Incorrect, I hate guys who think that just because a braided is stronger, get your head on right man. Statistics show that braided line has ZERO shock, in other words it doesn't give. If you use braided line on that cotton helmet cover the person wearing such a helmet will surly die because the line used to make the cover will not absorb impact and will jar the brain in such a way that it could kill the wearer. WAKEUP MAN! I guess the one good thing about using braided line is that after the person is dead someone else can crab the cover and reuse it...

I think 905 hit it on the head. When we discuss helmets, we discuss personal freedom vs. personal responsibility, and everyone has a different line or point of reference. For me, it brings up the same emotions as a political or religious discussion. The moderators maintaining one thread for helmets here is brilliant, or the whole forum would be absorbed in the firestorm. :)

Are you alright? Maybe you should take a deep breath or something. The question was not about making a helmet cover, but simply repairing a rip in one. The very fact that braided does not stretch means you will have a good, tight repair that is unlikely to ever come loose. The helmet cover has nothing to do with the helmets ability to absorb shock.

This goes back to my original question: What is it about helmets that makes some people get crazy and weird, so much so that you can't even have a discussion about repairing a rip in a cover without eliciting a personal attack?

There is A LOT of posts here, so much so that no one would ever bother reading them all, but most of the respondents have written what you've said and agree with you including myself. Where we're running into a problem is that some of the folk are saying that helmets are ineffective which goes completely against the statistics compiled over the last 30 years or more from the government that shows the direct opposite...we're talking bicycle helmets being worn vs not being worn by all age groups in the USA year by year. And it also goes against what all emergency personal and doctors say as well.

Speaking of problems, there was a study done in Australia, which is where a lot the controversy started, that showed helmets were not effective at all, however in light of all that controversy Sidney University, located in Sidney Australia, released a new study with conclusions that refute the study that showed helmets to be ineffective, see: Bike helmets: an emergency doctor's perspective And the reason various countries are trying to eliminate folk from wearing helmets is to increase bicycle ridership because they have mandatory helmet laws and so an effort is afoot to repeal the law so cycling will increase. That's a poor reason to for repealing helmet laws; what motivation could there be to say that helmets are useless? Follow the money and you may figure it out.

Personal attack? look whos attacking who? I'm not saying that a helmet cover should use no thread at all, I'm simply saying that monoline absorbs shock better than braided line. I even said that braided line will last longer and thus once the wearer dies in an accident due to the inability of the braided line to absorb shock that another rider can come along and take the cover off the dead cyclist helmet and reuse it...that's the strength as far as making the cover last a long time that you're talking about...but you're forgetting about the shock absorbtion factor of which I'm trying to drill into your head.

I say again, a bare head makes a very poor brake pad.

Depends on how thick headed the person is/

I believe he was answering in kind to your post...

Complete, utter, total BS.

There are some information-seeking/providing helmet threads posted occasionally, but they usually devolve into the polarizing helmet debate instead of staying on-topic and non-confrontational.

You'll see the same thing regarding guns threads.

Inevitably, even if the OP asks that it not devolve into the same old, tired debate, some poster or another, usually a regular, will purposely sabotage the thread, forcing mods to either lock it or move it to one of the BF ghettos. Those who force the issue are dooshes of the highest order.

Here is where helmet threads end up; P&R is where guns threads end up.

http://cdn.meme.li/instances/500x/52848942.jpg

First off he wasn't answering in kind, and besides how would you know that? you've always lacked any form of comprehension or any resemblance to intelligent life as evidence by your many posts and attacks on anyone and everyone...at least you're not prejudice as to who you attack. :twitchy:

Common sense freedom of choice is only OK on rest day training rides in 2014, as a Saxo rider demonstrated Monday.

http://cdn.velonews.competitor.com/f...71-320x213.jpg

You really think someone would die just because they stitched a rip in their helmet cover with braided thread? Do you also worry about whether or not a hangnail is going to be fatal**********? Both are equally ridiculous.

Actually, braided thread probably wouldn't be a good choice, nor would mono. They are both stronger than the cotton material, and might actually cause it to rip worse next time. The best option is to use the same thread material as the material itself, in other words, nylon to nylon, cotton to cotton, etc.....

