As I posted yesterday, the cyclingnews.com tech guy has had two identically prepared bikes done up with the only differences being the size of the wheels. Oh yeah, the forks have different geometries............and the chainstay lengths are pretty different in relationship to the saddle posistion...........uhhhh..........and the gearing isn't normalised between the two bikes.................oh yeah, the wheels aren't equally as stiff or efficient due to the peculiar design....................ummm, but other than that, they are identical!
I haven't even touched on the fact that the tester is relying on heart rate data to guage his performance in conjunction with GPS data. What? No power out put data? Wouldn't it make sense to see if it takes more power to turn a 29"er wheel over varied terrain? Hmmm.............guess not! Never mind that it is one of the key points in the debate over 26" vs. 29" wheels.
However, the real kicker for me is what is written in the first paragraph of the accompaning article.
"James Huang takes an in-depth look at the issue through an engineering lens to figure it out once and for all in Part One of this two-part feature."
Ummmm.........So you are saying that you are going to figure it out once and for all for everybody? For every type of rider on every type of terrain?
Then there is this gem that appears as a caption on the first picture you see: "Two options, but which is best?"
So, you are saying that one is "best"? For what? Over all riding anywhere? That's the implication here. Are you guys serious?
It's these statements that I find ludicrous. It makes whatever else the tester does be examined in light of those initial statements. It's a recipe for failure and derision, because there is absolutely no way to answer those questions raised by the statements made. There is not enough money behind this study to cover all the possible variables, and especially when you have one tester, the whole project becomes a laughing stock.
What we have here is...........failure to communicate!
I'm sure that if questioned, the tester would agree that this is not the premise he wishes to explore, but then again, the article says what it says.
What will we learn from this comparison? I think we already have something to learn from it that is very valuable.
Be careful of what you say!
2015 Surly Pugsley! ; still `Fit for Purpose`
5 hours ago