So a couple recent posts make it clear that there is a theory that power sensors are the ONLY way to analysis and compare bike performance. However, the riders performance is measured by the power meter. So I could be putting out a lot more power to push the Pugsley at 14 mph than the Felt at 20 mph.

However, the speed of the bike is the true OUTPUT of the bike. The TdF doesn't give the yellow jersey to the rider with the best FTP... nope. Therefore, with competitive cycling, speed is the yard stick. And for a simple analysis of my bikes, looking at average speed over a specific section of road has merit. Comparing the Pugsley to the Felt is pointless, it was just easy to include all bikes and mildly interesting.

I am comparing only one rider, but across 350 rides. That is a statistically significant number to eliminate the day I didn't air up, or was riding with the jacket open, or the day I stopped to talk with Luke (his house is on this segment), or that day my wife was riding with me and wanted to see the open house on this segment.

Additionally, if you are looking at the data, the top 80% of rides per bike eliminates the previously listed reasons for a slow ride. And looking at the fastest 20% is looking at the rides when I was feeling strong, riding aired up tires, and likely had a tail wind. I would say that the Kona is the best example of this analysis, it is the daily commuter and rides in some terrible conditions, so it's number change dramatically when removing the bottom 20% and looking at only the top 20%.

My only real issue with the data I have is the smaller sample for the Mondonico. For the 2016 summer, I will be riding the Mondonico and Felt a lot more (I moved to a home office last year). And I will make a point of pushing this segment with both bikes to see what I can do to increase the sample size.