- Apr 8, 2012
- 840
- 0
- 0
dsut4392 said:My "Gotcha" stands. Your argument boils down to "101 is not much bigger than 100, therefore 101 = 100". You can change it to "10001 = 10000", or "small difference = no difference" if you like, but in the real world it just ain't so.
If you truly believe your assertion that the bike is only 3-10% of the equation, stick some fat knobbies on for your next bunch ride (put them on your wheels or stick them up our shorts, either works for meNo, I don't care whether or not they fit between your 'seat stays'
). Yes, it's an example you dismissed earlier, but it's only ludicrous because the effect is obviously large. "Of course 100 is bigger than 10, duh. That proves my math is OK! But I still insist 101 = 100!"
The "identical clone" is exactly what you have in Alex's post. He didn't say some other rider, on some other day, riding a different line, on some other course, with different power output would have been faster on a faster tire. He said one particular rider, on one particular day, riding one particular line, on one particular course, at the same power output would have been faster on a faster tire.
Regarding Hutchinson tires, we're on the same page, except that last I checked LA never won very much in his career![]()
Still no gotcha, even after all that.
Alex said his competitor in that TT would have been 20sec faster had he been on different tires. My argument all along is that this is impossible to prove based on lab results. If you can, there must be some kind of award for guessing and speculation.