|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Troll, not published helmet research
In reply to Bill "Laa Laa I'm Not Listening" Zaumen:
Every one of the links you posted referes solely to aero helmets. Those which quote actual figures, the first one excepted, are all based on the same study - and it's the same figure as in Rinard's piece (http://damonrinard.com/aero/aerodynamics.htm), so comes from the original Kyle paper as already discussed ad nauseam. Maybe it's time to resurrect the old nickname "Bill *only-one-study-in-only-one- country* Zaumen"! Just to remind you of the context of the 2% figure which is the only number quoted in all but one of the studies you link: "Aero helmets, as they are used for racing, which do not however meet the ANSI safety requirements, reduce the aero drag by approximately 2% compared to a bald head or a rubber cap over the hair. " All of this is obvious to the casual reader, indicating that you probably did not go further than the Google summaries. So now to the links: http://www.mecheng.adelaide.edu.au/c.../level4papers2 001/chin_lim.pdf "Design of an aerodynamically sound bike helmet" - i.e. a theoretical paper on how to remedy the fact that bike hlemets are /not/ aerodynamically sound. Quote from abstract: "helmet will increase the frontal area of the rider's head and this will affect the aerodynamics of the rider, thus, the rising of drag. Therefore, helmet must have a good aerodynamics shape to minimise the effect of the frontal area. Two track cycling helmets are used to investigate the performances of drag in different position." So Frank's comment re greater frontal area is backed by this study. It includes the assertion that helmets are an essential safety aid, so clear evidence of bias. There is also no mention of the helmets tested meeting ANSI standards; it would be a surprise if they did. http://www.gssiweb.com/reflib/refs/2...KEN=6 9087813 Barely refers to helmets (the word appears precisely twice). Quote: "In cycling, riders wear aerodynamic helmets and skintight clothing and assume crouch positions over the handle bars ("aero bars") to minimize wind resistance". No figures presented, no analysis undertaken. Refers solely to aero helmets for time trial and track racing. http://sportsfigures.espn.com/sports...ting_quiz4.htm A children's pop quiz also referring to head fairings. No academic weight whatsoever. http://wings.avkids.com/Curriculums/...t_summary.html A school science project, no new data, no academic weight, merely restates Kyle: "An aerodynamic bicycle helmet reduces the drag by approximately 2% over a rider with no helmet. In fact, modern aerodynamic helmets result in a lower drag even for a bald bicyclists." - in other words, yet again, it's about head fairings. http://www.gugly.com/Archbikeclothing.htm "The difference between good and bad helmets has been shown in studies to be equivalent to the difference between a good disc wheel and a standard 36 round spoke, box shaped rim wheel (at about 30 mph)." - aero helmets again. No academic weight, no new data, no analysis, just parroting the same figures which (as we know) have been show ion practice to be optimistic even for those highly specialised hlemets. Dates back to the days of head fairings, Also contains this gem: "Good helmets are designed to work effectively when the rider is facing forward and not to the side. Doing so, will not only eliminate all benefits gained with the good helmet, but may also slow you down. And for those who still can't picture what I'm saying, turning you head while using an aerodynamic helmet is like trying to cut a piece of butter with the knife laying on its side rather than on its edge." http://www.ul.ie/~childsp/Elements/issue2/sharpe.html Contains precisely one mention of helmets: "Wind-suits and helmets, together with streamlining the bicycle, and the rider adopting a low profile riding posture can reduce drag by up to 7%" - on other words, yet again, they are talking about top-spec time trial or (in this case) pursuit kit. In this case the fact that it is track kit under discussion is made plain by the inclusion of the Burrows Lotus bike ("Olympic gold medalist Boardman's Lotus bicycle [...] under 6kg compared to a conventional track bicycle weight of over 8kg"), which of course the UCI promptly banned. Bill, this is desperate stuff. Is this the best you can do? rest of post snipped - it's time for dinner, so your remaining post today gets ingnored 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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Dude you're wasting your time.
****head zaumen doesn't read what he posts himself, let alone what anyone else posts. Google backaways on his retarded .sig and award yourself a penny for every post that makes sense. A couple of years worth will buy you the price of the stamp to send yourself a postcard about it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"David St. Hubbins" writes:
Dude you're wasting your time. ****head zaumen doesn't read what he posts himself, let alone what anyone else posts. Hubbins is yet another idiot. Google backaways on his retarded .sig The signature is backwards for a good reason. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:
Hubbins is yet another idiot. Looks like the finer points of sock-puppetry are also wasted on you, Bill. Google for that name some time. The signature is backwards for a good reason. To match your cognitive faculties, evidently. 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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote: Hubbins is yet another idiot. Looks like the finer points of sock-puppetry are also wasted on you, Bill. Google for that name some time. Oh, are you or one of the others posting under multiple names? Do you expect me to keep track of that or do some cross checking on each and every post I see? That makes you even more of a worthless troll than I thought you were. The signature is backwards for a good reason. To match your cognitive faculties, evidently. To limit spam, you moron. Surprise us and see if you can explain why. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote:
Looks like the finer points of sock-puppetry are also wasted on you, Bill. Google for that name some time. Oh, are you or one of the others posting under multiple names? How should I know what other people are doing? Using sock-puppets to yank the chain of trolls is a long-established sport. It could be anyone. Do you expect me to keep track of that or do some cross checking on each and every post I see? That makes you even more of a worthless troll than I thought you were. LOL! Zaumen thinks you become a troll by having someone agree with you! The only defintion of troll which he does not himself meet! The signature is backwards for a good reason. To match your cognitive faculties, evidently. To limit spam, you moron. Surprise us and see if you can explain why. So you think spammers pick up .sigs, parse out proper names (even when not capitalised), compare them with the ISP name in the Usenet posting headers and infer an email address? It is all becoming clear. You are one of those conspiracy nuts, aren't you? It's a great conspiracy, nobody is breaking ranks at all - all the proof is against you, so that proves the conspiracy and that "proves" you are right. No wonder nobody has gotten any sens out of you in living memory! Thanks for clearing that up, Bill, much appreciated. 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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Bwuhahahaha! Being called an idiot by Zaumen is a rite of passage!
