prendrefeu wrote:Basically, we have frequent tests such as those from Tour magazine which provide quantifiable data on the performance of brand names frames. The frames are taken through a rigorous testing protocol in controlled environments and numbers of the various attribute results are provided. These numbers can then be compared with each other.
We? who are "we". You are referring to an advertisement magazine for goodness sake!
They offer LITERALLY their opinion and worthless numbers, even when compoaired to each other, are still meaningless.
Were you actually being serious? Your argument is..
"a magazine prints numbers about branded bikes and that is why branded bikes are better, ignoring the fact that some branded bikes are also open mould frames"
If you had any form of credable argument here, you would have linked me to a peer reviewed scientific journal
prendrefeu wrote:Where do the 'open mold' frames fit in? Well, in one test (I do not recall the magazine at this time) an open mold frame was tested and compared. It did reasonably well, however had less stiffness in various places and so on. They did not disclose what model this was nor what mfg/distributor provided it (or from whom it was purchased).
Thanks for your meaningless anecdote.
I have a better one based on consensus.
Overwhelmingly, people who buy known trusted open mould framesets are happy with them, you can even see evidence of this by clicking the well known and very popular link in this very forum, if you don't want to do that, then the internet is littered with positive reviewes.
prendrefeu wrote:So far only one, an unknown one at that, had been tested.
So, what was your point again? Remembering that your anecdote regaring a meaninless magazine, has literally no credibility anyway
prendrefeu wrote:Until they get tested at the same rate as the brand names we will not have quantifiable data to support the notion that an open-mould frame is as good as a brand frame.
The best test is consensus and mass public opinion. This
quantifiable data is incomprehensible gibberish, at best.
You are laughably trying to suggest that you (an advertisement magazine) can mathmatically prove one bike is
better than another, which is absurd.
prendrefeu wrote:Does this make sense now?
Of course it doesn't make any sense.
prendrefeu wrote:It's basic requirements for any verifiable study, commonly used in laboratories that would have any merit.Here is something you may need to read:
http://tour-int.com/how-tour-tests/
False, the ONLY requirement is the ISO standards
prendrefeu wrote:Try Googling or internet-searching for tests sometime. This can be with frame stiffness, aero qualities, or more.
I see lot's of tests done by magazines (corporations) who offer their opinion and public forums, who people also offer their opinion.
Some people like how the Cervelo S5 rides, some people hate it, for example.
What does your
science say about the Cervelo S5?
prendrefeu wrote:FairWheelBikes has developed a rigorous testing protocol for handlebars and stems.
If you read the data you will see differences.
Good for them, but why does a corporations opinion, which tells me a difference between products, mean one is better than than the other or that Chinese made handlebars and stems are not better, exactly?
I know you are American and that corporations are your overlords overthere, who seem to have more rights than an average citizen, here in Europe we don't take corporations opinion (especially weekly/monthly cycle s**t rags) on topics as a matter of fact, hopefully you don't subscribe to Men's Health magazine in lieu of actually seeing your doctor.