|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1691
|
|||
|
|||
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 bull****, 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 |
Ads |
#1692
|
|||
|
|||
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 bull****, 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 bull**** 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 **** 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 |
#1693
|
|||
|
|||
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii "Just zis Guy, you know?" 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 bull****, Bill, snip And *you* just repeated verbatim the same text from your previous post. Calling something "bull****" 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 |
#1694
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#1695
|
|||
|
|||
Mitch Haley 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 |
#1696
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Z." wrote in message
... "Just zis Guy, you know?" 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 ******* 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. |
#1697
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Kunich" writes:
"Bill Z." wrote in message ... "Just zis Guy, you know?" 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 |
#1698
|
|||
|
|||
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
It doesn't matter how often you repeat this bull****, 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 |
#1699
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#1700
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | General | 1927 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
First Helmet : jury is out. | Walter Mitty | General | 125 | June 26th 04 02:00 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
France helmet observation (not a troll) | Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles | General | 20 | August 30th 03 08:35 AM |