Re: published helmet research - not troll



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

>Trying to demonstrate that you are even more childish than Kunich?


No, just smarter than you. But maybe I should raise the bar, because
that really isn't hard at all.

>Guess I'll have to plonk the rest of your messages today.


Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening".

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:

>> >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
 
Bill "Laa laa I'm

>> I really don't think it's that straightforward. One of the great
>> problems is that the research community is so busy trying to prove
>> that helmets work in theory, that they are not devoting any time to
>> finding out why they don't in practice.


>... yet another conspiracy theory.


No, merely a comment. The researchers wth the budgets and the remit
are all engaged in repeating Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, and not
researching the observed fact that large-scale increases in helmet use
have generally, led to, if anything, worse overall safety.

>> Ironically, helmet zealots are probably the worst offenders in
>> encouraging an overly optimistic view of the effectiveness of helmets,

><snip>


>.... strawman argument.


No, a valid observation. Risk compensation is caused by modifying
behaviour in response ot a perceived increase in safety. If you go
around telling people that helmets "prevent 85% of head injuries and
88% of brain injuries" (knowing that even the original authors no
longer make that claim), you are giving an over-optimistic

>> As we know from the actions of Our Mutual Friend, anybody who purveys
>> certainties in the helmet debate is probably a liar, a charlatan or
>> both :)


>.... ad hominem attack.


There are currently no certainties in the helmet debate, other than
that we do not know enough. Anyone who pretends otherwise is a
probably a liar, a charlatan or both. I am hapy to stand by that
statement.

>Conclusion - Guy is one of the real trolls in this dicussion (and
>he even resorted to the dubious tactic of putting my last name in
>the subject line in the hopes that enough responses would help his
>propaganda campaign/personal vendetta along.) Pretty sleazy.


I love the idea that a statement that we don't know enough, and that
further research is (a) necessary and (b) not being done, could be
construed as a troll, while stating that (for example) helmets reduce
wind resistance, backed only by evidence which says the opposite, is
not.

But well done for correctly identifying yourself from the description
"liar, charlatan or both".

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
>
> >> I really don't think it's that straightforward. One of the great
> >> problems is that the research community is so busy trying to prove
> >> that helmets work in theory, that they are not devoting any time to
> >> finding out why they don't in practice.

>
> >... yet another conspiracy theory.

>
> No, merely a comment. The researchers wth the budgets and the remit
> are all engaged in repeating Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, and not
> researching the observed fact that large-scale increases in helmet use
> have generally, led to, if anything, worse overall safety.


..... yep, a conspiracy theory. Researchers get credit for discovering
something new. Do you think they *all* going to play follow the leader?
It just doesn't make any sense - you don't even help your carreer along
by merely doing "me too" studies.

> >> Ironically, helmet zealots are probably the worst offenders in
> >> encouraging an overly optimistic view of the effectiveness of helmets,

> ><snip>

>
> >.... strawman argument.

>
> No, a valid observation. Risk compensation is caused by modifying
> behaviour in response ot a perceived increase in safety.


The "perceived increase in safety" is usually something like enhanced
braking, not something abstract like seatbelts or helmets. And, as I
pointed out, a helmet doesn't protect your butt from road rash.
> >.... ad hominem attack.

>
> There are currently no certainties in the helmet debate, other than
> that we do not know enough. Anyone who pretends otherwise is a
> probably a liar, a charlatan or both. I am hapy to stand by that
> statement.


Gee. When I said that the data people were using to try to show that
helmets didn't work was not adequate, Tommy and Franky were all over
my case about it.


> I love the idea that a statement that we don't know enough, and that
> further research is (a) necessary and (b) not being done, could be
> construed as a troll, <snip>


The "trolling" was evident by your continued childish personal
attacks. And you are lying about who was lying.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> 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.


You are trying to weasel out of the fact that the claim I just replied
to is 100% wrong.


> - 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.


That "standard helmet" (a Bell V1 Pro) is a non-aerodynamic design.
Look at a picture of it - completely symmetrical front to back.

> The only helmets for which drag reductions were shown were time trial
> helmets.


We have a very slight penalty for the Bell V1 Pro and a noticable
reduction for time-trial helmets, with less extreme cases in between.
Try again, Guy.

> 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.


It showed a test with one particular helmet designed to fit a dummy.

>
> 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


As I said, you only have to do slightly better relative to a Bell V-1
Pro to have a very slight air drag reduction.

<gobs of stuff snipped - its getting close to time for dinner, and that
is more important than repeating the same conversation over and over
with this character.>

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled::
>
> >Trying to demonstrate that you are even more childish than Kunich?

>
> No, just smarter than you. But maybe I should raise the bar, because
> that really isn't hard at all.
>
> >Guess I'll have to plonk the rest of your messages today.

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


Back to infantile mode. What a baby Guy is.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:53:13 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> >Guess I'll have to plonk the rest of your messages today.

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

>Back to infantile mode. What a baby Guy is.


Found a perfect description of you today.

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html

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!

>> If only your understanding of the subject matched your persistence.


>You are trying to weasel out of the fact that the claim I just replied
>to is 100% wrong.


ROTLMAO! You take the prize, you really do.
The perfect reason-proof, fact-proof Usenet troll.

I suppose one day you might post some evidence which does not either
directly contradict you or prove your ignorance of the subject - but
not so far...

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:

[snip Zaumentrolling]

See? My point is proven. Any purveyor of certainties in a helmet
thread is a liar, a charlatan or both.

Hopefully anybody still reading this will have the sense to go away
and find out for themselves, looking at all sides of the argument,
unlike Bill "only-one-study-in-only-one-country" Zaumen.

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:

> On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:53:13 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
> wrote in message <[email protected]>:
>
> >> >Guess I'll have to plonk the rest of your messages today.
> >> Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening".

> >Back to infantile mode. What a baby Guy is.

>
> Found a perfect description of you today.


Yawn. You really do have an obsession. Why don't you get some
professional help?

Next troll from Guy:

> >You are trying to weasel out of the fact that the claim I just replied
> >to is 100% wrong.


> ROTLMAO! You take the prize, you really do.
> The perfect reason-proof, fact-proof Usenet troll.


And not how every reason I gave was simply ignored. Then when I get
bored simply point out Guy's infantile behavior, he whines. What a
baby.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
Just zis Guy said:
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:53:13 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
wrote in message <[email protected]>:

>> >Guess I'll have to plonk the rest of your messages today.

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

>Back to infantile mode. What a baby Guy is.


Found a perfect description of you today.

http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame63.html

Guy
--

Touché Guy - yep Bill is perhaps the exemplar supreme of this species "ferrous cranium" - or maybe the original prototype, can he be surpassed or is he the né plus ultra - the apotheosis? - but Guy, how do you see your own position - the philosopher? The therapist in me sees Bill as a a wasted space and debating with him is utterly futile - I get the impression that he thrives on attention and the solution for that is...ignore him, don't engage?

Roger
 
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listenign" Zaumen trolled:

>> ROTLMAO! You take the prize, you really do.
>> The perfect reason-proof, fact-proof Usenet troll.


>And not how every reason I gave was simply ignored.


No, Bill, not ignored - followed up and found to contradict you.

But hey, even at this late stage I am agnostic on the issue; all you
need to do is post some evidence which doesn't (a) prove the exact
opposite of your assertion or (b) demonstrate your lack of
understanding of the issues involved.

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 listenign" Zaumen trolled:
>
> >> ROTLMAO! You take the prize, you really do.
> >> The perfect reason-proof, fact-proof Usenet troll.

>
> >And not how every reason I gave was simply ignored.

>
> No, Bill, not ignored - followed up and found to contradict you.


You sound like Bush - stay on message and the facts be damned.

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

>You sound like Bush - stay on message and the facts be damned.


LOL! This from the man who insists helmets reduce drag based on
posted evidence that they don't!

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]...
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> > Bill "Laa laa I'm not listenign" Zaumen trolled:
> >
> > >> ROTLMAO! You take the prize, you really do.
> > >> The perfect reason-proof, fact-proof Usenet troll.

> >
> > >And not how every reason I gave was simply ignored.

> >
> > No, Bill, not ignored - followed up and found to contradict you.

>
> You sound like Bush - stay on message and the facts be damned.


FACTS? You ignorant clown! You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the
ass. That other blithering ass would post a citation and then not even know
what the hell was written there? If your stupidity was one tenth as much as
it is, you'd still qualify as retarded.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>
> >You sound like Bush - stay on message and the facts be damned.

>
> LOL! This from the man who insists helmets reduce drag based on
> posted evidence that they don't!


Even worse, the ******* posted the information himself.
 
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:

> Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
>
> >You sound like Bush - stay on message and the facts be damned.

>
> LOL! This from the man who insists helmets reduce drag based on
> posted evidence that they don't!


