Is there a reason that you occasionally pop into this thread, defend your graphs with little to no data, then run away? Is it that difficult? Frankly, you're demeanor on this thread makes yourself and the rest of your company look like a bunch of idiots that think they can throw a pretty graph up and convince everyone.
You obviously paid a lot of money developing the bike, and a lot more testing. What's the difficulty in paying another several man hours to write up and release a decent white paper, and release photos? If your protocol was in fact as sound as you claim, then doing so will only help your cause.
Personally, I like the fit of this bike. I also like the fit of several other, similar bikes, which have been proven openly in the tunnel. I'm also looking for a fast bike for '10. As I stand right now, I love this bike, and will buy it in a heartbeat, if it can be shown to me that it's actually better than, or at least comparable to, the other bikes that fit similarly. With the data currently presented however, my view is that you have a sub-optimal bike, are fudging data to present otherwise, and as a result, I have zero interest in purchasing said bike. From that angle, the profit you would make off of me would cover the cost in man-hours for doing the writeup. Add in everyone else here, and the fact that many of us are considered at least local experts in aerodynamics, seems like an easy call.
You obviously paid a lot of money developing the bike, and a lot more testing. What's the difficulty in paying another several man hours to write up and release a decent white paper, and release photos? If your protocol was in fact as sound as you claim, then doing so will only help your cause.
Personally, I like the fit of this bike. I also like the fit of several other, similar bikes, which have been proven openly in the tunnel. I'm also looking for a fast bike for '10. As I stand right now, I love this bike, and will buy it in a heartbeat, if it can be shown to me that it's actually better than, or at least comparable to, the other bikes that fit similarly. With the data currently presented however, my view is that you have a sub-optimal bike, are fudging data to present otherwise, and as a result, I have zero interest in purchasing said bike. From that angle, the profit you would make off of me would cover the cost in man-hours for doing the writeup. Add in everyone else here, and the fact that many of us are considered at least local experts in aerodynamics, seems like an easy call.