Paramount - Page 15

Re: Paramount

Bruce Gilbert wrote:

> To risk a barrage of flames and focused hate, let me say this. I like
> the feel of carbon frames. Me, not anyone else, just me. In 1976 I
> broke my back in two places. The harmonic coming up out of many
> aluminum frames makes my body uncomfortable. Titanium and steel are
> better. But, carbon seems to deaden the road vibration enough where I
> can ride in comfort.

You better study some statistics and population studies! This is rbt!

Re: Paramount

In article
<timmcn-B2B45E.20514007072007@news.iphouse.com>,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

> In article <rubrum-4941E7.18082607072007@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>,
> Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <timmcn-0C9570.18033107072007@news.iphouse.com>,
> > Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <rubrum-E30547.14331607072007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > > Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <timmcn-FE84EB.09401507072007@news.iphouse.com>,
> > > > Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > In article <17sktxktqvhjz$.1k93wkpp2x69v.dlg@40tude.net>,
> > > > > Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:26:24 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes. Impinged nerve running down into my left shoulder. It
> > > > > > > gets aggravated sometimes and wearing a helmet is one thing
> > > > > > > that does it pretty regularly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm sorry to hear it, but given the weight of a modern helmet
> > > > > > compared to your head, I'm skeptical. My bet is that it's due to
> > > > > > a different posture or muscle tension when you wear a helmet -
> > > > > > you're probably ducking into the wind, unconsciously trying to
> > > > > > minimize its extra wind resistance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hard to say why it causes pain, my current helmet is the lightest
> > > > > that I could find and it's a little better but I still get more
> > > > > pain than if I don't wear it. And since I don't see benefit in
> > > > > wearing a helmet and have definite negative consequences, I often
> > > > > don't wear a helmet. I am more likely to wear one when riding with
> > > > > friends since they tend to be pro-helmet and I'd rather not waste
> > > > > riding time on the discussion.
> > > >
> > > > What kind of friend is that?
> > >
> > > Friends who have bought the marketing. They are well-meaning and
> > > genuinely concerned- most of these have acquired these tendencies
> > > through USCF racing and from Bicycling Magazine, among other sources.
> > > Why alienate them over something that doesn't inconvenience me all that
> > > much?
> >
> > Then be their friend.
> > Wear a cloth cap and blast them if they try to give you ****.
> > Friends do not let friends get away with being a jerk.
>
> They aren't being jerks about it, Michael.

If you are doing something because you do not want to
deal with what they have to say, something that you
would not do otherwise, then what is going on?

--
Michael Press

Re: Helmets

On Jul 7, 10:12 pm, "DI" <di9...@cox.net> wrote:
> <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1183858513.219901.143890@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jul 7, 9:23 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>
> > I attribute those sorts of arguments to you, and to your cohort
> > "Ozark." You two have routinely indulged in eighth-grade insults,
> > although you seem to think yours are amazingly witty. Ozark tries for
> > venom, not wit.
>
> > Perhaps we should add the anonymous "DI" to the list?
>
> > But no, Bill, your quip above doesn't have much wit, nor much value.
> > It's just another of the insults you routinely spew.
>
> > - Frank Krygowski
>
> You don't think it would be stupid to stand by a train track and ram your
> head into the train just to prove you could get it an inch closer without a
> helmet?

Here's the replay, "DI", with more detail.

We frequently hear this argument, or ones just like it: "Ram your
helmeted head into a wall. Then take off the helmet and ram your bare
head into the wall. The second hurts more, so it proves beyond a
doubt that you should always wear a helmet while biking." The post I
was responding to was a very slight variation on that theme.

One (just one) thing that "logic" fails to take into account is that
the helmeted head is a bigger target. There _must_ be near misses of
bare heads that would be converted to serious impacts of a helmet. In
fact, given the evolutionary process, there's a good chance that our
reflexes and muscle strength are _just_ adequate to keep our heads
protected at the size they are naturally.

Again, my teenaged fall (straight backward, on ice) would have very
strongly impacted a helmet, but it barely touched my bare head.
(Well, actually, I wore a stocking cap.) If I'd had a helmet on, it
might have generated a "My helmet saved my life!" story. Another
false one, that is.