I posted evidence showing an air drag reduction, except for an
old-style helmet (a Bell V1 Pro). One URL showed two limiting cases,
with the worst just slightly worse than a cyclist riding with a full
head of hair and the best a bit better than a bald-headed cyclist.

But you are staying on message, I guess. Just like King George.

Then our resident redneck Tom Kunich chimed in twice (I'm combining
both of his posts to save space) with

> Even worse, the ******* posted the information himself.


> FACTS? You ignorant clown! You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the
> ass. That other blithering ass would post a citation and then not even know
> what the hell was written there? If your stupidity was one tenth as much as
> it is, you'd still qualify as retarded.


Ooooh. Our little Tommy is trying to graduate from the 8th grade
boy's locker room to the 9th grade boy's locker room. Or is is the
other way around? I forget. Given that outburst, I can only wonder
if Kunich's blood pressure went through the roof as he posted it or if
he merely had an, err, "rise" in his pants. And all over a percent
or so change in air drag from using a helmet.

What a pathetic excuse for humanity Kunich is. Guy, by contrast, is
merely a mindless troll.

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

>> >You sound like Bush - stay on message and the facts be damned.

>> LOL! This from the man who insists helmets reduce drag based on
>> posted evidence that they don't!


>I posted evidence showing an air drag reduction, except for an
>old-style helmet (a Bell V1 Pro). One URL showed two limiting cases,
>with the worst just slightly worse than a cyclist riding with a full
>head of hair and the best a bit better than a bald-headed cyclist.


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.

Additional data (also posted by you) says that helmets increase drag,
vented helmets increase drag, drag is a problem with helmets, and aero
helmets only reduce drag if the rider's position is kept within
tightly constrained limits.

From this you deduce that helmets /reduce/ drag, presumably because in
BillWorld[tm] it is heresy to suggest that there could ever be any
respect in which not wearing a helmet is better than wearing one. And
then you accuse /me/ of being "on-message!" You are a loon.

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.

Bill |<----------- unfathomable gulf ----------->| clue

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:
>
> >> >You sound like Bush - stay on message and the facts be damned.
> >> LOL! This from the man who insists helmets reduce drag based on
> >> posted evidence that they don't!

>
> >I posted evidence showing an air drag reduction, except for an
> >old-style helmet (a Bell V1 Pro). One URL showed two limiting cases,
> >with the worst just slightly worse than a cyclist riding with a full
> >head of hair and the best a bit better than a bald-headed cyclist.

>
> 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.


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. I have a full head
of hair, so it doesn't take much of an improvement over a Bell V1 Pro
for me to see a slight net reduction in drag. Do you think a
standard helmet (the Bell V1 Pro is not a standard design today) might
fall somewhere in between? Or is the concept too hard for you to
understand?

> Additional data (also posted by you) says that helmets increase drag,
> vented helmets increase drag, drag is a problem with helmets, and aero
> helmets only reduce drag if the rider's position is kept within
> tightly constrained limits.


> From this you deduce that helmets /reduce/ drag, presumably because in
> BillWorld[tm] it is heresy to suggest that there could ever be any
> respect in which not wearing a helmet is better than wearing one. And
> then you accuse /me/ of being "on-message!" You are a loon.


You've repeatedly mispepresented what I said and this is no
exception. But what else is new? You've done nothing else for the
past several months. 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.

Oh, and you are also lying about what I've said about helmets as well.
I've pointed out that some people overheat on climbs, for example. So
what? Others don't. If you overheat, you can always take the thing
off for the climb, when you are moving slowly anyway, and put it back
on at the top.

> 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" just like King George (the
political cartoon in yesterday's paper of George standing up in a
row boat like George Washington and saying, "Stay the course" as the
boat heads for a waterfall 10 feet away was absolutely comical.)

The entire argument is due to your obvious obsession with me, as can
be seen by your continual replies to nearly everything I post,
including completely separate topics. You even aligned yourself with
a right-wing loon of a troll from another newsgroup, without even
bothering to read the thread you were commenting on.

On another newsgroup, this guy called me a "liar" for questioning a
claim by some idiot that the 9/11 commision report blamed Saddam on
pages 315--333. When I downloaded said report and read pages 315--333
I didn't see any mention of Saddam or Iraq, pointed this out, and
asked for a page and line number on the off chance that I had missed
something. No page and line number was ever posted, but he ranted
about lies anyway. And I even provided the URL for the report - a
large PDF file. And *you* were fool enough to align yourself with
this moron. Guy, you are really a pathetic troll. It shows. You
should be embarassed.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
 
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
 

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