Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › Paramount
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Paramount - Page 17

post #241 of 339
7/8/07 at 12:09pm

Re: Paramount

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 01:41:48 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:

> As I have said before, I often wear a helmet when riding. It makes
> important members of my family happier (my mother, my wife, etc.).
> Other than aggravating my neck and making sweat run in my eyes on hot
> days, it doesn't inconvenience me. I have no expectation that it will
> provide me with protection nor that it will cause me harm, but the
> feelings of the people I care about are more important to me.

Since your helmet doesn't have to meet any safety standards, and you
have no faith in it anyway, why not try carving away most of its foam to
make it as light as possible while still looking the part?

I might try this with an old cracked one, which is already illegal here :-)
Reply
Reply
post #242 of 339
7/8/07 at 12:19pm

Re: Paramount

On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 21:04:59 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:

> Smarmy and deluded you are.

Not deluded to the extent that I think insulting people who disagree with
me will further my cause, though.

One benefit of living with mandatory helmets is that the helmet wars are
unknown here, and we just put them on and go riding rather than waste so
much time, energy and bile on such a trivial issue.
Reply
Reply
post #243 of 339
7/8/07 at 1:31pm

Re: Paramount

On Jul 8, 10:09 am, Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
> On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 01:41:48 -0500, Tim McNamara wrote:
> > As I have said before, I often wear a helmet when riding. It makes
> > important members of my family happier (my mother, my wife, etc.).
> > Other than aggravating my neck and making sweat run in my eyes on hot
> > days, it doesn't inconvenience me. I have no expectation that it will
> > provide me with protection nor that it will cause me harm, but the
> > feelings of the people I care about are more important to me.
>
> Since your helmet doesn't have to meet any safety standards, and you
> have no faith in it anyway, why not try carving away most of its foam to
> make it as light as possible while still looking the part?
>
> I might try this with an old cracked one, which is already illegal here :-)

I did that, and it worked quite well. An hour with the dremel gave it
significantly better ventilation (I first did one side, then went for
a ride to get a somewhat fair comparison). It went from around 280
grams initially to around 180 grams when I was done, but still wasn't
as light as the old Specialized "Sub 6" helmets (Specialized claimed
they weighed less than 6 ounces, which is, what, 170 grams?).
Reply
Reply
post #244 of 339
7/8/07 at 3:26pm

Re: Helmets (was: Paramount)

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 09:08:39 -0500, Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman
<sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote:

>John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 23:57:38 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> In article <46904876$0$30606$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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!
>>
>> Do you know what those words really mean?
>
>21st Century USians use "impact" when they can not figure out the
>difference between "affect" and "effect".

I screw that up so often I'm thinking of making this my homepage
http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/affect.html
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Reply
Reply
post #245 of 339
7/8/07 at 3:32pm

Re: Paramount

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:49:38 +0930, Michael Warner <mvw@westnet.com.au>
wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 21:04:59 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>
>> Smarmy and deluded you are.
>
>Not deluded to the extent that I think insulting people who disagree with
>me will further my cause, though.
>
>One benefit of living with mandatory helmets is that the helmet wars are
>unknown here, and we just put them on and go riding rather than waste so
>much time, energy and bile on such a trivial issue.

You're an anti-cyclist. A person who rides but is, in the big scheme
of things, hurting cycling with your views.

And I was thinking about what you wrote here about people riding w/o
helmets "For the same reason that so many people continue to smoke,
drink too much, let themselves get fat"

You're saying that cycling w/o a helmet is, on aggregate, like
smoking. Something that will eventually result in negative health
benefits. That, even if you claim to not want laws or requirements to
end, the world would be better off without.

An anti-cyclist. Worthy of insults -- and smarmy is pretty mild.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Reply
Reply
post #246 of 339
7/8/07 at 3:46pm

Re: Helmets

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Tim McNamara wrote: {please excuse missing attributions}
>>
>>> I believe those hits would have hurt like hell. I also
>>> believe that you might be well-served by reassessing your choice of
>>> trails vis a vis your riding skills.

>> Absurd. Technical mtb trails often cause even the best riders to
>> crash. (Besides, this was long ago. I'm mostly roadie nowadays, and
>> don't try some trail sections I once rode without hesitation.)...

> If you are not bleeding somewhere at the end, it is not a proper MTB
> ride.

This is true. (We call it an "official" ride once someone is bleeding, but
same idea.)

Bill "better the appendages than the head, however" S.
Reply
Reply
post #247 of 339
7/8/07 at 3:51pm

Re: Helmets (was: Paramount)

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Jul 2007 23:57:38 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> In article <46904876$0$30606$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>>>> 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!
>>
>> Do you know what those words really mean?
>
> 21st Century USians use "impact" when they can not figure out the
> difference between "affect" and "effect".

I think Flogger is showing an affectation by continually addressing me
ineffectually (he knows he's plonked, you see).

Of course, if he can't tell force from impact, then who cares...

BS (yup)
Reply
Reply
post #248 of 339
7/8/07 at 3:55pm

Re: Helmets (was: Paramount)

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <46908ae3$0$31278$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> 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!
>
> Impact is a consequence of force, Bill.

Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with the same
/force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the table's surface
is reduced.

A helmet won't lessen the /force/ of a head falling on pavement. It WILL
reduce the /impact/.

Hope this wasn't too complicated for you, Tim.

BS
Reply
Reply
post #249 of 339
7/8/07 at 3:58pm

Re: Paramount

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
> J. Taylor wrote:
>> On Fri, 6 Jul 2007 08:34:12 -0700, Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>> (Note: injecting arguments about MHLs is a strawman
>>> technique unless the pro-lid person actually is in favor of them;
>>> can't recall even ONE being so.)
>>
>> Your cohort Ozark is.
>
> Welcome Back! Sorni was missing you.

LOL Well, since they're both plonked, guess we'll never know. (I don't
recall Ozark being in favor of MHLs, but then Flailor is a compulsive liar.)
Reply
Reply
post #250 of 339
7/8/07 at 5:34pm

Re: Helmets (was: Paramount)

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 11:51:36 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:
>I think Flogger is showing an affectation by continually addressing me
>ineffectually (he knows he's plonked, you see).
>
>Of course, if he can't tell force from impact, then who cares...

You repeatedly proclaim you've killfiled certain people, while
commenting on their posts.

Seems kind of dopey to me.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Reply
Reply
post #251 of 339
7/8/07 at 5:35pm

Re: Helmets (was: Paramount)

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 11:55:06 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
wrote:

>A helmet won't lessen the /force/ of a head falling on pavement. It WILL
>reduce the /impact/.

What?
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Reply
Reply
post #252 of 339
7/8/07 at 6:47pm

Re: Paramount

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:39:27 -0500, Tim McNamara
<timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:

>In article <e6b293p4sq8prld0jno4gil82v5159somt@4ax.com>,
> John Forrest Tomlinson <usenetremove@jt10000.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:49:38 +0930, Michael Warner
>> <mvw@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 07 Jul 2007 21:04:59 -0400, John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
>> >
>> >> Smarmy and deluded you are.
>> >
>> >Not deluded to the extent that I think insulting people who disagree
>> >with me will further my cause, though.
>> >
>> >One benefit of living with mandatory helmets is that the helmet wars
>> >are unknown here, and we just put them on and go riding rather than
>> >waste so much time, energy and bile on such a trivial issue.
>>
>> You're an anti-cyclist. A person who rides but is, in the big scheme
>> of things, hurting cycling with your views.
>>
>> And I was thinking about what you wrote here about people riding w/o
>> helmets "For the same reason that so many people continue to smoke,
>> drink too much, let themselves get fat"
>>
>> You're saying that cycling w/o a helmet is, on aggregate, like
>> smoking. Something that will eventually result in negative health
>> benefits. That, even if you claim to not want laws or requirements
>> to end, the world would be better off without.
>>
>> An anti-cyclist. Worthy of insults -- and smarmy is pretty mild.
>
>I don't follow your logic here, JFT. How is just getting on one's bike
>and going riding "anti-cycling?" He lives in a place with a MHL, which
>could be construed as anti-cycling, but unless he authored or helped
>pass the law I don't see the connection.

