- Jul 24, 2007
I dont think Mr. Chickenshit will be back any time soon. He is the cowardly type. Demean someone, get your ass handed to you for doing that, and then lay low. I think I called him a "fuckwit." I stand by that observation.Crankyfeet said:Another typical demeaning type "I'm superior" post from the cyclingforums science legend. Well put argument... not.
Here's the point. John makes claims of his model producing linear efficiencies as a function of "power". But the amount of deflection in the frame is not proportional to power. It is proportional to the torque which is dependant on resistance to one's pedal thrust.
So if the model theory/results are invalidated, then they aren't worth much in my book.
I might be wrong, but please show me my error in thinking. I'm prepared to accept that I might have made an error. Can't see it myself though. Otherwise I will have to assume there is no answer to my points of contention and they invalidate the model.
Science is cool because it is egoless and searches for the truth as its primary value. Hypothesis, theory, testing, data, and peer review are all part of this process, as you should know alienator, assuming your claims of being a scientist are true (given your other snake oil BS though... I'm not convinced).
So please don't belittle Phill, the qualified mechanical engineer, with personal condescension. Stick to the points in the debate. Which so far I see that your points are baseless, other than some claim that you have done analysis and looked at all the research on this topic, and stand behind John's results blindly it seems because they support your own opinion.