Originally Posted by
rpenmanparker
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.
Wow. Knowing what was affecting performance was NOT the purpose of the study. I don't know how else to explain it to you, and whether a causal relationship was assumed doesn't matter, because they have a testing system to quantify transmitted vibration, which WAS the point of the study.
Your point is simply not germane to the study; it's a condition that you are reading into the study, because it was not part of the study's objectives, which makes it your problem, not one of the study.