this hurts my head
 

please don't tee off on me, I just am trying to understand this?
http://cdn.mos.bikeradar.com/images/...era-798-75.jpg

dcb -

This is what they say :

SUPERLEGGERA HELMET :: Louis Garneau - $180
Does this require the head of the bicycler to be detached and spinning?

CarloSW2

Remember the real function of the cool design is to sell product.
Working would be nice but is not essential

To me, if the dimples were to work on such an helmet (can't say they do or don't without WT testing), Louis Garneau placed them probably in the worst possible place. You'd want the dimples where the flow is transitioning.

That was kind of my knee-jerk reaction too... If they in theory work, why put them in front? Other than that's where they are visible though...

It looks about right to me.

Although the air is still going to detach off the rider's back.

It looks like this may work well in conjunction with a small spoiler placed near the buttocks of the rider. Either a belt could be worn or perhaps an extension attached to the rear of the seat.

http://img232.imageshack.us/img232/4945/aerocycle.gif

Not to hijack the thread but if solid wheels at the rear aid aero then why not have them at the front as well?

Peter.

Because a solid front wheel can be dangerously unstable in side winds, and somewhat unstable from frontal winds.

It really depends on the rider position. In the pro peleton they spend an amazing amount of time and money on wind tunnel testing. These helmets can save about 10 watts at 25 mph. Does not sound like much but when 5 seconds can mean the difference between wiinning and losing it's huge. Every rider will have a different position on the bike so they have to find the helmet that works for that position.

A couple of interesting links with all the different helmets used in the Tour de Califronia and wind tunnel test.

http://www.active.com/cycling/Articl...California.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7VrmKySetU

Overall dimples are for creating TURBULENT, ATTACHED flow, not LAMINAR flow, on an object that rotates. They make no sense on a helmet, where a simple low ridge about 20% ahead of the maximum diameter does the job, leaving True laminar flow ahead of the ridge.
A lightweight helmet is nice for the neck, but moving the CG back would be better than forward.
This is marketing crap. If the protection is as sketchy as the prose, Darwin awards may be in order.