or Connect
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Road Cycling › Re: published helmet research - not troll
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Re: published helmet research - not troll - Page 74

post #1096 of 1258

Re: Troll, not published helmet research

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>
> > You can't just admit you were wrong and have to add one of your
> > idiotic insults?

>
> If Tom and Frank are wrong, so is Damon Rinard, and your sole piece of
> supporting evidence vanishes, leaving you in the usual position of having no
> facts to support you.


The facts are self evident. Tom has shown himself to be a liar, Frank's
posts usually qualify as "spin", and you can't even bring yourself to
admit that your counterexample is pure BS. The guy simply won a race.
Big deal. It has nothing to do with what we are discussing - the facts
are that he would simply have won by more if he used an appropriately
shaped helmet to reduce air drag.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
post #1097 of 1258

Re: Troll, not published helmet research

"Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m37jqp7c0w.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
>
> You are an infant babbling in baby talk and Kunich lied repeated,
> including a recent complete fabrication about a supposed something
> or other at my job. The fact is that he really is a bald-faced
> liar, and it is not confusion on his part because he's repeated
> the same bald-faced lies any number of times.


Sorry Zaumen, I remember those postings quite accurately in context if not
in exact content. Some one on the group asked for some information, you
responded with your usual know-it-all crap and someone else from Sun
corrected you and told you to shut up about things you know nothing about.
When you replied with your name calling he threatened to report you to your
supervisor for giving out false information to Sun customers and you
appologized and kissed his butt for a full posting.

Far as I can remember it was the only time I've ever seen a posting from you
that appologized for any of your cheap crap.

> The links I posted listed air drag for several helmets, some of which
> reduced air drag for cyclists are aren't completely bald.


Sorry, you are misrepresenting the true contents of the website. The entire
article was comparing the cost per possible savings in aerodynamic drag. The
5% "savings" was the worst case and reflected a 5% savings in aerodynamic
drag over a bare head with long hair vs. a special aerodymanic TT helmet
that was discontinued after only a short time as usuable by racers and
impossible to use for street riders. As is usual, since you don't have a
clue about anything you talk so casually about, the reduction wasn't in
overall drag but only relative drag of the head.

> > Modern helmets have many more vents, making them dirtier
> > aerodynamically. There is a recorded instance of an individual in a
> > TdF time trial, against the clock with no peloton, remember, beating
> > the field despite their using head fairings, which are the most
> > aerodynamic headgear available and undoubtedly more aerodynamic than
> > the new aero helmets, which have a larger frontal area.

>
> Your recorded instance doesn't show that he wouldn't have gone even
> faster if he used a helmet. I'll snip the rest of your rantings.
> They aren't worth replying to if you can't even understand that
> some people ride faster than others, or have an exceptionally good
> day on occassion.


Right, but history does show that this was one of the very rare instances
when Lance Armstrong was beaten in a Tour de France TT and Botero NEVER BEAT
HIM AGAIN. Moreover, Lance was second and ahead of David Miller, one of the
world's fastest in the Time Trial.

So again you are shown to know absolutely nothing about what you're talking
about. Another HUGE surprise to no one.
post #1098 of 1258

Re: Troll, not published helmet research

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> writes:

> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:m37jqp7c0w.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
> >
> > You are an infant babbling in baby talk and Kunich lied repeated,
> > including a recent complete fabrication about a supposed something
> > or other at my job. The fact is that he really is a bald-faced
> > liar, and it is not confusion on his part because he's repeated
> > the same bald-faced lies any number of times.

>
> Sorry Zaumen, I remember those postings quite accurately in context if not
> in exact content. Some one on the group asked for some information, you
> responded with your usual know-it-all crap and someone else from Sun
> corrected you and told you to shut up about things you know nothing about.

<snip>

Kunich, you are lying through your ******* teeth. Just a few weeks ago
when you posted similar libelous statements, you couldn't back them up
with a URL to *any* post on *any* such group. The only thing saving
you from a lawsuit for libel is that you are such a well-known slimeball
that nobody in his right mind would take you seriously.

If you keep it up and I finally get fed up with you, however, we might
just end up settling it in a court of law, and with your history, I'd
have no trouble proving malice.

I'd suggest you either produce a URL showing these alledged posts,
which you won't be able to do, or post a public apology.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
post #1099 of 1258

Re: Troll, not published helmet research

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:
>
> [pathetic excuses for a load of bile followed by]
>
> >> So, the Bell V1, a minimally-vented helmet with better aerodynamics
> >> than a standard modern hlemt increases drag by 9.8%, while long hair
> >> increases drag by 8.6%. In other words, a helmet which was if
> >> anything more aerodynamic than a modern helmet, due to its smoother
> >> profile, increases drag by 13% more than long hair.

>
> > Sigh. Your 13% should ahve been 1.2 percent, and the symmetric Bell
> > V1 Pro is not as good as newer designs in terms of air-drag reduction.

>
> Ah, I wondered if you were going to do a Crook & Feikh and confuse
> percentage difference with percentage points difference.


Your text clearly indicated a percentage point difference. Nobody
expresses differences as percentages of percentages.

>
> We have had plenty of reasons advanced why a modern multi-vented helmet
> might perform worse than a V1, but none which would account for better
> performance, and certainyl none which would acount for performance
> improvements of the magnitude required.


Oh, this is pure BS on your part. The teardrop shape certainly helps,
and the V1 pro itself had multiple vents.


> Which is probably why the helmet manufacturers are not making these
> claims: they are not true.


It is more likely because a tiny increase over a bare head is not
a marketing claim relevant to most cyclists.

> > It is well known that filling in the space behind an object decreases
> > air resistance. See Bicycling Science, figures 4.5 and 4.6. Figure
> > 4.5 shows fairings that extend behind the cyclist. Compare that to a
> > modern helmet, with a tapered section behind the head.

>
> Up to a point, with certain caveats. Most helmets do not do this.


Yes they *do* do that, to a small extent.


> If you are still insisiting on pretending that aero shells are
> typical of the aerodynamic performance of helmets then this whole
> argument is more pointless than usual.


Well, that is another of your lies ... I never said that.

> >> Even the best-case scenario for an ANSI approved lid, the Bell
> >> Stratos, increases drag compared with a bald head or rubber cap,
> >> both of which have been sported by racing cyclists in the past.


So what? Most of us are not racers. A slight decrease in drag over
a bare head, or just breaking even, is fine with me.

> We are talking about time trial helmets here, and in time trials
> racers will do all kinds of stuff for aero advantage. Wearing a
> rubber cap or having a head shave is no more of a hardship than
> having your legs waxed, which they don't think twice about.


You were talking about time trials. I could actually care less.
>
> Your claim was a slight drag reduction from a standard helmet. That is
> resoundingly rebutted: there is massively more evidence in the sources you
> quote for standard helmets increasing darg than for them reducing drag.


No there isn't any such evidence.

> > Put your money on whomever you like, but the fact is that a tail wind
> > decreases the advantage you get from an aerodynamically shaped helmet.
> > Your "gust of tailwind" for one rider alone is a silly strawman
> > argument. If all riders have a tailwind, reducing air drag by any
> > means buys you less than when riding in still air or when there is
> > a head wind.

>
> They are riding at speeds where that is not going to make enough difference.
> Remember, the guy had to beat Lance Armstrong.


Oh that's nonsense. A 5 to 10 mph tail wind is going to make a
noticable difference to someone riding at 30 mph or so.

> LOL! You have finally disappeared up your own ****! In case you'd
> forgotten, you are the one asserting aero benefit, and you are the one who
> has failed to do so even in the limited case of time trials where the
> headgear is actually specifically designed to reduce drag; and remember,
> this was in 2002 when TT head fairings were not ANSI certified, and thus
> bigger.


In case you've forgotten, *you* were basing your claims on the idiotic
statement that because some guy won a race without a helmet, that somehow
showed something about the helmets aerodynamic characteristics, and that
is simply absurd. It completely ignores how much effort a given rider
puts out (and this is in a multi-day race, where saving energy for the
next day can be a factor for some riders but not others.)


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
post #1100 of 1258

Re: Troll, not published helmet research

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>
> >> If Tom and Frank are wrong, so is Damon Rinard, and your sole piece
> >> of supporting evidence vanishes, leaving you in the usual position
> >> of having no facts to support you.

