Landis' aerobars

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
Dan Connelly wrote:

It only makes a difference if he's reaching his limits on gearing,
either spinning out your big gear on the "26", or at suboptimal cadence
in the granny on the "29".

Right, but the only way to know whether that ever happens is if you're
recording cadence and speed.

Dave Harris' original "experiment" was a race. He configured each bike in
the way he learned (during other races and training) was fastest for that
particular bike's characteristics. He did laps on each bike. His main
interest was to figure out which bike was faster for him on that course.
IOW, Harris configured each bike optimally and recorded everything. Huang
is configuing each bike identically and recording who-knows-what.

I don't much believe you can tell much either way. Of course on some courses
perhaps one wheels size would be favored while on another some other size
would be favored but I doubt that there's enough difference to be
measureable between the bikes themselves using either method. There's more
variation in the rider's ideas.

Tom Kunich wrote:

I don't much believe you can tell much either way. Of course on some
courses perhaps one wheels size would be favored while on another some
other size would be favored but I doubt that there's enough difference
to be measureable between the bikes themselves using either method.
There's more variation in the rider's ideas.

http://teamhealthfx.com/blogs/dave_h...6/08/1258.aspx

Robert Chung wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

I don't much believe you can tell much either way. Of course on some
courses perhaps one wheels size would be favored while on another some
other size would be favored but I doubt that there's enough difference
to be measureable between the bikes themselves using either method.
There's more variation in the rider's ideas.

http://teamhealthfx.com/blogs/dave_h...6/08/1258.aspx

Robert, your problem is that you're a member of the
reality based community. Tom is one of history's
actors, and when he acts, he creates his own reality.

Ben
Yeah, I know, the same callback _started_ this sub-thread.

wrote:

Robert, your problem is that you're a member of the
reality based community. Tom is one of history's
actors, and when he acts, he creates his own reality.

You're saying he's practicing asymmetric warfare? That's a pretty good PR
move.

Here's a comparison of (two of) Harris' laps:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/wattage/op/op5&7.png

Those two laps were chosen because the overall time was close but they
were ridden on different bikes. It turns out the lap on the Salsa required
higher average power to achieve the same time. Most of the power
difference between the two was in a small section of the course. I
purposely didn't want to know anything about the course before I analyzed
the data. When I showed Dave the plot he immediately identified the
section and described its characteristics.

Robert Chung wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

I don't much believe you can tell much either way. Of course on some
courses perhaps one wheels size would be favored while on another some
other size would be favored but I doubt that there's enough difference
to be measureable between the bikes themselves using either method.
There's more variation in the rider's ideas.

http://teamhealthfx.com/blogs/dave_h...6/08/1258.aspx

Anything to see your name in print huh?

Tom Kunich wrote:
Robert Chung wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

I don't much believe you can tell much either way. Of course on some
courses perhaps one wheels size would be favored while on another some
other size would be favored but I doubt that there's enough difference
to be measureable between the bikes themselves using either method.
There's more variation in the rider's ideas.

http://teamhealthfx.com/blogs/dave_h...6/08/1258.aspx

Anything to see your name in print huh?

That the best you can do? You wrote that you didn't believe there was
enough difference to measure. I didn't know anything about the course,
didn't know anything about the bikes (in fact, I still get mixed up in
which bike is which and what the differences between them are). However,
by looking at the data I could measure a difference. The difference wasn't
evenly spread out over the lap (that is, that one bike was consistently
reading x% high over the entire course) but was concentrated in one
section. Only then did I tell Dave what I'd found. From the mileage
markings he knew immediately which section it was, and what made it
different from other sections of the course.

I only wish there were more "replicates": each lap was 15 miles long and
this was a race, so the sample sizes for each bike are small. Too bad the
race didn't have shorter laps.

wrote:

Robert, your problem is that you're a member of the
reality based community. Tom is one of history's
actors, and when he acts, he creates his own reality.

Speaking of creating one's own reality:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...b44b98b8b60999

RonSonic wrote:
to know if a properly designed 29 is better than a properly designed 26. There's
no telling what is wrong with the geometry of either or both bikes in this silly
attempt to make them otherwise identical.

Let's say, as an example, that the 29er steers slow and feels trucklike on tight
singletrack - is it the 29 wheels or is it the 26 geometry they're bolted to?


Ron

The first thing I noticed was the identical head tube angle, which of
course results in a huge difference in the trail measurements for the
two bikes, due to the difference in wheel diameter.

That alone (the different trail measurements) would most likely account
for the different handling feel, not the size of the wheels themselves.

I'm surprised the folks at Seven didn't insist on adjusting the
geometry to try to replicate the overall geometry, not just the raw
angles.

Scott

In article , "Robert Chung"
wrote:

wrote:

Robert, your problem is that you're a member of the
reality based community. Tom is one of history's
actors, and when he acts, he creates his own reality.

Speaking of creating one's own reality:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...433dabb44b98b8
b60999

That must be a size XXXXL helmet to get Tony Snow's hair into it.

--
tanx,
Howard

Never take a tenant with a monkey.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

"Robert Chung" wrote in message
...
Tom Kunich wrote:
Robert Chung wrote:
Tom Kunich wrote:

I don't much believe you can tell much either way. Of course on some
courses perhaps one wheels size would be favored while on another some
other size would be favored but I doubt that there's enough difference
to be measureable between the bikes themselves using either method.
There's more variation in the rider's ideas.

http://teamhealthfx.com/blogs/dave_h...6/08/1258.aspx

Anything to see your name in print huh?

That the best you can do? You wrote that you didn't believe there was
enough difference to measure. I didn't know anything about the course,
didn't know anything about the bikes (in fact, I still get mixed up in
which bike is which and what the differences between them are). However,
by looking at the data I could measure a difference. The difference wasn't
evenly spread out over the lap (that is, that one bike was consistently
reading x% high over the entire course) but was concentrated in one
section. Only then did I tell Dave what I'd found. From the mileage
markings he knew immediately which section it was, and what made it
different from other sections of the course.

I only wish there were more "replicates": each lap was 15 miles long and
this was a race, so the sample sizes for each bike are small. Too bad the
race didn't have shorter laps.

Geez Robert, don't be so sensitive. I said that there are horses for
courses. Some courses are likely to be biased towards one size and others to
the other size. Perhaps you're suggesting that cyclocross bikes would be
faster as 26" wheel bikes?