I have no problem admitting I’m the one reporting the thread.
Why moderate threads and not just let them get derailed, etc.? Because it lowers the quality of content and turns people off the thread if it just devolves into an endless cycle of arguing, and it becomes tiring after years of doing it. Go back to page one of this thread, you’ve got a series of posts discussing the merits of the test, then two posts just calling into question everything about aerodynamics, the tests, journalism, etc. and the derail starts. Seven pages later, here we are, and it’s been so much worse.
A sampling of aero threads for hundreds of pages of endless arguing over the same things in this thread:viewtopic.php?f=3&t=131873viewtopic.php?f=3&t=133067viewtopic.php?f=3&t=136752viewtopic.php?f=3&t=138605
The same tired arguments in every thread:
That x, y, or z pro isn’t using an aero frame in x, y, or z race is an actual literal argumentative fallacy that shouldn’t need to be addressed, but here we go.
Why? Because it involves obviously cherry picking things that you get to be the arbiter of, such as arbitrarily deciding aero bikes aren’t you know aero
aero bikes, by whatever random metric you’ve decided to go with. Cherry picking which races you look at , etc. (there’s like 25 people on the planet for who GC bike considerations apply to, and you and I aren’t it, so why are is such a ridiculous outlier being entertained). If you want to discuss the merits bike types as seen in the pros, there’s the pro thread. But here? It’s just stupidly muddying the waters.
Plus, they’re not even a good basis for the argument that they know what’s best from the fact that They don't know what their bikes weigh
, they don't know what tire pressures they run (And again)
. You’ve got countless stories of traditionalism in cycling, as told by Josh Poertner from his time at Zipp
, they’re just as flawed as the rest of us at discerning things, etc. It’s just a tremendously weak argument.
That the cyclist makes up the majority of drag? Nobody’s denied this. Seriously, everyone knows we’re optimizing in the margins here. This isn’t some grand revelation, nor some argument against aerodynamics, saving 10% of 20% is still a gain. We get it, you can optimize your position first, but all else being equal
is what we’re discussing here. You weigh more than your bike too, yet a debate about the theory of gravity or diet advice would get pretty annoying every time we had a thread that so much as mentioned frame weight wouldn’t it?
That it only saves you <unremarkable amount of time> over <whatever distance> completely misses the point. Not that this should need explaining, but some people ride bikes for different reasons than you. It’s fine. Nobody goes into every thread with a non-aero bike and tell them they’d be faster on an aero bike, so likewise, don’t come into aero threads saying “aero doesn’t work and here’s nothing to prove that.”
As for any data refuting that aerodynamics work, well they try to misrepresent the data to fit their arguments, but it doesn’t work, because aerodynamics work.viewtopic.php?p=1221691#p1221691
(probably the most egregious example of arguing in bad faith)viewtopic.php?p=1221739#p1221739
That they’re pushing aerodynamics in marketing? Marketing dishonest? Why I never! Again, we constantly recommend people field test using the Chung Method
since aerodynamics is individual and you’re only going to get some information in wind tunnel tests (the gains will be different in a more dynamic environment than the tunnel, but you can still measure them).
I have no problem with people asking questions, but when you ask a question, receive an answer, and then repeat the same question without ever acknowledging the answer you got, it’s a bit like a kid asking “why” to everything you say.
If you've got questions, don't hesitate to ask. If you've decided that aerodynamics don't matter, don't exist, etc. and aren't open to discussion and dialog, why come into these threads to just be a contrarian?
Ryan, I don’t expect you to follow every thread, but this has been going on for years, the people are well known, they keep derailing thread after thread (see list of threads), and the warnings haven’t worked.viewtopic.php?p=1213583#p1213583
Aerodynamics are obviously complicated and our understanding of them keeps evolving (see discs, tubercles, rim/tire interactions, steering stability, etc.) so these threads *would* serve a great place to share new information and clarifications, but instead they turn into pages and pages of defense of the very concept.