really have no idea for sure; as I have never seen any tests of the FasTT together with a zipp 3001; but then again, I am not in the bike industry). I have (and still have) my eye out for a Fastt7 large frame that has a broken seat boom, as I would like to cobble a titanflex beam to the Fastt frame, and bring the down tube of the fastt frame to hug the front tire, and add a worn out headset that is 'indexed' to keep give the rider an indication of where the dead-on aerodynamic sweetspot is. Of course, this is just speculative interpolation since I dont have any CFD software. Anyway, I think that the softride and zipp frames and the other monocoque frames always looked cool (except for the giant frame, that for some reason never appealed to me); and if you cant be fast, at least you can look fast...right?

Stephen J

---

I believe my local reality has been violated.
____________________________________________
Happiness = Results / (Expectations)^2

I really like the idea of an indexed headset and a down-tube that follows the draft of the front wheel. Man, that is smart. You should start a whole new thread on just that!

I used to want to put a TitanFlex beam on a Softride FasTT frame too. Then I saw the TitanFlex in person and realized how incredibly skinny the frame is. The FasTT looks like a 2x4 compared to that. Plus the weight and stiffness would be an advantage with the TitanFlex. Although... it sure would look fast.

Indeed, it is a bit of a shame . . . or not. It's a competitive market out there and ultimatly a company lives or dies based on how well their product does in the market place. Fot a time, Softride captivated the triathlon market. They had revolutionary technology, solid marketing, athletes doing well( IMH win et. al.), decent sales, and so on. Then it just seemed to start to slide. Not sure what happened. Some link it to the UCI ban, but they were never banned for triathlon use and triathletes rarely show up for club level and higher ITT's, and seem to really embrace companies that are "True To Triathlon", so in my view that could be a moot point. However, if you look at the success of Cervelo, they REALLY started to get on a role when the CSC sponsorship started. Cervelo is unique in that they were able to transcend the tri market and go beyond it - few tri oriented companies have been able to do this. Now, as I see it, Cervelo's success and profile in the road market is feeding back and helping them in the tri market! Which when you think about it, is extraordinary!

So, perhaps their is some linkage to the fact that the Softride technology was not UCI legal. Who knows?

---

---

Steve Fleck @stevefleck | Blog

May have also been a lower profit margin because they stayed in the United States for production. That's extraordinary when you think about it too.