Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>The data from that particular URL showed that the most aerodynamic helmet
>is better than a bald head and that an older design (a Bell V1 Pro) with
>a symmetric shape (nothing in the back to improve air flow around the
>head), is ever so slightly worse than a long hair. The Stratos was
>significantly better than long hair or short hair.
It doesn't matter how often you repeat this ********, Bill, it will
never be true. The data you posted showed that:
- head fairings reduce drag but provide no protection
- the best performing ANSI certified aero helmet tested, the Stratos,
was worse than a bald head or skullcap
- the only standard helmet tested, the V-1, was worse then the
worst-case unhelmeted scenario of unrestrained long hair.
And the Stratos, a time trial helmet, was virtually unwearable,
according to someone who (unlike you) has actually worn one.
Your continued attempts to pretend that the Stratos was in some way
representative are noted, and duly discounted for the ******** they
are.
>Do you think a
>standard helmet (the Bell V1 Pro is not a standard design today) might
>fall somewhere in between?
Or do you think it might be worse, because of its large vents? Or do
you think that in its day the V-1 was a standard helmet, so the only
standard helmet tested at the time was worse than unrestrained long
hair?
The thing is, Bill, you have so far provided no evidence to support
your idea that a modern standard helmet is better than a V-1. You
have provided evidence that standard helmets are still considered to
worsen drag, and evidence that even aero helmets only work within a
tightly constrained envelope, but none at all to support your idea
that adding large numbers of vents to spoil the airflow somehow
improves the aerodynamics on a modern helmet.
>You've repeatedly mispepresented what I said and this is no
>exception.
No, Bill, you have repeatedly represented the Stratos as being in some
way representative of modern helmets in a way the V-1 is not. You are
wrong, simple as that. And we know you have no insight because you
didn't even know that the head fairings in the study you linked have
no padding.
>And even funnier, you are ignoring the fact that
>it *did* show a drag reduction. If the reduction is important to you,
>you'll hold your head at the appropriate angle.
The "it" in question being an aero helmet designed for time trials,
and found to be unwearable in practice. The only hard data for a
standard helmet shows the precise opposite. As you know.
So you are just trolling. Fine, feel free to carry on trolling. Or
produce some evidence which supports you, rather than contradicting
you. Or **** off. Preferably the last.
>> And the really laughable thing is, the entire argument /would not
>> exist in the first place/ if you had not insisted that helmets reduce
>> drag, and then posted data proving the exact opposite.
>Yet another lie as Guy stays "on message"
Bill, you are a True Believer; like any other True Believer you are
unable to distinguish between an agnostic and an atheist. This
results in you making yourself look more and more stupid, which is
funny some of the time.
>The entire argument is due to your obvious obsession with me, as can
>be seen by your continual replies to nearly everything I post,
ROFLMAO! Your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance. Both are
of truly epic proportions.
I reply, Bill, because you persist in making wrong assertions. And
then, being the arch-troll that you are, arguing the toss for ever
after you've been proven wrong, as in this case. All you have to do
is stop making wrong assertions (you could begin by checking the
contents of links you post, for example) and the "obsession" would
vanish.
So, my challenge to you:
1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
contradicting it, or
3. shut up.
Any of the above will be perfectly acceptable.
Note that even at this late stage I am perfectly prepared to accept
that there may be evidence to support you. There hasn't been any yet,
of course, and I've challenged you several times to produce some (last
time you gave me a load of citations to the original study and a new
paper which showed ANSI certified aero helmets to be worse than a bare
head in all but a few situations, especially if the rider's attitude
was anything other than a low crouch).
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
