Originally Posted by
dr_lha
I'm a scientist (Astrophysics to be precise) and I love looking at stuff like this, especially for the red-flags and supposed "trends" that aren't there. For example, take a look at this page:
Those three graphs show a supposed "trend", with the blue lines are the errors in the measurement. Not only do they deceive by scaling the graphs from not-zero to show the maximum apparent difference, but if you believe their error analysis is correct, the fact is that all three of those graphs show no measurable differences between any of the frame materials in any of the tests.
Interesting chart. They say "trend", not 99% significant.
What I find interesting is that they say "Trend of stiffer bike requiring less effort". Then in the discussions on page 16, they write "Hypothesize there is an energy cost of stiff bikes" which is contrary to the not-significant trend they noted on the previous page.
I agree that they need a better variety of bikes, including classic Vitus Aluminum bikes which have a reputation for not being the stiffest on the block, as well as the Specialized Roubaix.
A single induced "bump" is hardly a good comparison when considering smooth pavement vs course pavement.
Anyway, it all seems like a pretty null study.