published helmet research - not troll



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
 
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

>> No matter how many times you post your ignorant lies they are still ignorant
>> lies. The article said that the LOWEST drag came from a bald head or a rider
>> wearing a rubber skull cap. NOT A SAFETY HELMET OF ANY TYPE.


>Kunich, you have a well-deserved reputation of being one of the worst
>liars on usenet. If you look at
> <http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/aero/aerodynamics.htm>
>you will read, "Aero helmets, as they are used for racing, which do
>not however meet the ANSI safety requirements, reduce the aero drag by
>approximately 2% compared to a bald head or a rubber cap over the
>hair.


Precisely. So if you ignore the head fairing, which is NOT A SAFETY
HELMET OF ANY TYPE, the lowest drag was from a bald head.

Making you the liar.

Again.

>It is quite evident that the best you can do with a helmet is 2 percent
>better than a bald head (being ANSI certified is not relevant.)


If being ANSI certified is not relevant, then you have to allow the
rubber cap as well. That performs massively better than the V-1,
weighs less, is cheaper, if you don't care about ANSI certification
it's the only one to go for.

So now we know about your mystery helmet. It's a rubber cap :)

>If you
>design it so it is ANSI certified, the best anyone has done is 1.3
>worse than a bald head, but you'd be 4.6 percent worse with short hair.
>So, if you look at the range, it is pretty obvious that a Bell V1 Pro
>is only slightly worse than a full head of hair,


<Whoop!> <Whoop!> False assertion alert.

A full head of hair is 4.6% worse than a bald head. A full head of
/long/ hair is still better than the V-1. Are you saying that most
cyclists have unrestrained long hair? This, too, would explain why
your assumptions appear invalid to everyone else.

>and the best ANSI
>certified helmet at the time (1990 - 14 years ago) was only slightly
>worse than a bare head.


And nothing like a standard helmet, and not practical for everyday use
because, as another of the studies you linked showed, it only achieved
drag reduction when the head was maintained in a steady position with
the rider in an aero crouch. This explains the observed fact that
riders on the Tour, who now have available to them ANSI certified aero
helmets, do not wear those off time trial stages, because in normal
riding their small aerodynamic advantage vanishes.

>It is pretty clear that you should have no problem finding ANSI certified
>helmets that fall in between.


So you say, and yet you have not produced a single model name for
which you can back that claim. Not one.

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
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > No matter how many times you post your ignorant lies they are still

ignorant
> > lies. The article said that the LOWEST drag came from a bald head or a

rider
> > wearing a rubber skull cap. NOT A SAFETY HELMET OF ANY TYPE.

>
> Kunich, you have a well-deserved reputation of being one of the worst
> liars on usenet. If you look at
>
> <http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/aero/aerodynamics.htm>
>
> you will read, "Aero helmets, as they are used for racing, which do
> not however meet the ANSI safety requirements, reduce the aero drag by
> approximately 2% compared to a bald head or a rubber cap over the
> hair.


"Aero helmets," you pusillanimous ass, ARE NOT SAFETY HELMETS OF ANY TYPE.
THEY ARE HEAD FAIRINGS.

> It is quite evident that the best you can do with a helmet is 2 percent
> better than a bald head (being ANSI certified is not relevant.)


Being the fellator you are it apparently slipped your attention that you are
wrong YEY AGAIN. Don't you ever get tired of being the brunt of jokes?

> It is pretty clear that you should have no problem finding ANSI certified
> helmets that fall in between. You simply trade off other factors
> like cooling with air drag and can still get a net reduction in drag.
>
> And that is with 14 year old designs.


Man, with a complete and utter lack of any sensibilities at all it shouldn't
be any trouble for you to prove that water falling from the sky is proof of
miracles.

> > There you go, deny the facts again. Which is probably why you spell your
> > name backwards - it doesn't have much importance to you since you never

knew
> > who your father was.

>
> Back to a junior high school locker room, Tommy? You know, your
> childish behavior really does make you look like a complete and utter
> jerk. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I really doubt if you
> have the decency.


I suggest that you not be the one suggesting shame to anyone else. You
aren't even capable of understanding what the word is.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>
> >> It doesn't matter how often you repeat this ********, Bill, <snip>

> >And *you* just repeated verbatim the same text from your previous
> >post.

>
> Yes, because it remains the truth: the proof that you are wrong was
> provided in the links you posted.


That's simply not the case. There is a significant range, and you
need only a slight improvement over a Bell V1 Pro to get a net
air drag reduction, at least if your hair is like mine.

> Your response was to evade. I think that tells us everything we need
> to know.


When all you put out is a cut and paste of your previous message, you
deserve to be ignored, all the more so when you are rude and childish
as you infantile name calling above shows.

I'll ignore your other posts today too. You are obviously just
trolling and are not capable of acting like an adult.

--
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:
> > >
> > > No matter how many times you post your ignorant lies they are still

> ignorant
> > > lies. The article said that the LOWEST drag came from a bald head or a

> rider
> > > wearing a rubber skull cap. NOT A SAFETY HELMET OF ANY TYPE.

> >
> > Kunich, you have a well-deserved reputation of being one of the worst
> > liars on usenet. If you look at
> >
> > <http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/aero/aerodynamics.htm>
> >
> > you will read, "Aero helmets, as they are used for racing, which do
> > not however meet the ANSI safety requirements, reduce the aero drag by
> > approximately 2% compared to a bald head or a rubber cap over the
> > hair.

>
> "Aero helmets," you pusillanimous ass, ARE NOT SAFETY HELMETS OF ANY TYPE.
> THEY ARE HEAD FAIRINGS.


They are reprepresentative of the best you can do in terms of air drag
reduction. I also listed the results for ANSI certified helmets, and for
a Bell V1 Pro. You, of course, snipped that. Given that your well
deserved reputation as a bald-faced liar, that is no surprise.

> > It is quite evident that the best you can do with a helmet is 2 percent
> > better than a bald head (being ANSI certified is not relevant.)

>
> Being the fellator you are it apparently slipped your attention that you are
> wrong YEY AGAIN. Don't you ever get tired of being the brunt of jokes?


Oooooh. Our "adult" with the majurity of a junior high school student
is acting out and calling people names again. What a silly little boy.
You and Guy seem to have a lot in common - you both act like children.

> > It is pretty clear that you should have no problem finding ANSI certified
> > helmets that fall in between. You simply trade off other factors
> > like cooling with air drag and can still get a net reduction in drag.
> >
> > And that is with 14 year old designs.

>
> Man, with a complete and utter lack of any sensibilities at all it shouldn't
> be any trouble for you to prove that water falling from the sky is proof of
> miracles.


Since I showed data for an ANSI certified helmet that reduced drag for
people with short hair, but not people completely bald, I made a perfectly
valid point. Of course you snipped it - you'd look like a fool if casual
readers saw the original text.


> > Back to a junior high school locker room, Tommy? You know, your
> > childish behavior really does make you look like a complete and utter
> > jerk. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I really doubt if you
> > have the decency.

>
> I suggest that you not be the one suggesting shame to anyone else. You
> aren't even capable of understanding what the word is.


For someone caught lying repeatedly, and someone who spent a night
in jail for "back-handing" his girlfriend, and then complained about
how the courts treated him, you are the last person to talk about
"shame." If you had any decency, you'd crawl back under your rock
never to emerge again.


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

>> it remains the truth: the proof that you are wrong was
>> provided in the links you posted.


>That's simply not the case. There is a significant range, and you
>need only a slight improvement over a Bell V1 Pro to get a net
>air drag reduction, at least if your hair is like mine.


So you keep saying, but as yet you have provided precisely no evidence
to support that assertion, or to rebut the point made by others that
the vents on modern helmets could very well make them significantly
worse than the V-1.

>I'll ignore your other posts today too. You are obviously just
>trolling and are not capable of acting like an adult.


Translation: "Laa laa I'm still not listening"

The challenge issued was:

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.

Your response was to evade. Twice. Enough said.

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." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
> > > >
> > > > No matter how many times you post your ignorant lies they are still

> > ignorant
> > > > lies. The article said that the LOWEST drag came from a bald head or

a
> > rider
> > > > wearing a rubber skull cap. NOT A SAFETY HELMET OF ANY TYPE.
> > >
> > > Kunich, you have a well-deserved reputation of being one of the worst
> > > liars on usenet. If you look at
> > >
> > > <http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/aero/aerodynamics.htm>
> > >
> > > you will read, "Aero helmets, as they are used for racing, which do
> > > not however meet the ANSI safety requirements, reduce the aero drag by
> > > approximately 2% compared to a bald head or a rubber cap over the
> > > hair.

> >
> > "Aero helmets," you pusillanimous ass, ARE NOT SAFETY HELMETS OF ANY

TYPE.
> > THEY ARE HEAD FAIRINGS.

>
> They are reprepresentative of the best you can do in terms of air drag
> reduction.


No, hypersonic aircraft are representative of the best you can do in terms
of air drag reduction but then that also doesn't anything to do with the
subject at hand.

> I also listed the results for ANSI certified helmets, and for
> a Bell V1 Pro. You, of course, snipped that. Given that your well
> deserved reputation as a bald-faced liar, that is no surprise.


And of course those helmets did not have drags lower than a bald head or one
covered with a rubber cap. So who insists on telling lie after lie here
Zaumen? Either you are lying or you are so stupid you can't even read the
citations you yourself supplied.

> Since I showed data for an ANSI certified helmet that reduced drag for
> people with short hair, but not people completely bald, I made a perfectly
> valid point. Of course you snipped it - you'd look like a fool if casual
> readers saw the original text.


Since that helmet isn't make any longer and the helmets that are have
considerably higher drag figures perhaps you'd like to explain how a helmet
COULD have lower drag when none available do?

Zaumen - the definition of the world's stupidest person.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:


Guy, trying to stay on message, is still engaging in his infantile
baby talk. And he pretends others are "trolls" when all he does
is troll, with repeated postings of his cut-and-paste jobs.

> >> it remains the truth: the proof that you are wrong was
> >> provided in the links you posted.

>
> >That's simply not the case. There is a significant range, and you
> >need only a slight improvement over a Bell V1 Pro to get a net
> >air drag reduction, at least if your hair is like mine.

>
> So you keep saying, but as yet you have provided precisely no evidence
> to support that assertion, or to rebut the point made by others that
> the vents on modern helmets could very well make them significantly
> worse than the V-1.


That "point" is merely an unsubstantiated conjecture on your part.

> >I'll ignore your other posts today too. You are obviously just
> >trolling and are not capable of acting like an adult.

>
> Translation: "Laa laa I'm still not listening"


Still in baby talk mode? If you want to be taken seriously, you'll
have to start acting like an adult.


--
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:
> >
> > > "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message


> > They are reprepresentative of the best you can do in terms of air drag
> > reduction.

>
> No, hypersonic aircraft are representative of the best you can do in terms
> of air drag reduction but then that also doesn't anything to do with the
> subject at hand.


We were talking about helmets, which was the context of the statement.
You know, the ones you wear when riding a bicycle. Stop playing games,
Tommy.

>
> > I also listed the results for ANSI certified helmets, and for
> > a Bell V1 Pro. You, of course, snipped that. Given that your well
> > deserved reputation as a bald-faced liar, that is no surprise.

>
> And of course those helmets did not have drags lower than a bald head or one
> covered with a rubber cap. So who insists on telling lie after lie here
> Zaumen? Either you are lying or you are so stupid you can't even read the
> citations you yourself supplied.


Well, that's another of you lies. I have the figures for several
combinations, quoting text from that particular URL.

>
> > Since I showed data for an ANSI certified helmet that reduced drag for
> > people with short hair, but not people completely bald, I made a perfectly
> > valid point. Of course you snipped it - you'd look like a fool if casual
> > readers saw the original text.

>
> Since that helmet isn't make any longer and the helmets that are have
> considerably higher drag figures perhaps you'd like to explain how a helmet
> COULD have lower drag when none available do?


You mean that a model that was sold around 1990 isn't being sold
today? And that is surprising? You could say the same thing about
just about anything you own.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
> >
> > No, hypersonic aircraft are representative of the best you can do in

terms
> > of air drag reduction but then that also doesn't have anything to do

with the
> > subject at hand.

>
> We were talking about helmets, which was the context of the statement.
> You know, the ones you wear when riding a bicycle. Stop playing games,
> Tommy.


No, YOU were talking about head fairings and pretending that the drag of one
of those is comparable to a safety helmet. The rest of us were here in
reality while you're still buzzing around in never-neverland. But then
you're the one that has green tights and hangs out with a bunch of young
boys.

> > And of course those helmets did not have drags lower than a bald head or

one
> > covered with a rubber cap. So who insists on telling lie after lie here
> > Zaumen? Either you are lying or you are so stupid you can't even read

the
> > citations you yourself supplied.

>
> Well, that's another of you lies. I have the figures for several
> combinations, quoting text from that particular URL.


Then by all means show us up and supply the aerodynamic drag figures for a
modern helmet. There's a reason that they aren't published you know. On
second thought, no you don't know. In fact there's probably nothing that you
DO know.
 
"Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

> No, YOU were talking about head fairings and pretending that the drag of one
> of those is comparable to a safety helmet. The rest of us were here in
> reality while you're still buzzing around in never-neverland. But then
> you're the one that has green tights and hangs out with a bunch of young
> boys.


Kunich, you are simply a liar.

> Then by all means show us up and supply the aerodynamic drag figures for a
> modern helmet. There's a reason that they aren't published you know. On
> second thought, no you don't know. In fact there's probably nothing that you
> DO know.


Go back to the URLs I provided. It has all the data you need there.
Or re-read the posts (or have your nanny read it to you if you can't.)

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

>Guy, trying to stay on message,


Like most zealots, Bill is clearly unable to distinguish between an
atheist and an agnostic. But if you insist on a message, it is this:
"prove it." You made an assertion, and the only evidence you provided
to back it up proved the opposite.

>> So you keep saying, but as yet you have provided precisely no evidence
>> to support that assertion, or to rebut the point made by others that
>> the vents on modern helmets could very well make them significantly
>> worse than the V-1.


>That "point" is merely an unsubstantiated conjecture on your part.


Unlike your "point" that they could easily be better? A "point"
backed by no evidence? And which quietly slips in the false premise
that unrestrained long hair is typical, obviously.

>If you want to be taken seriously, you'll
>have to start acting like an adult.


A new entry for the ZaumenWorld[tm] dictionary: "acting like an adult"
= evading all substantive points made against you. This is tough to
learn, this ZaumenSpeak[tm]; there are so many words and phrases which
sound like English but have entirely different meanings!


The challenge issued was:

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.

Your response, three times now, was to evade this. I see a pattern
emerging here.

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 Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:18:48 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

>hypersonic aircraft are representative of the best you can do in terms
>of air drag reduction but then that also doesn't anything to do with the
>subject at hand.


Do you get the impression that Bill's knowledge of boundary layer
conditions, laminar and turbulent flow is less than encylopaedic?

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 Tue, 05 Oct 2004 04:59:50 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>Go back to the URLs I provided. It has all the data you need there.


