The zero wind tunnel option for serious cyclists

On May 14, 9:03 am, Andre Jute wrote:

Hmm. I posted the new formulation *four days* ago. I said it was a new
method. I said there was no data. Now Chung, the author of a paper
describing a more expensive method, discovers with outrage that there
is no data to support a new method! How predictable. Why are you so
defensive, Chung? You're letting a monstrous inferiority complex hang
out. It looks to even those who don't necessarily like me, like Ryan,
as if you're trying to stomp a rival method to death before it can
even obtain data to test its validity.

Here, let me explain scientific process to you, Chung. One sets up a
hypothesis, one considers it from all sides, then one gathers data,
then one analyses the data, and the data proves the hypothesis right
or wrong. We're at the hypothesis stage, no data yet. Have you got it
now, Chung: no data yet!

In terms you might hold closer to your heart, some guy sez he's
figured out a way to make very high quality spirits without any
equipment. Then it turns out his distillation technique is to put wine
in a home freezer and periodically scoop away the ice. He hasn't
actually done it and he meant "very high quality spirits" in relation
to mixing water with sugar and putting it in an old bottle with a
cognac label.

Colourful language but hardly a scientific contribution. For a start,
I'm not "some guy" -- I've done this in a related field for over forty
years, right out in public, and wrote it down for public review by all
my peers in a book published by several prestigious publishers
specializing in this field, with no error found in the nearly quarter
century since the book was published. Whereas you, Robert Chung,
haven't even made an analysis of the internal structure of my
formulation. You've made zero contribution, Chung. All you've done,
Chung, is fling abuse. What is it you fear so much that you're willing
to bare your ass in public to ward off?

You have nothing to fear from me, Chung, as long as you don't get
underfoot. If my method works, it will attract an entirely different
class of cyclist to those your method appeals to. Those cyclists who
are likely to find your method to their taste gladly splash out on a
power meter and are attracted by complicated "science". The people I
made my method for are more down to earth, a lot less impressed with
spurious "precision", a lot more empirical and practical, certainly
not likely to buy expensive meters for infrequent use.

So, Chung, why don't you crawl back in your niche (hey, God loves
puns!) and leave me develop mine. My attention span is short. In a
year or two or three I'll have moved on to something else and you can
posture to your heart's content as the main man of "precision and
accuracy". But don't try to obstruct me meanwhile, or you'll make a
fool of yourself, as you did here, again and again until you destroy
your own credibility.

Flick.

Andre Jute
Charisma is the talent of inducing apoplexy in losers by merely
existing

And

Usenet habits die hard so I normally pare down the posts to which I
respond. In this case I couldn't bear to snip out even one deliciously
loopy sentence. My rules of engagement dictate that I am allowed to
make fun of figurative nut cases but not literal ones, and your
kookitude is both very strong and very scary. Ciao.