InWyo wrote:
Greater muscle activation on a long course could lead to fatigue which would be a draw-back in that setting.
But, they were going faster.
InWyo wrote:
I believe he was saying that none of them had any statistically significant energy cost differences, but in practical terms, the 29er was the fastest.
Is that what he said? I don't think he was that specific...like I said, show me the full report.
InWyo wrote:
The study was partially funded by Santa Cruz, and they did their best to make bikes with identical geometries/weight and only varying the wheel-size.
Did they make the geometry the same? We don't know, do we? If they merely took the frames they already produced (most likely) then the geometries ARE different. If the researchers don't understand the consequences of that, then shame on them. Show me the frame specs.
InWyo wrote:
The conclusion that made me thing of you was the statement, "You absolutely need to keep an open mind," and the statement, "29er was faster."
I do have an open mind...but, an open mind isn't much use without some practical skepticism as well. Otherwise it is easy to be lead down the path of believing magical properties of things...
InWyo wrote:
I think you'll be hard-pressed to find more-controlled study. I think if you had the study group be a bit larger, had them practice on each bike with a controlled training program for a few weeks leading up to the study and having a longer study period as opposed to only resting an hour between each set...that being said, you may not be able to control the conditions if you are controlling the physiological expenditure of each rider in that way. Perhaps documenting what each rider preferred before the test and trying to tie a correlation in that way would be better too.
Yes. The fact that these riders may have been accommodated to one geometry of bike is something that came to me as well and could be a confounding factor. They mention that with the discussion of the 27" bikes...but, then doesn't that apply to the other sizes? My bet would be that the majority of their subjects mainly ride 29" geometry bikes, so wouldn't that be a bias?
If I were to design a similar study, ALL 3 bikes would have the exact same wheelbase, trail, head angle, and BB height. The gearing would be adjusted for the wheel sizes. Lastly, it would be best to have the riders wear a Jonnyo-style "blinding" setup so they couldn't see the bike they were on...seriously.
You don't need to tightly control the output. Just measure the power and evaluate which was "faster" using techniques such as VE.
InWyo wrote:
I think in a more global/philosophical stance with science though, is good science leads to better questions, not necessarily solutions.
Oh...I got a fair share of questions out of what's been presented so far alright :-/
http://bikeblather.blogspot.com/