Re: published helmet research - not troll

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

  1. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "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]pacbell.net>:
    >
    > >> >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
     


  2. 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
     
  3. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "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
     
  4. 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
     
  5. 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 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.
     
  6. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "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 bastard posted the information himself.
     
  7. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "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 bastard 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
     
  8. 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 bullshit, 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
     
  9. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    "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 bullshit, 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
     
  10. 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 bullshit, 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 bullshit 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 fuck 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
     
  11. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

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

    > 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 bullshit, Bill, <snip>


    And *you* just repeated verbatim the same text from your previous
    post. Calling something "bullshit" isn't going to change the fact
    that you really have no argument to make.

    Oh, and in the message
    <http://www.google.com/groups?selm=2n94a8Ftv67qU1%40uni-berlin.de&output=gplain>,
    you called the acronym BS a "playground insult" and whined about it:

    : > Yeah sure. More BS on your part hinting at vague conspiracies.
    : ^^
    : *whoop!* *whoop!* Playground Insult Alert! *whoop!* *whoop!*

    Well Guy, that makes you quite the hypocrite, doesn't it. One standard
    for you and a different one for everyone else, so it seems!

    <Rest of post snipped - who needs to read a cut and paste job of this
    jerk's previous posts and I certainly have better things to do than to
    try to find something in this mass of mindless verbage.>


    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  12. Mitch Haley

    Mitch Haley Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
    >
    > And the Stratos, a time trial helmet, was virtually unwearable,
    > according to someone who (unlike you) has actually worn one.


    It is very hot with the visor up (raised visor closes the vents)
    and the visor is hard to see through, especially as the helmet
    shell scratches it when you raise and lower it. With the vents
    open, it isn't really much hotter than a Tourlight, with either
    one I'd take them off and pour water in my hair every 10-20 miles.
    Do people still do that, or have modern helmets made it pointless?

    Some would consider helmets like Biker, Tourlight, and Stratos
    unwearable in comparison to whatever they wear now. The last
    helmet I bought was a 1991 Specialized Sub-6, so I'm not
    qualified to compare the comfort of my helmets to the current
    fodder.
    I've never worn the Sub-6 in summer, so don't know how hot it
    is compared to the Bells. It seems to be better ventilated, but
    I've ridden less than 500 miles in it and just don't have any
    specific memories of it.

    A friend of mine put thousands of miles on his Stratos after
    removing the visor entirely, which I assume defeated much of
    the aero benefit. We also used to do double centuries and
    24 hour races in our Tourlights, so maybe we were just nuts.
    I should ask him for a comparison, he wears Bell foam hats,
    and probably remembers his Tourlight and Stratos.

    Mitch.
     
  13. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

    Mitch Haley <[email protected]> writes:

    > "Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote:
    > >
    > > And the Stratos, a time trial helmet, was virtually unwearable,
    > > according to someone who (unlike you) has actually worn one.

    >
    > It is very hot with the visor up (raised visor closes the vents)
    > and the visor is hard to see through, especially as the helmet
    > shell scratches it when you raise and lower it. With the vents
    > open, it isn't really much hotter than a Tourlight, with either
    > one I'd take them off and pour water in my hair every 10-20 miles.


    Guy aside, it was mentioned in part as a limiting case - it shows how
    much better than the Bell V1 Pro you might do in terms of reducing
    drag if that were the only criteria important to you. So you can get
    better cooling compared to a Stratos and still reduce air drag
    slightly compared to a Bell V1 Pro, and a slight reduction is all you
    need before you see a benefit over a bare head with hair on it.

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
  14. 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 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.


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

    > 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 bastard 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.


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

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


    Kunich, you have a well-deserved reputation of being one of the worst
    liars on usenet. If you look at

    <http://www.sheldonbrown.com/rinard/aero/aerodynamics.htm>

    you will read, "Aero helmets, as they are used for racing, which do
    not however meet the ANSI safety requirements, reduce the aero drag by
    approximately 2% compared to a bald head or a rubber cap over the
    hair. The Bell Stratos, an ANSI approved helmet, increases the aero
    drag by approximately 1.3 % over a bald head. Short hair worsens it
    around 4.6%, long hair around 8.6%." The article then mentions that
    the Bell V1 Pro "gains around 9.8% compared to a bald head."

    It is quite evident that the best you can do with a helmet is 2 percent
    better than a bald head (being ANSI certified is not relevant.) If you
    design it so it is ANSI certified, the best anyone has done is 1.3
    worse than a bald head, but you'd be 4.6 percent worse with short hair.
    So, if you look at the range, it is pretty obvious that a Bell V1 Pro
    is only slightly worse than a full head of hair, and the best ANSI
    certified helmet at the time (1990 - 14 years ago) was only slightly
    worse than a bare head.

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

    And that is with 14 year old designs.

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


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

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

    >> It doesn't matter how often you repeat this bullshit, Bill, <snip>

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


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

    ><Rest of post snipped


    Translation: Laa laa , I'm not listening.

    The challenge issued was:

    1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
    2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
    contradicting it, or
    3. shut up.

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

    You lose.

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

    >Guy aside, it was mentioned in part as a limiting case - it shows how
    >much better than the Bell V1 Pro you might do in terms of reducing
    >drag if that were the only criteria important to you. So you can get
    >better cooling compared to a Stratos and still reduce air drag
    >slightly compared to a Bell V1 Pro, and a slight reduction is all you
    >need before you see a benefit over a bare head with hair on it.


    And the evidence you have to support the idea that this reduction has
    been achieved is?....

    Ah, right. None at all.

    People who understand aerodynamics have told you why a modern helmet
    might be worse than the V-1, yet you still consider that the
    aerodynamically dirty surface of a typical modern helmet is going to
    perform better than a V-1, based on the fact that a completely
    different helmet was better. You say this because it "could" be
    achieved if that was what you cared about, yet you fail to produce any
    evidence that it /is/ what anybody cares about. If manufacturers had
    made improvements to aerodynamics to fulfil a perceived demand, don't
    you think they would be saying so in their marketing literature?

    So you choose to believe that a modern multi-vented helmet will
    perform more like the smooth, closed-in, streamlined Stratos than the
    more conventionally shaped V-1. You are prepared to spend weeks
    arguing the toss about, to distort the studies you have posted (the
    "head with hair" you refer to is unrestrained /long/ hair, which has
    nearly twice the drag increase of short hair), and all apparently
    based on nothing but blind faith that wearing a helmet must always be
    better in every respect than not wearing one.

    To which I say: prove it. Every time you've been challenged to do so
    thus far you have relied on evidence which says the opposite.

    So, my challenge to you:

    1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
    2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
    contradicting it, or
    3. shut up.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  18. Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

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


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


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

    Making you the liar.

    Again.

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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

    So, my challenge to you:

    1. admit you are wrong, as proven by the data you posted
    2. produce new data which supports your position rather than
    contradicting it, or
    3. shut up.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University
     
  19. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

    knew
    > > who your father was.

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


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

    Bill Z. Guest

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     
Loading...
Loading...