Study shows how a lighter bike affects your speed

[winjim]

I read it, waiting for the twist, but never came.

I'm guessing you're not a doctor then.

 

[bpsmith]

I'm guessing you're not a doctor then.

Thank God I am not, if that's the sense of humour you get. Charisma Bypass he must have just had.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Wouldn't commuting by bike wearing a blindfold be a trifle dangerous?

True but, then again, trifles are rarely dangerous.

 

[Dogtrousers]

It's fairly old and has been done to death. I found it fairly lighthearted. The conclusion is pretty hard to argue against, even if the methodology is flawed.

A new lightweight bicycle may have many attractions, but if the bicycle is used to commute, a reduction in the weight of the cyclist rather than that of the bicycle may deliver greater benefit and at reduced cost.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

Thank God I am not, if that's the sense of humour you get. Charisma Bypass he must have just had.

A lot of it is spoofing research protocols, more so than the fact that he's got a good old steel bike.

 

[bpsmith]

A lot of it is spoofing research protocols, more so than the fact that he's got a good old steel bike.

Which is fair enough, but other posts above suggested that we had missed the point, whereas we hadn't but failed to find it amusing.

 

[Dogtrousers]

Analyzing humor is like dissecting a frog. Few people are interested and the frog dies of it. - E B White

 

[sreten]

Hi,

The article is straight up, but lighthearted.

rgds, sreten.

 

[Schneil]

The article's in the BMJ, which is a respected peer reviewed journal. So it'll have been reviewed prior to publication.
To be honest I thought it was quite straight up. However I'd say the following:
1. The article did use n=1. If a follow up study was performed, greater numbers of cyclists and commutes could be analysed through GPS.
2. We don't know how much extra kit the author had to carry whilst commuting (eg lock, pump, lights). Would this have been a significant weight?
3. Part of the authors commute was a farm track. It might have had a poor surface, so wider tyres on the steel bike would have been advantageous? The commute times data shows the carbon bike being slower in the Winter, but mainly faster in the Spring/Summer months.
4. The study just looks at overall time, from start to finish. It doesn't look at moving average speed.
IMHO a lot of urban commuting is stop/start, which will mean that having a fast bike doesn't always mean you're significantly faster overall. There's been plenty of times I've overtaken a slow cyclist, to find they've easily caught me up at the next red light.

 

[Schneil]

Can we change the thread title to "non statistician does a non scientific study that shows how some bod can't get to work quicker on a carbon bike than a steel bike no sh_1t sherlock"

Why don't you like the stats?

 

[Schneil]

But that's a non-blinded test. Let's see how fast he gets to the hospital in a blinded test.

A study doesn't have to be blinded to be valid. Blinding is preferable, however it's not always possible.

 

[Dogtrousers]

4. The study just looks at overall time, from start to finish. It doesn't look at moving average speed.
IMHO a lot of urban commuting is stop/start, which will mean that having a fast bike doesn't always mean you're significantly faster overall. There's been plenty of times I've overtaken a slow cyclist, to find they've easily caught me up at the next red light.

I think this is partly his point: Why should it look at moving average speed? After all, if the bike is used for commuting it doesn't matter if it accelerated and decelerated a lot during the commute if the end result is the same. As the article says "Regardless of whether the bike is carbon or steel, you still have to stop at junctions and red lights."

 

[winjim]

The article's in the BMJ, which is a respected peer reviewed journal. So it'll have been reviewed prior to publication.

It'll have been peer reviewed in the pub, by the editorial team after a few pints.

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

A study doesn't have to be blinded to be valid. Blinding is preferable, however it's not always possible.

Just don't blind me when I'm cycling...

 

[Schneil]

It'll have been peer reviewed in the pub, by the editorial team after a few pints.

I wouldn't say that - the BMJ's only been going for nearly 200 years and is in the top 4 general medical journals. I'd be made up if I published a paper and it got accepted by the BMJ. It's not exactly a walk in the park getting through the review process as they pick holes in anything.

I think this is partly his point: Why should it look at moving average speed? After all, if the bike is used for commuting it doesn't matter if it accelerated and decelerated a lot during the commute if the end result is the same. As the article says "Regardless of whether the bike is carbon or steel, you still have to stop at junctions and red lights."

Ah point taken, I didn't see that on my skim read of the article.
Also thinking on the data, when commuting 27 miles the author might have been happy to "plod" on both bikes, rather than go as fast as possible. If he's doing long shirts in the ICU he probably wouldn't want to arrive at work knackered. So it might be another reason for the lack of difference.