No, but with the gray font on a lighter gray background, I need keen eyes to read it.

Under what circumstances would you accept the hypothesis of planing to be experimentally refuted?

Sorry, somehow is getting stuck in there.

I'm going to state an opinion which might not be popular: "Planing" is really a stupid name for this phenomenon, since it has nothing to do with a two dimensional surface, and nothing to do with hydrodynamic vs hydrostatic lift in a moving boat, and nothing to do with shaving small amounts of would with a sharp blade fixed in a tool. They just thought the name sounded cool.

The power data in the initial double blind experiment would most likely refute the hypothesis immediately. Given that the two different bicycle riders showed similar amounts of fatigue over the trial. Although depending on the analysis the planing bicycle marginal fatigue is probably higher.

I think you'd have to go back to the original "experiment", and find several riders who claim to experience the difference between two bikes. Then you remove all the variables except the frame.

• You'd need to take the two bikes/frames where the riders claim to experience the greatest difference.
• Both bikes would need to be exactly the same dimensions, kitted EXACTLY the same, and demonstrating exactly the same frictional drag in every part of the drivetrain and wheelset.
• You'd need double-sided powermeter pedals or powermeter crank AND a powermeter rear hub.
• You'd probably want strain gauges on the major tubes.
• You'd need to eliminate any subjective "measurements" like RPE
• You'd need to eliminate rider position effects by requiring the riders to maintain the same position(s) on both bikes
• You'd need a fixed, closed course and the riders would need to follow the same line throughout.

I'd say that's the bare minimum to eliminate variables.

Again, you are getting caught up in what the metrics of the model are showing and not what it is illustrating. The model isn't saying that 50w is being stored in the frame.

The model says the effect is too small to support planing. End of story. Full stop. Finis. The fat lady has sung ...

Why did you offer this model in support of planing? You basically shot yourself in the foot.

Select all of the grayed-out text: the text is then easily readable.

It is my fault. I am using a plugin called "Dark Reader" that changes black on white text to be white on black (and inverts grey-scale). For some reason, when I copy/paste, a color bb markup tag got inserted. I manually edited those out now. Sorry for the distraction.

No, it doesn't. I don't think you understand what is illustrated. This is the model referenced beginning from the first planing experiment.

The hypothesis is refuted if you can find zero riders who have measurable performance benefits from more flexible frames.

Since at least one has been found, the hypothesis is not refuted.

Yay!

Sorry, I was only asking how many people who could not detect or benefit from "planing" it would take for SpoonRobot (or Jan) to accept that the hypothesis was refuted?

If 98 of 100 people could not benefit, would that be enough? If you can't say how many in advance, or identify their characteristics in advance, independent of the experiment, it is pointless to do the experiment, since no possible outcome could refute the hypothesis.

I hope you are being sarcastic, but if not, how do you know that one person simply isn't suffering expectation bias?

'Sokay. I like designing experiments. And it pays the bills and allows me to buy enough innertubes to keep riding.

To expand - the thing about the original experiment is, whatever the flaws in the method, there's a claim that there is an effect, but not everyone experiences it. Thus you can't rely on one person, or even a number of people not experiencing it to refute it. You first need to replicate the original experiment to produce enough subjects and bikes which seem to support the hypothesis. THEN you apply the rigorous analysis, stripping out all the variables and measuring power output etc. under controlled conditions.

It also means you haven't refuted the hypothesis if there are any untested riders, i.e. you have to test every person on the planet.

I think Sean Kelly won a bunch of races on noodly Vitus frames.

n + 1

There are statistical rules that could be applied to make this determination, it would likely have to be much less than 2%. Highball estimate, that would be 400,000 cyclists in the USA who would experience planing. For example.

Although I take this as another recursive criticism. This critique can only exist after the initial experiment, since before it was performed the hypothesis was either unlimited or null. Now we know it's probably normally distributed, most likely because (being able to experience) planing probably follows a power law as well.

We also don't know this, the initial experiment is not the conclusion. Given the information learned the individual characteristics could be studied and a profile for planing responsive and planing unresponsive could be constructed. Then the experiment could be replicated, repeatedly.

........

Sometimes threads look like they're ending and then they get a boost.

First 24 hours: 75 posts
2nd 24 hours: 65
3rd 24 hours: 48
4th 24 hours: 108

Thread Summary (so far):

1. There is a lot of disagreement about the existence of, and the efficacy of, the proposed phenomenon of "planing."

2. The idea is intriguing, but the evidence initially offered is anecdotal and not compelling.

3. The abstract of an undergraduate thesis describes an experimental test, which appears to refute the "planing" hypothesis in its current form.

4. A more refined, and more easily tested, "planing" hypothesis might benefit everyone who is interested in this idea (pro or con).

I'm still trying to wrap my head around how planing (if it's actually a thing) can possibly add more power to propel a bicycle down the road. If energy loaded into the frame is returned by spring action, how can it be more than the additional energy input? If we assume that energy loaded into the frame during the pedal stroke actually is returned to help propel the bike, wouldn't a stiffer frame just increase the quickness of the return?