Originally Posted by
wphamilton
Meh, I only "struggled" with what you meant by it - ambiguous as you were. And being charitable with that - fast marathon runners halve my pace, which is a greater variance than in cycling.
And you still seem to be deliberately (I hope for your sake) misunderstanding a straightforward comment.
Originally Posted by
wphamilton
The fact of drafting, and the relative value of drafting, is *irrelevant* to this, except to note as an example that it actually does impact the runner. Since there *is* an impact, regardless of how much more impact it has in cycling, the effects of wind resistance also have an impact on runners which is obviously not captured when they record only their pace.
You still don't seem to realize that it doesn't matter if it's 10% vs 90%. The same reasoning for using a more precise measure still applies.
Uh no. Smaller environmental effect = smaller variance in times = less need for some alternative form of measurement. I don't know how this can be said any simpler: for running, a stopwatch is generally precise enough. For cycling, it isn't. Why? Because an individual's cycling speed will vary far more do to outside influences which, in turn, makes speed an unreliable way to measure progress.