Re: Troll, not published helmet research
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
> 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:
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