J
Just zis Guy, you know?
Guest
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>Guy aside, it was mentioned in part as a limiting case - it shows how
>much better than the Bell V1 Pro you might do in terms of reducing
>drag if that were the only criteria important to you. So you can get
>better cooling compared to a Stratos and still reduce air drag
>slightly compared to a Bell V1 Pro, and a slight reduction is all you
>need before you see a benefit over a bare head with hair on it.
And the evidence you have to support the idea that this reduction has
been achieved is?....
Ah, right. None at all.
People who understand aerodynamics have told you why a modern helmet
might be worse than the V-1, yet you still consider that the
aerodynamically dirty surface of a typical modern helmet is going to
perform better than a V-1, based on the fact that a completely
different helmet was better. You say this because it "could" be
achieved if that was what you cared about, yet you fail to produce any
evidence that it /is/ what anybody cares about. If manufacturers had
made improvements to aerodynamics to fulfil a perceived demand, don't
you think they would be saying so in their marketing literature?
So you choose to believe that a modern multi-vented helmet will
perform more like the smooth, closed-in, streamlined Stratos than the
more conventionally shaped V-1. You are prepared to spend weeks
arguing the toss about, to distort the studies you have posted (the
"head with hair" you refer to is unrestrained /long/ hair, which has
nearly twice the drag increase of short hair), and all apparently
based on nothing but blind faith that wearing a helmet must always be
better in every respect than not wearing one.
To which I say: prove it. Every time you've been challenged to do so
thus far you have relied on evidence which says the opposite.
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.
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
>Guy aside, it was mentioned in part as a limiting case - it shows how
>much better than the Bell V1 Pro you might do in terms of reducing
>drag if that were the only criteria important to you. So you can get
>better cooling compared to a Stratos and still reduce air drag
>slightly compared to a Bell V1 Pro, and a slight reduction is all you
>need before you see a benefit over a bare head with hair on it.
And the evidence you have to support the idea that this reduction has
been achieved is?....
Ah, right. None at all.
People who understand aerodynamics have told you why a modern helmet
might be worse than the V-1, yet you still consider that the
aerodynamically dirty surface of a typical modern helmet is going to
perform better than a V-1, based on the fact that a completely
different helmet was better. You say this because it "could" be
achieved if that was what you cared about, yet you fail to produce any
evidence that it /is/ what anybody cares about. If manufacturers had
made improvements to aerodynamics to fulfil a perceived demand, don't
you think they would be saying so in their marketing literature?
So you choose to believe that a modern multi-vented helmet will
perform more like the smooth, closed-in, streamlined Stratos than the
more conventionally shaped V-1. You are prepared to spend weeks
arguing the toss about, to distort the studies you have posted (the
"head with hair" you refer to is unrestrained /long/ hair, which has
nearly twice the drag increase of short hair), and all apparently
based on nothing but blind faith that wearing a helmet must always be
better in every respect than not wearing one.
To which I say: prove it. Every time you've been challenged to do so
thus far you have relied on evidence which says the opposite.
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.
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