Re: published helmet research - not troll

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

  1. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

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


    HaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwHeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaaaawwwww!
     


  2. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

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

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


    Kunich is finally posting statements that truly reflect his
    intelligence.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  3. On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 02:51:56 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    wrote:

    >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.

    >And BTW, I didn't start this discussion, and you whine and whine if
    >I just ignore you. That makes *you* the troll, dude.


    Yeah right. What's your total contribution to the world of cycling
    thus far, Bill? Apart from comedy interest in these groups? I see
    nothing from you other than contentious and easily disproved
    assertions, defended ad nauseam against all the evidence. This thread
    being a perfect example. That's trolling. You also troll for
    insults, presumably to give you an opportunity to go off into one of
    your sulks. Me, all I want is for you to either accept the evidence
    as provided thus far (i.e. that you are wrong) or provide some new
    evidence.

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


    Says the man who keeps repeating the mantra that helmets reduce drag
    despite the fact that all the evidence proves otherwise! There are
    two h-words in this thread, Bill, and the other one is hypocrite.
    That would be you, troll-boy.

    >> 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.


    >As if the model name for a garden-variety helmet is important.


    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. And remember, some of us ride every day, and meet
    other cyclists every day, and visit bike shops regularly, so that's
    indicative that your helmet must be somewhat unusual.

    So either you are simply lying (as if), or you are subject to your
    usual failing of believing that your case is the general case; we
    can't know which unless you tell us what model helmet you wear.

    Oh, there is another option: to write you off as a bullshitter.

    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. On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:49:27 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    wrote:

    >> > HaaaawwwwwwwwHeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaawwwwwwwwwwww.

    >
    >Kunich is finally posting statements that truly reflect his
    >intelligence.


    "Zaumen's" is spelt Z-a-u-m-e-n-apostrophe-s, not h-i-s.

    HTH.


    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. On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 02:57:36 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    wrote:

    >> 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.


    So that's the ad-hominem response, which is as worthless as your usual
    contributions, what do you have to say about the original source and
    his curious ideas regarding risk compensation? No, on second
    thoughts, don't bother.

    >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.)


    In a way that death and serious injury are not a disincentive for car
    drivers. Silly of me not to notice. Clearly you know even less about
    this than you do about any other aspect of cycling, which is hard to
    achieve. Risk compensation is actually a selling feature for one
    brand of helmets in the UK!

    The fact that the strongly pro-helmet editor of Injury Prevention set
    out to prove your assertion and ended up proving the exact opposite
    might also be considered relevant.

    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 Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:37:01 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

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


    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.

    I honestly don't know how many serious injuries helmets might prevent.
    My view is that it is probably very few. It is apparent from the
    evidence of many countries that the number of injuries they cause -
    and we have to presume that risk compensation is the primary mechanism
    there - is at least as great as the number of serious ijuries they
    save.

    Ironically, helmet zealots are probably the worst offenders in
    encouraging an overly optimistic view of the effectiveness of helmets,
    so may be considered the prime cause of their failure in the real
    world. To place them at the top of the cycle safety agenda, as so
    many zealots do, is simply unwarranted. And indeed stupid, since
    nobody would suggest that cyclists cannot die of other injuries (and
    even those who die of head injuries commonly have other mortal
    injuries as well).

    The well-established principles of risk management seem to have been
    forgotten along the way: quantify the danger, reduce danger at source,
    and only as a last resort require personal protective equipment.
    Helmet zealots commonly fail both the first two criteria, giving a
    massively inflated view of the dangers and no thought whatsoever to
    techniques for reducig risk (such as effective cycling).

    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 :)

    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. On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 02:53:39 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    wrote:

    >> >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.


    Exactly. The only standard helmet tested, one which was smoother
    surfaced than a modern helmet, was shown to be worse than the
    worst-case unhelmeted scenario (executive summary for the
    comprehension impaired: Bill WRONG).

    >It simply doesn't take much of an improvement over that to get a
    >slight drag reduction.


    Over the worst-case scenario, yes. It would require a very
    substantial improvement to beat short hair, or even long hair plus a
    cotton cycling cap.

    The only thing is, you have provided no evidence to support the idea
    of even a slight reduction. Modern multi-vented helmets are
    aerodynamically dirty. Several articles comment on that, none suggest
    that helmets improve aerodynamics. All the evidence posted thus far
    is against you, including (in fact especially) the evidence you
    yourself linked.

    Yet still you persist. I wonder why?[1]

    [1] OK, no I 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
     
  8. On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:40:37 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >HaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwHeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeHaaaaaaaaaaawwwww!


    LOL! That's so funny I forgot to correct Bill's attribution to "Bill
    'Laa Laa I'm Not listening' Zaumen" in a couple of posts today!

    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
     
  9. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

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

    > On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:37:01 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    > 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.

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

    <snip>

    ..... strawman argument.

    > 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.

    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.

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

    Bill Z. Guest

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

    > On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 02:51:56 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >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.)

    > >And BTW, I didn't start this discussion, and you whine and whine if
    > >I just ignore you. That makes *you* the troll, dude.

    >
    > 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.

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

    >
    > Says the man who keeps repeating the mantra that helmets reduce drag
    > despite the fact that all the evidence proves otherwise!


    I provided URLs to data showing a drag reduction, plus pointing out
    that what you get in practice is too small to make any noticable
    difference in practice for most people. 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.

    > two h-words in this thread, Bill, and the other one is hypocrite.
    > That would be you, troll-boy.


    Liar.

    > >> 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.

    >
    > >As if the model name for a garden-variety helmet is important.

    >
    > 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.

    > And remember, some of us ride every day, and meet other cyclists
    > every day, and visit bike shops regularly, so that's indicative that
    > your helmet must be somewhat unusual.


    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.

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

    Bill Z. Guest

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

    > On Wed, 29 Sep 2004 04:49:27 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >> > HaaaawwwwwwwwHeeeeeeeeeeehaaaaawwwwwwwwwwww.

    > >
    > >Kunich is finally posting statements that truly reflect his
    > >intelligence.

    >
    > "Zaumen's" is spelt Z-a-u-m-e-n-apostrophe-s, not h-i-s.


    Trying to demonstrate that you are even more childish than Kunich?
    Guess I'll have to plonk the rest of your messages today. Try again
    tomorrow when you'll have had another day to grow up.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  12. 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
     
  13. 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
     
  14. 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
     
  15. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "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
     
  16. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "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
     
  17. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "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
     
  18. 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
     
  19. 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
     
  20. 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
     
Loading...
Loading...