View Single Post
Old 04-02-15 | 09:22 AM
  #21  
chaadster
Thread Killer
15 Anniversary
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 13,140
Likes: 2,162
From: Ann Arbor, MI

Bikes: 15 Kinesis Racelight 4S, 76 Motebecane Gran Jubilée, 17 Dedacciai Gladiatore2, 12 Breezer Venturi, 09 Dahon Mariner, 12 Mercier Nano, 95 DeKerf Team SL, 19 Tern Rally, 21 Breezer Doppler Cafe+, 19 T-Lab X3, 91 Serotta CII, 23 3T Strada

Originally Posted by rpenmanparker
Another weird aspect of the presentation is that the authors imply that differences in rider performance (if they were to exist) would be the result of differences in transmitted vibration through the frame. In fact both vibration transmission and differences in rider performance would be two dependent variables that might be correlated, but without any hint of a cause-effect relationship. There are many other dependent variables that could be measured with regard to the three frame materials. At this point who could know which of these would be the cause of performance differences. Frankly, as a scientist, this study is embarrassing to me. How could folks with such credentials get things so wrong.
Do you know what a hypothesis is? Do you know all hypotheses are not valid? And do you know how you prove or disprove an hypothesis?
chaadster is offline  
Reply