Originally Posted by
Fat Boy
Well, how kind of you to bestow your greatness upon us. It's a shame you didn't show up 5 pages ago and put this little question to rest earlier.
I'll accept a certain amount of snarkiness in return, no probem!
I wasn't criticizing you, really the OP's whole first post. He was miffed about the lack of "scientific analysis" yet has nothing to offer except more opinion.
Originally Posted by
Fat Boy
So, using a layman's approach to accomplish the same goal in a completely unscientific manner should somehow be preferred? You realize, of course, that there's more scientific approaches to coffee bean roasting than what you propose.
Sure, plenty of research involves operationalizing difficult to quantify variables, which is all you have when you're trying to assess (and predict) "ride quality". That's why more rigorous methodology is essential in research design, to make sure you're close to measuring what you say you are.
I like your reference, btw, about the coffee bean roasting. Just like with bike design, you can easily quantify and control many elements of the roasting process. Just don't confuse that with making good coffee.
It's an order of magnitude more difficult to find reliable and valid measures of "good coffee". Just like with bikes, give a hundred people the same cup of coffee, and you're going to get a very wide range of responses when you ask them how they like it.
Bike designers and builders are obviously in the ball park with what they make, so they must be on to something with the materials they use and how they use them. I just don't think anyone can build a bike that pleases everyone who rides it. This suggests that, in the end, it's still subjective and impossible to predict with any certainty what will create a "good ride".
/rambling