published helmet research - not troll

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

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.

You originally stated that a safety helmet reduced OVERALL aerodynamic drag
on a bicyclist by 5%. That wasn't just a misunderstanding of the chart you
were looking at but an absolutely spectacular display of person ignornance
on your part on a par with John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted
against it."

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.

Since it isn't necessary for Guy or anyone else to add any information
contrary to your assertions since you were kind enough to cite not one but
TWO sources that both contradicted your own claims.

Guy has challenged you to supply ANY information that supports your claims
or to admit you were wrong. Frank was kind enough to give you the benefit of
a doubt and suggested that perhaps YOU had some sort of helmet that indeed
had less drag than a full head of long hair. Instead of replying you evaded
his questions with a paranoia that has become your trademark.

Bill, seek psychiatric help before they have to throw a net over you and
lock you up for your own protection.

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

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.

You originally stated that a safety helmet reduced OVERALL aerodynamic drag
on a bicyclist by 5%.

The "5%" you are complaining about was a *direct quote* from a web page!

I originally stated that there would be a very small reduction - too
small for most cyclists to notice in practice. Then someone asked for
some data, I did a google search, and found a case that gave a
reduction of about 5% for one particular helmet. It was near the top
of the list google produced. I merely gave a URL and a short statement
of what you'll find in it, since you had to scroll down a few screenfuls
to find anything.

And you are daft enough as to complain about that?

That wasn't just a misunderstanding of the chart you were looking at
but an absolutely spectacular display of person ignornance on your
part on a par with John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted
against it."

Well, that explains a lot. Beside your numerous personal faults, it
seems you are also a Bush supporter. You are so igorant that you
don't even know that Kerry's position is consistent, although he
worded it badly (and the Republicans are playing that for all it is
worth rather than talk about the real issues.)

Bill, seek psychiatric help before they have to throw a net over you and
lock you up for your own protection.

That from someone who actually was locked up for the protection of
others as you were? Should I post the URL again - after all *you*
brought this behavior up on some of these newsgroups.

I'll ignore your other posts from today. You are acting as badly
as that Guy character, if not worse. Given your history, as far
as I'm concerned, you have zero credibility.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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

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.

Not as such, no, as has been pointed out numerous times. It states
that the only standard type ANSI helmet tested is /worse/ than the
worst-case unhelmeted scenario. Your assertion that modern helmets
are somehow better than this, combined with your assertion-by-stealth
that long hair is representative of cyclists in general, forms the
claim to which several of us object. One of the studies you cite
starts form the base premise that helmets increase drag, but you seem
to want us to believe otherwise; it is not surprising that your word
as a zealot is less persuasive than all that evidence which
contradicts you.

But you do have three possible ways forward from he

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

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

The "5%" you are complaining about was a *direct quote* from a web page!

Misinterpreted by you as applying to a helmet, whereas it actually
applies to a head fairing with no protective capability. I seem to
recall that it took some time to get that point over to you, if indeed
we did since you still persist in producing that figure out of a hat
occasionally.

I originally stated that there would be a very small reduction - too
small for most cyclists to notice in practice.

Indeed you did. And your own figures show the exact opposite opposite
- an increase which is significant for the short-haired cyclist and
less so for the worst-case unhelmeted scenario of unrestrained long
hair. You were therefore challenged to back your assertion with data.
In trying to do so you produced several citations to the original Kyle
study which proved you wrong, and one new study whose starting premise
is that helmets increase drag - presumably based on Kyle.

That leaves you with three possible options:

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 preferred your usual mix of evasion, denial,
ad-hominem and reiteration of the incorrect assertion. But we live in
hope.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

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

Guy is still being an infant. I'll reply to this one and put his
other posts back in the time-out.

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.

Not as such, no, as has been pointed out numerous times. It states
that the only standard type ANSI helmet tested is /worse/ than the
worst-case unhelmeted scenario.

It doesn't say that. It shows an airodyanamic advantage of 5.2 percent
for an ANSI approved Bell Stratos. See

http://damonrinard.com/aero/aerodynamics.htm.

The Bell V1 Pro is not an aerodynamic design (it is completely
symmetric.) It is only *slightly* worse than riding with long hair.

It may surprise you, but most of us don't choose our hair style to
cut air drag when riding a bicycle.


Your assertion that modern helmest are somehow better than this,
combined with your assertion-by-stealth that long hair is
representative of cyclists in general, forms the claim to which
several of us object.