>
> > The facts are self evident.

>
> This is true: the Rinard site says that a standard helmet of those days,
> which is more aerodynamic (or rather, less unaerodynamic) than a current
> helmet, is actually worse than the worst-case unhelmeted scenario of long
> hair.


The data disagrees with this assertion (and I suspect the problem is your
spin on it.) The current helmets have a more effective shape than the
older ones.

> All the ad-hominem in the world doesn't change the fact that you
> yourself posted the link which disproves your assertion


Well that is another lie - the links are to articles that show a
reduction in air drag.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
post #1101 of 1258

Re: Troll, not published helmet research

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> writes:

> Tom Kunich wrote:
>
> >> The links I posted listed air drag for several helmets, some of which
> >> reduced air drag for cyclists are aren't completely bald.

>
> > Sorry, you are misrepresenting the true contents of the website.

>
> Do you think we'd better tell Zaumie that Damon Rinard has a link on his
> site to my "helmet wars" page
> http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/web/...ts/why-helmets ?



If so, we can either write off this Rinard character, whoever he is, or
attribute it to link rot.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
post #1102 of 1258

Re: Troll, not published helmet research

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:
>
> >> Ah, I wondered if you were going to do a Crook & Feikh and confuse
> >> percentage difference with percentage points difference.

>
> > Your text clearly indicated a percentage point difference. Nobody
> > expresses differences as percentages of percentages.

>
> No, you chose to read it that way. Once again you confuse BillWorld[tm] for
> the general case.


This is more BS on your part. You gave several percentages as changes
from a base value. Then you decided to provide a "percentage change of
a percentage" without indicating that you were doing that. That sort
of nonsense is a well-known example from "how to lie with statistics."
Either you can't write or you were trying to deliberatedly mislead
people.

> >> We have had plenty of reasons advanced why a modern multi-vented
> >> helmet might perform worse than a V1, but none which would account
> >> for better performance, and certainyl none which would acount for
> >> performance improvements of the magnitude required.


Like the teardrop shape (and you have hardly shown that it would not
cut drag slightly, which is all you need relative to a Bell V1 Pro
to see a net reduction in drag.)

>
> picture of the Bell Ghisallo, a typical modern helmet. It is not "teardrop
> shaped", it has a pronounced DA at the back.


What's a DA?

> > It is more likely because a tiny increase over a bare head is not
> > a marketing claim relevant to most cyclists.

>
> You are veryinventive when it comes to thinking up excuses for a lack of
> evidence to support your position. So far the only actual evidence posted
> directly contradicts you...


What evidence? If a 1 percent decrease in drag doesn't help sell a
helmet, do you think a manufacturer would bother talking about it?

> >> If you are still insisiting on pretending that aero shells are
> >> typical of the aerodynamic performance of helmets then this whole
> >> argument is more pointless than usual.

>
> > Well, that is another of your lies ... I never said that.

>
> Ah, Bill, I would count the day lost without you calling me a liar - it is
> an important indicator that I am on the money.


Gee. Maybe you shouldn't go around trying to put words in other people's
mouths.
>
>
> Challenged to provide evidene to support your position, you posted a page
> from Damon Rinard which directly contradicts your position.


I pointed you to some data that showed an air drag reduction for an
ANSI certified helmet.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
post #1103 of 1258

Re: Troll, not published helmet research

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>
> >>> The facts are self evident.

>
> >> This is true: the Rinard site says that a standard helmet of those
> >> days, which is more aerodynamic (or rather, less unaerodynamic) than
> >> a current helmet, is actually worse than the worst-case unhelmeted
> >> scenario of long hair.

>
> > The data disagrees with this assertion (and I suspect the problem is
> > your spin on it.) The current helmets have a more effective shape
> > than the older ones.

>
> So you assert, but with zero evidence to support you.


See
<http://www.mecheng.adelaide.edu.au/courses/undergrad/projects/level4papers2001/chin_lim.pdf>
and look at figure 6. With the head held in an appropriate attitude,
the air resistence drops when a helmet is used.

