In Reply To:
So, given these quotes, I think you're saying that you do not believe any difference between two frames could be determined as long as a rider sat on top of them. Have I misinterpreted you?
What I'm saying is that it would be difficult to determine a difference between frames without taking a lot of care to reduce the impact of rider and observer bias. You could exclude rider bias by doing wind tunnel testing with a blindfolded rider. Another option would be to do your field test by blindfolding the rider until they were sitting on the bike preparing to ride, and ask them not to look down at the frame while riding. This relies on the rider playing by the rules and resisting the urge to look at their bike. Excluding observer bias is more difficult because you'd have to find someone who is competent to operate and supervise a wind tunnel without knowing anything about bike equipment - that person probably doesn't exist.
Obviously these approaches would be a bit tricky to implement in the real world, but it could be done if the motivation were to have a truly valid, objective comparison between pieces of equipment. My impression of the wind tunnel test data I've seen, though, is that it is the result of testing paid for and executed by people with a clear agenda. I can't claim I've ever spent any time in a wind tunnel, so maybe I'm wrong, but aren't there usually equipment sponsor reps at the tunnel with the riders when they test gear? Here's a scenario that I imagine often happens, based on descriptions of wind tunnel testing I've read. Again, I've never been in the tunnel, so let me know if I'm way off base:
1. Team rider in the tunnel on his usual gear - drag is calculated.
2. Representative of Company X, the team's new frame sponsor, shows the rider their wonderful new frame, talks him through all of it's fantastic properties, and tells him how he'll be substantially faster on this frame. He also butters the rider up, blows smoke up his ass, etc to make the rider like him. The rider now
wants to please the rep.
3. Rider gets on Company X's frame, hoping that the numbers will be better. After all, he likes the rep and doesn't want to disappoint him, he bought all the fancy tech talk about the frame, and he wants to believe that he could be faster this year and gain seconds - even minutes - on his rivals in the TT. His motivation is clearly to be faster on the new frame.
4. Perhaps without even realising it, the rider makes subtle adjustments to his position on the new frame - a little hunch here, a bit of a duck there. Lo and behold, the new frame tests out faster. Everyone's happy, handshakes all around, it's Miller time. But was the frame
really faster?
The whole situation is orchestrated to produce a particular outcome and, because of human nature, it probably usually does produce that outcome. In my opinion this is a big part of the reason why a lot of the fantastic results of head-to-head wind tunnel testing don't seem to pan out in the real world.
Just because the industry standard is to ignore the potential for bias introduced by the rider and observer, it doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.