(Clearly Un)Notable Wheel Differences

[bpsmith]

No, he did go for a ride and did post "findings".

Yup. You didn’t go for a ride and you didn’t reply to whether you are/were a wheel builder.

 

[reacher]

Without going back to the start of the thread I think @bpsmith was going to do some testing on his wheels and post his findings.

It was merely pointed out initially that there's no way he could accurately measure anything meaningful.

Let's face it, by saying a wheelset is faster up a certain climb than another is going to impossible to quantify. Say wheelset A is 200g lighter than wheelset B. Plop a 75kg rider on that there's absolutely no way you'd be able to feel a performance gain between wheelsets. Think about it...

Don't need to think about it, they are faster, you only have to time yourself or look at the sprocket you can climb in or the cadence your using, i'm not sure what type of riding your getting these results from but its not what i'm getting on the climbs,you cant get a more accurate way of measuring than actually timing something that you train on constantly. Its not in the mind either as has been suggested , when your climbing on your limit for a long time its hard,physically and mentally, your on the edge of what your capable of, no amount of placebo effect will make it easier, you might get 50 yards inspiration at the start then reality hits, nothing over a long distance it goes back to being hard

 

[winjim]

Don't need to think about it, they are faster, you only have to time yourself or look at the sprocket you can climb in or the cadence your using, i'm not sure what type of riding your getting these results from but its not what i'm getting on the climbs,you cant get a more accurate way of measuring than actually timing something that you train on constantly. Its not in the mind either as has been suggested , when your climbing on your limit for a long time its hard,physically and mentally, your on the edge of what your capable of, no amount of placebo effect will make it easier, you might get 50 yards inspiration at the start then reality hits, nothing over a long distance it goes back to being hard

I'm having trouble with the idea of something that's not in the mind yet is mentally tough.

 

[huwsparky]

Don't need to think about it, they are faster, you only have to time yourself or look at the sprocket you can climb in or the cadence your using, i'm not sure what type of riding your getting these results from but its not what i'm getting on the climbs,you cant get a more accurate way of measuring than actually timing something that you train on constantly. Its not in the mind either as has been suggested , when your climbing on your limit for a long time its hard,physically and mentally, your on the edge of what your capable of, no amount of placebo effect will make it easier, you might get 50 yards inspiration at the start then reality hits, nothing over a long distance it goes back to being hard

Don't need to think about it, they are faster, you only have to time yourself or look at the sprocket you can climb in or the cadence your using, i'm not sure what type of riding your getting these results from but its not what i'm getting on the climbs,you cant get a more accurate way of measuring than actually timing something that you train on constantly. Its not in the mind either as has been suggested , when your climbing on your limit for a long time its hard,physically and mentally, your on the edge of what your capable of, no amount of placebo effect will make it easier, you might get 50 yards inspiration at the start then reality hits, nothing over a long distance it goes back to being hard

Oh dear.

 

[Ajax Bay]

I asked "Can you offer some instances or circumstances where "the science is wrong", please?"

Skinnier road tyres are faster than wider ones.

Please could you indicate whether you think this is true in reality and the science (references?) is confounded or whether you think the science suggests this but it's not true in reality. The problem with this statement is that it's true in some circumstances and false in some circumstances, so perhaps I should ask you also to define the circumstances - your choice.

 

[Yellow Saddle]

I asked "Can you offer some instances or circumstances where "the science is wrong", please?"

Please could you indicate whether you think this is true in reality and the science (references?) is confounded or whether you think the science suggests this but it's not true in reality. The problem with this statement is that it's true in some circumstances and false in some circumstances, so perhaps I should ask you also to define the circumstances - your choice.

You are wasting your time. The reply will be another question aimed at discrediting your legitimacy and credentials by unfathomable means.

 

[bpsmith]

Some people really know how to take the enjoyment out of cycling. If we did everything requested in the responses, then we would soon give up cycling completely.

Perhaps that’s the aim of the game for some?

 

[Alan O]

Just a few thoughts on the difficulties of objective comparisons...

Can components like wheels make a difference? Yes, of course they can. Are those differences easy to objectively evaluate? In some cases yes, and in some cases no - and I'd suggest that the closer you get to top-end gear and the more subtle the differences, the harder it is to tell if they're actually there.

The big problem, in my view, is that double-blind tests are pretty much impossible in cycling (unlike in the hi-fi world where they easily uncover the frauds, and where top-end reviewers are interestingly often unwilling to submit themselves.)

I've seen bike tests where the testers recognize the problem and do their best to compensate, like running the same tests multiple times alternating between two bits of kit. And hats off to them for at least trying that. But no matter how much you do it that way, you can't avoid the cognitive bias that double-blind testing is designed to prevent. And it's no good saying that an effect can't be a placebo because you can measure the difference - placebos do produce real measurable differences.

I remember always wanting to try a Biopace chainset but not getting round to it. So when I needed to replace one not so long ago and I found an almost-new Biopace on eBay, I went for it - especially after reading Sheldon's enthusing over them. You know what? I find it to be easier on the knees and smoother all round.

But the thing is, that's the kind of thing that I already knew was claimed of it, so how can I tell I'm not just experiencing a placebo effect? The truth is, I can't. I can say that I feel these differences, but I can't say they really exist. (But I'm happy with that... because I know that placebos really do work )

 

[fatjel]

I have lots of wheels some I like better than others.
I prefer dura ace hubs to ultegra cos they feel like they roll easier
I tried some miche ones and it felt like riding with the brakes on
i am interested to know how you prove there's no difference between them @Yellow Saddle

 

[Yellow Saddle]

I have lots of wheels some I like better than others.
I prefer dura ace hubs to ultegra cos they feel like they roll easier
I tried some miche ones and it felt like riding with the brakes on
i am interested to know how you prove there's no difference between them @Yellow Saddle

I have never said there is no difference between wheels. You are taking what others have said and attributing it to me.

 

[Ajax Bay]

how you prove there's no difference between them

How do you prove that there is a difference between them? Not weight: that is facile. And science/testing can predict the relative aerodynamic advantages/differences. But 'rolling easier'? Accelerating well? Stiffer?
All wheels are different, it's just that determining those differences is not straightforward.

 

[Sunny Portrush]

That's perfectly acceptable and understandable. My first car was such a piece of junk, that 80kph felt like 180kph. It was great experience, but there was always the speedometer that reminded me of reality. I don't think you'll find any negative reaction on this forum to someone who posts and says that she rode bike XYZ and it felt wonderful, fast and confidence-inspiring, or something to that effect. The problem comes when someone says they jumped on a new bike and it WAS faster than the other bike and cornered as if on rails, without any reasonable sort of proof or back-up. When such a claim contradicts sensible measurement, it will and should be challenged.
Then, it is perfectly reasonable that both parties insist on clarification, proof and interpretation, and debate the points using good technique. You'll find that this scenario never happens. It seems to me that the intangible claims are always defended using glaring fallacies, ad hominem and a good dose of blustering.

But my new bike was faster than my old bike

 

[Alan O]

But my new bike was faster than my old bike

My newest bike is definitely a lot slower than my old bike - it's surprising the way 30 years can have such an effect on something as passive as a bicycle!