published helmet research - not troll

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.

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...

All we've had from you, at least in any post I've seen, are mindless
assertions.

Yeah! Backed up ONLY with the citations that you posted.

"Bill Z." wrote in message
...
"Tom Kunich" writes:
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.

But of course the one you were claiming to show less drag than a bald head
was the non-ANSI helmet. Let's face it Bill, your lies show a remarkable
lack of talent especially when you are the one that supplied the citations.
Could you possibly be so stupid a to believe that no one would actually look
at those citations to ascertain the truth of your statements? Apparently you
are and feel that you need only lie about the parts that disagree with your
assertions. That is - everything.

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.

Yes, what you can do is qiute a bit less than an ANSI helmet and barely less
than a bald head or even short hair IF you are willing to only ride in a
racing crouch, on aero bars and with your head placed solidly forward never
looking either right nor left. In fact, sort of the way you view the world
around you - with tunnel vision and completely outside of reality.

Is there a reason that you are incapable of holding a civil discussion?

Do you mean like your idea of a civil discussion where you make unsupported
claims and then supply a citation that proves you completely wrong whereby
you post for a month saying exactly the opposite of the information you
yourself provided?

Bill, everyone on the internet now knows that you are seriously mental. I
suggest you find a good shrink and discuss why you cannot admit you are
wrong even when you supply the proof yourself.

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

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.

You originally stated that a safety helmet reduced OVERALL aerodynamic drag
on a bicyclist by 5%. That wasn't just a misunderstanding of the chart you
were looking at but an absolutely spectacular display of person ignornance
on your part on a par with John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted
against it."

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.

Since it isn't necessary for Guy or anyone else to add any information
contrary to your assertions since you were kind enough to cite not one but
TWO sources that both contradicted your own claims.

Guy has challenged you to supply ANY information that supports your claims
or to admit you were wrong. Frank was kind enough to give you the benefit of
a doubt and suggested that perhaps YOU had some sort of helmet that indeed
had less drag than a full head of long hair. Instead of replying you evaded
his questions with a paranoia that has become your trademark.

Bill, seek psychiatric help before they have to throw a net over you and
lock you up for your own protection.

"Tom Kunich" writes:

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

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.

You originally stated that a safety helmet reduced OVERALL aerodynamic drag
on a bicyclist by 5%.

The "5%" you are complaining about was a *direct quote* from a web page!

I originally stated that there would be a very small reduction - too
small for most cyclists to notice in practice. Then someone asked for
some data, I did a google search, and found a case that gave a
reduction of about 5% for one particular helmet. It was near the top
of the list google produced. I merely gave a URL and a short statement
of what you'll find in it, since you had to scroll down a few screenfuls
to find anything.

And you are daft enough as to complain about that?

That wasn't just a misunderstanding of the chart you were looking at
but an absolutely spectacular display of person ignornance on your
part on a par with John Kerry's "I voted for it before I voted
against it."

Well, that explains a lot. Beside your numerous personal faults, it
seems you are also a Bush supporter. You are so igorant that you
don't even know that Kerry's position is consistent, although he
worded it badly (and the Republicans are playing that for all it is
worth rather than talk about the real issues.)

Bill, seek psychiatric help before they have to throw a net over you and
lock you up for your own protection.

That from someone who actually was locked up for the protection of
others as you were? Should I post the URL again - after all *you*
brought this behavior up on some of these newsgroups.

I'll ignore your other posts from today. You are acting as badly
as that Guy character, if not worse. Given your history, as far
as I'm concerned, you have zero credibility.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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

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.

Not as such, no, as has been pointed out numerous times. It states
that the only standard type ANSI helmet tested is /worse/ than the
worst-case unhelmeted scenario. Your assertion that modern helmets
are somehow better than this, combined with your assertion-by-stealth
that long hair is representative of cyclists in general, forms the
claim to which several of us object. One of the studies you cite
starts form the base premise that helmets increase drag, but you seem
to want us to believe otherwise; it is not surprising that your word
as a zealot is less persuasive than all that evidence which
contradicts you.

But you do have three possible ways forward from he

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.

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:

The "5%" you are complaining about was a *direct quote* from a web page!

Misinterpreted by you as applying to a helmet, whereas it actually
applies to a head fairing with no protective capability. I seem to
recall that it took some time to get that point over to you, if indeed
we did since you still persist in producing that figure out of a hat
occasionally.

I originally stated that there would be a very small reduction - too
small for most cyclists to notice in practice.

Indeed you did. And your own figures show the exact opposite opposite
- an increase which is significant for the short-haired cyclist and
less so for the worst-case unhelmeted scenario of unrestrained long
hair. You were therefore challenged to back your assertion with data.
In trying to do so you produced several citations to the original Kyle
study which proved you wrong, and one new study whose starting premise
is that helmets increase drag - presumably based on Kyle.

That leaves you with three possible options:

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 preferred your usual mix of evasion, denial,
ad-hominem and reiteration of the incorrect assertion. But we live in
hope.

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:

Guy is still being an infant. I'll reply to this one and put his
other posts back in the time-out.

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.

Not as such, no, as has been pointed out numerous times. It states
that the only standard type ANSI helmet tested is /worse/ than the
worst-case unhelmeted scenario.

It doesn't say that. It shows an airodyanamic advantage of 5.2 percent
for an ANSI approved Bell Stratos. See

http://damonrinard.com/aero/aerodynamics.htm.

The Bell V1 Pro is not an aerodynamic design (it is completely
symmetric.) It is only *slightly* worse than riding with long hair.

It may surprise you, but most of us don't choose our hair style to
cut air drag when riding a bicycle.


Your assertion that modern helmest are somehow better than this,
combined with your assertion-by-stealth that long hair is
representative of cyclists in general, forms the claim to which
several of us object.

We have two data points - a nonaerodyamic design that is just slightly
worse than a bare head and an aerodyamically designed one that is
significantly better. You can therefore trade off cooling and other
desirable features for drag and still come out ahead.


One of the studies you cite starts form the base premise that
helmets increase drag, but you seem to want us to believe otherwise;
it is not surprising that your word as a zealot is less persuasive
than all that evidence which contradicts you.

Sigh. The other URL I provided showed helmets decreasing drag. and the
only zealost are you and that Kunich character - Kunich's been on an
anti-helmet rant for over 10 years.

3. shut up.

How mature of you (and you repeat it incessantly, like the little boy
your are.)

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB