New Helmet Technology

[johnp]

Forum Sponsor

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/13/a...ing-riders-head-in-impacts.html?smid=pl-share


I don't get how low impact can damage more than high impact... if that's what he's saying.. so just an fyi

"...There’s a problem when an impact is not strong enough for the absorption — typically at the helmet shell liner made of expanded polystyrene foam — to take place and the shock is passed to the skull. Although less likely to be fatal, those shocks can still cause serious concussions......"

 

[Kri$han]

... uhhh, based on your quote alone, the author isn't saying that low-impact incidents are causing MORE damage than high-impact incidents - he's just saying that low-impact accidents can still cause damage (i.e. they shouldn't be completely ignored)...

The design challenge here is to accommodate a wider range of impact resistance, as opposed to the more common design theory that a helmet should be designed to withstand high impacts and therefore should be able to adequately withstand any impact at a lesser force - this has recently been disproved.

There are some helmet designers and companies that believe SNELL testing it too harsh and unrealistic. What this does is make the helmet too resistant (i.e. very hard and not "soft" enough) - in order for the helmet to withstand these high impacts, it ends up transferring more of the force to the rider's head for ALL impacts (high and low). DOT and ECE standards are regarded as the more realistic of the three safety standards.

 

[BMWWW]

... uhhh, based on your quote alone, the author isn't saying that low-impact incidents are causing MORE damage than high-impact incidents - he's just saying that low-impact accidents can still cause damage (i.e. they shouldn't be completely ignored)...

The design challenge here is to accommodate a wider range of impact resistance, as opposed to the more common design theory that a helmet should be designed to withstand high impacts and therefore should be able to adequately withstand any impact at a lesser force - this has recently been disproved.

There are some helmet designers and companies that believe SNELL testing it too harsh and unrealistic. What this does is make the helmet too resistant (i.e. very hard and not "soft" enough) - in order for the helmet to withstand these high impacts, it ends up transferring more of the force to the rider's head for ALL impacts (high and low). DOT and ECE standards are regarded as the more realistic of the three safety standards.

/uninformed-opinion:
SNELL is always required in automotive racing. The higher SNELL standards need to be able to sustain hits on rollcages and so on. It never really made sense since you'd think a motorcyclist's noggin would be more susceptible to big wacks, but that was how it was explained to me in the past..

 

[Griffin]

As I understand the quote, the author is writing that the helmet's safety potential isn't being used at low impact. Shock is NOT being absorbed by the helmet and is being transferred to the head inside it. So, yes, in some cases a low impact could cause more injury than a higher impact that would activate the compression and shock absorbtion of the helmet liner.

That isn't to say that a 10 kph bump is more dangerous to your noggin than a 100 kph crash into a wall. Who knows where the dividing line of low impact vs high impact is?

 

[SweetOnion]

As I understand the quote, the author is writing that the helmet's safety potential isn't being used at low impact. Shock is NOT being absorbed by the helmet and is being transferred to the head inside it. So, yes, in some cases a low impact could cause more injury than a higher impact that would activate the compression and shock absorbtion of the helmet liner.

That isn't to say that a 10 kph bump is more dangerous to your noggin than a 100 kph crash into a wall. Who knows where the dividing line of low impact vs high impact is?

hehe, I'm pretty sure that would require a mathematical calculation that would at some point involve the density of the noggin of the person wearing it.

 

[Kri$han]

/uninformed-opinion:
SNELL is always required in automotive racing. The higher SNELL standards need to be able to sustain hits on rollcages and so on. It never really made sense since you'd think a motorcyclist's noggin would be more susceptible to big wacks, but that was how it was explained to me in the past..

http://alivetoride.com/motorcycle_helmet_certification_standards

"Some motorcycle enthusiasts state that Snell standards are too strict in that they try to protect against high speed crashes that although can happen to an ordinary rider, are rare. The argument is that because of the focus on higher speed crash protection, the helmets are too rigid and do not offer enough absorption of energy from a typical crash impact."

That's like, the first web page I clicked on... perhaps its appropriate for car drivers with respect to roll cages, but motorcycles are different and should be held to different standards. Thanks for playing.

Edit: Below is an even more specific quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/a...l=1&adxnnlx=1381945735-0czXOaix6OtXi1qZvWU7jQ

“Over the last 30 years,” Mr. Newman said, “we’ve come to the realization that people falling off motorcycles hardly ever, ever hit their head in the same place twice. So we have helmets that are designed to withstand two hits at the same site. But in doing so, we have severely, severely compromised their ability to take one hit and absorb energy properly.”

Forum Sponsor