WaterRockets have you used your PT to experiment? I'd figure a PT between two virtually identical bikes would be the easiest to test (same bars, stem, post, seat, cranks, front wheel/tire, etc, and obviously the same rear wheel/tire).
I finally read through this thing, skimming the complicated equation stuff that I failed to understand in school anyway.
However, to quickly go through what I think are mistaken assumptions or updated reports which make older posts incorrect:
1. The bucket test - to take the crank out of it, put the pedal at 6 o'clock then repeat test. I suspect nothing will happen with the wheel since I can perform a drastic version of this without using the brakes at all. In fact, I do this test with every bike I "examine", along with a torsional flex test of the top tube.
2. On the downstroke I don't wait at 3 o'clock for the crank or whatever to spring the wheel forward. If I need help with transmitting energy during the pedal stroke, I need it at 6 o'clock or thereabouts. A springy anything won't help me here since at 6 o'clock the spring is acting perpendicular to the chain line.
3. They now admit that pros get extra layups in carbon frames. I think Magnus gets a pound (!) of carbon added to his frame. Some companies are going to sell these frames (Felt, I think Look too)
4. Sean Kelly won in spite of everything about his bike. If he was optimally set up on his bike, we'd all need to subtract 10% from our seat-bar and seat-crank distance and get back to toe clips and straps. He once commented on Phil Anderson dropping out of an early season (Classic I think) race, his quote was something like, "Even if I hadn't ridden the bike at all I could have still finished the race." He obviously thought Anderson needed to HTFU. The clips of him accelerating and splitting the field while on the tops are quite remarkable. I think he was an incredible talent. Look at him vs McQuaid. They were teammates once, and Kelly is still racing, sort of. McQuaid looks like he's never ridden a bike. Doesn't mean anything, I'm just sayin'.
5. I also got rid of every flexy frame I got, even though I desperately wanted them to work. I felt they were "real" race bikes, since the pros used them. One of them I did a sprint, slammed on the brakes, hopped off, and checked the bottom bracket for cracks (this in the middle of a 100-150 rider group). The last time I'd ridden a bike so flexy was when the BB shell was cracked. Every steel frame, the carbon lugged frame, the Cannondale 3.0 Road frame (skinny tubed Cannondale), all of them I sold (mainly to women, but that's beside the point, exception being two steel frames which ended up bent and I gave them to an aspiring frame builder a couple years ago). I really, really wanted those frames to work for me but I always went back to relatively rigid frames - Cannondale 3.0 crit, 2.8, Specialized M2 S Works.
I think that stiff frames help most when the rider is applying a lot of pressure, out of the saddle, when they are not as smooth, or have extremely forceful downstrokes.
Less stiff frames don't matter as much when seated, not accelerating, and under riders who are either very light or not that strong.
Re: sneakers on a bike. One year at Killington a Cat 1 (Amos for those who are in New England) forgot his shoes at home. He rode and finished (in the field) the first road stage in sneakers in the Pro race. Since there were no "climbs" (to him, to me they'd have been hors category climbs), the sneakers were fine. I confirmed this by accident by riding one day in sneakers with some other riders, I think it was during a test ride with potential customers. I was fine until I had to climb, then I couldn't keep up.
cdr