And yet most people still will not buy it.

I guess I have to concede round 1...

Are you planning on having the report "peer-reviewed" in some sort of way before publishing it? This would add credibility by having someone (or people) outside of the scope of the test scrutinize it before publication.

Hello kilejay and All,

You pays your money and takes your chances ..... (apologies Mark Twain)

Selections 1 and 2 look very much like a typical P-5 plot ..... A Gambrel roof shape ...

"Gambrel roofs are an elegant, Old World design harkening back to Colonial times and older. The roof design allows for more living space and head room within a compact space. The framing doesn’t have the glaring flaws of other styles but there are air sealing and insulation considerations." [empahsis added]

Sounds like (and looks like) a Cervélo to me ......

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

The more sophisticated analytics are done by a guy who goes as cyclenutnz on the forums. He runs a company called velogicfit.com that makes software to help bike fitters. After the Best Bike Split modeling down by Ryan Cooper, I don't know that there is anyone in the world who has done more time-course modeling for cycling...maybe there is, but I haven't ever seen their stuff. Anyways, cyclenutnz has done all the time-course modeling to convert the CdA data into time savings/gain on a given course, for a given rider with x/y/z characteristics, on a particular day, on a given bike...wow, that's a lot of parameters. No wonder this stuff is hard for people to conceptualize.

To answer your question more directly, yeah cyclenutnz calc'd the 95% CI levels using the baseline vs. control for both bike only and rider-on tests.

In addition, I've put together some 'first day of stats-101', more 'back of the envelope'-like ways of assessing the variability which serve no purpose other than to make this report accessible to a broader range of people.

Absolutely. There will be more than one heavy hitter with analytic cycling chops reviewing it prior to publication.

But that is for the purpose of making it better...more accurate or more refined or better written or with fewer errors. I don't really think that needs to be an advertising point because I think and hope that the report will speak for itself.

Your title for this threw made me spew my beer!

For the general purposes of what you're trying to accomplish and getting info out to the general public, nah your data doesn't really need to be peer reviewed or noted as such. Essentially if you're simply testing bikes to see which is fastest for you under your set conditions, the results will be what it is.

But for "insiders" or frankly anyone who care for the protocols, result validation, process validation; peer reviewed data is the only acceptable data regardless of the acccomplishments/background/expertise of the testers and or said completed data regardless of how expansive the data report turns out to be.

Long post to say it would be of greater value to adversite that your data has been reviewed then to hang your hat on how great a report you think it is. ETA: and it can be a great report, I would just assume to acknowledge that this data has been reviewed would be of great value with an test and the "results"/discussion that is absolutely to follow.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

Look, I'm having several people go through it. At this time I don't feel comfortable saying who. None of them have 'signed up' to be totally behind this study or how we executed it (some weren't there)...I just asked a few smart, experienced people to read it and help and offer any thoughts on how to make it better. We didn't know there was some standard you had to meet or some level of peer social proof you had to display for your testing to be legitimate.

So help me out...what's the standard? How does this study earn legitimacy in the eyes of people who 'care about protocols' if the ability and experience and expertise of the people involved is not enough?

Thank you for the update!
This more exciting than the original moon landing! - I haven't slept or showered in anticipation of the results!

It's great your getting all the data reviewed by knowledgeable people. Promote that much more then the completeness of your report. That improves the credibility of the study.

---

Brooks Doughtie, M.S.
Exercise Physiology
-USAT Level II

I'll also guess 60 grams of drag between #1 and #6 at zero yaw and close to 100 grams at 15(?) degrees of yaw (I never read the original thread so I don't know the protocol).

How many seconds does that save me in an imperial metric 2/3 half Ironman?

Wine.

---

--Chris

I am going to guess just by the colors chosen that 6 is the Felt (white for the baseline) and the Cervelo's are dark and light blue.

I think what Tom and others are saying is that your study borders on a "scientific experiment." Which I, being an engineer myself, would agree with. But that's great! I think that's where your heart lay in the first place; trying to standardize a testing environment, removing as many variables as possible etc. etc. This is essentially what any kind of scientific experiment (on the physics/engineering/aerodynamics side anyway) tries to do.

I think you have inadvertently arrived at this standard you refer to and if you so wish, could complete the "process" and call it an official "peer-reviewed scientific study" and even publish it in "aerodynamics weekly" (or whatever journal willing to publish it).


In the "scientific community" of which you could now call yourself a member of, legitimacy is brought about by transparent reporting of your experiment, and asking appropriate "peers" to review your work prior to publishing. Sometimes when you submit your "paper" to a scientific journal, they will have a board/pool of reviewers and get a number of them to review it. Have you found any similar published articles online? Who reviewed those?

I'm my opinion you have no obligation to undergo any of the above process. I think you've been extremely forthcoming with your intentions at the outset, transparent throughout your testing process and steadfast in sticking to your guns regarding the likely audience of this report and it's level of detail.

However, as an engineer I will always say "YAY Science!!" or as Jessie in Breaking Bad said, "Science BITCH!"

All this talk about protocol, etc...

While this MOP'er won't be basing any purchase decisions on the results - 1 minute here or there doesn't matter to me in a 70.3 or Ironman - I'm willing to bet the results will be more accurate than any testing ever published by Bikeradar or any other tri-related magazine. Looking forward to the results (and yes, I donated a small amount). :)

I also agree that 99% of the folks outside of this thread that see the results, will just want to see a basic graph showing the differences. Nothing more complicated.

I think whatever unit of measurement you used on the graph, if that could then be stated as "= x seconds over 40km" then people (in the main) will be very satisfied.

---

29 years and counting

Thanks for your work on this.


Everyone seems to want to pick this test and you apart about how they would have done it different/better etc. but i haven't seen anyone else step up to the challenge.

So thanks (even if you are an @** sometimes)

Also, I'm betting on the Premier

Do the manufacturers know the results yet or do they have to wait like the rest of us?

---

--Chris

Are those real results, or the cover of the Dark Side of the Moon album?

---

I'm closer to the feathered end of the spear than the point.

It's the red bike. The red bike is always fastest.

---

***

I agree with this. I'm in the market for a new bike and if I'd be looking at the charts, I'd want to know which one is the fastest, and do I like the price and how it looks and then go from there. As to how much faster it truly is will depend on too many other factors to get an accurate number.

I'm also with Tom on this one. It should be published the same as anyone else in the industry would. Have another chart for the people who don't care about that kind of stuff.

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/

So just like Cervelo and Trek. Which is what Kiley plans to do.

Did you even read the thread?

---

"One Line Robert"

I read some of it last night. Next time I'll be sure to get the cliff notes from you.

---

Make Inside Out Sports your next online tri shop! http://www.insideoutsports.com/