It is a common assumption in the bicycle industry that stiffer frames generally perform better than flexible frames, because they transfer power more efficiently and absorb less energy from the rider's pedal stroke in the form of spring potential energy. However, in the last few years, Jan Heine of Bicycle Quarterly has developed an alternative theory, which he calls "planing", whereby a flexible frame can improve rider performance by not resisting the leg muscles as much, preventing premature muscle fatigue and allowing the rider to actually produce more consistent power, an effect which overwhelms any difference in power transfer between the different stiffness levels of frames. I performed several tests in which I measured the power input to the bicycle through the crankset and power output through a power-measuring trainer in the place of the rear hub. Heart rate data was collected along with most of these tests. Four bicycles were used with three distinct levels of stiffness. After performing several ANOVA tests to determine the effect of stiffness on the parameters of average power output during a sprint, maximum power output during a sprint, maximum heart rate during a sprint, difference between power-in and power-out during both sprints and longer efforts, and power quotient during a sprint, I found no effects of frame stiffness on any of these factors except power quotient. The finding for power quotient suggests a positive relationship between quotient and stiffness, which directly refutes the Planing Theory for the test riders and levels of stiffness represented in this test. Also, no statistically significant effect of stiffness on the difference between power-in and power-out was found, refuting the Power Transfer Theory for the riders and levels of stiffness represented in this test.