jsinclair wrote:Totally agree with you on those points. My original issue was that even though there will undoubtedly be a net loss in efficiency, when it's view as a percentage of the total system, it's still going to be way too low for anybody to start harping on about.
I hope this is not too OT but....
I am not a big fan of dics (at the moment ), but I have a few concerns.
I am in the medical field and Rule #1 is: Don't belive research that is produced by the manufacture who is selling/making it.
It seems in the bike industry that is all we really get (Adrian & Madcow from FWB are very valuable because of this=independant):
We get Aero charts from Zipp= wow Zipp, is fastest
WE get Aero charts from Enve= Wow, Smart sysstem is fastest
We get Aero frame info form "frame company = Wow there frame is fastest.
And there is no way to combine them because they do them differently.
(not to mention, most companies arent' testing the "whole system" with:
nor are they able to facter in (very well, as a whole and accuratly);
changing wind conditions,
riders changing directions,
the dynamics of the pelaton,
or group brake-away,
I, personally, don't believe any of it (thier research could be correct, for all I know), but that is how I was trained. If I submitted research like that I would be laughed at.
I could be wrong (I probably am ) but:
It seems like we are making "Mountains (minutes) out of Mole-hills (milliseconds)"
(and yes, milliseconds can make a difference in winning a race, but what percentage of cyclists are competing at that level - 1% ? )
But "in a nutshell", it seems the above quote seems pretty accurate. But what do I know I'm just in the medical field.