published helmet research - not troll

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

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

"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

"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

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

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

"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

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

"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

"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.