published helmet research - not troll

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

[snip Zaumentrolling]

See? My point is proven. Any purveyor of certainties in a helmet
thread is a liar, a charlatan or both.

Hopefully anybody still reading this will have the sense to go away
and find out for themselves, looking at all sides of the argument,
unlike Bill "only-one-study-in-only-one-country" Zaumen.

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:

On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 01:53:13 GMT, (Bill Z.)
wrote in message :

Guess I'll have to plonk the rest of your messages today.
Translation: "Laa laa, I'm not listening".
Back to infantile mode. What a baby Guy is.

Found a perfect description of you today.

Yawn. You really do have an obsession. Why don't you get some
professional help?

Next troll from Guy:

You are trying to weasel out of the fact that the claim I just replied
to is 100% wrong.

ROTLMAO! You take the prize, you really do.
The perfect reason-proof, fact-proof Usenet troll.

And not how every reason I gave was simply ignored. Then when I get
bored simply point out Guy's infantile behavior, he whines. What a
baby.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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

ROTLMAO! You take the prize, you really do.
The perfect reason-proof, fact-proof Usenet troll.

And not how every reason I gave was simply ignored.

No, Bill, not ignored - followed up and found to contradict you.

But hey, even at this late stage I am agnostic on the issue; all you
need to do is post some evidence which doesn't (a) prove the exact
opposite of your assertion or (b) demonstrate your lack of
understanding of the issues involved.

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 listenign" Zaumen trolled:

ROTLMAO! You take the prize, you really do.
The perfect reason-proof, fact-proof Usenet troll.

And not how every reason I gave was simply ignored.

No, Bill, not ignored - followed up and found to contradict you.

You sound like Bush - stay on message and the facts be damned.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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

You sound like Bush - stay on message and the facts be damned.

LOL! This from the man who insists helmets reduce drag based on
posted evidence that they don't!

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 listenign" Zaumen trolled:

ROTLMAO! You take the prize, you really do.
The perfect reason-proof, fact-proof Usenet troll.

And not how every reason I gave was simply ignored.

No, Bill, not ignored - followed up and found to contradict you.

You sound like Bush - stay on message and the facts be damned.

FACTS? You ignorant clown! You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the
ass. That other blithering ass would post a citation and then not even know
what the hell was written there? If your stupidity was one tenth as much as
it is, you'd still qualify as retarded.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message
...
Bill "Laa laa I'm not listening" Zaumen trolled:

You sound like Bush - stay on message and the facts be damned.

LOL! This from the man who insists helmets reduce drag based on
posted evidence that they don't!

Even worse, the ******* posted the information himself.

"Just zis Guy, you know?" writes:

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

You sound like Bush - stay on message and the facts be damned.

LOL! This from the man who insists helmets reduce drag based on
posted evidence that they don't!

I posted evidence showing an air drag reduction, except for an
old-style helmet (a Bell V1 Pro). One URL showed two limiting cases,
with the worst just slightly worse than a cyclist riding with a full
head of hair and the best a bit better than a bald-headed cyclist.

But you are staying on message, I guess. Just like King George.

Then our resident redneck Tom Kunich chimed in twice (I'm combining
both of his posts to save space) with

Even worse, the ******* posted the information himself.

FACTS? You ignorant clown! You wouldn't know a fact if it bit you on the
ass. That other blithering ass would post a citation and then not even know
what the hell was written there? If your stupidity was one tenth as much as
it is, you'd still qualify as retarded.

Ooooh. Our little Tommy is trying to graduate from the 8th grade
boy's locker room to the 9th grade boy's locker room. Or is is the
other way around? I forget. Given that outburst, I can only wonder
if Kunich's blood pressure went through the roof as he posted it or if
he merely had an, err, "rise" in his pants. And all over a percent
or so change in air drag from using a helmet.

What a pathetic excuse for humanity Kunich is. Guy, by contrast, is
merely a mindless troll.

--
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

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

You sound like Bush - stay on message and the facts be damned.
LOL! This from the man who insists helmets reduce drag based on
posted evidence that they don't!

I posted evidence showing an air drag reduction, except for an
old-style helmet (a Bell V1 Pro). One URL showed two limiting cases,
with the worst just slightly worse than a cyclist riding with a full
head of hair and the best a bit better than a bald-headed cyclist.

It doesn't matter how often you repeat this bull****, Bill, it will
never be true. The data you posted showed that:

- head fairings reduce drag but provide no protection
- the best performing ANSI certified aero helmet tested, the Stratos,
was worse than a bald head or skullcap
- the only standard helmet tested, the V-1, was worse then the
worst-case unhelmeted scenario of unrestrained long hair.

Additional data (also posted by you) says that helmets increase drag,
vented helmets increase drag, drag is a problem with helmets, and aero
helmets only reduce drag if the rider's position is kept within
tightly constrained limits.

From this you deduce that helmets /reduce/ drag, presumably because in
BillWorld[tm] it is heresy to suggest that there could ever be any
respect in which not wearing a helmet is better than wearing one. And
then you accuse /me/ of being "on-message!" You are a loon.

And the really laughable thing is, the entire argument /would not
exist in the first place/ if you had not insisted that helmets reduce
drag, and then posted data proving the exact opposite.

Bill |----------- unfathomable gulf -----------| 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

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

The data from that particular URL showed that the most aerodynamic helmet
is better than a bald head and that an older design (a Bell V1 Pro) with
a symmetric shape (nothing in the back to improve air flow around the
head), is ever so slightly worse than a long hair. The Stratos was
significantly better than long hair or short hair.

It doesn't matter how often you repeat this bull****, Bill, it will
never be true. The data you posted showed that:
- head fairings reduce drag but provide no protection
- the best performing ANSI certified aero helmet tested, the Stratos,
was worse than a bald head or skullcap
- the only standard helmet tested, the V-1, was worse then the
worst-case unhelmeted scenario of unrestrained long hair.

And the Stratos, a time trial helmet, was virtually unwearable,
according to someone who (unlike you) has actually worn one.

Your continued attempts to pretend that the Stratos was in some way
representative are noted, and duly discounted for the bull**** they
are.

Do you think a
standard helmet (the Bell V1 Pro is not a standard design today) might
fall somewhere in between?

Or do you think it might be worse, because of its large vents? Or do
you think that in its day the V-1 was a standard helmet, so the only
standard helmet tested at the time was worse than unrestrained long
hair?

The thing is, Bill, you have so far provided no evidence to support
your idea that a modern standard helmet is better than a V-1. You
have provided evidence that standard helmets are still considered to
worsen drag, and evidence that even aero helmets only work within a
tightly constrained envelope, but none at all to support your idea
that adding large numbers of vents to spoil the airflow somehow
improves the aerodynamics on a modern helmet.

You've repeatedly mispepresented what I said and this is no
exception.

No, Bill, you have repeatedly represented the Stratos as being in some
way representative of modern helmets in a way the V-1 is not. You are
wrong, simple as that. And we know you have no insight because you
didn't even know that the head fairings in the study you linked have
no padding.

And even funnier, you are ignoring the fact that
it *did* show a drag reduction. If the reduction is important to you,
you'll hold your head at the appropriate angle.

The "it" in question being an aero helmet designed for time trials,
and found to be unwearable in practice. The only hard data for a
standard helmet shows the precise opposite. As you know.

So you are just trolling. Fine, feel free to carry on trolling. Or
produce some evidence which supports you, rather than contradicting
you. Or **** off. Preferably the last.

And the really laughable thing is, the entire argument /would not
exist in the first place/ if you had not insisted that helmets reduce
drag, and then posted data proving the exact opposite.

Yet another lie as Guy stays "on message"

Bill, you are a True Believer; like any other True Believer you are
unable to distinguish between an agnostic and an atheist. This
results in you making yourself look more and more stupid, which is
funny some of the time.

The entire argument is due to your obvious obsession with me, as can
be seen by your continual replies to nearly everything I post,

ROFLMAO! Your arrogance is matched only by your ignorance. Both are
of truly epic proportions.

I reply, Bill, because you persist in making wrong assertions. And
then, being the arch-troll that you are, arguing the toss for ever
after you've been proven wrong, as in this case. All you have to do
is stop making wrong assertions (you could begin by checking the
contents of links you post, for example) and the "obsession" would
vanish.

So, my challenge to you:

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.

Any of the above will be perfectly acceptable.

Note that even at this late stage I am perfectly prepared to accept
that there may be evidence to support you. There hasn't been any yet,
of course, and I've challenged you several times to produce some (last
time you gave me a load of citations to the original study and a new
paper which showed ANSI certified aero helmets to be worse than a bare
head in all but a few situations, especially if the rider's attitude
was anything other than a low crouch).

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