Sure, that formula makes sense in a very basic way. But, in that equation I don’t see comfort, nor sustainability, nor the ability to run after the bike split. I certainly don’t see any reference to UCI regulations, or the shape/orientation of the vessel/rider. When numbers are all that are taken into account, perhaps some of the most important factors are absent.
It reminds me of trying to make a computer “think”. I have a 2 year old child that does something better than any computer. She can recognize someone from just a tiny glimpse of their hand or foot. She can recognize them from seeing a glimpse of their shape as they turn a corner down the street. She can tell if my dog is excited because it’s about to eat, excited because it’s happy to see her, or excited because there’s a squirrel outside the window.
That ability to observe the interaction between human and machine and air pressure, and make correct judgements about these relationships, is what sets a good, experienced “fitter” apart from any series of calculations that we may try to use to encumber the fitting process.
I dearly love my daughter, I can’t quantify that in an equation. That knowledge isn’t meager or unsatisfactory to me. Lord Kelvin didn’t get it all right, in my opinion. There is some of that kind of knowledge involved in a good bike fitter’s bag of tools.
