Paper Helmets

[MontyVeda]

With or without a lid, the potential is always there for an accident irrespective of the mode used.

...

exactly... why people give me funny looks when i walk to the shop in one I'll never know.

 

[Linford]

exactly... why people give me funny looks when i walk to the shop in one I'll never know.

Funny you say that because 'i've been asked to take my motorbike lid off a few times when in petrol statons....you do know that all bikers carry sawn off shotguns every time they fill up...

 

[ufkacbln]

Fitting issues aside (as that can be resolved), do you feel that it is a step forward in design if the claims can be substantiated ?

Providing it can be proved that the open lattice does not act as a "snag point"

Providing it passes Snell B95

Providing it can be shown that the structure lasts over exposure to the elements and normal wear and tear

Providing the proven issue with ventilation decreasing the efficiency of helmets does not happen in this case

 

[ufkacbln]

With or without a lid, the potential is always there for an accident irrespective of the mode used.

Which is exactly why the Thudguard is so essential.

 

[Octet]

watch the video again, they quite clearly state that cycling is dangerous, hence the need for a stronger helmet.

I'm still struggling to find it, what point (preferably a timecode and/or a quote) do you think it states it is dangerous? Yes they mention that this new helmet is safer, but that doesn't suggest it is dangerous or that they are discouraging new riders.

 

[Linford]

Providing it can be proved that the open lattice does not act as a "snag point"

Providing it passes Snell B95

Providing it can be shown that the structure lasts over exposure to the elements and normal wear and tear

Providing the proven issue with ventilation decreasing the efficiency of helmets does not happen in this case

Why are you so keen to put your faith in the Snell B-95 test ? You don't appear to trust any testing full stop (unless perhaps for the thudguard )
What part of the snell B-95 test makes it stand out as an acceptable standard to meet over all the other testing standards ? In addition to this, Snell are American testing standards. Should you not be more concerned that a lid meets a given euro standard ? The KSI stats for the roads are far better in the EU than the states.

What has ventilation got to do with efficiency , and more importantly efficiency of what ?

 

[MontyVeda]

I'm still struggling to find it, what point (preferably a timecode and/or a quote) do you think it states it is dangerous? Yes they mention that this new helmet is safer, but that doesn't suggest it is dangerous or that they are discouraging new riders.

OK you got me... but the way they stress that this helmet makes cycling 'a whole lot safer', and their opening gambit 'our skull is precious and vulnerable... which is why ALL cyclists should wear a 'safety tested' helmet' is hardly promoting cycling as a safe activity is it?

Bearing in mind the fact that our skull is incredibly tough, and our brain would be vulnerable without a skull... it's scaremongering garbage*

*both the helmet and the article.

 

[ufkacbln]

Why are you so keen to put your faith in the Snell B-95 test ? You don't appear to trust any testing full stop (unless perhaps for the thudguard )
What part of the snell B-95 test makes it stand out as an acceptable standard to meet over all the other testing standards ? In addition to this, Snell are American testing standards. Should you not be more concerned that a lid meets a given euro standard ? The KSI stats for the roads are far better in the EU than the states.

What has ventilation got to do with efficiency , and more importantly efficiency of what ?

The fact that you are asking these questions shows a stunning level of ignorance of the way helmets work, the testing standards and how they are structured.

Given that you have simply ignored all of this in the past, I am not going to waste time trying to educate you in the absolute basics again

 

[Octet]

OK you got me... but the way they stress that this helmet makes cycling 'a whole lot safer', and their opening gambit 'our skull is precious and vulnerable... which is why ALL cyclists are advised to wear a 'safety tested' helmet' is hardly promoting cycling as a safe activity is it?

Bearing in mind the fact that our skull is incredibly tough, and our brain would be vulnerable without a skull... it's scaremongering garbage*

*both the helmet and the article.

LMFTFY

Regardless of the video, your head is a vulnerable and irreplaceable part of your body and as such should be protected. Yes it is a strong structure, however I believe you are overestimating it.
Even if it doesn't fracture the skull, the damage sustained to the brain can easily be fatal, or equally in some cases the force required to fracture the skull can be minimal. The helmet is obviously not a miracle device that will protect you from everything and anything, but it certainly helps.

To provide three times more protection is a significant increase, it isn't so much about "cosmetic" protection but what is happening on the inside of your head. Any sort of sharp, or vigorous movements of the brain can do damage and so to create a more effective crumple zone will help slow and reduce this effect as well as dissipating the energy in a much more controlled way is beneficial.

 

[ufkacbln]

LMFTFY

Regardless of the video, your head is a vulnerable and irreplaceable part of your body and as such should be protected. Yes it is a strong structure, however I believe you are overestimating it.
Even if it doesn't fracture the skull, the damage sustained to the brain can easily be fatal, or equally in some cases the force required to fracture the skull can be minimal. The helmet is obviously not a miracle device that will protect you from everything and anything, but it certainly helps.

To provide three times more protection is a significant increase, it isn't so much about "cosmetic" protection but what is happening on the inside of your head. Any sort of sharp, or vigorous movements of the brain can do damage and so to create a more effective crumple zone will help slow and reduce this effect as well as dissipating the energy in a much more controlled way is beneficial.

.... and save the lives of thousands of pedestrians?

 

[Octet]

.... and save the lives of thousands of pedestrians?

Reductio ad absurdum...

The skull has evolved to sustain reasonable forces, such as falling over during walking and to be hit by small, low velocity objects. Cavemen weren't riding bicycles, or getting hit by cars... forces significantly greater than the skull was designed for.

Yes, there are dangers in everything, you can die from falling over. I might accept the argument that the probability has not increased, however when it does happen the damage sustained is a lot greater.

 

[Octet]

Cavemen were running at common cycling speeds.

Ok, let's assume that a good running speed is between 6 - 10 MPH.
I would say an average cycling speed for a moderate cyclist is probably 14 - 16 MPH.

(Note, yes there will be variation however you also need to remember that some will cycle a lot slower, whilst others will cycle considerably faster).

You might argue that it isn't worth it for those who cycle at the lower end of the average however it won't be uncommon for a cyclist to reach 20+ MPH. In addition to this, hitting another object is very different to simply falling over... especially one which is moving at 35 or so MPH.

 

[Octet]

You are setting running speed too low and pitching cycling speed beyond the capability of cycle helmets.

The fact is, anything is better than nothing.
A helmet will absorb a considerable amount of the force sustained from an impact and for this new design to do that by an additional three times it is obviously an improvement. The force that a helmet does absorb can make a huge difference between mild concussion and serious brain damage.

What you're suggesting is that you're supposedly buggered regardless of what happens so why bother?

 

[ufkacbln]

The fact is, anything is better than nothing.

Tripe!

The research shows that a helmet that is badly fitted can double the severity of a head injury!

Individuals whose helmets were
reported to fit poorly had a 1.96-fold
increased risk of head injury compared
with those whose helmets fit well.

Rivara et al BMJ

 

[theclaud]

The fact is, anything is better than nothing.

No it isn't. Nothing is better if you love the wind in your hair and the expensive p1ss-pot spoiling it is of negligible, if any, benefit. The designer is a likeable cove, but as far as I'm concerned his product is just another layer of irrelevance.