Quote:
until such time as someone chooses to prove me wrong by careful measurement, I'm pretty confident I'm right here. I think in fact this notion has been proven right already by careful measurement by zipp, biketechreview, and maybe tom? Jack, I really respect your attitude and posts, but until you have amassed enough racing experience in races and situations where the differences being argued about "CAN" make a difference, it's very hard for your to assert authority based simply off an applied mathematical model.
Here's an example to counter your logic in these continual posts asserting your authority. Many manufacturers have claimed their products to be superior aerodynamically based off of computational fluid dynamics. In the wind tunnel, these products have been proven to not work in a "psuedo" real world situation. If there was a way to ACTUALLY measure the differences in wheels in very dynamic racing situations, we may find that "perception" is more in line with what's happening than your internet calculated mathematical model. We may actually find that lighter wheels do, in fact, save energy in their acceleration.
Another example to consider is that in the course of all this "internet calculation" of what is or isn't the best equipment, glaring mistakes have been made. There was quite the long period where all of the experts were convinced beyond argument that tubulars had been proven to be factually slower than clinchers. As it turns out, this "proof" was based on a method of gluing that could only be described in my opinion as piss poor and dangerous. When properly glued, we are currently told now that good tubulars are rolling on par or better than good clinchers (dependent upon the tires considered).
The hard truth about road racing is that there are many more variables at play than aero, weight, and rolling resistance. In my own experience, I have found and exploited at least one (tire traction), and I'm not an expert or a person who races very often compared to much of my competition.