patentcad

Data schmata. I ride a gazillion miles, much of it hammering with fast guys. I use the **** that works, I stand by the **** that works. This DocRay Sounds Good on Paper bull**** is exactly that: bull****. Ride your bike pinhead. And if you did, you might have a clue.

Like that's ever gonna happen. You're way too busy here telling us what a bunch of cheating, wasteful, slothful, useless bunch of American Suckers we all are.

asgelle

As you well know that's a red herring. Since Zipp never wrote any articles with the intent of submitting them to a journal, the articles were never written in the style for such publication. That in no way implies that the same data could not be presented in such a way as to be acceptable for publication.

DocRay

1. The data is from Zipp, and not independently reproduced.
2. I have offered to explain why this data is flawed, but no one has taken me up on this offer.
3. It's very clear to me you don't know how the data was generated, or even how to interpret it, and you are definitely incapable in critical analysis, you just parrot whatever Zipp's marketers place in ads.
4. This is no different marketing than using pseudo-science to sell hair shampoo. The target customer is one who really believes that spending more on a bike beyond a certain point will make you faster.
5. Still no correlation between Zipp wheels and success over any other aero wheel brand, as is true for tires, frames, groupsets, etc. etc. It's really not about the bike.

None of Zipp wheel data is done with a rider on the bike.

patentcad

Then you and Zipp have much in common.

asgelle

False. Several independent test such as at biketechreview have confirmed Zipp results.
I didn't realize you needed my permission to post here.
Since to the best of my knowledge I have never posted about Zipp's methadology, how would you know what my understanding of it is? Are you a mind reader? My being a reviewer for several technical journals would seem to disprove your hypothesis regarding my critical abilities.
There is really no controversy about this. Every responsible person agrees that every gram saved in weight or drag makes one go faster. There can be discussion about the precise advantage gained; and of course everyone must decide for themself whether the monetary investment is worth the benefit. But does equipment affect performance? Absolutely.
I've never seen data trying to make such a correlation (and we all know correlation and causation are two different things). Absence of data is not the same as data of absence.
Because it doesn't matter.

patentcad

Have I posted

Zipps RULE

in the past twenty minutes?

DocRay

Lots of people worldwide buy Zipps because:

1. They are excellent wheels, with good hubs.
2. They look cool.

Are aero wheels faster than non-aero? Yes. For real.

Are Zipp aeros better than any other aeros due to aerodynamics? Never been proven.

patentcad

Now you're talking my language Doc.

DocRay

The presence of a cyclist on a bicycle does not affect aerodynamics? Spinning legs in front of the rear wheel are not important to air flow?

Oh f-ck this, I can't have a discussion with an idiot and a shoe salesman.

asgelle

I didn't write the rider doesn't affect the data. I wrote it doesn't matter. Surely you understand the difference. Go back and apply that thinking thing you mentioned several posts ago. Think about what this data is being used for and how it is applied. Think about signal to noise ratio and it's importance. Think about qualitative vs. quantitative evaluations.

gcl8a

---

It's seems you've tried already, and failed miserably. But I'd love to hear your latest explanation. Pretty please?

roadwarrior

And, as on other threads this is where Doc responds with...