published helmet research - not troll

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

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

Guy, trying to stay on message,

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. He's using the
tactic of accusing opposition of your major fault so that it will look
like "tit for tat" if the opposition brings it up. A good example
is Bush's "flip flopping" charge and the Republican funding of the
Swift Boat Liars (TM).

You can also look at the net verbage. Real zealots (TM) talk a lot
and go non-linear at any disagreement with their cherished beliefs,
and Guy certainly takes the cake in that regard. And you can also
look at the fact that he is replying to nearly *everything* I post,
not just replies to replies to his posts.

He's obviously got an obsession.

I'll ignore the rest of his posts today. It's all been covered and
Guy is simply wrong as should be obvious.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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?

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 ignore the rest of his posts today.

Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening"

I see no option 4 (evasion) in the challenge above, Bill. So which of
the three are you going for?

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?" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:18:48 GMT, "Tom Kunich"
wrote in message
. net:

hypersonic aircraft are representative of the best you can do in terms
of air drag reduction but then that also doesn't anything to do with the
subject at hand.

Do you get the impression that Bill's knowledge of boundary layer
conditions, laminar and turbulent flow is less than encylopaedic?

My impression is that the only encyclopedic knowledge Bill has at hand is
"How to act the ass without really trying".

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:08:34 GMT, "Tom Kunich"
wrote:

My impression is that the only encyclopedic knowledge Bill has at hand is
"How to act the ass without really trying".

Be fair, Tom, he puts a lot of effort into that :-)

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?" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:08:34 GMT, "Tom Kunich"
wrote:

My impression is that the only encyclopedic knowledge Bill has at hand is
"How to act the ass without really trying".

Be fair, Tom, he puts a lot of effort into that :-)

Perhaps, but he seems to do it with such ease.

"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.

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.

I'll ignore the rest of his posts today.

Translation: "Laa laa I'm not listening"

Translation, if you act like a child, you'll be ignored. Oh, and
refusing to put up with your infantile behavior is not an "evasion."

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 23:18:48 GMT, "Tom Kunich"
wrote in message
. net:

hypersonic aircraft are representative of the best you can do in terms
of air drag reduction but then that also doesn't anything to do with the
subject at hand.

Do you get the impression that Bill's knowledge of boundary layer
conditions, laminar and turbulent flow is less than encylopaedic?

My impression is that the only encyclopedic knowledge Bill has at hand is
"How to act the ass without really trying".

My impression is we have two children who are trying to morph a
discussion about bicycles helmets (you know, on bicycles traveling
between 10 and 30 mph) into a discussion of supersonic aircraft,
all because they really don't have a valid point to make and are
into mindless personal attacks. What a pair of infants Guy and
Tom make!

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

"Tom Kunich" writes:

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:08:34 GMT, "Tom Kunich"
wrote:

My impression is that the only encyclopedic knowledge Bill has at hand is
"How to act the ass without really trying".

Be fair, Tom, he puts a lot of effort into that :-)

Perhaps, but he seems to do it with such ease.

Now we have Guy and Tom figuratively gratifying each other. They'd
be a lot less frustrated if they just hooked up.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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?