jkhayc wrote:
Cody Beals wrote:
Just one example is that the Diamondback was tested without its integrated storage which would usually be in place, putting it at a disadvantage.Who is defining "usually" for you?
Your protocol (/Jimmy's really) is just, honestly, ridiculous. Nobody is going to go to that trouble. The only tunnel where that's even remotely possible is at Faster, which is cheap, and doesn't have a completely reliable way of producing repeatable, accurate data.
Ok, maybe the Diamondback example is a bad one. Tbh, I don't know much about the bike.
I completely agree that the protocol of optimizing each bike would be ridiculous and unrealistic! As I said, "prohibitively time consuming". The point I was trying to make is that this theoretical protocol may have yielded quite different and more useful results. But it's a moot point because that kind of public, independent testing will never happen with wind tunnels costing $500+/hr.
Cody Beals wrote:
An alternate test protocol would have been to optimize each bike setup rather then attempt to standardize them. This would include finding the fastest position, helmet, clothing, wheels, fluid and storage options for each bike. This would have been prohibitively time consuming (Jimmy estimated ~6 hours per bike!), but more realistic and definitive.CodyBeals.com | Instagram | TikTok
ASICS | Ventum | Martin's | HED | VARLO | Shimano | 4iiii | Keystone Communications