|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1651
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled: Now, how about the challenge I issued? I've gone over it 30 times already .... and we don't need 31 times. 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: You are just repeating yourself mindlessly, and pretending to have a point when you in fact don't. I'll snip the rest of your post as well. Given your continued infantile name calling, I'll assume you really have nothing to contribute to a discussion of any time. Enjoy your time out. Your cut-and-paste jobs are the halmark of a troll. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
Ads |
#1652
|
|||
|
|||
"Tom Kunich" writes:
"Bill Z." wrote in message ... "Just zis Guy, you know?" writes: 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. Tommy is throwing up a smokescreen. I showed values for seveal helmets. One was not ANSI certified, and clearly labeled as such in the previous posts. The others were. The one that is not ANSI certified is useful as a data point - it gives you an idea of how much better you can do in terms of air drag than the best ANSI certified one. 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. You've produce no evidence of that - only assertions. Does it hurt your head to be that Is there a reason that you are incapable of holding a civil discussion? Is it perchance the same personal problem that landed you in the slammer for an evening? Face it, Kunich, you have a history of being abusive. It's time for you to grow up. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#1653
|
|||
|
|||
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
I've gone over it 30 times already ... and we don't need 31 times. To know you are wrong? No indeed. You are just repeating yourself mindlessly, and pretending to have a point when you in fact don't. Which might make sense if it weren't you who is trying to make a point. All we are doing is challenging you to provide proof. Thus far the proof you have provided shows the opposite of what you assert, hence the challenge: 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 snip the rest of your post as well. 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 |
#1654
|
|||
|
|||
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
You've produce no evidence of that - only assertions. In the same way that you provide no evidence to support your assertions. All the evidence you posted proves you wrong. The crucial difference here is that Tom is not making claims (of benefit or otherwise), while you are. You have made a claim, we have challenged you to substantiate it, and you have signally failed to do so. Although you have provided some world-class examples of evasion along the way. 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 |
#1655
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled: I've gone over it 30 times already ... and we don't need 31 times. To know you are wrong? No indeed. All we've had from you, at least in any post I've seen, are mindless assertions. I've provided three data points - an aerodynamicly designed helmet that reduces drag relative to a bare head, an ANSI-certified aerodynamically designed helmet whose air drag is between that for a bald head and that for short hair, and a non-aerodyanmiclly designed helmet (a Bell V1 Pro) that is slightly worse than long hair. Your assertion seems to be either that it is impossible to come up with a design whose air drag falls in between the latter two points, providing a slight air drag reduction, or that helmet designers decided to develop worse designs from year to year as they went to more aerodynamic shapes. I also showed some data where the air drag for a couple of helmet shapes was measured, showing a net reduction. I'll snip the rest of your post as well. Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening". When you act like an infant, you'll be put in a time out and ignored. Since you are *still* acting like an infant, that applies for your other post today as well. If you have anything substantial to say, which I doubt given your history, I'd suggest you stick to the subject and cut the baby talk. I know it must hurt you to be treated like a child, but if you want to be treated like an adult, start acting like one. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#1656
|
|||
|
|||
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:
I've gone over it 30 times already ... and we don't need 31 times. To know you are wrong? No indeed. All we've had from you, at least in any post I've seen, are mindless assertions. Is that how you see it? Fascinating. I have referred you back to your original source, which says you are wrong, and asked you to provide some proof to back your assertion. This amounts, in BillWorld[tm] to a "mindless assertion" on my part. But you are ignoring the simple and obvious fact that it is /you/ who are making claims of benefit, /you/ who are making what assertions are being made, /you/ who provided the proof you are wrong, /you/ who have failed to provide evidence to back your assertion. It's a strange place, BillWorld[tm], and no mistake. Since you are *still* acting like an infant, that applies for your other post today as well. Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening". If you have anything substantial to say, which I doubt given your history, I'd suggest you stick to the subject I did. Per the subject, I presented the following clear and unambiguous challenge: 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. So far you have tried insults, evasions and repeating your disproven assertion. Executive summary: Bill |---------------- unbridgeable chasm ----------------| 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 |
#1657
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled: I've gone over it 30 times already ... and we don't need 31 times. To know you are wrong? No indeed. All we've had from you, at least in any post I've seen, are mindless assertions. Is that how you see it? Fascinating. I have referred you back to your original source, which says you are wrong, and asked you to provide some proof to back your assertion. The original source you are refering to the one I posted) says no such thing - it agrees with what I was stating. Obviously you've added no new information to the discussion and think that repeating yourself with lots of verbage will somehow convince people. And that is all you are doing. I.e, you are a mindless troll - and *still* resorting to childish name calling. Why don't you start acting like an adult - it really isn't that hard. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#1658
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Z." wrote in message
... I'm just repeating myself mindlessly, and pretending to have a point when I in fact don't. I see we agree on something for a change. |
#1659
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Z." wrote in message
... All we've had from you, at least in any post I've seen, are mindless assertions. Yeah! Backed up ONLY with the citations that you posted. |
#1660
|
|||
|
|||
"Bill Z." wrote in message
... "Tom Kunich" writes: 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. Tommy is throwing up a smokescreen. I showed values for seveal helmets. One was not ANSI certified, and clearly labeled as such in the previous posts. The others were. But of course the one you were claiming to show less drag than a bald head was the non-ANSI helmet. Let's face it Bill, your lies show a remarkable lack of talent especially when you are the one that supplied the citations. Could you possibly be so stupid a to believe that no one would actually look at those citations to ascertain the truth of your statements? Apparently you are and feel that you need only lie about the parts that disagree with your assertions. That is - everything. The one that is not ANSI certified is useful as a data point - it gives you an idea of how much better you can do in terms of air drag than the best ANSI certified one. Yes, what you can do is qiute a bit less than an ANSI helmet and barely less than a bald head or even short hair IF you are willing to only ride in a racing crouch, on aero bars and with your head placed solidly forward never looking either right nor left. In fact, sort of the way you view the world around you - with tunnel vision and completely outside of reality. Is there a reason that you are incapable of holding a civil discussion? Do you mean like your idea of a civil discussion where you make unsupported claims and then supply a citation that proves you completely wrong whereby you post for a month saying exactly the opposite of the information you yourself provided? Bill, everyone on the internet now knows that you are seriously mental. I suggest you find a good shrink and discuss why you cannot admit you are wrong even when you supply the proof yourself. |
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 |
Why don't the favorites start attacking Lance NOW? | Ronde Champ | Racing | 6 | July 16th 04 05:04 PM |
Nieuwe sportwinkel op het internet | www.e-sportcare.com | Racing | 2 | July 5th 04 10:17 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | Social Issues | 14 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |