I don't know what z-man's objection is but the annals of science are full of wrong or overstated conclusions based on seemingly solid approaches. I believe Jan concedes, or even boasts, that his methodology is different that what pretty much the entire tire engineering and testing industry does. If I were going to give it a critical evaluation I would want a very detailed definition of the testing methodology, all the raw data, and complete documentation of the data reduction and analysis. Since I am not inclined to buy the relevant issues of BQ I don't have access to that information. Even if I did buy the articles the info I would want may not be there.
For me, Jan's assertions about tires are more persuasive than many, but still way short of proven scientific fact. Naturally others may give them more (or less) weight. On Aug 6, 5:41 pm, Allan in Portland <allan_f...@aracnet.com> wrote: > On Monday, August 6, 2012 5:16:03 PM UTC-7, z-man wrote: > > > You're not going to determine what rolls faster by rolling down a hill and > > measuring with a stop watch. > > Um, why not? Assuming one is rigorous with the measuring, ie. calm wind, > repeat roll-downs, same bike & rider, etc. Have you read the test procedure > they used? Seemed solid to me, which is why I'm asking. Thx. > > -Allan -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RBW Owners Bunch" group. To post to this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rbw-owners-bunch+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rbw-owners-bunch?hl=en.
