published helmet research - not troll



"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
> > > Yep. As I expected, you're obviously lying about your helmet and its
> > > air resistance.

> >
> > Krygowski, of course, is simply showing his dishonesty. I don't give
> > out personal information to people like him and his "friends." I
> > wouldn't even tell them the color of my car. It is simply none of
> > their business. It's also a distraction from what we are supposedly
> > discussing. Krygowski lives on a diet of red herrings, and there is
> > no need to feed him.

>
> There we go - Bill tells us that HIS helmet is more aerodynamic that a bare
> head. Since we have never seen such a standard helmet and ask WHICH helmet
> this could possibly be, he tells us that it is PERSONAL INFORMATION!!!


More lies from Kunich - I never said that my helmet was more aerodynamic
than a bald head. I said I'd get a slight reduction in air drag and
I have a full head of hair.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

I'll group replies to multiple messages to save space.

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > As I said, I wouldn't even tell you guys the color of my car. It's
> > none of our business.

>
> Ahh, so in truth you won't even tell YOURSELF the color of your car. Somehow
> that doesn't surprise me in the least.


Kunich, really are a fool, aren't you.

> I must say, now more than ever I'm convinced that the guy out in front of
> that bike shop in Cupertino whose said his name was Bill and who wasn't
> allowed in the shop is our Bill.


Kunich now claims that because some probably nonexistent person said
he had the same first name as I do, it must be me. Talk about admiting
that one is an idiot - Kunich takes the prize.

> Berechnen Sie isn't gerade ein Idiot aber ein Idiot der Genieanteile.


He can't even speak proper German either.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Bill "laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

>> Firstly, you did nothing of the sort. ALL of the SAFETY helmets showed a
>> higher aerodynamic drag than a bald head or one wearing a rubber cap as used
>> to be popular.


>Most cyclists do not have a bald head. It was very clear that I was
>comparing the drag relative to a full head of hair, and this was
>stated multiple times.


And, as was stated multiple times, the only ANSI certified helmet that
increased drag by less than a full hea dof hair was unwearable. The
only standard helmet for which figures were produced was significantly
worse than the worst-case unhelmeted scenario of unrestrained long
hair.

>The Bell V1 Pro was a typical helmet in the 1980s. We can do better
>today in terms of aerodynamics.


So you assert, but despite repeated promptings you have not produced a
single shred of evidence. There are numerous reasons why a modern
hlemet might be *worse* than the V1, not least because of the large
vents ruining the surface airflow.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

>> AH, no, Bill, *you* were talking about a modest reduction in drag, but
>> that would require that any improvement in aerodynamics from the
>> woefully insufficient "teardrop shape" of your imaginary helmet is not
>> competely blown away by the effect of vents.


>Aside from owning a helmet with such a shape, as others do,


Really? What brand? I've not seen one which could even vaguely be
described as teardrop shaped, let alone one which meets the criteria
for improved airflow defined in the links you posted. I'm sure you
are now repudiating those studies, since they all contradict you, but
the statement that helmets increase drag and this could only be
mitigated by using completely smooth surfaces and fairing back over
the neck did hole your argument below the waterline.

>the Bell V1
>Pro, vents and all, is only 1.2% worse than having long hair.


That is, it increases darga by over a tenth more than urestrained long
hair, yes. But the V1 Pro has few vents. Compare any 1980s helemt
with a modern multi-vented helmet, they are very different.

Even if that were not the case, you would only have established that
some modern helmets are no worse than the V1. And still without
producing any actual evidence, since all the hard evidence thus far
produced is against you.

>> Perish the thought that you should ever be required to quantify the
>> extent of your ignorance.


>The discussion is supposed to be about helmets, in case you don't know.


Yes, and you keep telling us how aerodynamic yourt Mystery Brand X
helmet is, but without letting us know what Mystery Brand X is - of
course this has nothign to do with the fact that you know you are
wrong. Presumably you think that with your True Name and a piece of
your helmet we can use Voodoo against you or something.

>> You'd think an adult would be embarrassed to hang around these NGs
>> when everything they post turns out to be ********, but you keep
>> coming back.


>The only BS is coming from some anti helmet loons


Where? Still not seen anybody anti-helmet. Anti ********, yes. I've
seen some pro-helmet loons, but no anti-helmet people at all. I only
know one person who is anti-helmet, and he doesn't post on Usenet.

>And, if you don't want to see your infantile behavior and your baby
>talk insults being pointed out, why don't you start acting like an
>adult?


Tried that, but you relentlessly dragged the thread back into personal
abuse because you had no facts to support you. Same ol' same ol'.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 04:39:25 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> OK, there we have it. Since any nitwit who has seen a Stratos wold know that
>> there is essentially one quality that is the same between a modern helmet
>> and a Stratos - that they both are supposed to be used by cyclists - and yet
>> Bill tells us that his calibrated eye sees little difference.


>Any nitwit, who must be smarter than Kunich, would realize that the
>helmets I was refering to were not Bell Stratos helmets, and I don't
>own one


No, you are referring to some mythical helmet looks "vaguely teardrop
shaped", a bit like your idea of what the Stratos might look like, but
does not include a fairing over the nape of the neck, no vents, an
inbuilt visor or covers over the ears which are what actually allow
aero helmets to produce lower drag despite their greater frontal area.

And as is obvious to all concerned by now, the only hard evidence
posted thus far directly contradicts you.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Bill Z. wrote:

> Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>
>
>>Bill Z. wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
>>>

>>As I recall, the claim was "My helmet reduces drag over that of a bare
>>head." (Feel free to double check and correct me.) Sounds to me like
>>it was about your particular helmet!

>
>>If you made that claim in error, just say so; all will be forgiven.

>
>
> No, it wasn't in error - I was just using informal language.


In other words, what? You don't know if it actually reduces drag
compared to a bare head? Then say so!

Mine is
> typical of what a lot of people use...


And as we've tried to point out, unless your "lot of people" consists of
racers with special equipment, your helmet will not reduce drag.
Ordinary helmets as sold in bike shops in 2004 do not reduce drag.
Almost no helmets ever sold for mass-market ever reduced drag compared
to any fairly ordinary head & hairstyle. These days, with ventilation
being the marketing emphasis, helmets are worse than ever regarding drag.

Admittedly, this isn't a big deal. I wouldn't bring it up if you hadn't
with your false - or mistaken - claim.


> I described it for you - slightly teardrop shaped. Go down to a store
> and look for typical helmets like that (nothing extreme designed
> specifically for racing.) I'm sure you've seen them.


If yours looks like the ones I see in stores or on cyclists' heads, then
you're wrong about it reducing drag - unless, once again, you have some
extreme hair style. Give it up, Bill.

>>If you pretent that claim is still true, tell us what your helmet is,
>>so we can verify.

>
>
> Do you have a wind tunnel?


I've got access to two ordinary ones and one supersonic one. (I don't
suppose we'll need the latter.)

Do you expect me to mail the helmet to you?

:) Actually, I expect you to continue to evade the issue and make a
fool of yourself!


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Firstly, you did nothing of the sort. ALL of the SAFETY helmets showed a
> > higher aerodynamic drag than a bald head or one wearing a rubber cap as

used
> > to be popular.

>
> Most cyclists do not have a bald head. It was very clear that I was
> comparing the drag relative to a full head of hair, and this was
> stated multiple times. Neither I nor anyone I know personally will
> gets their heads shaved just for the sake of a bike ride.


It is very clear that you are clueless. Why would anyone wear a helmet that
increased his aerodymanic drag if that was a consideration, instead of
simply putting on the tight rubber cap?

> > Secondly, the Bell helmet which you appear to be discussing WAS NOT

TYPICAL
> > of any other helmet then or now. No one could wear the helmet for more

than
> > a very short TT on a cool day and hence they were rapidly discontinued.

>
> The Bell V1 Pro was a typical helmet in the 1980s. We can do better
> today in terms of aerodynamics. The helmet with the lowest drag is
> interesting only for showing the range of reductions that are
> possible.


The V1 Pro had more drag than a head with long hair. Your own link supplied
that piece of information and yet you still don't seem to understand that
point.

As for your claim that we can "do better today", then perhaps you'd like to
explain to us why the helmet manufacturers who do run these tests haven't
released any of the data showing reduced drag?

Here's a hint - as every single other person in his discussion except you
has managed to understand from the published works, the modern helmet has
greatly increased aerodynamic drag from the earlier Bell V1. On top of that,
the Bell V1 passed the Snell test which was considerably better than the
present ANSI standard.
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> I'll group replies to multiple messages to save space.
>
> > "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > As I said, I wouldn't even tell you guys the color of my car. It's
> > > none of our business.

> >
> > Ahh, so in truth you won't even tell YOURSELF the color of your car.

Somehow
> > that doesn't surprise me in the least.

>
> Kunich, really are a fool, aren't you.
>
> > I must say, now more than ever I'm convinced that the guy out in front

of
> > that bike shop in Cupertino whose said his name was Bill and who wasn't
> > allowed in the shop is our Bill.

>
> Kunich now claims that because some probably nonexistent person said
> he had the same first name as I do, it must be me. Talk about admiting
> that one is an idiot - Kunich takes the prize.
>
> > Berechnen Sie isn't gerade ein Idiot aber ein Idiot der Genieanteile.

>
> He can't even speak proper German either.


And strangely enough, that non-existant person also spoke fluent German.

So somehow the clues keep building up time and time again. The big question
is why you're so ashamed of yourself that you would try to hide the fact
that it was you to whom I was talking that day.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 04:39:25 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
> >> OK, there we have it. Since any nitwit who has seen a Stratos wold know

that
> >> there is essentially one quality that is the same between a modern

helmet
> >> and a Stratos - that they both are supposed to be used by cyclists -

and yet
> >> Bill tells us that his calibrated eye sees little difference.

>
> >Any nitwit, who must be smarter than Kunich, would realize that the
> >helmets I was refering to were not Bell Stratos helmets, and I don't
> >own one

>
> No, you are referring to some mythical helmet looks "vaguely teardrop
> shaped", a bit like your idea of what the Stratos might look like, but
> does not include a fairing over the nape of the neck, no vents, an
> inbuilt visor or covers over the ears which are what actually allow
> aero helmets to produce lower drag despite their greater frontal area.
>
> And as is obvious to all concerned by now, the only hard evidence
> posted thus far directly contradicts you.


As far as I've been able to determine from Bill's postings it appears that
what he's really saying is, "HawwwwwwHeeeeeeeHawwwwwwww".
 
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:11:54 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
<[email protected]>:


>As far as I've been able to determine from Bill's postings it appears that
>what he's really saying is, "HawwwwwwHeeeeeeeHawwwwwwww".


Cloff!

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
Tom Kunich wrote:
> On top of that, the Bell V1 passed the Snell test which
> was considerably better than the present ANSI standard.


On top of that, my V-1 has something resembling a helmet shell,
as do my Tourlight and my Stratos. It was only when sales of
foam hats surpassed sales of helmets that Bell started making
foam hats. At least we can credit Bell with trying to make
something that might have protective value in the early years.
Prime, Biker, V-1, Tourlight come to mind here. The shell on
the Stratos seems to be a different material, and it's much thinner
than the shells on the earlier Bell models.

Here's a wind tunnel comparison I'd like to see, a 1975 Prime vs Bell's
most expensive current model foam hat. Afterwards, we can send them to
Snell labs for impact testing. I'd bet the 30 year old helmet would come
out on top if it hasn't spent too much time in direct sunlight.

Mitch.
 
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 17:04:42 -0400, Mitch Haley <[email protected]>
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>Here's a wind tunnel comparison I'd like to see, a 1975 Prime vs Bell's
>most expensive current model foam hat. Afterwards, we can send them to
>Snell labs for impact testing. I'd bet the 30 year old helmet would come
>out on top if it hasn't spent too much time in direct sunlight.


You are probably right. According to a contact who tests helmets to
standards, many samples of current lids even fail the lower ANSI
standard tests (i.e. do not meet their specified performance). The
only major brand he will recommend is Specialized.

I met Richard Ballantine today, author of Richard's Bicycle Book. He
was wearing what appeared to be a homebrewed helmet. I meant to ask
him about it, but forgot :)

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 19:04:01 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>It is very clear that you are clueless. Why would anyone wear a helmet that
>increased his aerodymanic drag if that was a consideration, instead of
>simply putting on the tight rubber cap?


Amazingly, Bill's trawl of the web for helmet aerodynamics references
missed this from arch helmet zealots BHSI (Motto: "Don't confuse them
with the facts"):

"The teardrop-shaped time trial helmets used by professionals in
Olympic competition over short distances are not vented. Venting
spoils some of the aerodynamics, and for those events cooling is less
important than a slippery wind profile. But most of those helmets are
also not lined with foam. They do not provide impact protection. Air
can circulate under the plastic shell because it is empty. Those
helmets are not legal for use in races in the US because they do not
provide impact protection. You would not want to use one on the road
for the same reason."

"Beginning with a Louis Garneau model in 2002 certified to the US CPSC
standard, manufacturers began producing time trial helmets with foam
in them. The trend accelerated in 2003 when the UCI, professional
European cycling's governing body, announced that beginning in January
of 2004 impact performance would be required in time trial helmets.
But even if they do have foam, aero helmets don't save any appreciable
drag until you get to competitive cycling speeds--over 20 MPH at
least. Most cyclists don't ride that fast and do not need the aero
effect. And that aero tail sticking out the back might snag in a crash
and jerk your head."

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
 
"Mitch Haley" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Here's a wind tunnel comparison I'd like to see, a 1975 Prime vs Bell's
> most expensive current model foam hat. Afterwards, we can send them to
> Snell labs for impact testing. I'd bet the 30 year old helmet would come
> out on top if it hasn't spent too much time in direct sunlight.


That hard shell on the V1 and my Kiwi considrebly increased the safety of
the helmet. Modern helmets have almost nil protection since in order to pass
the tests with all of those vents the foam has to be so ridgid that it can
locally overload the skull. That's something that the ANSI standard does not
address since the tests are run on an aluminum head-form and only measures
the deceleration peak.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "The teardrop-shaped time trial helmets used by professionals in
> Olympic competition over short distances are not vented. Venting
> spoils some of the aerodynamics, and for those events cooling is less
> important than a slippery wind profile. But most of those helmets are
> also not lined with foam. They do not provide impact protection. Air
> can circulate under the plastic shell because it is empty. Those
> helmets are not legal for use in races in the US because they do not
> provide impact protection. You would not want to use one on the road
> for the same reason."


Which summerizes everything we've said before.

> "Beginning with a Louis Garneau model in 2002 certified to the US CPSC
> standard, manufacturers began producing time trial helmets with foam
> in them. The trend accelerated in 2003 when the UCI, professional
> European cycling's governing body, announced that beginning in January
> of 2004 impact performance would be required in time trial helmets.
> But even if they do have foam, aero helmets don't save any appreciable
> drag until you get to competitive cycling speeds--over 20 MPH at
> least. Most cyclists don't ride that fast and do not need the aero
> effect. And that aero tail sticking out the back might snag in a crash
> and jerk your head."


I have trouble believing that Bill ever exceeded 20 mph on a bicycle in his
entire life.
 
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

>
> I met Richard Ballantine today, author of Richard's Bicycle Book. He
> was wearing what appeared to be a homebrewed helmet. I meant to ask
> him about it, but forgot :)


That's interesting!

Ballantine's early books were among the first, IIRC, to strongly
recommend helmets - using images of paralysis, heavy brain damage, etc.
He was one of the pioneers of using Worst Case Scenarios on this
issue, without telling how unlikely those scenarios are. I think his
books probably did a lot to fuel helmet promotion.