See <http://www.gssiweb.com/reflib/refs/28/d0000000200000069.cfm?pid=96&CFID=807492&CFTOKEN=69087813>
<http://sportsfigures.espn.com/sportsfigures/batting_quiz4.htm>
<http://wings.avkids.com/Curriculums/Sports/cyclist_summary.html>
<http://www.gugly.com/Archbikeclothing.htm>
<http://www.ul.ie/~childsp/Elements/issue2/sharpe.html>

rest of post snipped - it's time for dinner, so your remaining post
today gets ingnored as well.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
post #1104 of 1258

Re: Troll, not published helmet research

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:
>
> >>> Your text clearly indicated a percentage point difference. Nobody
> >>> expresses differences as percentages of percentages.

>
> >> No, you chose to read it that way. Once again you confuse
> >> BillWorld[tm] for the general case.

>
> > This is more BS on your part. You gave several percentages as changes
> > from a base value. Then you decided to provide a "percentage change of
> > a percentage" without indicating that you were doing that.

>
> Oh do attempt to show a little intelligence. Having quoted the base
> figures, the quoted difference cannot be anything but a percentage change,
> rather than a percentage points difference.


When you give X percent for one number and Y percent for another, no
reader would expect another number expressed as a percent to actually
be a percentage of a percent.

It is poor and confusing writing on your part (and possibly willfully
misleading, since casual readers may simply scan the text and jump to
the wrong conclusion.)

> Of course you prefer the
> percentage points difference, because it is smaller so suits your disporven
> assertion


I prefer it because it is clearer. WHen you see several numbers all
given as a percentage change from some base value, a reader shouldn't
have to cross check everything you say to see if you silently changed
that.

>
> > Like the teardrop shape (and you have hardly shown that it would not
> > cut drag slightly, which is all you need relative to a Bell V1 Pro
> > to see a net reduction in drag.)

>
> WHAT teardrop shape? FFS, Bill, get down to that bike shop and actually
> LOOK at some helmets!


Like the one I have (a standard helmet). It is teardrop in the usual
meaning of the word - it sticks out behind the head unlike the older
completely symmetric helmets.

> >> picture of the Bell Ghisallo, a typical modern helmet. It is not
> >> "teardrop shaped", it has a pronounced DA at the back.

>
> > What's a DA?

>
> Duck's ****, as personified by the hairstyles in the film Grease.


I'll describe that as teardrop shaped (unlike a duck, there is a
smooth taper at the back.)

> > What evidence? If a 1 percent decrease in drag doesn't help sell a
> > helmet, do you think a manufacturer would bother talking about it?

>
> The evidence yo posted, Bill, which as repeatedly pointed out puts the
> standard helemt as worsethan the worst-case unhelmeted scenario of
> unrestrained long hair. I do wish you would go back and read it.


That's a lie as well - the only helmet shown to be slightly worse than
long hair was a completely symmetric design - the type where you have
to look at the straps to figure out which end is which.

> >> Challenged to provide evidene to support your position, you posted a
> >> page from Damon Rinard which directly contradicts your position.


It doesn't contradict my position.

> Anyway, since it is very evident to all concerned that you are wrong,


More wishful thinking on your part. Oh, and due to your bad manners,
I'll ignore your other post today, since you still haven't grown up.



--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
post #1105 of 1258

Re: Troll, not published helmet research

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:
>
> >> Oh do attempt to show a little intelligence. Having quoted the base
> >> figures, the quoted difference cannot be anything but a percentage
> >> change, rather than a percentage points difference.

>
> > When you give X percent for one number and Y percent for another, no
> > reader would expect another number expressed as a percent to actually
> > be a percentage of a percent.

>
> Interest rates are 5%. The bank raises them to 6% Will your interest
> payments increase by 1% or by 20%?


When Alan Greenspan increases the prime interest rate from (say) 5% to
6%, every newspaper in the U.S. will describe this as a 1% increase in
the rate. This is standard usage.


> that you are wrong. I wonder why you are arguing the toss about
> mathematical niceties instead of looking at the actual data?


I already showed the flaw with your argument. You are claiming that,
because a Bell V1 Pro (a completely symmetric helmets with no "aero"
features) causes a very slight increase in drag for a rider with a
reasonable amount of hair on his head, *all* standard helmets must
too, even though the design of standard helmets changed since the
Bell V1 Pro (used in the 1980s) was designed.

