Quote:
...on the other hand we have another who disagrees with that position supporting his disagreement with?Quote:
How was it that you decided the p3c was faster than the alternative frame?Well, I've acknowledged that it's unlikely, though not impossible, that the magnitude of the delta CdA attributable to positional differences and/or power meter differences is large enough to obliterate the entire observed CdA. The logical conclusion then is that the P3C is probably a faster frame.
I have a problem with adopting a "P3C is 2s/km faster than the P2K" rule of thumb based on this study, because if position changes/power meter differences account for a significant portion of the delta CdA, and based on my understanding of cognitive biases they may, then this sort of rule doesn't hold any water.
It's a shame that Drs Coggan and Chung are so willing to point out the problems in the research of others, while at the same time unwilling to acknowledge those inherent in research consistent with their methods. There is no perfect study design, and failing to acknowledge the weaknesses of a study you've designed just weakens your position. Resorting to personal insults doesn't help either.