But that was a linear impact. Things are likely worse for a
tangential impact. Again, given evolution (...apologies to the non-
believers...), there is probably protective value in our hair and
scalp tissue that easily slides in a grazing impact, even though it's
messy. Styrofoam probably has a much higher coefficient of friction
than hair and scalp tissue, even if the styrofoam is covered with a
0.020" microshell. Furthermore, adding radius to the head adds a
longer lever arm for that grazing impact to give rotational
acceleration to the brain - which is much more damaging than linear
acceleration, due to shearing of internal arteries.

So the linear protective effect of an inch of styrofoam does come with
costs. There are going to be more impacts, both linear and
rotational. And the rotational ones are likely to be more damaging
than before.

Understand, I didn't come up with this on my own. It's been very
seriously proposed as a major explanation for the observed fact, that
strapping helmets on an entire population of cyclists does not reduce
serious head injury rates. It's not the only possible explanation,
but personally, I think it's a likely contributor.

- Frank Krygowski

Re: Helmets

On Jul 7, 7:48 pm, Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <1183848228.785835.11...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> "andresm...@aol.com" <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 3:36 pm, John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetrem...@jt10000.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 13:08:28 -0700, "andresm...@aol.com"
>
> > > <andresm...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > >What the hell are you talking about? What stronger info are you
> > > >talking about? Once I cracked a helmet in half. had it not been
> > > >there my head would have been the next contact surface. what
> > > >stronger information is there that says that if my helmet wasn't
> > > >there my head would have survived the impact? I passed out and
> > > >woke up in the hospital 4 hours later.
>
> > > What information is there that the helmet helped? I just don't
> > > understand how the fact that something far weaker than your skull
> > > was damaged demonstrates anything. We could look at leather
> > > helmets or even a bag of jello and the fact that those things would
> > > be destroyed would suggest they help, by your logic.
>
> > > Now, it's possible it did help. But we hear so many stories like
> > > yours that the only way the majority of them could be true would be
> > > if we were seeing unhelmeted people dying in scores. And we don't.
>
> > Are you familiar with something called a concussion. It is a serious
> > blow to the head. It can cause anywhere from unconsciousness to more
> > severe problems. I never said that the impacts to my helmet prevented
> > my skull from cracking or exploding. I simply argued that it
> > prevented more serious damage.
>
> It may have. It may not have. You believe that it did, but belief does
> not make things true.
>
> > the skull, as you probably know, has no organic function. It simply
> > protects the brain.
>
> WTF? I guess you don't chew, talk, hear, smile or look around. This is
> one of the most ludicrous statements I have read in r.b.t.
>
> > a helmet is not necessarily designed to prevent the skull from
> > exploding, as you, articulate types, put it. It adds another lawyer
> > of protection to the brain. A blow to the head, without cracking your
> > skull, can still kill you. The fact that there are more cracked
> > helmets than cracked skulls doesn't mean that the helmets prevented
> > skulls from cracking. It simply means that they prevented blows to
> > the head which could have resulted in mild concussions or more severe
> > and irreparable damage. the fact that you argue that there are so
> > many cracked helmets implies that people fall on their head while
> > riding. I think that those who were wearing a helmet and it cracked
> > were pretty lucky to have been wearing one.
>
> That's a lot of couldas.

Actually, the skull doesn't do any of the things that you list. It
simply holds the organs, muscles, nerves, tendons, etc that allow
those things to happen. The bones have structural function.

Andres

Re: Helmets

In article
<timmcn-CA556F.20482007072007@news.iphouse.com>,
Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
> In article <1183848228.785835.11730@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> "andresmuro@aol.com" <andresmuro@aol.com> wrote:
> > the skull, as you probably know, has no organic function. It simply
> > protects the brain.
>
> WTF? I guess you don't chew, talk, hear, smile or look around. This is
> one of the most ludicrous statements I have read in r.b.t.

I use my skull to keep out the bad ideas.