>
> > It is poor and confusing writing on your part (and possibly willfully
> > misleading, since casual readers may simply scan the text and jump to
> > the wrong conclusion.)

>
> Bill, I have every confidence that you will jump to the wrong conclusion
> whatever presentation is used.


That will not change the fact that you are defending an indefensible
position. We can speculate as to whether you were trying to mislead
casual readers or simply wrote poorly, but in either case you basically
blew it.

> In this case they will jump to the right conclusion: the additional aero
> drag of a helmet is over twice as great as that of short hair, and somewhat
> greater than that of unrestrained long hair.


Which is the wrong conclusion. The Bell V1 Pro is an older,
completely symmetric design not optimized in any way for aerodynamics
in comparison to current practices. Even then, they were 1% way
from the break even point.

>
> The casual reader, though, has probably already read the link you posted and
> realised that you are talking out of your ****.


The casual reader who checked the link would damn well know I'm right
about it due to simply quoting what it said, and the vast majority of
casual readers probably have not even bothered.

<long sections of babbling, ranting, and generally insulting garbage
snipped, as Guy is still incapable of acting like an adult>


> > It doesn't contradict my position.

> Except in the eyes of everybody else who's read it, obviously.


You think you are the only person reading it, I take it?

> I notice that you haven't responded to this:
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0uni-berlin.de


To what? Another of your posts during your time-out periods?

>
> >> Anyway, since it is very evident to all concerned that you are wrong,

>
> > More wishful thinking on your part.

>
> You are such a classic zealot it's almost funny. How do you get the Rinard
> piece to support your position, I wonder? By not reading past the abstract?
> By missing out every third word? Or simply by inverting the sign of all the
> drag figures? Who cares, anyway.


Now you really are lying. But as to "who cares, anyway" you sure the
hell do. Otherwise your long-winded rants wouldn't be 10 times longer
than what I've been posting.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
post #1106 of 1258

Re: Troll, not published helmet research

"Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:m3oejwsrln.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> writes:
>
> I already showed the flaw with your argument. You are claiming that,
> because a Bell V1 Pro (a completely symmetric helmets with no "aero"
> features) causes a very slight increase in drag for a rider with a
> reasonable amount of hair on his head, *all* standard helmets must
> too, even though the design of standard helmets changed since the
> Bell V1 Pro (used in the 1980s) was designed.


Is there ANYTHING that you know about anything? Can you possibly be so
stupid as to not know that the very article you quoted says that the lowest
of all the aerodynamic drags was from a bald head of a person with a tight
rubber cap on? Apparently you believe that your head is TEARDROP SHAPED.
From your published comments I can believe it is. Probably from having your
lights punched out for your extreme ignorance early in life.

But somehow, even though a bare head is the lowest drag, in order to get
lower drag one has to have a TEARDROP shaped helmet.

Bill, with all of your knowledge why don't you open a consulting firm on
aerodynamics.

> > In this case they will jump to the right conclusion: the additional aero
> > drag of a helmet is over twice as great as that of short hair, and

somewhat
> > greater than that of unrestrained long hair.

>
> Which is the wrong conclusion. The Bell V1 Pro is an older,
> completely symmetric design not optimized in any way for aerodynamics
> in comparison to current practices. Even then, they were 1% way
> from the break even point.


And here's a clue to the clueless - in the speed regimes of bicycles, the
shape of the object doesn't correlate closely with drag. Frontal area does
and a helmet is bigger than a head.

> > The casual reader, though, has probably already read the link you posted

and
> > realised that you are talking out of your ****.

>
> The casual reader who checked the link would damn well know I'm right
> about it due to simply quoting what it said, and the vast majority of
> casual readers probably have not even bothered.


Anyone that could detect a trace of knowledge in any posting that you've
left would have to be reading the comments from everyone else.

Without a doubt you are the least knowledgeable poster I have ever seen and
that includes Mike Vandeman, the idiot of all idiots.
post #1107 of 1258

Re: Troll, not published helmet research

"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.com> writes:

> "Bill Z." <nobody@nospam.pacbell.net> wrote in message
> news:m3oejwsrln.fsf@nospam.pacbell.net...
> > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> writes:


> Is there ANYTHING that you know about anything? Can you possibly be so
> stupid as to not know that the very article you quoted says that the lowest
> of all the aerodynamic drags was from a bald head of a person with a tight
> rubber cap on?


