ccand51997 Show full post »
Koyote
The author of that piece tried very hard to make it look very scientifical, but then ruined it with this snippet: "Based on the model developed in Appendix A, and data I have collected while riding (velocity and elevation profiles),

"...data I have collected while riding" means that his n=1 -- and, since he was not in a lab, he could not possibly have held other variables constant.
Quote 1 0
Slim
Koyote wrote:
The author of that piece tried very hard to make it look very scientifical, but then ruined it with this snippet: "Based on the model developed in Appendix A, and data I have collected while riding (velocity and elevation profiles),

"...data I have collected while riding" means that his n=1 -- and, since he was not in a lab, he could not possibly have held other variables constant.


That ‘data collected while riding’, refers to the speeds and elevation profiles. That is perfectly fine. That is not an experiment, where sample size is indeed, that is just creating a profile of a ride that you are modeling. If you want to calculate it for a different terrain or riding speeds, you can enter those numbers in the model, and calculate that.

I don’t think he did any testing himself.
Quote 0 0
imwjl
It doesn't matter to me like some. I'll even seek heavier tires. I don't like flat tires, I like traction when needed, and control when leaned over. Someone here questioned my liking and promoting a heavy tire but it's a very reliable, doesn't leak, has lean over and climbing traction off of pavement. 

There were times earlier in life when I was curious enough to weigh parts and consider weight more with purchases but I guess somewhere around age 60 I turned more into a just ride your bike type person.
Quote 2 0