Because of the lack of proof. Why get all into the aero game and the stiff botom bracket cult when there is no proof it makes us faster in any real way. We really dont know if we get enough bang for our buck. My call is the money is better spent on a power meter.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

It's possibly down to two things: lack of communication/understanding scientist-user and psychological factors.

Communication: the communication can break down in several points: journalists are probably the worst to transmit a message. They deform and extract only a small part of what scientists are saying to make catching headlines and fit in sometime complex matters in a small number of words. They have a hard task to explain the nature of testing: there is little variability in equipment, but as soon as you enter the human being as a factor, then variability is sky high, and it's news that we (users) don't want to hear. 2 people never react exactly the same way to a same change in a piece of equipment. What scientists are trying to do is to extract a trend which represents the majority of the population. It is costly (time & money): you need to test a lot of people to have a good representation of what is the average (good rule of thumb: the fewer the number of subjects tested, the less reliable are the results). It also means that for some people the effect will be greater, for some it will be smaller. Hence 'it works (for me)' and 'it doesn't work (for me)' being two possibly correct statements. Why: zillions factors depending on the equipment (posture, skills, anatomy, environment, etc). Another problem: interactions. A change in a piece of equipment can modify other aspects of the athlete's efficiency in equipment, posture, etc. In a lab, everything is standardised (or as much as possible), not so for the users. A new equipment may be more aerodynamic by itself, but mounted on a certain bike with a certain user it will modify the air flow and may induce a drag in another part of the bike/cyclist. It's not saying that scientists don't know anything: give them one individual and enough time and money, and they will find out what works for you. But apart from Lance, who can afford that (have have the right mental attitude) to do it?

Psychology and beliefs are usually not taken into account in testing equipment. I haven't yet tested tri stuff but I have tested scientifically some sport equipment in tennis. I have done tests where the players did not know what changes were made in the raquets, and yet sometime they could perceive changes when none were made. The believed something was changed, and sometime it made them thing it was better, sometime it was worse. It's just like placebo: use a piece of equipment you believe makes you faster, and it's likely you will go faster. At least it mill make you feel good. I am not saying that all equipments are equal, but when the human being cannot detect a change, then the mind is there to fill the gap.

---

Francois-Xavier Li @FrancoisLi
"We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing." George Bernard Shaw
http://www.swimrunfrance.fr
http://www.worldofswimrun.com

What? Are you saying my uncontrolled, multi-variable study of one doesn't constitute the gospel truth? Well, f**k you I say, Fredly...F**K you!

"Nobody can tell me exactly how much faster I will be with a stiffer crankset, so all this oversize bottom bracket stuff is just marketing BS ... "

Well, yeah. A company comes out and offers the latest and greatest and spins yarns of how it is answers problems that no one really has and then can't really give you solid numbers and charges a high price. That's bullshit to me.

---

customerjon @gmail.com is where information happens.

To people who don't know Monet from Manet, discussing their differences is bullshit.

To people who don't know Monet from Manet,

Wow, that is messed up that you admit you know any such thing. Please tell me you learned it from your wife. No one should be able to use Monet in vain and also have any knowlege of how NASCAR works. The human brain is not capable of dealing with such polar opposites.

Chad

What?!!! There's a difference?!!! Since when?!! Impressionism, expressionism, ear on, ear off (an early variant of the "wax" theme), tahiti, schmahiti, left bank, right bank, boheimian, schmohemian....it's all the same....

Why do basic scientific and engineering answers, when discussed by laymen, always devolve into disbelief because those answers are incomplete?

Um . . . What? You don't know why someone might not believe an incomplete answer? How basic can the answer be if it isn't complete?

You give a pretty good example with the bottom bracket stiffness- I guess science and engineering can pretty easily figure out and prove that an oversized bracket is stiffer. What I have yet to hear from science or engineering is any answer whatsoever about how that would make one faster. If you not only can't tell me how much faster I'll be with a stiffer bottom bracket, but you can't tell me why I'd be faster in the first place, yeah, I guess it's just marketing BS.

How many watts does an oversized bottom bracket save over a standard BB? How did you measure that?

---

"People think it must be fun to be a super genius, but they don't realize how hard it is to put up with all the idiots in the world."