Re: published helmet research - not troll

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

  1. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

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

    > "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.


    They are reprepresentative of the best you can do in terms of air drag
    reduction. I also listed the results for ANSI certified helmets, and for
    a Bell V1 Pro. You, of course, snipped that. Given that your well
    deserved reputation as a bald-faced liar, that is no surprise.

    > > 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?


    Oooooh. Our "adult" with the majurity of a junior high school student
    is acting out and calling people names again. What a silly little boy.
    You and Guy seem to have a lot in common - you both act like children.

    > > 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.


    Since I showed data for an ANSI certified helmet that reduced drag for
    people with short hair, but not people completely bald, I made a perfectly
    valid point. Of course you snipped it - you'd look like a fool if casual
    readers saw the original text.


    > > 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.


    For someone caught lying repeatedly, and someone who spent a night
    in jail for "back-handing" his girlfriend, and then complained about
    how the courts treated him, you are the last person to talk about
    "shame." If you had any decency, you'd crawl back under your rock
    never to emerge again.


    --
    My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB
     


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

    >> 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.


    So you keep saying, but as yet you have provided precisely no evidence
    to support that assertion, or to rebut the point made by others that
    the vents on modern helmets could very well make them significantly
    worse than the V-1.

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


    Translation: "Laa laa I'm still 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. Twice. Enough said.

    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. 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:
    > > > >
    > > > > 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.

    >
    > They are reprepresentative of the best you can do in terms of air drag
    > reduction.


    No, hypersonic aircraft are representative of the best you can do in terms
    of air drag reduction but then that also doesn't anything to do with the
    subject at hand.

    > I also listed the results for ANSI certified helmets, and for
    > a Bell V1 Pro. You, of course, snipped that. Given that your well
    > deserved reputation as a bald-faced liar, that is no surprise.


    And of course those helmets did not have drags lower than a bald head or one
    covered with a rubber cap. So who insists on telling lie after lie here
    Zaumen? Either you are lying or you are so stupid you can't even read the
    citations you yourself supplied.

    > Since I showed data for an ANSI certified helmet that reduced drag for
    > people with short hair, but not people completely bald, I made a perfectly
    > valid point. Of course you snipped it - you'd look like a fool if casual
    > readers saw the original text.


    Since that helmet isn't make any longer and the helmets that are have
    considerably higher drag figures perhaps you'd like to explain how a helmet
    COULD have lower drag when none available do?

    Zaumen - the definition of the world's stupidest person.
     
  4. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

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

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


    Guy, trying to stay on message, is still engaging in his infantile
    baby talk. And he pretends others are "trolls" when all he does
    is troll, with repeated postings of his cut-and-paste jobs.

    > >> 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.

    >
    > So you keep saying, but as yet you have provided precisely no evidence
    > to support that assertion, or to rebut the point made by others that
    > the vents on modern helmets could very well make them significantly
    > worse than the V-1.


    That "point" is merely an unsubstantiated conjecture on your part.

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

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


    Still in baby talk mode? If you want to be taken seriously, you'll
    have to start acting like an adult.


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

    Bill Z. Guest

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

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


    > > They are reprepresentative of the best you can do in terms of air drag
    > > reduction.

    >
    > No, hypersonic aircraft are representative of the best you can do in terms
    > of air drag reduction but then that also doesn't anything to do with the
    > subject at hand.


    We were talking about helmets, which was the context of the statement.
    You know, the ones you wear when riding a bicycle. Stop playing games,
    Tommy.

    >
    > > I also listed the results for ANSI certified helmets, and for
    > > a Bell V1 Pro. You, of course, snipped that. Given that your well
    > > deserved reputation as a bald-faced liar, that is no surprise.

    >
    > And of course those helmets did not have drags lower than a bald head or one
    > covered with a rubber cap. So who insists on telling lie after lie here
    > Zaumen? Either you are lying or you are so stupid you can't even read the
    > citations you yourself supplied.


    Well, that's another of you lies. I have the figures for several
    combinations, quoting text from that particular URL.

    >
    > > Since I showed data for an ANSI certified helmet that reduced drag for
    > > people with short hair, but not people completely bald, I made a perfectly
    > > valid point. Of course you snipped it - you'd look like a fool if casual
    > > readers saw the original text.

    >
    > Since that helmet isn't make any longer and the helmets that are have
    > considerably higher drag figures perhaps you'd like to explain how a helmet
    > COULD have lower drag when none available do?


    You mean that a model that was sold around 1990 isn't being sold
    today? And that is surprising? You could say the same thing about
    just about anything you own.

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

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Bill Z." <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> writes:
    > >
    > > No, hypersonic aircraft are representative of the best you can do in

    terms
    > > of air drag reduction but then that also doesn't have anything to do

    with the
    > > subject at hand.

    >
    > We were talking about helmets, which was the context of the statement.
    > You know, the ones you wear when riding a bicycle. Stop playing games,
    > Tommy.


    No, YOU were talking about head fairings and pretending that the drag of one
    of those is comparable to a safety helmet. The rest of us were here in
    reality while you're still buzzing around in never-neverland. But then
    you're the one that has green tights and hangs out with a bunch of young
    boys.

    > > And of course those helmets did not have drags lower than a bald head or

    one
    > > covered with a rubber cap. So who insists on telling lie after lie here
    > > Zaumen? Either you are lying or you are so stupid you can't even read

    the
    > > citations you yourself supplied.

    >
    > Well, that's another of you lies. I have the figures for several
    > combinations, quoting text from that particular URL.


    Then by all means show us up and supply the aerodynamic drag figures for a
    modern helmet. There's a reason that they aren't published you know. On
    second thought, no you don't know. In fact there's probably nothing that you
    DO know.
     
  7. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

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

    > No, YOU were talking about head fairings and pretending that the drag of one
    > of those is comparable to a safety helmet. The rest of us were here in
    > reality while you're still buzzing around in never-neverland. But then
    > you're the one that has green tights and hangs out with a bunch of young
    > boys.


    Kunich, you are simply a liar.

    > Then by all means show us up and supply the aerodynamic drag figures for a
    > modern helmet. There's a reason that they aren't published you know. On
    > second thought, no you don't know. In fact there's probably nothing that you
    > DO know.


    Go back to the URLs I provided. It has all the data you need there.
    Or re-read the posts (or have your nanny read it to you if you can't.)

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

    >Guy, trying to stay on message,


    Like most zealots, Bill is clearly unable to distinguish between an
    atheist and an agnostic. But if you insist on a message, it is this:
    "prove it." You made an assertion, and the only evidence you provided
    to back it up proved the opposite.

    >> So you keep saying, but as yet you have provided precisely no evidence
    >> to support that assertion, or to rebut the point made by others that
    >> the vents on modern helmets could very well make them significantly
    >> worse than the V-1.


    >That "point" is merely an unsubstantiated conjecture on your part.


    Unlike your "point" that they could easily be better? A "point"
    backed by no evidence? And which quietly slips in the false premise
    that unrestrained long hair is typical, obviously.

    >If you want to be taken seriously, you'll
    >have to start acting like an adult.


    A new entry for the ZaumenWorld[tm] dictionary: "acting like an adult"
    = evading all substantive points made against you. This is tough to
    learn, this ZaumenSpeak[tm]; there are so many words and phrases which
    sound like English but have entirely different meanings!


    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, three times now, was to evade this. I see a pattern
    emerging here.

    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. On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:18:48 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
    wrote in message
    <[email protected]>:

    >hypersonic aircraft are representative of the best you can do in terms
    >of air drag reduction but then that also doesn't anything to do with the
    >subject at hand.


    Do you get the impression that Bill's knowledge of boundary layer
    conditions, laminar and turbulent flow is less than encylopaedic?

    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
     
  10. On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 04:59:50 GMT, [email protected] (Bill Z.)
    wrote in message <[email protected]>:

    >Go back to the URLs I provided. It has all the data you need there.


    You are absolutely right, for a change. They have all the data we
    could possibly want. The only thing is, we have read and understood
    them while you clearly have not, so we know that:

    - the only headgear which performed better than a bald head or rubber
    cap was a head fairing, offering no impact protection

    - the Stratos ANSI certified aero helmet (reportedly most
    uncomfortable to wear) was worse than a bald head or rubber cap

    - the only standard helmet tested was worse than the worst-case
    unhelmeted scenario of unrestrained long hair

    - a more recent paper /started/ from the premise that ANSI certified
    helmets /increase/ drag

    - this paper tested helmets not unlike the Stratos and found them
    worse than no helmet unless the rider held their head rigidly in
    position and remained in an aero crouch. Note that this is
    completely unrepresentative of the sit-up-and-beg riding position
    adopted by the rider of any straight-bar bike and clearly
    incompatible with riding on shared use facilities or in traffic,
    where the rider must scan for hazards all the time.

