The zero wind tunnel option for serious cyclists

Andre Jute

On May 14, 3:00*am, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 13, 8:18 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > I certainly don't mean 2% repeatable. I mean a very high degree of
> > accuracy relative to the spot method, all other conditions holding.
> > It's a newly formulated method for cycling; by the nature of people's
> > attitudes to the novel, I would expect zero consensus from the stick
> > in the muds and growing consensus over time from those with enquiring
> > minds and the engineers who either have an automobile (or possibly
> > railway) background or are the possessors of better brains so that
> > they can follow the logic
>
> So what you're saying is, "very high degree of accuracy" is in
> comparison to the worst of all other methods but you can't show that
> with any actual data because you haven't tried this method on a
> bicycle, no one you know has tried this method on a bicycle, and it's
> because people don't possess better brains?

I didn't say that about anyone but if you wish to say it about
yourself you are of course right.

Ryan Cousineau

In article
<40d0ccd2-4b66-4fc2-acc9-a006a2ac11ea@w34g2000prm.googlegroups.com>,
Andre Jute <fiultra1@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On May 14, 3:00*am, Robert Chung <rech...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On May 13, 8:18 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I certainly don't mean 2% repeatable. I mean a very high degree of
> > > accuracy relative to the spot method, all other conditions holding.
> > > It's a newly formulated method for cycling; by the nature of people's
> > > attitudes to the novel, I would expect zero consensus from the stick
> > > in the muds and growing consensus over time from those with enquiring
> > > minds and the engineers who either have an automobile (or possibly
> > > railway) background or are the possessors of better brains so that
> > > they can follow the logic
> >
> > So what you're saying is, "very high degree of accuracy" is in
> > comparison to the worst of all other methods but you can't show that
> > with any actual data because you haven't tried this method on a
> > bicycle, no one you know has tried this method on a bicycle, and it's
> > because people don't possess better brains?
>
> I didn't say that about anyone but if you wish to say it about
> yourself you are of course right.

Robert, this isn't very funny anymore. I think you'd better show Andre
the Indirect Estimation of CdA paper.

Andre: Robert knows what he is talking about and has done multiple tests
of his theories using real-world data.

--
Ryan Cousineau rcousine@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."

Robert Chung

On May 13, 9:27 pm, Ryan Cousineau <rcous...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think you'd better show Andre
> the Indirect Estimation of CdA paper.

I don't really think it's relevant. That's a method that requires the
use of a power meter. Andre's claim has been that nothing but a bike
and a road is needed to get a very high degree of accuracy. When
pressed, he admits that 1) "very high degree" was only in comparison
to a terminal velocity coast down; and 2) he hasn't actually performed
his method on a bike.

In terms you might hold closer to your heart, some guy sez he's
figured out a way to make very high quality spirits without any
equipment. Then it turns out his distillation technique is to put wine
in a home freezer and periodically scoop away the ice. He hasn't
actually done it and he meant "very high quality spirits" in relation
to mixing water with sugar and putting it in an old bottle with a
cognac label.

Robert Chung

On May 14, 7:51 am, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Chung's reaction is bizarre. The right thing would have been to offer
> to test my formulation with field data, and thereby get his name on
> another method as co-author.

Andre:

You know that co-authorship credit you're offering? It's value may not
be quite so high as you imagine. Just sayin'.