Originally Posted by
John C. Ratliff
If you really want to know about the helmet testing from Snell, read the entire Snell Standard B-90A, which is what Closetbiker and the others who don't advocate for helmets would rather you not read:
http://www.smf.org/standards/b/b90astd.html
John
That's odd John. Is this another example of your inability to read? Or is this sort of claim another example of your blatant lying? It can be demonstrated very straightfowardly that it is untrue as most of us who have advocated that the use of cupcakes (sorry, helmets) be left as an individual choice have repeatedly drawn attention
precisely to those standards in order to alert you that your hyperbolic claims about helmet effectiveness are shared by neither the manufacturers nor testing bodies.
I supplied a link to the SMF several pages back to demonstrate that El Julioso's wonder helmet (which he claims absorbs 48 kJ) was far in excess of any of the snell standards:
Originally Posted by
WaltPoutine
OK. I give up. Your helmet far exceeds any of the testing done by the Snell Memorial Foundation. Their pitiful standards (e.g. the B95) only certify helmets to between a measly 65 to 110 J and to keep the deceleration below 300G:
Originally Posted by SnellMemorialFoundation
a. For each impact against the flat anvil, the impact energy shall be 110 J for certification testing and 100 J for all other testing regardless of headform size or weight. Given an ideal frictionless mechanical test facility, this impact energy represents a 2.2+ meter drop of a 5 kg headform and supporting assembly.
b. For each impact against the hemispherical anvil, the impact energy shall be 72 J for certification testing and 65 J for all other testing regardless of headform size or weight. Given an ideal frictionless mechanical test facility, this impact energy represents a 1.3+ meter drop of a 5 kg headform and supporting assembly.
c. For each impact against the kerbstone anvil, the impact energy shall be 72 J for certification testing and 65 J for all other testing regardless of headform size or weight. Given an ideal frictionless mechanical test facility, this impact energy represents a 1.3+ meter drop of a 5 kg headform and supporting assembly.
http://www.smf.org/standards/b/b95std.html
And not so long ago Closetbiker specifically mentioned that the Snell standards are designed to reduce the deceleration to below 300G. And the
http://www.cyclehelmets.org site talks in detail and repeatedly about those standards and supplies links to them. CharlesVail has mentioned that heavier riders will possibly exceed the CPSC standards even under the improbably test condition of falling off sideways with no forward and rotational components. In fact I know you have been involved earlier in discussion in this very thread about such standards. And it has been mentioned time and again here that the actual claims made by helmet manufacturers and certification bodies are far more modest than those made by pro-compulsionists.
Personally I would be delighted if those advocating compulsion would read (and understand even at a basic level) those standards and would then couple that knowledge with the currently very limited information about the typical amounts of energy involved in producing diffuse axonal injuries and subdural haematomas and the types of accidents which kill cyclists. Is that too much to ask? How about you go and make a compelling case that helmets are far more effective than most specialists and any company has claimed before you run around trying to force them on us.