    Yes indeed, the only thing missing from the links posted is any
    backing for your oft-repeated assertion. An assertion which has as a
    core premise the idea that unrestrained long hair is representative of
    modern cyclists.


    The challenge I 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 has been to evade three times thus far.

    We're waiting, Bill...

    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

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

    > Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
    >
    > >Guy, trying to stay on message,

    >
    > Like most zealots, Bill is clearly unable to distinguish between an
    > atheist and an agnostic.


    Guy and company are the only zealots on this thread. He's using the
    tactic of accusing opposition of your major fault so that it will look
    like "tit for tat" if the opposition brings it up. A good example
    is Bush's "flip flopping" charge and the Republican funding of the
    Swift Boat Liars (TM).

    You can also look at the net verbage. Real zealots (TM) talk a lot
    and go non-linear at any disagreement with their cherished beliefs,
    and Guy certainly takes the cake in that regard. And you can also
    look at the fact that he is replying to nearly *everything* I post,
    not just replies to replies to his posts.

    He's obviously got an obsession.

    I'll ignore the rest of his posts today. It's all been covered and
    Guy is simply wrong as should be obvious.

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

    >> Like most zealots, Bill is clearly unable to distinguish between an
    >> atheist and an agnostic.


    >Guy and company are the only zealots on this thread.


    LOL! Très drôle. Now, how about the challenge I issued?

    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.

    >I'll ignore the rest of his posts today.


    Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening"

    I see no option 4 (evasion) in the challenge above, Bill. So which of
    the three are you going for?

    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. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:18:48 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
    > wrote in message
    > <[email protected]>:
    >
    > >hypersonic aircraft are representative of the best you can do in terms
    > >of air drag reduction but then that also doesn't anything to do with the
    > >subject at hand.

    >
    > Do you get the impression that Bill's knowledge of boundary layer
    > conditions, laminar and turbulent flow is less than encylopaedic?


    My impression is that the only encyclopedic knowledge Bill has at hand is
    "How to act the ass without really trying".
     
  14. On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:08:34 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >My impression is that the only encyclopedic knowledge Bill has at hand is
    >"How to act the ass without really trying".


    Be fair, Tom, he puts a lot of effort into that :)

    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. Tom Kunich

    Tom Kunich Guest

    "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:08:34 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    > >My impression is that the only encyclopedic knowledge Bill has at hand is
    > >"How to act the ass without really trying".

    >
    > Be fair, Tom, he puts a lot of effort into that :)


    Perhaps, but he seems to do it with such ease.
     
  16. Bill Z.

    Bill Z. Guest

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

    > Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
    >
    > >> Like most zealots, Bill is clearly unable to distinguish between an
    > >> atheist and an agnostic.

    >
    > >Guy and company are the only zealots on this thread.

    >
    > LOL! Très drôle. Now, how about the challenge I issued?


    I've gone over it 30 times already, and going over it a few more
    times won't change the fact that you guys are simply out to lunch.
    I provided data for you showing a range in air drag a non-aerodynamic
    helmet being about a percentage point worse than a cylcist with a
    full head of hair, the best ANSI certified design being better than
    a cylcist with short hair, and the most aerodynamic design being a
    couple of percent better than a cyclist with a bald head. You need
    a minor improvement over a 1980s model helmet with no aerodynamic
    shaping to get a net reduction in drag.

    > 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.


    The data *did* support my position, and ranting won't change that.

    > >I'll ignore the rest of his posts today.

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


    Translation, if you act like a child, you'll be ignored. Oh, and
    refusing to put up with your infantile behavior is not an "evasion."

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

    Bill Z. Guest

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

    > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:18:48 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
    > > wrote in message
    > > <[email protected]>:
    > >
    > > >hypersonic aircraft are representative of the best you can do in terms
    > > >of air drag reduction but then that also doesn't anything to do with the
    > > >subject at hand.

