elcruxio

I would really like to see a helmet designed for 100mph crashes.... like really... what?

rydabent

six

Not to worry you, but I also ride a recumbent bike. Since riding either is relevant to cycling and helmets it is you that is trying to split hairs.

350htrr

Er, What I meant was, helmets designed for doing things like motorbike and car racing at over 100 MPH...

elcruxio

Ooooh yeah... yeah... I think those things are rated for up to 25mph

350htrr

Don't know the speed rateing but people use them( Helmets with sliding thethers) who drive over 100 MPH and crash, and walk away... https://www.rallysport.ca/safety/hans_device.htm

elcruxio

They also have other protection and energy absorbing materials around them other than the helmet. It's not like they hit a brick wall 100mph and the helmet takes it all.

350htrr

Yes they do have other protection too, but I repeat... I didn't mean there is a helmet out there that protects you at 100 MPH hitting a brick wall, what I meant was that there are helmets designed for use at 12 MPH 25 MPH 60 MPH and over 100MPH... Thus you shouldn't really try to lump every helmet in one group as to what it "should/could" be capable of...

Six jours

The people who talk about motorsports helmets also ride bicycles. So by your "logic" that makes it relevant too.

elcruxio

Well I'm not really sure what to make of this, but the snell certificate for motorsport helmets is rated thusly:
Not to exceed 300g upon impact
Nominal impact velocity 8m/s with a 5kg headform which
Means a speed of 18mph. So should be completely safe for full stop collisions with a brick wall up to 18mph.

That is impressive, but still it's not a 100mph helmet. Not even a 60mph. And the snell certificate should be one of the best.

rekmeyata

And that's why they have but engine restrictor plates in race cars so that the cars don't exceed 18 mph and so that drivers don't exceed their helmets rated speed effectiveness.

They don't have helmets rated for 100mph, they do however have helmets rated for different sports which is why wearing a cycling helmet is not allowed in motorsports. There isn't a helmet on this planet that will save a persons brain from an impact into a brick wall at 100 mph with a deceleration to zero in 100th of a second, or even 50, because while maybe technology might exist to keep the helmet together in an impact at 100 mph the brain inside the skull keeps moving forward and smashes against the skull killing the person. The same is true for your body's organs, they keep moving and smash against each other and the bones causing severe and fatal internal injuries. There is no technology in the world, nor ever will be, that will keep our brains from moving inside our skulls and protecting our lives in impact speeds that produce to fast of a deceleration then the brain can survive. Usually in impacts there are other factors going on to absorb a lot of the impact so the deceleration isn't instant

350htrr

You sound like most of the non helmet group... If it doesn't save me from everything, it's not worth using... BUT REALLY? 2% death rate where it fails miserably so it's not worth wearing mantra, and if it doesn't save my life in all situations, so I won't wear it, dismissing the 98%, well it does something helpful..., but I can help myself more, by riding "safer" mentality... You do know, you can ride safer using your skills and road knowledge mentality, and still wear a helmet... EDIT: You should take up the cause for non-helmet use in other sports, as it's TOTALLY worthless, in Nascar racing and other type of racing where you go over 25MPH... (and have a chance of hitting a brick wall or any other solid object with your head).

rekmeyata

Oh stop it! You're making too much sense around here, we don't need sensible people ruining our world.

howsteepisit

THat 2% was the death rate of all cycling head injuries as related to all head injuries. The % wearing helmet and the differential of helmeted/non helmeted is not stated in that 2%.

350htrr

OH, no... I may have my numbers wrong, (er, just a bit off) but really? It does help to wear a helmet when the old head bounces off the pavement as I see it...

sudo bike

This is what your argument always comes down to, and it is still no less true no matter what activity you're talking about. This argument supports cycling helmets just as easily as walking helmets, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up or cherry-pick application.

Six jours

Because no one in the "non helmet group" has ever said anything like this, the rest of what follows is, necessarily, nonsense.

(That rekmeyata finds it compelling should be evidence enough of its worthlessness...)

Six jours

Please stop making non-tricycle related comments.

350htrr

Yes, Exactly, Because it's the bottom line, and it is true. Up to a point. It's better to not get road rash as you could without a helmet, it's better to not get a bump on the head as you could without a helmet, it's better to only get a small headache instead of a big headache, it's better to only have a small concussion than a big concussion where the line starts to blur... Saving your life is a rare occurrence but I'm sure even that can/does happen sometimes depending on... JMO

sudo bike

It's like talking to a cat.

350htrr

Right back at you...

curbtender

Ha, there is no excuse... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ELTHpUQN2k

sudo bike

Guys, can we please just stop with other questions. I'm here to talk about Rampart.

Look, "any protection is better than nothing when the head meets the pavement" is (mostly) a true statement. What you talked right past was the actual point of what I was saying, which is that the argument applies just the same to any other activity that bears a risk of head meeting pavement. To be logically consistent, you either need to wear a helmet for all these activities, or else you must have another reason that makes cycling the special case that makes you wear a helmet. Something other than, "a helmet is better than nothing", because if that were your only reason, you'd wear one while walking or jogging or driving. Either that, or you're just arbitrarily cherry-picking when to apply the principle you're arguing.

That's why I'm not sure why you keep bringing it up. It's an obvious statement that nobody is arguing with and doesn't hold much bearing on whether you should be wearing a helmet when cycling more than you should when walking.

elcruxio

Could you maybe point your accusations accurately to the thigs I wrote.
Like, where in my post did I say that helmets should not be worn and are of no use?
Where in my post did I state myself as an non helmet groupee?
Did I actually say helmets are worthless in motorsports?

I actually only gave you the Snell testing procedure and rating which quite clearly stated that there are no 100mph helmets. Seems to me it injured your pride a bit, when your BS was called, so of course the best course of action is to attack the poster and that way try to diminish the value of their post. Or you could try to be analytical, see what really is no written in there in stead of making paranoid stuff up about the non helmet conspiracy.

Not gonna even help you with this anymore, since you were so rude.

chasm54

LOL. But that must involve a third wheel somewhere, surely?

This thread is like an old lover. Too infuriating to stay with, but so much fun one can't help coming back...

rydabent

Talking to my cats is probably more productive than posting to the anti helmet crowd that wearing a helmet while cycling is a good idea. At least my tomcat purrs, and the anti helmet crowd just calls me names.