--
Michael Press

Re: Helmets

In article <469018b4$0$30680$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:

> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jul 7, 3:51 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
> (about...?)
>
> >> I see the opposite -- especially on here. People (like Frank,
> >> Flailor, JFT, can't remember the rest) who don't just argue against
> >> lids, they badger and belittle those who choose to wear them.
>
> > :-) Shall we quote the mindless insults from you and Ozark AGAIN?
>
> Well yes, Frank, I dared to answer your pompous condescension with return
> insults. Probably even lost my temper a few times, before realizing with
> what I was dealing. Typical brainiac (self-described) quite sure his is the
> /only/ correct opinion.

Whenever you read a measured contradiction of what you
write, you call it pompous. To you, pompous means a
style unlike the style you use; your style being thick
with epithet and disrespect. You are addressed
respectfully, and call it pompous. One day you will be
treated as you treat others, but not here. You may look
forward to a time when all your venal misrepresentations
are visited upon you.

--
Michael Press

Re: Helmets

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <1183848228.785835.11730@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> "andresmuro@aol.com" <andresmuro@aol.com> wrote:

>> the skull, as you probably know, has no organic function. It simply
>> protects the brain.

> WTF? I guess you don't chew, talk, hear, smile or look around. This
> is one of the most ludicrous statements I have read in r.b.t.

Timmy doesn't know his skull from his face?

Re: Helmets

frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
> On Jul 7, 10:10 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>> frkry...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> The problem, Bill, is that you see most attempts at logic and
>>> science as being pompous. "How dare that guy try to think
>>> logically?"
>>
>> Bull. I distinctly recall /many/ encounters with you where you say
>> "well you refuse to learn" or "those who can't learn from their
>> betters" or some such crap. It's condescending, period.
>
> Quote of one Bill Sornson, from this thread, yesterday, July 6, 2007:
>
> "The AHZs (anti-helmet zealots) refuse to listen to reason. You'll
> see."

Yes, I said that to a new poster who is destined to bang his (thankfully
lidded) head against a wall arguing with the likes of you. (Although IIRC
it was someone else who was giving the poor bastard grief.)

> So who is condescending? Is that sort of remark forbidden except when
> you use it?

It doesn't compare at all to "(I decree that) you lack critical thinking
skills" or your other /personally directed/ insults. This was a generalized
comment. Trust you can discern the difference in degree of offensiveness?
(Oh well it was worth a shot.)

I stupidly began to keep reading, and then remembered what a complete waste
of time it is.

Don't wear a helmet, Frank. I'll continue wearing one (along with about 90%
of the cyclists I see).

I'll give you credit for one thing: you are amazingly verbose on the
subject. Seriously. Unless you're pasting boilerplate, you go ON AND ON
AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND ON AND
ON..............................................

BS out

Re: Helmets

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <469018b4$0$30680$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> frkrygow@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Jul 7, 3:51 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:
>> (about...?)
>>
>>>> I see the opposite -- especially on here. People (like Frank,
>>>> Flailor, JFT, can't remember the rest) who don't just argue against
>>>> lids, they badger and belittle those who choose to wear them.
>>
>>> :-) Shall we quote the mindless insults from you and Ozark AGAIN?
>>
>> Well yes, Frank, I dared to answer your pompous condescension with
>> return insults. Probably even lost my temper a few times, before
>> realizing with what I was dealing. Typical brainiac
>> (self-described) quite sure his is the /only/ correct opinion.
>
> Whenever you read a measured contradiction of what you
> write, you call it pompous. To you, pompous means a
> style unlike the style you use; your style being thick
> with epithet and disrespect. You are addressed
> respectfully, and call it pompous. One day you will be
> treated as you treat others, but not here. You may look
> forward to a time when all your venal misrepresentations
> are visited upon you.

If you don't consider Frank pompous, then you haven't been paying attention.
Otherwise, nice one! <eg>

Re: Helmets

Tim McNamara wrote:

> So difficult that it is not show up under scientific scrutiny.

Recent fall, Timmy? <eg>

Re: Helmets

Michael Press wrote to me:

> Whenever you read a measured contradiction of what you
> write, you call it pompous.

Actually, I don't. The only people I recall calling pompous are Frank,
Jobst, Fogey and possibly you. (Although I consider you more of a pedantic
net nanny stick-in-the-mud, which is why your recent foray into HUMOR has
been so refreshing!)

> To you, pompous means a
> style unlike the style you use; your style being thick
> with epithet and disrespect. You are addressed
> respectfully, and call it pompous.

