published helmet research - not troll

On 10/19/2004 07:59 PM, in article
t, "Tom Kunich"
wrote:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
Frank Krygowski writes:

Give us the make and model, Bill, or have the sense to slink away in
embarrassment.

It's simply none of your business. I pointed out that it is a typical
"teardrop-shaped helmet" with a moderate, but not extreme, number of
vents and nothing particularly extreme in its design.

And yet the most extreme design without vents wasn't as aerodynamic as a
bald head. Explain how your helmet with vents can be more aerodynamic than a
V1 Pro.

Oh, that's right - your proof of that proved just the opposite.





Who cares?
Now shut up and go away.


--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

On 10/20/2004 12:20 AM, in article , "Bill
Z." wrote:

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
Frank Krygowski writes:

Give us the make and model, Bill, or have the sense to slink away in
embarrassment.

It's simply none of your business. I pointed out that it is a typical
"teardrop-shaped helmet" with a moderate, but not extreme, number of
vents and nothing particularly extreme in its design.

And yet the most extreme design without vents wasn't as aerodynamic as a
bald head. Explain how your helmet with vents can be more aerodynamic than a
V1 Pro.

A V1 Pro has vents. Mine does too, plus having a more aerodyanmic
shape. Is that *really* so hard for you to understand? And a bald
head is not relevant when you are not going to shave your head in
any case.

Oh, that's right - your proof of that proved just the opposite.

Nope, and repeating yourself won't make it so.




Who cares?
Now shut up and go away.


--
Steven L. Sheffield
stevens at veloworks dot com
veloworks at worldnet dot ay tea tee dot net
bellum pax est libertas servitus est ignoratio vis est
ess ay ell tea ell ay kay ee sea eye tee why you ti ay aitch
aitch tee tea pea colon [for word] slash [four ward] slash double-you
double-yew double-ewe dot veloworks dot com [four word] slash

Bill Z. wrote:

A V1 Pro has vents. Mine does too, plus having a more aerodyanmic
shape.

I know of no ordinary, off-the-shelf helmet that's been shown to have a
"more aerodynamic shape" than a V1 Pro, and I'm sure I've got more
experience measuring aerodynamic drag than you have.

You could prove me wrong, of course. Just tell us the make and model of
your helmet, the one you're making these claims for. And point us to
the drag measurements that you're using to make your conclusion.

If you won't, it makes it clear that you're just trying to avoid proving
yourself a liar.

Unsuccessfully, of course!


--
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com.
Substitute cc dot ysu dot
edu]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 11:23:21 +1000, Glowingrod
wrote in message
:

So, what's this thread about?

Bill vs. the Real World.

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 Z." wrote in message
...
"Tom Kunich" writes:
And yet the most extreme design without vents wasn't as aerodynamic as a
bald head. Explain how your helmet with vents can be more aerodynamic
than a
V1 Pro.

A V1 Pro has vents. Mine does too, plus having a more aerodyanmic
shape. Is that *really* so hard for you to understand? And a bald
head is not relevant when you are not going to shave your head in
any case.

1) You haven't a clue what "more aerodynamic" means unless your helmet was
tested in a wind tunnel. Aerodymanics of low speed laminar flow shapes
cannot be estimated unless you have hundreds of hours in wind tunnel
research.

I have 10's of hours. What about you?

Oh, that's right - your proof of that proved just the opposite.

Nope, and repeating yourself won't make it so.

In case you've missed it, short hair is in. Short hair has a great deal less
aerodynamic drag than a modern helmet. Modern helmets don't meet the Snell
Foundation crash standards and perhaps HALF of them do not meet the
'voluntary' ANSI standards because they are self-certified.

The fact of the matter is that wearing a helmet makes little if any sense
but then you'll defend helmets to the death. Hopefully at the hands of a
defective helmet.

"Frank Krygowski" wrote in message
...
Bill Z. wrote:

A V1 Pro has vents. Mine does too, plus having a more aerodyanmic
shape.

I know of no ordinary, off-the-shelf helmet that's been shown to have a
"more aerodynamic shape" than a V1 Pro, and I'm sure I've got more
experience measuring aerodynamic drag than you have.

You could prove me wrong, of course. Just tell us the make and model of
your helmet, the one you're making these claims for. And point us to the
drag measurements that you're using to make your conclusion.

If you won't, it makes it clear that you're just trying to avoid proving
yourself a liar.

