'Drafting allows bike to travel at mph' would have been more accurate and just as interesting. I liked the project and the people involved, but I was expecting a bike that could do 80mph by itself thanks to some bizarre engineering insight.
This is exactly why HN has guidelines for editing story titles. You can't win as a submitter. I should have left it unedited as "Bike blog: Experiments in Speed [video]" which doesn't tell HN readers much about what the story is about. Someone will always, always complain that the title wasn't descriptive enough or is somehow inaccurate, no matter how long it is. Lesson learned. This is probably the last time I try to edit for clarity.
There's no need to get upset. Writing clearly and coming up with good names are hard, and routinely take multiple iterations to get right.
I run into this all the time while coding. There are times when I get lazy and use a function or class name that I know deep down is not right, and a code review will catch it, and then we'll spend 15 minutes mulling over a better name. In this process though, we are forced to think deeply about the problem being solved, and often gain extra insights. All from a couple of words!
