In Reply To:
If 'scientists' use straight lines for stuff like this, I'd suggest they're implying a level of linearity which simply isn't there. If there was anything to be learned from the Hed data taken at 2.5 degree sweeps, it's that the data isn't necessarily linear.
Granted we're talking about wheels vs. bikes, but I still wouldn't assume the data is linear between 5 degree points. I actually think the way it's presented here is more reasonable, regardless of 'what scientists may think'.
I would actually think that 'scientists' wouldn't connect the dots in the first place....
Scientists would connect the dots, with straight lines, because it makes the data much easier to see than scatter plot, especially when it's small. It's hard to see which points are related.
The one other thing that scientists would do is include error bars at each data point, but that's probably asking too much.
The reason that you do not connect with a curved line is that is makes an implication of what is not there. I'm sure A2 does it because they are in the marketing business as well. There are now enough windtunnels that there is competition for bike testing business. The curved lines look "pretty," but they are incorrect.
If you connect the dots with straight lines, everyone knows it simply for visual clarity. If you connect it with a curved line, there can be the assumption that there actually is a fit that has been applied. Unfortunately, in this case, there was not. You don't know if the data goes from a-to-b like this / or like this _| or like _( or like ^ or... (sorry, I ran out of approximations using common characters). The data could move logarithmically or exponentially or parabolically, all which would mean very different things. And when you put an arbitrary curve in, that is, as zebragonzo said, "amateur."
"Non est ad astra mollis e terris via." - Seneca | rappstar.com | FB - Rappstar Racing | IG - @jordanrapp