James Haycraft wrote:
But at that point, what's the point at all?? If you can't normalize it to a reasonable degree based on: these are the bikes that fit me, I will test them how they fit me, and how I would use them for a 70.3....then what are any of us doing here at all? You can throw out essentially every single white paper and every aero test that anyone has done because it's not ME on MY bike. I think you do as much as you can, and you run with it. You control what you can to a reasonable degree based on cost and time constraints as well as equipment availability. And then you have a pretty darn good test.
I'm all for testing. I'm especially all for good testing. And I really hope this testing happens and applaud the OP for his effort in this endeavor. I applaud him for efforts to educate himself and others (even if his tactics aren't always the friendliest). But I think it's in everyone's best interests, including the OP's best interests, to approach this and the results it provides with skepticism.
I'll just say that, assuming the bikes being compared are set up the same, I'm more likely to find the data produced from runs without the rider to be of more value than the runs with the rider aboard. Others can decide as they see fit.
Trent Nix
Owned and operated Tri Shop
F.I.S.T. Advanced Certified Fitter | Retul Master Certified Fitter (back when those were things)