Unsuccessfully, of course!

Since a recreational rider spends a great deal of time turning his head this
way and that to watch traffic, the truth is that teardrop shaped helmet
carry a significantly higher average drag than a round shape such as the old
Bell V1 Pro.

Could it be that is the reason that we're seeing Bell selling round helmets
again?

"Steven L. Sheffield" wrote in message
...
On 10/19/2004 11:54 PM, in article ,
"Bill
Z." wrote:
These bozos are posting far more on the topic than I am. Blame
them.

And because they post you have to respond? You have this need to get the
last word in? Isn't that a bit irrational?

Expecting rationality from Zaumen is like expecting cake in a can of beans.

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Steven L. Sheffield" wrote in message
...
On 10/19/2004 11:54 PM, in article ,
"Bill
Z." wrote:
These bozos are posting far more on the topic than I am. Blame
them.

And because they post you have to respond? You have this need to get the
last word in? Isn't that a bit irrational?

Expecting rationality from Zaumen is like expecting cake in a can of beans.

Well, Steve, it is interesting that you are blaming me when these other
guys are posting nothing but a string of baseless personal attacks. And
that doesn't show anything very complimentary about you. I've every
justification in telling these guys off given their continued behavior.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Frank Krygowski writes:

Bill Z. wrote:
A V1 Pro has vents. Mine does too, plus having a more aerodyanmic
shape.

I know of no ordinary, off-the-shelf helmet that's been shown to have
a "more aerodynamic shape" than a V1 Pro, and I'm sure I've got more
experience measuring aerodynamic drag than you have.

THen you haven't looked very hard. A V1 Pro was first sold in 1983.
See http://www.bellbikehelmets.com/main/about/timeline.html, which
BTW has a picture of it. Modern helmets have an assymetric design,
which fills in the area behind the head. A Bell V1 Pro is
symmetric or very close - not at all "teardrop" shaped.

And I doubt if you've measured much of anything - otherwise you'd have
said what.

You could prove me wrong, of course. Just tell us the make and model
of your helmet, the one you're making these claims for. And point us
to the drag measurements that you're using to make your conclusion.

If you won't, it makes it clear that you're just trying to avoid
proving yourself a liar.

Unsuccessfully, of course!

Typical of Krygowski's dishonesty - the particular helmet I have is
a standard design with nothing particularly unique about it, so it
is not relevant to the discussion. I picked the particular model
because (a) the shop had it and (b) it fit my head well. There were
lots of other ones with similar shapes and a similar number of
vents.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"Tom Kunich" writes:
And yet the most extreme design without vents wasn't as aerodynamic as a
bald head. Explain how your helmet with vents can be more aerodynamic
than a
V1 Pro.

A V1 Pro has vents. Mine does too, plus having a more aerodyanmic
shape. Is that *really* so hard for you to understand? And a bald
head is not relevant when you are not going to shave your head in
any case.

1) You haven't a clue what "more aerodynamic" means unless your helmet was
tested in a wind tunnel. Aerodymanics of low speed laminar flow shapes
cannot be estimated unless you have hundreds of hours in wind tunnel
research.

I have 10's of hours. What about you?

Given the number of careers you've claimed to have, Tommy, I really
don't believe you.

In case you've missed it, short hair is in. Short hair has a great deal less
aerodynamic drag than a modern helmet. Modern helmets don't meet the Snell
Foundation crash standards and perhaps HALF of them do not meet the
'voluntary' ANSI standards because they are self-certified.

Perhaps you'd care to explain Section 21212(c) of the California
Vehicle Code which says, "No person shall sell, or offer for sale, for
use by an operator or passenger of a bicycle, nonmotorized scooter,
skateboard, or in-line or roller skates any safety helmet which is not
of a type meeting requirements established by this section." That
section refers to standards set by the ASTM or the U.S. CPSC. Both
supercede the ANSI standard which expired in 1994. If you check
http://www.bhsi.org/stdcomp.htm, you'll find that "In May, 1995, the
ANSI Z90.4 committee voted to adopt the ASTM standard as its own to
replace the 1984 version, reflecting the movement of active standards
development to ASTM." http://www.bhsi.org/cpscfinl.htm has the CPSC
standard.

You can rant all you want, but any helmet sold in California (and I imagine
most other states) for use on a bicycle has to meet specific standards.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB