Re: published helmet research - not troll

Discussion in 'rec.bicycles.soc' started by Frank Krygowski, Jun 17, 2004.

  1. Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

    >> >As I said, I wouldn't even tell you guys the color of my car. It's
    >> >none of our business. My personal helmet is not either, since the
    >> >statement was about any similarly shaped one (slightly teardrop
    >> >shaped like many helmets you'll see people using.)


    >> Similar to what? You won't tell us.


    No, Bill, you told us about "teardrop helmets like you see people
    wearing" and you told us about your helmet, but since these
    descriptions ring no bells with us (and we, unlike you, are not only
    regular cyclists but regular customers of bike shops), so we need some
    kind of hint. Like a model name.

    ><back into the timeout for Guy - he's still engaging in baby talk and
    >he's still trolling.>


    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
     


  2. On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 18:39:56 GMT, n[email protected] (Bill Z.)
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >I described it for you - slightly teardrop shaped. Go down to a store
    >and look for typical helmets like that (nothing extreme designed
    >specifically for racing.) I'm sure you've seen them.


    Nope. I was in the bike shop today and I looked specifically. They
    have about forty or fifty differnet hlemets on display and the only
    one which could be described as even vaguely terdrop shaped was a head
    faring (non-ANSI). They are out of ANSI TT helmets, since the rules
    change took all the lid makers by surprise.

    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
     
  3. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

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

    > Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:
    >
    > >> >As I said, I wouldn't even tell you guys the color of my car. It's
    > >> >none of our business. My personal helmet is not either, since the
    > >> >statement was about any similarly shaped one (slightly teardrop
    > >> >shaped like many helmets you'll see people using.)

    >
    > >> Similar to what? You won't tell us.

    >
    > No, Bill, you told us about "teardrop helmets like you see people
    > wearing" and you told us about your helmet, but since these
    > descriptions ring no bells with us (and we, unlike you, are not only
    > regular cyclists but regular customers of bike shops), so we need some
    > kind of hint. Like a model name.


    If you've never seen a helmet whose shape is not the same in the back as
    in the front, I'd suggest you actually *look* in those shops you claim
    to frequent so much. I'll ignore your speculations about how much
    cycling I get in - we've never met so you have no way of knowing. but
    that ever stopped you nut cases from speculating anyway.

    > ><back into the timeout for Guy - he's still engaging in baby talk and
    > >he's still trolling.>

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


    Translation - Guy has the majurity of a two-year-old. Back to the
    time out for him.

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

    >> No, Bill, you told us about "teardrop helmets like you see people
    >> wearing" and you told us about your helmet, but since these
    >> descriptions ring no bells with us (and we, unlike you, are not only
    >> regular cyclists but regular customers of bike shops), so we need some
    >> kind of hint. Like a model name.


    >If you've never seen a helmet whose shape is not the same in the back as
    >in the front, I'd suggest you actually *look* in those shops you claim
    >to frequent so much.


    Oh the shape is asymmetric enough, but nothing like a teardrop. I
    know what an aerodynamic helmet would look like - a head fairing - and
    not one of the helmets on show is even vaguely similar. Most of them
    are either symmetrical or like the Bell Ghisallo, which has a sort of
    shelf at the back. So, what make and model of helmt do you have in
    mind?

    >I'll ignore your speculations about how much
    >cycling I get in - we've never met so you have no way of knowing. but
    >that ever stopped you nut cases from speculating anyway.


    Oh do tell - do you ride every weekday? Once a week? How many miles
    per year? I ride between 4,000 and 5,000 miles per year - you ride
    more or less than that? Oh, I forgot - you are allowed to use your
    "experience" to contradict those whose knowledge is clearly greater
    than yours, but any attempt to quantify that "experience" is an
    intolerable intrusion into your personal life. No doubt if you tell
    us what helmet you wear you'll start getting spam, just as you would
    if you spelled your name forwards in your .sig.

    So, which brand of helmet is lined with aluminium foil to deflect the
    mind rays? Or was that a custom mod after you bought it?

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

    >Translation - Guy has the majurity of a two-year-old. Back to the
    >time out for him.


    Translation: "Laa laa, I'm still 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
     
  5. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

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

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


    > >If you've never seen a helmet whose shape is not the same in the back as
    > >in the front, I'd suggest you actually *look* in those shops you claim
    > >to frequent so much.

    >
    > Oh the shape is asymmetric enough, but nothing like a teardrop. I
    > know what an aerodynamic helmet would look like - a head fairing - and
    > not one of the helmets on show is even vaguely similar.


    Go back and look again. We were, after all, talking about a very
    modest reduction in drag compared to a totally symmetric helmet.

    > Most of them are either symmetrical or like the Bell Ghisallo,
    > which has a sort of shelf at the back. So, what make and model of
    > helmt do you have in mind?


    Why don't you look at the assymetric ones and pick something in the
    middle of the road in terms of shape and price.

    >
    > >I'll ignore your speculations about how much
    > >cycling I get in - we've never met so you have no way of knowing. but
    > >that ever stopped you nut cases from speculating anyway.

    >
    > Oh do tell - do you ride every weekday? Once a week? How many miles
    > per year?


    It's really none of your business. I'm not interested in a discussion
    about me (your obsession notwithstanding.)

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


    Guy is still acting like a little boy. You'd think an adult would
    be embarassed to behave that way.

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

    >> Oh the shape is asymmetric enough, but nothing like a teardrop. I
    >> know what an aerodynamic helmet would look like - a head fairing - and
    >> not one of the helmets on show is even vaguely similar.


    >Go back and look again. We were, after all, talking about a very
    >modest reduction in drag compared to a totally symmetric helmet.


    AH, no, Bill, *you* were talking about a modest reduction in drag, but
    that would require that any improvement in aerodynamics from the
    woefully insufficient "teardrop shape" of your imaginary helmet is not
    competely blown away by the effect of vents. Since you have posted,
    to date, preciusely zero evidence to support your assertion (the only
    evidence you ave posted being directly contradictory) the only
    reaosnable conclusion is that you are, as ever, wrong.

    >> Most of them are either symmetrical or like the Bell Ghisallo,
    >> which has a sort of shelf at the back. So, what make and model of
    >> helmt do you have in mind?


    >Why don't you look at the assymetric ones and pick something in the
    >middle of the road in terms of shape and price.


    Which one, Bill? I looked at the whole damn shelf; every single one
    was either symmetrical or shaped more or less like the Ghisallo. Oh,
    apart form the full-face mountian biking helmets and of course the
    head fairings.

    >> Oh do tell - do you ride every weekday? Once a week? How many miles
    >> per year?


    >It's really none of your business. I'm not interested in a discussion
    >about me (your obsession notwithstanding.)


    Perish the thought that you should ever be required to quantify the
    extent of your ignorance.

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


    >Guy is still acting like a little boy. You'd think an adult would
    >be embarassed to behave that way.


    You'd think an adult would be embarrassed to hang around these NGs
    when everything they post turns out to be bullshit, but you keep
    coming back.

    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
     
  7. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

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

    > Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:
    >
    > >> Oh the shape is asymmetric enough, but nothing like a teardrop. I
    > >> know what an aerodynamic helmet would look like - a head fairing - and
    > >> not one of the helmets on show is even vaguely similar.

    >
    > >Go back and look again. We were, after all, talking about a very
    > >modest reduction in drag compared to a totally symmetric helmet.

    >
    > AH, no, Bill, *you* were talking about a modest reduction in drag, but
    > that would require that any improvement in aerodynamics from the
    > woefully insufficient "teardrop shape" of your imaginary helmet is not
    > competely blown away by the effect of vents.


    Aside from owning a helmet with such a shape, as others do, the Bell V1
    Pro, vents and all, is only 1.2% worse than having long hair. Whatever
    effect the vents have has already been taken into account.


    > >> Oh do tell - do you ride every weekday? Once a week? How many miles
    > >> per year?

    >
    > >It's really none of your business. I'm not interested in a discussion
    > >about me (your obsession notwithstanding.)

    >
    > Perish the thought that you should ever be required to quantify the
    > extent of your ignorance.


    The discussion is supposed to be about helmets, in case you don't know.

    > >Guy is still acting like a little boy. You'd think an adult would
    > >be embarassed to behave that way.

    >
    > You'd think an adult would be embarrassed to hang around these NGs
    > when everything they post turns out to be bullshit, but you keep
    > coming back.


    The only BS is coming from some anti helmet loons, the current roster
    containing (a) A foul-tempered troll named Guy, (b) a propagandist
    named Frank, and (c) an abusive, lying one-time jailbird named Tom.
    What a crew.

    And, if you don't want to see your infantile behavior and your baby
    talk insults being pointed out, why don't you start acting like an
    adult?

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  8. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
    > > Bill "laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

    >
    > > > I posted some links *showing* an air-drag reduction.

    > >
    > > For aero shells used in time trials which bear no relation to standard
    > > helmets, yes, and it also showed a net increase in drag for standard
    > > helmets.

    >
    > That's simply not true. It showed a slight net increase for *one*
    > helmet with a completely symmetric design that was typical of the
    > 1980s.


    Firstly, you did nothing of the sort. ALL of the SAFETY helmets showed a
    higher aerodynamic drag than a bald head or one wearing a rubber cap as used
    to be popular.

    Secondly, the Bell helmet which you appear to be discussing WAS NOT TYPICAL
    of any other helmet then or now. No one could wear the helmet for more than
    a very short TT on a cool day and hence they were rapidly discontinued.
     
  9. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
    > >
    > > That helmet was not "about the same shape as yours." That helmet
    > > shown is the only mass-market helmets with "about that same shape."

    >
    > The one I was referring to was tear-drop shaped with the part extending
    > to the rear not particularly extreme. Eyeballing it, the shape was
    > comparable to mine - much closer than the highest performance ones
    > and similar to both my helmet and most of the ones I see people use
    > in overall shape.


    OK, there we have it. Since any nitwit who has seen a Stratos wold know that
    there is essentially one quality that is the same between a modern helmet
    and a Stratos - that they both are supposed to be used by cyclists - and yet
    Bill tells us that his calibrated eye sees little difference.

    Bill is taking his idiocy to such heights now that he is closing in on the
    world's altitude record. Maybe we can say he's hit the Stratos-sphere?
     
  10. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
    > > Yep. As I expected, you're obviously lying about your helmet and its
    > > air resistance.

    >
    > Krygowski, of course, is simply showing his dishonesty. I don't give
    > out personal information to people like him and his "friends." I
    > wouldn't even tell them the color of my car. It is simply none of
    > their business. It's also a distraction from what we are supposedly
    > discussing. Krygowski lives on a diet of red herrings, and there is
    > no need to feed him.


    There we go - Bill tells us that HIS helmet is more aerodynamic that a bare
    head. Since we have never seen such a standard helmet and ask WHICH helmet
    this could possibly be, he tells us that it is PERSONAL INFORMATION!!!

    Ahh, Bill, you could teach lunacy to lunatics.
     
  11. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > As I said, I wouldn't even tell you guys the color of my car. It's
    > none of our business.


    Ahh, so in truth you won't even tell YOURSELF the color of your car. Somehow
    that doesn't surprise me in the least.
     
  12. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > If you've never seen a helmet whose shape is not the same in the back as
    > in the front, I'd suggest you actually *look* in those shops you claim
    > to frequent so much.


    Ahh, there, NOW you've made it clear. When you say "teardrop" you don't
    really mean "teardrop" but instead "some other shape than a Bell V1".

    Tell us Bill, why do you suppose they're building Bell V1 lookalikes again?
     
  13. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    I must say, now more than ever I'm convinced that the guy out in front of
    that bike shop in Cupertino whose said his name was Bill and who wasn't
    allowed in the shop is our Bill.
     
  14. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
    > > If you made that claim in error, just say so; all will be forgiven.

    >
    > No, it wasn't in error - I was just using informal language.


    Berechnen Sie isn't gerade ein Idiot aber ein Idiot der Genieanteile.
     
  15. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

    > "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> writes:
    > > > Bill "laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

    > >
    > > > > I posted some links *showing* an air-drag reduction.
    > > >
    > > > For aero shells used in time trials which bear no relation to standard
    > > > helmets, yes, and it also showed a net increase in drag for standard
    > > > helmets.

    > >
    > > That's simply not true. It showed a slight net increase for *one*
    > > helmet with a completely symmetric design that was typical of the
    > > 1980s.

    >
    > Firstly, you did nothing of the sort. ALL of the SAFETY helmets showed a
    > higher aerodynamic drag than a bald head or one wearing a rubber cap as used
    > to be popular.


    Most cyclists do not have a bald head. It was very clear that I was
    comparing the drag relative to a full head of hair, and this was
    stated multiple times. Neither I nor anyone I know personally will
    gets their heads shaved just for the sake of a bike ride.

    >
    > Secondly, the Bell helmet which you appear to be discussing WAS NOT TYPICAL
    > of any other helmet then or now. No one could wear the helmet for more than
    > a very short TT on a cool day and hence they were rapidly discontinued.


    The Bell V1 Pro was a typical helmet in the 1980s. We can do better
    today in terms of aerodynamics. The helmet with the lowest drag is
    interesting only for showing the range of reductions that are
    possible.


    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  16. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

    > "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
    > > >
    > > > That helmet was not "about the same shape as yours." That helmet
    > > > shown is the only mass-market helmets with "about that same shape."

    > >
    > > The one I was referring to was tear-drop shaped with the part extending
    > > to the rear not particularly extreme. Eyeballing it, the shape was
    > > comparable to mine - much closer than the highest performance ones
    > > and similar to both my helmet and most of the ones I see people use
    > > in overall shape.

    >
    > OK, there we have it. Since any nitwit who has seen a Stratos wold know that
    > there is essentially one quality that is the same between a modern helmet
    > and a Stratos - that they both are supposed to be used by cyclists - and yet
    > Bill tells us that his calibrated eye sees little difference.


    Any nitwit, who must be smarter than Kunich, would realize that the
    helmets I was refering to were not Bell Stratos helmets, and I don't
    own one.

    Kunich is lying as usual.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  17. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

    > "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> writes:
    > > > Yep. As I expected, you're obviously lying about your helmet and its
    > > > air resistance.

    > >
    > > Krygowski, of course, is simply showing his dishonesty. I don't give
    > > out personal information to people like him and his "friends." I
    > > wouldn't even tell them the color of my car. It is simply none of
    > > their business. It's also a distraction from what we are supposedly
    > > discussing. Krygowski lives on a diet of red herrings, and there is
    > > no need to feed him.

    >
    > There we go - Bill tells us that HIS helmet is more aerodynamic that a bare
    > head. Since we have never seen such a standard helmet and ask WHICH helmet
    > this could possibly be, he tells us that it is PERSONAL INFORMATION!!!


    More lies from Kunich - I never said that my helmet was more aerodynamic
    than a bald head. I said I'd get a slight reduction in air drag and
    I have a full head of hair.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  18. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:

    I'll group replies to multiple messages to save space.

    > "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > As I said, I wouldn't even tell you guys the color of my car. It's
    > > none of our business.

