Originally Posted by
chaadster
I honestly don't know why this is so hard for you. As you wrote above, quoting the paper, the objective was "to develop a system to characterize the effect of transmitted road vibration." Develop a system. Say it again, "the objective was to develop a system," NOT to prove a causal relationship between vibration and rider performance. One can characterize an effect as insignificant or zero, but again, the purpose was not establish an effect existed, but to develop a system...pause there for a moment to consider...to develop a system with which to characterize the effect of transmitted road vibration on rider performance. The results of which, by the way, they go on to characterize as precluding generalization *by design* and requiring further study.
Again, the purpose was not to establish causal relationships, but to develop a system to characterize the effects of transmitted road vibration.
But they did not develop a system to do .... They don't know what was affecting performance. That is my point. They measured two different things and assumed one affected the other. But the many other aspects of the frame differences could be what was affecting the performance. For example power transmission, not vibration. To do what they wanted to do they would have had to start with one frame and a variable source of vibration. It is so obvious that your refusal to see it is bizarre.
Yes, they now have a test protocol, if that is what you mean by a system, but it is worthless. When they choose any frame to test in future, they won't know if the vibration transmission or something else is the cause of any performance effect they measure.
No, a condition of succes was not to prove the cause and effect relationship. WHY? Because the assumed it going in.