You are absolutely right, for a change. They have all the data we
could possibly want. The only thing is, we have read and understood
them while you clearly have not, so we know that:

- the only headgear which performed better than a bald head or rubber
cap was a head fairing, offering no impact protection

- the Stratos ANSI certified aero helmet (reportedly most
uncomfortable to wear) was worse than a bald head or rubber cap

- the only standard helmet tested was worse than the worst-case
unhelmeted scenario of unrestrained long hair

- a more recent paper /started/ from the premise that ANSI certified
helmets /increase/ drag

- this paper tested helmets not unlike the Stratos and found them
worse than no helmet unless the rider held their head rigidly in
position and remained in an aero crouch. Note that this is
completely unrepresentative of the sit-up-and-beg riding position
adopted by the rider of any straight-bar bike and clearly
incompatible with riding on shared use facilities or in traffic,
where the rider must scan for hazards all the time.

Yes indeed, the only thing missing from the links posted is any
backing for your oft-repeated assertion. An assertion which has as a
core premise the idea that unrestrained long hair is representative of
modern cyclists.


The challenge I issued was:

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.

Your response has been to evade three times thus far.

We're waiting, Bill...

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
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>
> >Guy, trying to stay on message,

>
> Like most zealots, Bill is clearly unable to distinguish between an
> atheist and an agnostic.


Guy and company are the only zealots on this thread. He's using the
tactic of accusing opposition of your major fault so that it will look
like "*** for tat" if the opposition brings it up. A good example
is Bush's "flip flopping" charge and the Republican funding of the
Swift Boat Liars (TM).

You can also look at the net verbage. Real zealots (TM) talk a lot
and go non-linear at any disagreement with their cherished beliefs,
and Guy certainly takes the cake in that regard. And you can also
look at the fact that he is replying to nearly *everything* I post,
not just replies to replies to his posts.

He's obviously got an obsession.

I'll ignore the rest of his posts today. It's all been covered and
Guy is simply wrong as should be obvious.

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

>> Like most zealots, Bill is clearly unable to distinguish between an
>> atheist and an agnostic.


>Guy and company are the only zealots on this thread.


LOL! Très drôle. Now, how about the challenge I issued?

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.

>I'll ignore the rest of his posts today.


Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening"

I see no option 4 (evasion) in the challenge above, Bill. So which of
the three are you going for?

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
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:18:48 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
> wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >hypersonic aircraft are representative of the best you can do in terms
> >of air drag reduction but then that also doesn't anything to do with the
> >subject at hand.

>
> Do you get the impression that Bill's knowledge of boundary layer
> conditions, laminar and turbulent flow is less than encylopaedic?


My impression is that the only encyclopedic knowledge Bill has at hand is
"How to act the ass without really trying".
 
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:08:34 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>My impression is that the only encyclopedic knowledge Bill has at hand is
>"How to act the ass without really trying".


Be fair, Tom, he puts a lot of effort into that :)

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
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:08:34 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >My impression is that the only encyclopedic knowledge Bill has at hand is
> >"How to act the ass without really trying".

>
> Be fair, Tom, he puts a lot of effort into that :)


Perhaps, but he seems to do it with such ease.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>
> >> Like most zealots, Bill is clearly unable to distinguish between an
> >> atheist and an agnostic.

>
> >Guy and company are the only zealots on this thread.

>
> LOL! Très drôle. Now, how about the challenge I issued?


I've gone over it 30 times already, and going over it a few more
times won't change the fact that you guys are simply out to lunch.
I provided data for you showing a range in air drag a non-aerodynamic
helmet being about a percentage point worse than a cylcist with a
full head of hair, the best ANSI certified design being better than
a cylcist with short hair, and the most aerodynamic design being a
couple of percent better than a cyclist with a bald head. You need
a minor improvement over a 1980s model helmet with no aerodynamic
shaping to get a net reduction in drag.

> 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.


The data *did* support my position, and ranting won't change that.

> >I'll ignore the rest of his posts today.

>
> Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening"


Translation, if you act like a child, you'll be ignored. Oh, and
refusing to put up with your infantile behavior is not an "evasion."

--
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