A recent note by Lu et al presented a theoretical study of two-spring Tomlinson model. In this comment we argue that the conclusion of the note can be understood in a simple manner, moreover we point out the discussion of the criterion for the onset of stick-slip in the note is unnecessarily complicated and potentially misleading.A recent Tribology Letters Note reported an analytical study of the two-spring, two-mass Tomlinson model under quasistatic conditions [1]. The main points of that article were (i) the quasistatic solution of the two-spring Tomlinson model is equivalent to the one-spring model provided the effective spring stiffness is correctly defined, and (ii) a criterion for the onset of stick-slip expressed in terms of explicitly defined tip and cantilever stiffness is the most convenient way to study the effects of tip flexibility. In this Comment we show that the first of these points is readily apparent from a simple analysis and the second is supported by results presented in an unnecessarily complicated and potentially misleading manner.We are in agreement with the authors' first conclusion that the quasistatic solution of two-spring model is equivalent to that of the one-spring model (Eq. 20 of [1]). However, this conclusion is straight forward since under quasistatic conditions inertia can be neglected. Regardless of how many masses the system has (consider the n-spring, n-mass system illustrated in Figure 1), it simplifies to a one-spring model with an effective stiffness k ef f satisfying