|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1851
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Ads |
#1852
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#1853
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#1854
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#1855
|
|||
|
|||
"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? |
#1856
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#1857
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#1858
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#1859
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#1860
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Bicycle helmet law can save lives | Garrison Hilliard | General | 146 | May 19th 04 05:42 AM |
A Pleasant Helmet Debate | Stephen Harding | General | 12 | February 26th 04 06:32 AM |
Reports from Sweden | Garry Jones | General | 17 | October 14th 03 05:23 PM |
France helmet observation (not a troll) | Mike Jacoubowsky/Chain Reaction Bicycles | General | 20 | August 30th 03 08:35 AM |
How I cracked my helmet | Rick Warner | General | 2 | July 12th 03 11:26 AM |