Or are modern hard helmets different to the old polycarbonate and fibreglass ones?
Helmets are still Poly or Fibreglass.
Again nobody's ever explained the difference between the poly and the fibreglass. Assuming they're both ACU and Type A approved I can't see the difference.
£10 helmet for a £10 head.
Everyone says it but nobody ever *explains* why a £10 helmet is worse than a £10 head.
Your ARAI is a classic example. I was shopping around for helmets 6 weeks ago. If you've got the model of ARAI I'm thinking off it share the same shell as the cheaper ARAI models. All the benifits are non safety related. (I might be thinking of Shoei now I think about it but the point holds true.)
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
|
|
WRT helmet materials, I remember a long debate about the relative merits of glassfibre and polycarbonate years ago when the latter started to appear. I believed that GRP was superior because it absorbed some of the shock (destroying itself in the process) but the opposing view was that the liner did that while the shell should be as strong as possible. I think polycarbonate is still the usual material - don't know if GRP is still used.
I suspect that the diffences in protection from different brands/prices of helmet are trivial (as long as they fit well) compared to the protection or lack of it elsewhere. I regularly see riders here (Isle of Wight) in the summer wearing an expensive replica helmet together with trainers, shorts and a T-shirt!
|
WRT helmet materials, I remember a long debate about the relative merits of glassfibre and polycarbonate years ago when the latter started to appear. I believed that GRP was superior because it absorbed some of the shock (destroying itself in the process) but the opposing view was that the liner did that while the shell should be as strong as possible. I think polycarbonate is still the usual material - don't know if GRP is still used.
GRP is in use and considered better by almost everyone. *However* I *understand* polycarbonate is much more hardwearing and absorbs the little knocks getting it in and out of the cupboard better than fibreglass.
So my view is that GRP is better but I suspect this may change after a few months of being knocked around in every day use. Nobody has ever been able to confirm this for me though...
I suspect that the diffences in protection from different brands/prices of helmet are trivial (as long as they fit well) compared to the protection or lack of it elsewhere.
I agree, neck for instance. All a helmet has to do is be able to take a blow beyond that you neck can take.
I *think* that better helmets have other advantages. (Removable linings, noise protection)
I'd love a definitive answer to this question.
Eg: Shoei wearers have an x% better chance of surviving an impact of x weight at x speed. A long search of the web hasn't revealed an answer so I suspect there isn't a good one.
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
Eg: Shoei wearers have an x% better chance of surviving an impact of x weight at x speed. A long search of the web hasn't revealed an answer so I suspect there isn't a good one.
Surely someone somewhere should be recording the details of what helmets were worn by casualties, or at least of fatalities.
|
|
|
|
I will start by saying that I am not an expert, but I recall various articles about helmets over the years. The consensus seemed to be that what you get for your money is the stuff inside the shell. So, when I bought a helmet in India for £2, I wasn't surprised to find it lined with bits of polystyrene ceiling tiles. Equally, when I went from cheap FM helmet to Bell helmet, the fit went from awful to excellent.
As one of the jobs of a helmet is to turn impacts on the outside into gentler decelerations for your noggin, I would suspect that well-fitting linings are going to do the job, as they *should* absorb more of the energy. I seem to recall that the tests seemd to end up with the advice to get the one that feels the tightest over the whole head without undue pressure.
As for Polycarb vs Fibreglass, the argument is that polycarb relies on its entire structure for its strength, whereas fibreglass' strength is inherent in the material (could be drivel for all I know). The result of this is that a previously damaged polycarb helmet (drops, solvents, glue from stickers, etc) will suffer a major drop in protective ability.
Also, incidentally, changing the gloss finish on a helmet to matt greatly increases the risk of a broken neck in the event of an accident, as the helmet doesn't slide as well over the tarmac, grabs and gives your neck a good twisting.
As for clothing, I saw an article in a US magazine about fifteen years ago. They performed an experiment where they made large bags out of various materials, denim, leather, etc. Then they filled the bag with sand, tied the bag to the back of an estate car with a few feet of rope, drove down a runway at 50mph, then heaved the thing out of the back door at a chosen point. After the run they went back and saw how far the bag was dragged before sand started to leak (i.e. the point at which skin would have started to touch tarmac).
The results? IIRC, the leather sack lasted 50yds or so, while the denim managed a magnificant six feet. Scared me off wearing denim, I can tell you.
V
|
Currently working in Gothenburg, & reading this thread quickly during lunch, I can't see any mention of 'Ride' magazine.
Although like any other magazine, they have a business to run, and profit to make, I find their product tests to be very scientific, and the awarded 'Ride best buy' and 'Ride recommended' tags that normally end up attached to the relevant kit, a good guide at buying time.
In haste,
/Steve
|
Currently working in Gothenburg, & reading this thread quickly during lunch, I can't see any mention of 'Ride' magazine. Although like any other magazine, they have a business to run, and profit to make, I find their product tests to be very scientific, and the awarded 'Ride best buy' and 'Ride recommended' tags that normally end up attached to the relevant kit, a good guide at buying time.
I find the ride tests *excellent*. (The back protectors blurb was brilliant) But AFAIK they don't test helmets for safety which is the only factor I'm interested in.
--
Parp, Parp!
Note: All Toad posts come with an implied smiley.
|
|
|
|
|
The lack of protection afforded by denim is quite frightening, as Vin says. I used to be a bit hit and miss as to whether I bothered with leathers up to a few years ago. If it was hot I just rode in a pair of jeans. My mind was changed when I was out walking the dog one night and managed to get entangled in the lead and fall over. The knee of my jeans suffered a six inch tear, and the flesh underneath was a b***** mess which took ages to heal. I remember thinking that if a simple fall can do that much damage, what would happen after sliding off the bike doesn't bear thinking about. If it came to a choice I would rather go without a helmet than leathers, your head won't always hit tarmac but the rest of you will.
|
|
|
|
|
|
