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:

    > Guy is still putting out his baby talk. What a moron. I'll reply to
    > the stuff below and put him back in his timeout for his other
    > posts.


    Translation: Bill still can't make it to the end of a sentence, and is still
    in "laa laa I'm not listening" mode.

    >> , as was stated multiple times, the only ANSI certified helmet
    >> that increased drag by less than a full hea dof hair was unwearable.


    > You may have stated that, but you didn't prove it.


    No, I didn't have to, because the links you posted did that for me.
    Evidently you didn't read them first - more fool you.

    >>> 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.


    > Look at the shape of newer helmets.


    As you are so fond of saying, repeating yuor bullshit doesn't make it true.
    We have seen reasons advanced why modern helmets would be worse than the V-1
    (and that includes from someone who actually owns one), and you have
    asserted that modern helmets are better, but actually you have posted no
    evidence to supercede the figures from the Kyle study.

    We do know that another study you linked says that helmets increase drag,
    and the strongly pro-helmet BHSI say that helmets make drag worse and you
    wouldn't want to wear the kind which doesn't.

    > Filling in the gap behind a cyclist
    > reduces air drag. In fact, if someone drafts you closely, you're air
    > drag will drop although you'll still put out more effort than the guy
    > behind you.


    I suppose that one day you will stop trying to conflate the aerodynamics of
    time trial helmets with those of standard helmets, but I'm not holding my
    breath. Note: the Japanese study you linked showed that even the aero
    helmets made things worse unless the head was held rigidly, the long tail of
    the helmet pressed back against the neck, and the rider in an aero crouch.
    When the rider sat up even slightly, the aero helmets performed markedly
    worse than a bare head.

    You wouldn't know that, of course, because you didn't read the study before
    you posted the link.

    > My helmet has less vents than the more extreme designs. It's kind of
    > middle of the road.


    So you say, but since you flatly refuse to tell us which helmet you wear we
    can't know whether you are lying or just deluded.

    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. Frank Krygowski wrote:

    > Wearing a homebrewed helmet is pretty strange, though! Did you get
    > enough of a look to tell how it differed from available models?


    It seemed to have a hard shell and thin (probably high density foam rather
    than styrofoam) padding. It might well have been adapted from a standard
    model. The straps were a bit odd, with tubes over them (to reduce rubbing?)

    > Oh, and I was under the impression he was mostly a recumbentist - or
    > whatever the word is - even riding a trike much of the time. Seems to
    > me that removes even more of the justification for a foam hat!


    He was riding a Burrows 2D - a bike which goes flat for transport on trains.
    He had come by train to the meeting. I think he still has a Speedy :)

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

    >> Which summerizes everything we've said before.


    > You mean, which repeats everything you've said before in the hopes
    > that people will believe anything if it is repeated enough.


    Er, actually, Bill, it was you who posted the links to the research which
    said this - the Kyle study and the one from Japan.

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

    >> Amazingly, Bill's trawl of the web for helmet aerodynamics references
    >> missed this from arch helmet zealots BHSI (Motto: "Don't confuse them
    >> with the facts"):


    > Oh please. You or your anti-helmet friends have gone on record
    > numerous stimes calling the BHSI web page a bile or garbage. If
    > I had quoted anything from it, you'd have complained.


    I only have one anti-helmet friend, Bill, and he doesn't post on Usenet (he
    is a published author on transportation safety issues).

    The fact that BHSI is a helmet zealot site is what makes it remarkable that
    you didn't check it during your trawl for evidence. Had you looked there
    you could have saved yourself looking like an ass. Not that I care.

    > All he's saying is that the more extreme designs don't save you too
    > much energy at low speeds because air drag increases nonlinearly
    > with speed. He didn't say a helmet only reduces drag at high
    > speeds. He said that the effect is too small for most cyclists
    > to notice, which is what I said in my original message.


    Except that, once again, he is talking about aero helmets, which bear no
    relation to standard helmets. They have smooth surfaces, no vents, they
    cover the ears, they have a long tail at the back... but hey, you seem to
    be the only person around here who doesn't know the difference and it's
    useless trying to explain anything to you not because you cannot understand
    but, worse, because you are a zealot and refuse to accept any evidence which
    does not match your preconceptions.

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

    > I've
    > provided URLs to papers doing measurements showing a net drag
    > reduction (a slight one).


    For time trial helmets. For standard helmets, every study you've linked has
    shown an increase in drag over the worst-case unhelmeted scenario of
    unrestrained long hair.

    Your continuing attempts to conflate the performance of two clearly
    dissimilar items are almost amusing. Almost.

    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
     
  6. On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 07:12:38 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >some of us use a helmet for its intended purposes - head
    >protection


    Hmmm. If head protection were the intended purpose of helmets, the
    manufacturers would not have pushed through the massively lower
    standards to which the current crop are certified. The real purpose
    is making money for the makers.

    >and if it reduces drag even slightly, that eliminates
    >one potential downside for wearing one.


    And presumably the documented fact that it does not is similarly
    irrelevant.

    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. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > I only have one anti-helmet friend, Bill, and he doesn't post on Usenet

    (he
    > is a published author on transportation safety issues).


    The latest Rivendell Reader is interesting. Grant Peterson for reasons I'm
    not quite clear on, has always been pro-helmet. He just ran an article from
    an English gentlemen whom I'm sure we all are familiar with. The tenor of
    the article is - helmets increase injuries. He seems to have a lot of
    statistics upon which he is basing his evidence.

    Peterson, who at least shows that he is open minded (in other words -
    without the HawwwwwwHeeeeeeHawwwwww of a certain individual whose name
    starts with Bill and ends with Zaumen) does run an article after that
    suggesting that he thinks that perhaps a helmet does some good if you aren't
    so stupid that you risk compensate.

    Any bets that Zaumen is one of those early Thompson and Rivara riders, whom
    it turned out, seldom rode over 5 mph?
     
  8. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "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:

    > >
    > > It is very clear that you are clueless. Why would anyone wear a helmet

    that
    > > increased his aerodymanic drag if that was a consideration, instead of
    > > simply putting on the tight rubber cap?

    >
    > Because some of us use a helmet for its intended purposes - head
    > protection - and if it reduces drag even slightly, that eliminates
    > one potential downside for wearing one.


    A standard helmet has more aero drag than a guy with long hair. A lot more
    drag than a guy with short hair. Strange that you are the one that provided
    this data and somehow you cannot understand it. Could you really be this
    stupid?

    > It is pretty clear who is clueless


    We agree on that.
     
  9. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

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

    > Bill "laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:
    >
    > > Guy is still putting out his baby talk. What a moron. I'll reply to
    > > the stuff below and put him back in his timeout for his other
    > > posts.

    >
    > Translation: Bill still can't make it to the end of a sentence, and is still
    > in "laa laa I'm not listening" mode.


    Our pathetic troll, Guy, wants to divert attention from his infantile
    behavior.

    Back to your time-out, Guy. I'm ignoring everything else you posted
    today. It's been covered before and basically you don't know what you
    are talking about.


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

    Bill Z. Guest

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


    > <snip> HawwwwwwHeeeeeeHawwwwww <snip>


    Looks like Tom is competing with Guy to see who can act like more of
    an ill-bred idiot.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  11. Guy Chapman

    Guy Chapman Guest

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

    >Our pathetic troll, Guy, wants to divert attention from his infantile
    >behavior.


    I love the way that you, who have posted nothign but contentious wrong
    assertions which you then try to defend against all evidence, call
    others trolls!

    >Back to your time-out, Guy. I'm ignoring everything else you posted
    >today. It's been covered before and basically you don't know what you
    >are talking about.


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

    I am sure that allthe groups you are trolling here would be very much
    obliged if you would extend that timeout to everybody who disagrees
    with you, and make it indefinite. The mechnism is simple: you just
    have to unsubscribe the newsgroups.

    It will be evident to anybody still watching that what you have done
    is to troll for insults at the top of a post in order to give yo a
    ready excuse for your usual evasions, saving you the tiresome
    necessity of answering the simple and obvious truth that not only are
    you wrong, but the evidence you posted shows you are wrong.

    == reinstated evaded content ==


    As you are so fond of saying, repeating yuor bullshit doesn't make it
    true. We have seen reasons advanced why modern helmets would be worse
    than the V-1 (and that includes from someone who actually owns one),
    and you have asserted that modern helmets are better, but actually you
    have posted no evidence to supercede the figures from the Kyle study.

    We do know that another study you linked says that helmets increase
    drag, and the strongly pro-helmet BHSI say that helmets make drag
    worse and you wouldn't want to wear the kind which doesn't.

    > Filling in the gap behind a cyclist
    > reduces air drag. In fact, if someone drafts you closely, you're air
    > drag will drop although you'll still put out more effort than the guy
    > behind you.


    I suppose that one day you will stop trying to conflate the
    aerodynamics of time trial helmets with those of standard helmets, but
    I'm not holding my breath. Note: the Japanese study you linked showed
    that even the aero helmets made things worse unless the head was held
    rigidly, the long tail of the helmet pressed back against the neck,
    and the rider in an aero crouch. When the rider sat up even slightly,
    the aero helmets performed markedly worse than a bare head.

    You wouldn't know that, of course, because you didn't read the study
    before you posted the link.

    > My helmet has less vents than the more extreme designs. It's kind of
    > middle of the road.


    So you say, but since you flatly refuse to tell us which helmet you
    wear we can't know whether you are lying or just deluded.
     
  12. On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:10:01 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Peterson, who at least shows that he is open minded (in other words -
    >without the HawwwwwwHeeeeeeHawwwwww of a certain individual whose name
    >starts with Bill and ends with Zaumen) does run an article after that
    >suggesting that he thinks that perhaps a helmet does some good if you aren't
    >so stupid that you risk compensate.


    An interesting idea. Nobody believes in risk compensation, after all
    - that's why it happens.

    On what does he base the assertion that you have to be stupid to
    risk-compensate? The fact that he doesn't understand it, or the fact
    that he hasn't read the research? ;-)
     
  13. Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

    >Looks like Tom is competing with Guy to see who can act like more of
    >an ill-bred idiot.


    While Bill is doing an excellent impression of an inbred idiot.
     
  14. On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:11:58 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >A standard helmet has more aero drag than a guy with long hair. A lot more
    >drag than a guy with short hair. Strange that you are the one that provided
    >this data and somehow you cannot understand it. Could you really be this
    >stupid?


    Ooh! Me! Me! I know this one! :-D
     
  15. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    Guy Chapman <[email protected]> writes:

    > Bill "laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
    >
    > >Our pathetic troll, Guy, wants to divert attention from his infantile
    > >behavior.

    >
    > I love the way that you, who have posted nothign but contentious wrong
    > assertions which you then try to defend against all evidence, call
    > others trolls!


    The only people being "contentious" are you and you new-found friends.
    And BTW, I didn't start this discussion, and you whine and whine if
    I just ignore you. That makes *you* the troll, dude.

    > >Back to your time-out, Guy. I'm ignoring everything else you posted
    > >today. It's been covered before and basically you don't know what you
    > >are talking about.

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


    Translation - act like an infant (which is what you are doing) and
    I'll treat you as one. You can whine all you want.

    > I am sure that all the groups you are trolling ...


    Guy is back to the big lie technique ... repeat the same thing over
    and over in the hope that people will believe him.

    >
    > > My helmet has less vents than the more extreme designs. It's kind of
    > > middle of the road.

    >
    > So you say, but since you flatly refuse to tell us which helmet you
    > wear we can't know whether you are lying or just deluded.


    What a troll Guy is. As if the model name for a garden-variety
    helmet is important.

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

    Bill Z. Guest

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

    > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:11:58 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >A standard helmet has more aero drag than a guy with long hair. A lot more
    > >drag than a guy with short hair. Strange that you are the one that provided
    > >this data and somehow you cannot understand it. Could you really be this
    > >stupid?

    >
    > Ooh! Me! Me! I know this one! :-D


    One particular helmet (a non-aerodynamic design), a Bell V1 Pro, was
    measured as having *slightly* more drag than someone with long hair.
    It simply doesn't take much of an improvement over that to get a
    slight drag reduction.


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

    Bill Z. Guest

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

    > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:10:01 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Peterson, who at least shows that he is open minded (in other words -
    > >without the HawwwwwwHeeeeeeHawwwwww of a certain individual whose name
    > >starts with Bill and ends with Zaumen) does run an article after that
    > >suggesting that he thinks that perhaps a helmet does some good if you aren't
    > >so stupid that you risk compensate.

    >
    > An interesting idea. Nobody believes in risk compensation, after all
    > - that's why it happens.
    >
    > On what does he base the assertion that you have to be stupid to
    > risk-compensate? The fact that he doesn't understand it, or the fact
    > that he hasn't read the research? ;-)


    If you believe a liar like Kunich, you are even more of a fool than I
    thought. BWT, what I suggested is that risk compensation does not
    apply to helmet use because road rash and other unpleasant outcomes
    of a crash are a sufficient disincentive. Risk compenstation would
    apply to improvements in bike handling (better brakes, etc.) He
    misrepresented what I had said, which is typical of him.

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

    Tom Kunich Guest

  19. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Tue, 28 Sep 2004 00:10:01 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >Peterson, who at least shows that he is open minded (in other words -
    > >without the HawwwwwwHeeeeeeHawwwwww of a certain individual whose name
    > >starts with Bill and ends with Zaumen) does run an article after that
    > >suggesting that he thinks that perhaps a helmet does some good if you

    aren't
    > >so stupid that you risk compensate.

    >
    > An interesting idea. Nobody believes in risk compensation, after all
    > - that's why it happens.
    >
    > On what does he base the assertion that you have to be stupid to
    > risk-compensate? The fact that he doesn't understand it, or the fact
    > that he hasn't read the research? ;-)


    Grant is pretty sharp cookie despite his somewhat weird ideas about bicycles
    (he'd enjoy a friction shifting 5 speed). He didn't say what I attributed to
    him but sort of hinted at it. In truth, risk compensation is something that
    we all do. If we undercompensate for a safety device our personal safety
    increases. If we overcompensate we are less safe.

    Since bicycle helmets have almost no descernable effect on injuries it is
    almost a certainty that people will always overcompensate.
     
  20. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

Loading...
Loading...