Frank did not address me respectfully. If you knew anything about our
history (and not just the last few days), you'd realize how wrong you are.

> One day you will be
> treated as you treat others, but not here. You may look
> forward to a time when all your venal misrepresentations
> are visited upon you.

Right back at you, Mr. Judgemental. One can only hope.

Re: Helmets (was: Paramount)

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <46904876$0$30606$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <468fefe8$0$20547$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>> In article <468fb951$0$4878$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>>>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <468f3c5a$0$8028$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>>>>>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> {Note all context removed. It's pathological!}
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wearing a helmet /does/ make one at least somewhat safer;
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is a belief not an established fact.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A) It's common sense;
>>>>>
>>>>> Common sense means "I already know what's true, don't confuse me
>>>>> with the facts." If common sense worked, we wouldn't need
>>>>> science.
>>>>
>>>> No, common sense is if I hit a table with a hammer the impact will
>>>> be harder if I don't put down a pad first. (It's called a BARRIER
>>>> or BUFFER, you see.)
>>>
>>> Thanks for proving my point so eloquently.
>>
>> Tell you what. Prove that a hammer has less impact on a table with
>> no pad in place and I'll retract every word. Hell, I'll even stop
>> wearing a lid! (Maybe.)
>
> Force = mass * acceleration.

"Impact". Not "force". HTH!

Re: Helmets

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 01:23:09 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

[snip]

>I haven't got a bowling ball. Maybe we can get Fogel Labs to give it a
>try and video the results. Anybody got an old undamaged helmet or two
>to send to Carl?

[snip]

Dear Tim,

Fogel Labs has no bowling equipment, but the experiment probably isn't
worth pursuing.

A head inside a helmet is practically guaranteed to fit without
putting spreading pressure on the sides of the helmet.

Heads are longer than they are wide--look at any reasonably
well-fitting stiff hat. (Soft caps simply bend to fit the noggin.)

In contrast, a bowling ball is round. If large enough, it should
easily crack a typical bicycle helmet against the floor by acting as a
blunt wedge.

Most bicycle helmet manufacturers recommend replacing any helmet
dropped on the ground, since they crack easily. Fewer and fewer
bicycle helmets pass even the watered-down recent tests, none of which
ever matched the force of a six-foot rider toppling over sideways
after forgetting to unclip at a stop light.

Curiously, toppling over sideways (as opposed to a free fall drop)
produces a greater acceleration and impact for the end (or head) of
the thing toppling.

(This is why tall chimneys break as they fall. They're not stiff
enough to accelerate the upper part without breaking. Think of a
felexible rod--the end lags behind if you wave it.)

As others have calculated in earlier threads, the far end of a
toppling board hits the ground at 3/2 or 150% of the speed it would
strike if dropped in free fall from the same height.

Since kinetic energy for the same mass increases with the square of
the velocity, this means 9/4 or 225% of the original impact energy of
100%.

An object (such as a severed head in a helmet) dropping free for the 5
feet often mentioned will hit the ground at 17.93 feet per second, or
12.2 mph.

The same object falling over sideways on a pole (closer to how heads
actually hit the ground when bike frames are between legs) will land
at 3/2 that speed, about 27 feet per second, or 18.4 mph.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html

Given the flexibility of the human body, actual impacts should be
somewhat less than the rigid-pole example, but still noticeably
greater than free fall.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Re: Helmets

On Jul 7, 1:51 pm, "Bill Sornson" <a...@ask.me> wrote:

> I'm talking about so-called liberals trying to outlaw things that are bad
> (!) or harsh (!). Can't mark a student's paper in (gasp) RED INK because
> it's too jarring. Can't have a tug-of-war contest because some will (gasp)
> LOSE. (Not to mention the name, of course. Better call it a pulling
> contest? Oh, but /contest/ is too competitive.) Light bulbs, big motors,
> red meat, etc. etc. etc. etc.
>
> Meanwhile, Al Gore and his ilk fly their private jets to huge,
> emission-emitting events all over the world while preaching mass transit and
> green energy. Pure hypocrisy.