    >
    > Ahh, so in truth you won't even tell YOURSELF the color of your car. Somehow
    > that doesn't surprise me in the least.


    Kunich, really are a fool, aren't you.

    > I must say, now more than ever I'm convinced that the guy out in front of
    > that bike shop in Cupertino whose said his name was Bill and who wasn't
    > allowed in the shop is our Bill.


    Kunich now claims that because some probably nonexistent person said
    he had the same first name as I do, it must be me. Talk about admiting
    that one is an idiot - Kunich takes the prize.

    > Berechnen Sie isn't gerade ein Idiot aber ein Idiot der Genieanteile.


    He can't even speak proper German either.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  19. Bill "laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

    >> Firstly, you did nothing of the sort. ALL of the SAFETY helmets showed a
    >> higher aerodynamic drag than a bald head or one wearing a rubber cap as used
    >> to be popular.


    >Most cyclists do not have a bald head. It was very clear that I was
    >comparing the drag relative to a full head of hair, and this was
    >stated multiple times.


    And, as was stated multiple times, the only ANSI certified helmet that
    increased drag by less than a full hea dof hair was unwearable. The
    only standard helmet for which figures were produced was significantly
    worse than the worst-case unhelmeted scenario of unrestrained long
    hair.

    >The Bell V1 Pro was a typical helmet in the 1980s. We can do better
    >today in terms of aerodynamics.


    So you assert, but despite repeated promptings you have not produced a
    single shred of evidence. There are numerous reasons why a modern
    hlemet might be *worse* than the V1, not least because of the large
    vents ruining the surface airflow.

    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
     
  20. Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:

    >> AH, no, Bill, *you* were talking about a modest reduction in drag, but
    >> that would require that any improvement in aerodynamics from the
    >> woefully insufficient "teardrop shape" of your imaginary helmet is not
    >> competely blown away by the effect of vents.


    >Aside from owning a helmet with such a shape, as others do,


    Really? What brand? I've not seen one which could even vaguely be
    described as teardrop shaped, let alone one which meets the criteria
    for improved airflow defined in the links you posted. I'm sure you
    are now repudiating those studies, since they all contradict you, but
    the statement that helmets increase drag and this could only be
    mitigated by using completely smooth surfaces and fairing back over
    the neck did hole your argument below the waterline.

    >the Bell V1
    >Pro, vents and all, is only 1.2% worse than having long hair.


    That is, it increases darga by over a tenth more than urestrained long
    hair, yes. But the V1 Pro has few vents. Compare any 1980s helemt
    with a modern multi-vented helmet, they are very different.

    Even if that were not the case, you would only have established that
    some modern helmets are no worse than the V1. And still without
    producing any actual evidence, since all the hard evidence thus far
    produced is against you.

    >> Perish the thought that you should ever be required to quantify the
    >> extent of your ignorance.


    >The discussion is supposed to be about helmets, in case you don't know.


    Yes, and you keep telling us how aerodynamic yourt Mystery Brand X
    helmet is, but without letting us know what Mystery Brand X is - of
    course this has nothign to do with the fact that you know you are
    wrong. Presumably you think that with your True Name and a piece of
    your helmet we can use Voodoo against you or something.

    >> You'd think an adult would be embarrassed to hang around these NGs
    >> when everything they post turns out to be bullshit, but you keep
    >> coming back.


    >The only BS is coming from some anti helmet loons


    Where? Still not seen anybody anti-helmet. Anti bullshit, yes. I've
    seen some pro-helmet loons, but no anti-helmet people at all. I only
    know one person who is anti-helmet, and he doesn't post on Usenet.

    >And, if you don't want to see your infantile behavior and your baby
    >talk insults being pointed out, why don't you start acting like an
    >adult?


    Tried that, but you relentlessly dragged the thread back into personal
    abuse because you had no facts to support you. Same ol' same ol'.

    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
     
Loading...
Loading...