The claim was that you get a very slight air-drag reduction - too
small to notice in practice with a reasonable helmet design (nothing
extreme, but something more aerodynamic than a symmetric shell.)
Whether you can do better with some tight rubber cap is irrelevant to
that.

Oh, and you claim about frontal area being the only factor is not
consistent with what you'll see in _Bicycle Science_, second edition.
Explain, for example, figure 4.6 which shows a fairing that extends
slightly beyond the width of a rider. Nor does your statement explain
why, when one rider drafts another closely enough, *both* go faster as
a result (even though the one in front works harder.) As is typical,
you are simply in over your head on this one.

> Apparently you believe that your head is TEARDROP SHAPED.
> From your published comments I can believe it is. Probably from having your
> lights punched out for your extreme ignorance early in life.


Oooh. Little Tommy is having another of his fits. I'll snip the
rest of his post. He's acting like a 12 year old boy.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
post #1108 of 1258

Re: Troll, not published helmet research

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> writes:

> Bill "laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:
>
> > The claim was that you get a very slight air-drag reduction - too
> > small to notice in practice

>
> ... and all the (admittedly limited) evidence you posted says the exact
> opposite.
>
> So, you are clearly wrong.


I posted some links *showing* an air-drag reduction. The one you
claim says the "exact opposite" doesn't. It shows a range of air
drag, with a highly aerodynamic design being a couple of percentage
points below the air drag for a bald head, and the a non-aerodyanamic
design (a Bell V1 Pro) being about 1 percentage point above the value
for someone with long hair, with over an 8 percentage point range
between a bald head and a long hair. So, you don't have to pick a
helmet very much better than the non-aerodynamic one (a 1980s design)
to get a slight net reduction in drag.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
post #1109 of 1258

Re: Troll, not published helmet research

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <outlook.bugs@microsoft.com> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:
>
> >> Interest rates are 5%. The bank raises them to 6% Will your
> >> interest payments increase by 1% or by 20%?

>
> > When Alan Greenspan increases the prime interest rate from (say) 5% to
> > 6%, every newspaper in the U.S. will describe this as a 1% increase in
> > the rate. This is standard usage.

>
> And your payments increase by what proportion? Hint for the clueless: 1% is
> the _wrong_ answer.


We are talking about standard usage - what people will assume you
meant. Can you understand that or are you purposely trying to mislead
readers?

> Bong! Wrong again. Who would have thought it?


Playing ping pong with yourself?

> Bell V1 Pro: more drag than the worst-case unhelmeted scenario of
> unrestrained long hair. The increase in drag is over twice as much as the
> increase you get from short hair (a more typical case).
>
> As yet you have not even provided evidence to support your assertion that a
> modern helmet will even provide the improvement necessary to match
> (atypical) long hair, let alone the substantial changes required to meet or
> exceed the performance of (more common) short hair.


The most aerodynamic modern helmet showed a 2 percent reduction in air
drag for a cyclist over a bald head. I showed one link with measurements
on a test dummy with a helmet of about the same shape as mine (slightly
teardrop shaped) and it showed a net reduction in drag if your head was
held in the optimal attitude.

<long winded rant cut.>


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
post #1110 of 1258
Thread Starter 

Re: Troll, not published helmet research

Bill Z. wrote:

>
>
> The most aerodynamic modern helmet showed a 2 percent reduction in air
> drag for a cyclist over a bald head. I showed one link with measurements
> on a test dummy with a helmet of about the same shape as mine (slightly
> teardrop shaped) and it showed a net reduction in drag if your head was
> held in the optimal attitude.
>


That helmet was not "about the same shape as yours." That helmet shown
is the only mass-market helmets with "about that same shape."

Therefore, your helmet is shaped much differently.

Now you have an opportunity to prove me wrong. Tell us exactly what
make, model and year your helmet is.

I'll take refusal to do so as evidence of lying in the above paragraph,
as will any other reasonable person.

--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Road Cycling
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Road Cycling › Re: published helmet research - not troll