From the posts I am seeing, it appears this thread has, like the others, devolved considerably, to the point where I feel like I've stepped into a Looney Bin. In the future, I will refrain from exploring any issues regarding helmets. I'm not even sure I want to mention the word, "helmet", ever again.........

Total BS in your opinion only.

So you have figures or studies to back up your statement? Thought not. Opinion, assumption on your part presented as unsupported fact, IOW: BS.

Correct. I only call out the incorrect and the ignorant. There's plenty on both sides of the debate. You're one of them.

Hey, I thought you were ignoring me?!?

Nylon is a poor choice for thread, it rots in the sun, cotton shrinks and it doesn't have holding power. I would have recommended kevlar but again it doesn't have any ability to absorb impact...however if you live in certain parts of Los Angeles or New York City they could make a cover made completely out of kevlar to add bullet proof protection to a helmet. Have two options for riders, depending on where they live, a cover made of mono line to absorb shock or kevlar to repel bullets.

Glad I wear a helemt, always thought it was just a pain in the ass and while I did it i saw it as a chore, I now wear one 99% of the time (If i get my hair cut I wont wear a helemt on the ride back but its only 1Miles on quite urban roads so meh) I still stand by the belife you dont need to spend £££ on a helemt, its just wasted money, however you should spend at least £40 as anything under that seems heavy/hot/badly made, I spent £80 on my last one and its a nice one. I am gald I wear one and I wear it proudly and dont care what other people think as I had a crash wear I banged my head hard on concrete and if I wasent wearing one my brains would proberly have oozed over the road and made a mighty awefull mess! Anyone who says they dont prpotect you need to have there head cheacked out (Excuse the pun!) I now never complain about my brain bucket knowing it saved me from death/or becomeing a vegtable. Happy days! And sha me on you parents for not wearing one but makeing kid wear one...whare the hell is the logic and exsample setting in that! From yours the happy guy who still has his brains!

I came across this, which I felt was comprehensive and very readable.

Bicycle Helmets: A Scientific Evaluation

If found this quote amusing, on page 156 "In 1996, a leading Australian
manufacturer said, “The helmet industry has certainly changed over the past 16 years and bicycle helmets are now a consumer product. Heavy, bulky style hard helmets have virtually been replaced by the lightweight aerodynamic micro shell styles that we see today. In fact the bicycle helmet industry has become almost a fashion industry and this is all related to consumer demand."

BTW, have a look at table 2 on page 166 and this text: "Clearly, adult cyclists did not share commensurately in the general improvement in road safety. Nor did child cyclists; the fall in casualties to them was about the same as the decline in participation. No benefit from compulsory wearing of helmets is evident; rather, it would appear that the risk to cyclists increased. Indeed, from studies in Australia and New Zealand Elvik and Vaa estimated that mandatory wearing of helmets increased the risk of injury per kilometre cycled by 14% [100]. "

Bicycle helmets aren't defined by design and engineering, they are defined by how companies market the helmets they manufacture.

Yes and No, but overall this statement is unfair and misleading.

Like just about every product, from children's toys to aircraft, things are designed based both engineering (to ensure that it'll work and do what it's supposed to do) and cosmetic or other factors to appeal to the market. A product that works great but won't sell, or a beautiful product that doesn't do what it's supposed to are both useless.

Yes, over the last few years great effort has gone into fashion and marketability, but the helmets still must pass basic engineering standards and the various Snell or ANSI tests before they go into production.

Passing Snell or ANSI tests are optional for bicycle helmets sold in the U.S.; meeting CPSC standards are required.

Yes, but this doesn't change the thrust of my statement.

I'm not going to get into a debate over which standards are higher, or more relevant to protection in the real world, that's for those who care. My point was simply to point out that it's not just about fashion and marketability.

Helmet makers have to balance marketability and things like comfort and coolness (both temp, and fashion) with protection, so folks will buy theirs and not another, or nothing.

Primarily being 300 g peak impact for adults, 250 g for children.

Without rotational forces, ie, the head doesn't move or twist with a straight impact, 1200 to 1500 g will produce a concussion. So rotational forces are generally involved when there are traumatic brain injuries (see the pdf I linked in my last post).

CPSC proposes a rotational test for future standards. 16 CFR Part 1203 Safety Standard for Bicycle Helmets;Final Rule