What next, ****-for-brains? Gonna call me a liar? I gotta love the way you cling to a belief even after it turns out that all your proof shows the opposite, tho. Man, you are a True Believer! Pity you are putting all your energy into funny plastic hats instead of bike safety. On second thoughts, the bike safety movement needs your style like a fish needs a bike, so how about you **** off and take your tiny mind with you. Bill Zaumen: purveyor of prime bull**** to the cycling community. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen wrote: Looks like the finer points of sock-puppetry are also wasted on you, Bill. Google for that name some time. Oh, are you or one of the others posting under multiple names? How should I know what other people are doing? Using sock-puppets to yank the chain of trolls is a long-established sport. It could be anyone. If you don't know who it is, then how do you know it is a "sock-puppet"? Are you just making stuff up. Well, if you are playing chidish games, I guess I'll flush the rest of your posts today down the bit bucket. So you think spammers pick up .sigs, parse out proper names (even when not capitalised), compare them with the ISP name in the Usenet posting headers and infer an email address? I have some evidence they do precisely that. Acutally, they don't look for proper names per se. The signatures are short so they may just find words and try them. If you include a URL, they may note that some ISPs make a designated part of the URL the same as the user name in an email address. For a large enough ISP, they may treat that as a special case. It is all becoming clear. You are one of those conspiracy nuts, aren't you? I'm just a hell of a lot smarter than you. BTW, perhaps you'd care to explain how I started getting junk mail from my ISP's account without *ever* having given out my email address to anyone on readable form (I posted a URL to a graphics image containing my email address with text wrapped around an @ sign, to defeat even character recogniztion software.) Do *you* think they'd actually do something as labor intensive as having someone look at the link, figure out the address, and type it in by hand? The simplest explanation is they figured out that pacbell used the same name in the URL for web pages as in email addresses. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2004 02:43:38 GMT, (Bill Z.) wrote in message : How should I know what other people are doing? Using sock-puppets to yank the chain of trolls is a long-established sport. It could be anyone. If you don't know who it is, then how do you know it is a "sock-puppet"? Are you just making stuff up. Check out the name. Oh, I forgot - you are too arrogant to follow up anything if somebody else suggests it. What name? It was a random post from some moron, possibly you. Do you think I care who it is or would bother to even remember whatever name he used, or even looked very closely? Well, if you are playing chidish games, I guess I'll flush the rest of your posts today down the bit bucket. Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening". Translation - our troll Guy is all in a tither because he's been put in a timeout. So you think spammers pick up .sigs, parse out proper names (even when not capitalised), compare them with the ISP name in the Usenet posting headers and infer an email address? I have some evidence they do precisely that. Acutally, they don't look for proper names per se. The signatures are short so they may just find words and try them. LOL! Bill, there are so many addies on web sites that there is no need even to try that. I saw this behavior while using an old netscape browser configured to (a) not allow cookies, (b) not run java, (c) not run javascript, (d) not accepting plugins of any time, (e) disabling most of the plugins that came with the browser, and (f) ignoring most web sites as useless trash. I also have never owned a Windows box, and nearly all the "addies" as you call them target that. Last time I ran a test they were still scanning Usenet, but only at a most basic level and even the relatively benign trick of putting the real address in the reply-to field took over a month to start getting spam. That time delay is most likely because (as Yahoo's CTO mentioned in a talk I went to a few years ago), that spam is a two-level scam. The people making money on it sell spam software and lists of email addresses to dim-witted idiots who try to sell viagra and who claim to represent poor corrupt Nigerian officials. Yahoo's CTO knowns a fair bit about this subject due to the company's effort to reduce the flood of traffic. The mechanisms some of the spam programs use (according to Yahoo's CT0) require a PhD in computer science to understand. Even if he was exaggerating, what some of these guys do is probably well beyond what you could understand. I'll skip the rest - you obviously don't know what you are talking about. -- My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
An experiment to prove the helmet law proponants RIGHT (or wrong) | David | Recumbent Biking | 65 | December 21st 04 06:42 AM |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | General | 1927 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 1716 | October 24th 04 06:39 AM |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Social Issues | 55 | July 1st 04 05:05 AM |
published helmet research - not troll | Frank Krygowski | Techniques | 51 | July 1st 04 05:05 AM |