The latest issues of his books show some serious backpedaling. He
acknowleges that he lobbied hard for helmets - and now says that
mandating is absolutely a bad idea. He points out their protection is
very limited - which is true. He seems very skeptical of helmet prices.
And he now says, of the question "But surely it is a good idea for all
cyclists to wear helmets?" that the answer is "No."

Wearing a homebrewed helmet is pretty strange, though! Did you get
enough of a look to tell how it differed from available models?


Oh, and I was under the impression he was mostly a recumbentist - or
whatever the word is - even riding a trike much of the time. Seems to
me that removes even more of the justification for a foam hat!


--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill "laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:


Guy is still putting out his baby talk. What a moron. I'll reply to
the stuff below and put him back in his timeout for his other
posts. He still needs to grow up.

>
> >> Firstly, you did nothing of the sort. ALL of the SAFETY helmets showed a
> >> higher aerodynamic drag than a bald head or one wearing a rubber cap as used
> >> to be popular.

>
> >Most cyclists do not have a bald head. It was very clear that I was
> >comparing the drag relative to a full head of hair, and this was
> >stated multiple times.

>
> And, as was stated multiple times, the only ANSI certified helmet that
> increased drag by less than a full hea dof hair was unwearable.


You may have stated that, but you didn't prove it. Instead, you talked
about one specific helmet that reduced drag more than a bald head and
one specific ANSI certified helmet.


> >The Bell V1 Pro was a typical helmet in the 1980s. We can do better
> >today in terms of aerodynamics.

>
> So you assert, but despite repeated promptings you have not produced a
> single shred of evidence.


Look at the shape of newer helmets. Filling in the gap behind a cyclist
reduces air drag. In fact, if someone drafts you closely, you're air
drag will drop although you'll still put out more effort than the guy
behind you.


There are numerous reasons why a modern
> hlemet might be *worse* than the V1, not least because of the large
> vents ruining the surface airflow.


My helmet has less vents than the more extreme designs. It's kind of
middle of the road.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> As far as I've been able to determine from Bill's postings it appears that
> what he's really saying is, "HawwwwwwHeeeeeeeHawwwwwwww".


From what I can determine, Tommy is acting as much like a child as Guy.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill Z. wrote:
>
> > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> >>Bill Z. wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
> >>>
> >>As I recall, the claim was "My helmet reduces drag over that of a bare
> >>head." (Feel free to double check and correct me.) Sounds to me like
> >>it was about your particular helmet!

> >
> >>If you made that claim in error, just say so; all will be forgiven.

> > No, it wasn't in error - I was just using informal language.

>
> In other words, what? You don't know if it actually reduces drag
> compared to a bare head? Then say so!


I said I had a full head of hair and wasn't going to shave it. Why
should I care about the performance relative to a bare head. If it
reduces drag slightly given my head of hair, that's good enough for
me.

> And as we've tried to point out, unless your "lot of people" consists
> of racers with special equipment, your helmet will not reduce
> drag. Ordinary helmets as sold in bike shops in 2004 do not reduce
> drag. Almost no helmets ever sold for mass-market ever reduced drag
> compared to any fairly ordinary head & hairstyle.


You've yet to produce one shred of evidence for this claim. I've
provided URLs to papers doing measurements showing a net drag
reduction (a slight one).

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

>
> It is very clear that you are clueless. Why would anyone wear a helmet that
> increased his aerodymanic drag if that was a consideration, instead of
> simply putting on the tight rubber cap?


Because some of us use a helmet for its intended purposes - head
protection - and if it reduces drag even slightly, that eliminates
one potential downside for wearing one. This should be so obvious
that it wouldn't even have to be stated. It is pretty clear who
is clueless it is you.


--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 

Similar threads

J
Replies
0
Views
507
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
J
Replies
0
Views
436
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
J
Replies
0
Views
346
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J
J
Replies
0
Views
304
Road Cycling
Just zis Guy, you know?
J