> This article had zero scientific conclusions (or in fact any science at all)
The article summarizes a piece of scientific work. The work itself does 3/4th of typical scientific work: 1) analyzes the current state of art (previous publications), 2) provides model and expected values, 3) analyzes observational data & deviations from the model. It falls short of 4) providing answer to the final ``why'' -- as the answer is still unknown to the authors. What it does _not_ lack is scientific honesty and integrity.
> To me it sounds like their math is the problem.
Indeed, that's what the article says. ``What their math can't apparently tell them is why so many different bike designs tend to stay upright.'' -- i.e., they haven't found the proper formula(s) yet. They don't blame a compiler (the math itself), but find the mathematical formulas they selected to be not sufficient for creating a complete model.
And the article even says they don't know whey a bike stays upright:
"What their math can't apparently tell them is why so many different bike designs tend to stay upright."
To me it sounds like their math is the problem. Its like the bad programmer who blames the compiler for the segfault.