Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>> >The only people being "contentious" are you and you new-found friends.
>> LOL! Us and the authors you cited, don't forget. They're the ones
>> who have the data proving you're wrong. In fact everybody around here
>> seems to be in agreement, with just the one exception. That would be
>> you, troll-boy.
>Now resorting to name calling because you don't have a point (and I
>never criticized the authors in question, and their articles are
>not contradictory to what I posted - how could they be when they
>actually showed air drag reductions for some, but not all, helmets.)
If only your understanding of the subject matched your persistence.
Leaving aside for the moment the irony of Bill "everyone who disagrees
is a liar and a troll" Zaumen accusing others of name-calling, as has
been pointed out more times than I care to recount by now the studies
looked at three types of hedgear:
- head fairings which provide no impact protection, but are more
aerodynamic than a bald head
- an ANSI certified aero helmet designed for time trials which was
less aerodynamic than a head fairing and proved to be virtually
unwearable in practice
- a standard helmet which was much less aerodynamic than a bald head /
rubber cap or short hair, and somewhat less aerodynamic than the
worst-case unhelmeted scenario of unrestrained long hair.
No drag reductions were shown for standard helmets.
The only helmets for which drag reductions were shown were time trial
helmets.
Another paper you linked showed that even these time trial helmets
were only better than a bare head if the rider held his head in a
fixed position in a crouch (e.g. using tri bars) with the tail of the
helmet pressed firmly back. Any deviaiton from this position produced
rapid and substantial degradation in aero performance. Another site
you linked described this as being like trying to cut butter with the
knife turned sideways.
And yet you persist in saying that your helmet (which you refuse to
identify) is sufficiently better than the Bell V-1 Pro as tested, that
it overcomes the additional drag; you then infer that because you say
your helmet is better, it follows that modern helmets in general are
better (despite the fac t that they have notoriously aerodynamically
dirty surfacses, covered in large vents), and you then extend this to
imply that by being better than unrestrained long hair it will be
better for most cyclists, even though most cyclists claerly don't have
long hair.
So you start from conjecture, add speculation, and compound it with
false generalisation.
To support your assertion you provide precisely no evidence
whatsoever, save that of your say-so. Now I know that you are the
trusting sort (remember Australia?) but to accept the word of a known
helmet zealot against all that evidence would be well beyond trusting
and into gullible.
So, where's your evidence?
>> Yeah right. What's your total contribution to the world of cycling
>> thus far, Bill?
>Probably a lot more than yours but I don't go around bragging.
For someone who's made such a contribution to the world of cycling you
have remained remarkably untouched by understandihng thereof.
>I provided URLs to data showing a drag reduction
...for aero helmets unrelated to the helmets worn by normal riders..
>, plus pointing out
>that what you get in practice is too small to make any noticable
>difference in practice for most people.
And all the evidence posted thus far shows that the difference is
indeed fairly small - BUT IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. That is the
point at issue.
The only person thus far who has failed to come to the obvious
conclusion, is you.
So, where's your evidence?
>One of the URLs stated
>that an older, competely symmetric helmet caused a slight increase
>in drag over riding with "long hair" with other helmets providing
>a net reduction. There's obviously a range in air drags, and you
>don't have to go very far from the worst case in the list to have
>a net reduction.
Yada yada yada. You still refuse to acknowledge that the only
standard helmet tested had worse aero than the worst-case unhelmeted
scenario, the only helmets that provided better aero than a bald head
provided no protection, the only helmet tested whihc both provided
protection and was not as bad as a bare head with hair, was
unwearable, even that kind of helmet is much worse than a bare head
unless the rider's attitude is constrained within a very small range
of positions - and still you have provided no evidence to support the
idea that modern helmets are sufficiently better than the V-1 even to
match the worst-case unhelmeted scenario of unrestrained long hair.
So, where's your evidence?
>> But it's clearly not a garden-variety helmet, Bill, because your
>> description of it does not match any of the brands I and others here
>> can recognise.
>You didn't look very hard.
Oh but I did. I looked in my LBS specifically for helmets with what
could even loosely be described as an aerodynamic shape - the only one
on display was a head fairing with a prominent sticker saying "this is
not a hemlet and provides no protection".
>Odd. I bought it in a decent bike shop, and there were gobs of similar
>ones on the shelfs, and I see lots of people using similar ones riding
>around on the streets. Nobody who's seen me with it has ever commented
>on how unsusual it looks. Sounds to me that, once again, you don't
>know what you are talking about.
Right. Refuse to tell me what helmet you wear, then accuse me of not
knowing about the helmet you wear. A Zaumen classic.
The end result is the same as usual: you are repeatedly posting
assertions which are at contradicted by the evidence we have thus far.
So, where is your evidence?
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