Are you serious? The independent variable was heart rate? If so, the "study" is bunk. I might believe the test IF the independent variable was power, but heart rate is way too variable. Besides, there are so many other factors to consider when testing a product (wind, temperature, etc.) that a "test" with only two trial (n=2) is even more flimsy.
The attack on the "model" developed by analytic cycling is a joke. It's like the attack on the "theory" of evolution.
In three words, Analyticcycling.com is right.
Hm.. The article states: "The average heart rate reached during the test with the Stiletto was 159 bpm, while with the Ksyrium the average was 158 bpm. The tests were conducted in a short time period with equal weather and physical conditions, utilizing a consistent cadence and power." But it also states that they ONLY used a heart rate monitor. So do they have h.r. data and power data or just h.r. data? Regardless, subtle shifts in the wind change completely fudge up the data. And my other point that n=2 also shows that this "test" really is invalid.
So my conclusion is: Go to http://www.analyticcycling.com
and see for yourself.
1 min on 25 is not that much. When you ride a climb one two times, you'll be faster the second time with the same condition, just because you know what follows,etc.
This is the climb they use for all their testing, it says so in the article.
Also, the article mentions the force exerted was kept consistent, 159bpm on the Spadas, 158bpm on the Ksyriums, in order to provide a clear basis for comparison. It's not like they didn't know know the climb with the other products and therefore by the time they got to Spada familiarity bred betterment.
It's more like Ferrari testing at Maranello: everything
except the one variable being observed is kept consistent. Seems valid to me.