Bill, nobody outside of the talk radio audience is familiar with these
terrible injustices. Your speech here has nothing to do with what I
was talking about, but just for the sake of argument, how bout a shout
out to so-called 'conservatives' who get into everybody's business
about 'family values' while going on wife number six and getting
special 'massages' at the man-brothel or who pass judgment on drug
users while eating handfuls of prescription pills, etc.. Plenty of
busybodies in politics on all 'sides,' right?

> > What I have seen are plenty of self-described free-thinkers, even
> > 'libertarians,' who feel the need to judge out loud and pontificate to
> > unhelmeted riders. They take it upon themselves to enforce the
> > unwritten uniform code of the Real Cyclist, on dirt and road. Here we
> > are, resting by the trail, and along come some other bikers. Lo and
> > behold, <<doubletake>> this guy's not wearing a helmet! What a perfect
> > opportunity to show how superior, clear-headed, and in-control I am
> > with a few sharp comments .... These people don't give a flying f*@#
> > about the safety of others. Their helmet preaching is just part of a
> > larger personality issue. The 'sport of cycling' is heavily burdened
> > with these types. If not helmets, something else.
>
> I see the opposite -- especially on here. People (like Frank, Flailor, JFT,
> can't remember the rest) who don't just argue against lids, they badger and
> belittle those who choose to wear them.

--- You think Frank doesn't wear a helmet? I don't think you
understand exactly what you're dealing with here, son... ----

> I don't know where you ride, but I've never seen or heard anything like you
> describe above. If I see a bare-headed guy bouncing down Noble Canyon (a
> VERY technical trail), I might think to myself he's nuts, but I certainly
> would never lecture him (I'm not a liberal, you see).

What planet do you have to live on to think that uninvited lecturing
is a distinct province of 'liberals?' pen your eyes man.

Anyway, you obviously don't ride without a helmet. If you did you
would know that uninvited helmet lectures from strangers are not an
unusual occurence. Kudos to you for biting your tongue when given the
chance though. I have never seen or heard of anyone getting harassed
for wearing a helmet.

Robert

Re: Paramount

On Jul 7, 7:08 pm, Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article
> <timmcn-0C9570.18033107072...@news.iphouse.com>,
> Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > In article <rubrum-E30547.14331607072...@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net>,
> > Michael Press <rub...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > > In article <timmcn-FE84EB.09401507072...@news.iphouse.com>,
> > > Tim McNamara <tim...@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
> > > > In article <17sktxktqvhjz$.1k93wkpp2x69v....@40tude.net>,
> > > > Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 22:26:24 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > > > > > Yes. Impinged nerve running down into my left shoulder. It
> > > > > > gets aggravated sometimes and wearing a helmet is one thing
> > > > > > that does it pretty regularly.
>
> > > > > I'm sorry to hear it, but given the weight of a modern helmet
> > > > > compared to your head, I'm skeptical. My bet is that it's due to
> > > > > a different posture or muscle tension when you wear a helmet -
> > > > > you're probably ducking into the wind, unconsciously trying to
> > > > > minimize its extra wind resistance.
>
> > > > Hard to say why it causes pain, my current helmet is the lightest
> > > > that I could find and it's a little better but I still get more
> > > > pain than if I don't wear it. And since I don't see benefit in
> > > > wearing a helmet and have definite negative consequences, I often
> > > > don't wear a helmet. I am more likely to wear one when riding with
> > > > friends since they tend to be pro-helmet and I'd rather not waste
> > > > riding time on the discussion.
>
> > > What kind of friend is that?
>
> > Friends who have bought the marketing. They are well-meaning and
> > genuinely concerned- most of these have acquired these tendencies
> > through USCF racing and from Bicycling Magazine, among other sources.
> > Why alienate them over something that doesn't inconvenience me all that
> > much?
>
> Then be their friend.
> Wear a cloth cap and blast them if they try to give you ****.
> Friends do not let friends get away with being a jerk.

I have occasionally been gently harassed by friends when not wearing a
helmet. That's fine. I know any helmet-related opinions they have are
based on considerable experience as well as genuine concern and I
welcome them. Unsolicited comments from random strangers, on the other
hand, are most unhelpful and unwelcome, and may result in helmet
preacher's being given a chance to test helmet's effectiveness against
repeated open palm slaps.

Robert