    > >
    > > Do you get the impression that Bill's knowledge of boundary layer
    > > conditions, laminar and turbulent flow is less than encylopaedic?

    >
    > My impression is that the only encyclopedic knowledge Bill has at hand is
    > "How to act the ass without really trying".


    My impression is we have two children who are trying to morph a
    discussion about bicycles helmets (you know, on bicycles traveling
    between 10 and 30 mph) into a discussion of supersonic aircraft,
    all because they really don't have a valid point to make and are
    into mindless personal attacks. What a pair of infants Guy and
    Tom make!

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

    Bill Z. Guest

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

    > "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:08:34 GMT, "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > > >My impression is that the only encyclopedic knowledge Bill has at hand is
    > > >"How to act the ass without really trying".

    > >
    > > Be fair, Tom, he puts a lot of effort into that :)

    >
    > Perhaps, but he seems to do it with such ease.


    Now we have Guy and Tom figuratively gratifying each other. They'd
    be a lot less frustrated if they just hooked up.

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

    >> Now, how about the challenge I issued?


    >I've gone over it 30 times already


    Indeed, and each time the fundamental flaws in your assertion have
    been pointed out to you, most notably the fact that all your evidence
    actually says the opposite of what you assert. There are three
    possible ways forward from that position:

    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.

    You had one go at 2, but the new data only reinforced the proof that
    you are wrong. Which of the three will you try next?

    >You need
    >a minor improvement over a 1980s model helmet with no aerodynamic
    >shaping to get a net reduction in drag.


    Assuming that *unrestrained long hair* is representative, yes. It
    isn't, of course. If short hair is representative you obviously need
    a very substantial improvement, but why let inconvenient facts spoil a
    good house of cards?

    The crucial fact is, as has been pointed out more times than I care to
    count, you have provided no evidence to suggest that this notional
    improvement has been realised. Others have pointed out reasons why a
    modern multi-vented helmet might very well be worse than the V-1, and
    at least one of the studies you cited had /as a starting premise/ the
    stated fact that helmets increase drag. Not even the manufacturers
    claim any aerodynamic drag reduction - you stand alone, as ever.

    Add to this the fact that the measured reduction in drag with an aero
    helmet is achievable only when the rider's head is held in a constant
    position relative to the body, and with the body maintained in an aero
    crouch (neither of which is exactly representative of the average
    cyclist), and I think you can see why we would need more than the
    arm-waving of a helmet zealot before we believe that modern helmets
    are more aero than the V-1, let alone sufficiently better to
    outperform short hair.

    >The data *did* support my position, and ranting won't change that.


    Supported in the way that Origin of the Species supports creationism,
    evidently.

    >refusing to put up with your infantile behavior is not an "evasion."


    I bow to your superior knowledge: I think we can all agree that
    evasion is one area in which your expertise and experience outweighs
    that of probably all other participants in these ngs combined.

    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. 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:
    >>
    >> >> Like most zealots, Bill is clearly unable to distinguish between an
    >> >> atheist and an agnostic.

    >>
    >> >Guy and company are the only zealots on this thread.

    >>
    >> LOL! Très drôle. Now, how about the challenge I issued?

    >
    > I've gone over it 30 times already, and going over it a few more
    > times won't change the fact that you guys are simply out to lunch.
    > I provided data for you showing a range in air drag a non-aerodynamic
    > helmet being about a percentage point worse than a cylcist with a
    > full head of hair, the best ANSI certified design being better than
    > a cylcist with short hair, and the most aerodynamic design being a
    > couple of percent better than a cyclist with a bald head. You need
    > a minor improvement over a 1980s model helmet with no aerodynamic
    > shaping to get a net reduction in drag.


    To bad you're wrong yet again. The "most aerodynamic design" WAS NOT an ANSI
    certified helmet. Moreover, ANSI certification is far less demanding that
    Snell certification and perhaps half of all helmets presently being sold as
    ANSI certified wouldn't pass the ANSI tests.

    Moreover, modern road helmets with their odd shapes and multiple vents have
    considerably more drag than the Bell V1 Pro that had more drag than any bare
    head.

    >> 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.

    >
    > The data *did* support my position, and ranting won't change that.


    As Guy stated - "Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening""

    Does it hurt your head to be that stupid?
     
Loading...
Loading...