We have two data points - a nonaerodyamic design that is just slightly
worse than a bare head and an aerodyamically designed one that is
significantly better. You can therefore trade off cooling and other
desirable features for drag and still come out ahead.


One of the studies you cite starts form the base premise that
helmets increase drag, but you seem to want us to believe otherwise;
it is not surprising that your word as a zealot is less persuasive
than all that evidence which contradicts you.

Sigh. The other URL I provided showed helmets decreasing drag. and the
only zealost are you and that Kunich character - Kunich's been on an
anti-helmet rant for over 10 years.

3. shut up.

How mature of you (and you repeat it incessantly, like the little boy
your are.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

Well, that explains a lot. Beside your numerous personal faults, it
seems you are also a Bush supporter. You are so igorant that you
don't even know that Kerry's position is consistent, although he
worded it badly (and the Republicans are playing that for all it is
worth rather than talk about the real issues.)

In 2000, Kerry Voted In Favor Of Permanent Normal Trade Relations With
China. (H.R. 4444, CQ Vote #251: Passed 83-15: R 46-8; D 37-7, 9/19/00,
Kerry Voted Yea)

Now Kerry Criticizes The Bush Administration For Trading With China.
"Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said on Monday Americans
workers were paying the price for President Bush's weak stance on trade with
China and other countries. . On the bus tour, Kerry singled out the Bush
administration's handling of trade with China and said that country was
manipulating its currency." (Caren Bohan, "Kerry Pledges Aggressive Trade
Stance," Reuters, 4/26/04)

In case you don't know, both are consistent positions. You can be in favor
of normal trade relations with China - treating China the same as other
countries - and still want to make sure that our government looks after
the interests of American workers, not the Bush ruling class.

Yep, now THERE'S consistancy for you.

Yep, it's consistent. I'll ignore the rest of your propaganda - it is
an obvious cut and paste job from the usual right-wing lunatic fringe.

You fwking Liberal idiots just don't know anything at all do you?

Looks like Kunich is a real piece of work, doesn't it. He can't even
spell his favorite word.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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

Guy is still being an infant. I'll reply to this one and put his
other posts back in the time-out.

Translation: Zaumen has recognised his position is untenable and
evasion is his chosen route out, in other words "Laa laa I'm not
listening"

[ snip repetition of the same unproven assertion, as rebutted multiple
times by multiple posters ]

So, having been proven wrong by your own data, you have the following
three possible choices:

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

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

Guy is still being an infant. I'll reply to this one and put his
other posts back in the time-out.

Translation: Zaumen has recognised his position is untenable and
evasion is his chosen route out, in other words "Laa laa I'm not
listening"

Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
will change that.

[ snip repetition of the same unproven assertion, as rebutted multiple
times by multiple posters ]

So, having

[ snip repetition of Guy's continued cut and paste from his previous
posts ].

3. shut up.

Once again, Guy is whining like a little boy. What an infant. To
Guy a hint, you will not get anywhere by acting like a little boy.
I think I made the point clearly enough, regardless of your attempts
to misrepresent the data (and that is what you are doing.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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

Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
will change that.

So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
assertion, every piece of data you produced proved you wrong. At this
point there are three options open 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.

Instead you choose ad-hominem, pretending that I am the one with
something to prove (when you are the one making claims of benefit) and
of course the good old Zaumen standby of evasion.

I expected nothing else.

This subthread now lives in the bitbucket, since it is absolutely
clear to all concerned that the evidence is against you but you would
rather try to bore us to death than either admit it or find new data
which does not contradict you.

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

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

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

Guy has been posting his infantile baby-talk name calling for well
over a month (maybe even surpassing Dorre R. who had a similar fit
some years ago.) It's infantile and no attempt at "translation"
will change that.

So, you're going to evade again. No surprises there, then. To
clarify: you made an assertion, you were called on to back up that
assertion, snip of the rest of Guy's cut and paste job.

And I *did* back it up with data. You simply pretended that a limiting
case - a 1980s non-aerodynamic design was the best you could do, even
though we had several data points that did far better, and the non-
aerodynamic design was only slightly worse than riding with "long
hair" instead of going for a sci-fi cyborg look.


And you are *still* posting you childish baby talk. Ask your mommy,
Guy. She has obviously missed something while bringing you up and
you should go back to her for a refresher course.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB