rfryer wrote:Brucey wrote:real science is 'really difficult'. If you don't have all the conditions absolutely nailed down you could do 'the experiment' ten times and get ten completely different answers.
True. But on the other hand, any attempt to do this rigourously would be criticized as not having any real world relevance to most riders. "But you wouldn't maintain that position for an entire ride...", etc.
I think that the set up described for this experiment isn't awful, and the main thing missing is any attempt to reproduce it a few times to establish whether the reported result is representative or an outlier.
Gubbins to make you go faster (even if it is just 1%) at the expense of comfort, maintainability, and other factors like being blown sideways under a truck (not to mention the large wodges of cash required) are all without "real world relevance to most riders". This irrelevance applies to a lot of current cycling gubbins besides so-called aero wheels (and frames). It applies to expensive Garmins that are poor at measuring data accurately and of no use navigationally as most riders cycle on roads they know very well. And why do they need any data? It applies to power meters, which are useless to all but (actual) racing fellows. Anyone may continue the list of "useless fashion items" as they wish.... They won't be spoilt for choice.
The racing cycling club to which I belong has only about 20% actually racing and therefore "in need" of go-fasters. Many of the others have the go-fasters only because they're fashionable. They have no practical use other than as cyclist-baubles, bangles and bright shiny beads. Even the racing folk are kidding themselves. They'd do just as well (or poorly) with any decent bike. And you could argue that being able to afford a £2-3000 pair of aero wheels that save you 40 seconds in the 25 mile TT for the same effort is, fundamentally, cheating if every competitor can't afford the same gubbins-provided advantage.