He's saying, in public, that cycling without a helmet is a net danger.
That plays right into the hands of MHL. It's supporting their
rationale.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
Reply
Reply
post #253 of 339
7/8/07 at 7:05pm

Re: Paramount

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 16:47:42 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
wrote:

>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> As I have said before, I often wear a helmet when riding. It makes
>>>> important members of my family happier (my mother, my wife, etc.).
>>>> Other than aggravating my neck and making sweat run in my eyes on hot
>>>> days, it doesn't inconvenience me. I have no expectation that it will
>>>> provide me with protection nor that it will cause me harm, but the
>>>> feelings of the people I care about are more important to me.
>>> Since your helmet doesn't have to meet any safety standards, and you
>>> have no faith in it anyway, why not try carving away most of its foam to
>>> make it as light as possible while still looking the part?
>
>> Michael Warner <m...@westnet.com.au> wrote:
>>> I might try this with an old cracked one, which is already illegal here :-)
>
>almost_fast@yahoo.com wrote:
>> I did that, and it worked quite well. An hour with the dremel gave it
>> significantly better ventilation (I first did one side, then went for
>> a ride to get a somewhat fair comparison). It went from around 280
>> grams initially to around 180 grams when I was done, but still wasn't
>> as light as the old Specialized "Sub 6" helmets (Specialized claimed
>> they weighed less than 6 ounces, which is, what, 170 grams?).
>
>If the weight was done by the same people who do bike marketing, that's
>170g less shell, straps, buckle and adjuster.

Dear Andrew,

My ancient 1994 Bike Pro catalog says:

"Specialized Sub 6 Pro"

"The Sub 6 Pro is the successor to the Sub 6. The Sub 6 was a soft
shell helmet that had no plastic micro shell or Lycra cover but was
left as a dark Grey foam exterior. The next season the Sub 6 Pro was
released as a micro shell version of the same shell, The Sub 6 is made
in 4 shell sizes Small, Medium, Large, and Extra Large. Available in
two colors Purple Carbon or Silver Carbon. The Medium size weighs 232
grams."

My spreadsheet claims that 232 grams is about 8.18 ounces.

Others have doubted the sub-six-ounce claim:

" . . . the Sub-6 of yore was lighter, even if it wasn't quite the 6
ounces (160g) its name implied."

http://www.cyclingnews.com/tech/?id=...specialized_S1

Arguably, the 160 grams in that quote isn't a typo. Six ounces is 170
grams, but the helmet claimed to be _sub_ six ounces.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel
Reply
Reply
post #254 of 339
7/8/07 at 7:34pm

Re: Helmets

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <87d4z2sl4p.fsf@san.rr.com>, Joe Riel <joer@san.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> writes:
>>
>>> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
>>> the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on
>>> the table's surface is reduced.
>>>
>>> A helmet won't lessen the /force/ of a head falling on pavement.
>>> It WILL reduce the /impact/.
>>
>> The peak force is decreased. The impulse (momentum) remains the
>> same. That is, impulse is the product f*dt. For a hammer with mass m
>> and velocity v, the impulse transferred to the table is
>>
>> f*dt = m*v
>>
>> By increasing dt (the duration of the collision), f is decreased.
>
> Assuming that dt is increased, which is dependent on a number of
> nonspecified variables. With enough juggling, Bill can come up with a
> way to make his scenario work that way. The problem is applying that
> to helmets.

If it's jiggling, it's too loose.

Bill "La Trek" S.
Reply
Reply
post #255 of 339
7/8/07 at 7:35pm

Re: Helmets (was: Paramount)

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <4691331f$0$8933$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <46908ae3$0$31278$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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!
>>>
>>> Impact is a consequence of force, Bill.
>>
>> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
>> the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the
>> table's surface is reduced.
>
> That depends on a few variables, Bill.
>
>> A helmet won't lessen the /force/ of a head falling on pavement. It
>> WILL reduce the /impact/.
>
> For reasons already elucidated to you, that is not necessarily true,
> nor has it been clearly demonstrated to reduce the risk of brain
> injury.

Brain injury?!? How about a nasty owwie?
>
>> Hope this wasn't too complicated for you, Tim.
>
> Not for me, Bill, but you seem to be struggling with it.

Not a bit, thanks.

BS
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Cycling Equipment
Cycling Forums › Forums › Bikes › Cycling Equipment › Paramount