Sportsman saved by helmet. Makes you wonder how light a cycle helmetcould be and still work right.

On Monday, July 21, 2014 4:08:09 PM UTC+1, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
On Monday, July 21, 2014 1:56:50 AM UTC-4, Jeff Liebermann wrote:

On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 19:15:01 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute



wrote:







And I think I've been reminded by Jeff that I've been carrying



the answer around in my shirt pocket for several years:



Non-Newtonian Fluid. My leather iPhone cover with D30 weighs a



fraction of what the hefty rubber and plastic Griffin Survivor



for the iPhone weighs (I have both, both work).







It's nothing new. It's just new for cycling helmets. Various



non-Newtonian fluids used as a dilatant[1], have been developed for



use in football helmets, protective clothing, armor, and other impact



absorbers. For example:



http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/01/08/us-usa-football-concussion-idUSBREA071IH20140108



http://footballphysics.utk.edu/pads/seeing_is_believing.htm



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIFMW-ccr9I (2:59)



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ThtQkkXvdo (4:31)



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D3o







There are various mechanisms to make it work, but they all do several



things:



1. The dilatant extends the time of impact length of time, thus



reducing the amount of energy (or work) applied to the head. It's



like the difference between a sudden impact versus an equal amount of



force applied by pushing.



2. Changes the direction to perpendicular to the line of impact. This



tends to spread the force over a much larger area, which is more



easily absorbed.



3. Dissipates energy by some form of motion, such as compressing



foam, squeezing a fluid through an orifice, or ablation.







Not going to happen though, because there's stiction in both



the cycling community, of which your attitude is a fair example,



and among the helmet manufacturers, of whose attitude the retreat



from an acknowledged superior standard is a fair example.







My guess(tm) is that the concept will need to be proven in football,



motorcycle, climbing, equestrian, and BMX helmets, before it can be



sold to cyclists. The problem is that while the participants in all



the aforementioned activities recognize the need for a protective



helmet, cyclists do not. So, why should a manufacturer spend time or



money trying to sell to a reactionary and hostile market group, when



there are others willing to pay good money for improved protection?







Too bad. The only people who will be screwed will be cyclists. It'll



be the worst of both worlds: mandatory helmets, helmets that don't



work. Par for the course, I suppose.







Sure. While superior helmets will be developed for other activities,



cyclists are conservative and will only buy the currently available



products. When it eventually becomes apparent that there's something



better available, the helmet manufacturers will protect their market



by convincing politicians to make the current helmet products



mandatory. Never mind safety. It's sales that are important.







Andre Jute



For now just taking names











[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilatant







--



Jeff Liebermann



150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com



Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com



Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558



Weight and comfort in hot humid weather are two things I look for in a helmet. Protection is good but only if the helmet is not so heavey or uncomfortable that one doesn't want to wear it. Bicycling generates a fair bit of heat in the body and the head is a prime area that needs to be kept cool. There are an awful lot of helmets out there that do not allow much cooling of the head.



Cheers

Still, there are some high-energy bike sport classes where unslotted helmets are the norm. But the slots on common road and utility helmets can be stiffened up by triangular design and a non-Newtonian fluid in the struts. The weight penalty for slots doesn't have to disproportionate to the benefit.

I'd hate to give up the cooling slots: that's a seventh of the body's cooling.

Andre Jute

On Monday, July 21, 2014 8:54:05 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2014 1:56 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:





My guess(tm) is that the concept will need to be proven in football,

motorcycle, climbing, equestrian, and BMX helmets, before it can be

sold to cyclists. The problem is that while the participants in all

the aforementioned activities recognize the need for a protective

helmet, cyclists do not.



Most cyclists do not recognize a need for a protective helmet because

most cyclists do not need a protective helmet. IOW, their estimate of

the (tiny) risk is correct.



A few classes of cyclists do believe helmets are really necessary. For

example:



* The riders who "need" a helmet because their government will fine them

if they dare ride without one. It's government idiocy, and it hurts

cycling and cyclists. But if those riders want to avoid fines, they do

need a helmet. But any helmet will do.



* The mountain bikers who recently built a series of renegade ramps and

"features" in our local forest preserve (since dismantled). They are

probably correct in their guess that their stunting makes them more

likely to hit their heads, and that the impact will be within the very

limited capacity of their helmets.



* The riders who adopt the style choices of Tour de France competitors.

Now that those racers are required to wear helmets, one can't

fantasize about riding like they do unless one dons the proper plastic

hat. The old-style pre-mandate hat

http://images.delcampe.com/img_large...70/842_001.jpg

just doesn't fit the fantasy. You "need" what your heroes now wear.

Do you just make this stuff up? Maybe 80% of the riders here in PDX wear helmets, with some variation by neighborhood. Maybe 5% pay close attention to the TdF, and maybe 2% dress-up like TdF riders. A lot of riders dress up like racers because they are racers, albeit in local clubs and not European trade teams. If you were so inclined, you could race 7 days a week around here. http://obra.org/ Helmets are mandatory for racing, and I assume some percentage of those riders are simply accustomed to wearing their helmets..

I don't see helmet wearing as being fashion driven -- except, perhaps, for a tiny portion of riders (who knows). In fact, the non-helmet wearers seem to be more concerned about fashion than the helmet wearers. They wear retro caps and fedoras and what-have-you. The hipsters go to great length to be, well, hip.

As for the commuters and utility cyclists, based on my experience, they have deduced that there is a risk involved with cycling, and they see helmets as a way of reducing that risk. Perhaps they over-estimate the risk (particularly the head injury risk capable of reduction through helmet use), but they don't seem to mind wearing a helmet, and if it makes them feel better, so be it. Every time a well-meaning legislator floats a mandatory helmet law, it gets turned-back. So the fear of Big Helmet enslaving our heads is low.

About mountain biking, have you ever done it? You don't need scary terrain features to fall. A root-pot and inexperience are all you need.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Monday, July 21, 2014 4:54:05 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

* The great majority of believers who have been sucked in by fear

mongering propaganda. They've been convinced that even very tame

bicycling is a great risk for serious brain injury. Obviously, they've

never bothered to look for comparative data that shows that cycling is

extremely safe - for example, that bicyclists are only 0.6% of traumatic

brain injury fatalities. So these people really don't need a helmet;

but they _believe_ they do.

- Frank Krygowski

1. I've spoken to you before about making cycling sound more dangerous than it really is, Frank, and frightening off would-be cyclists. Here you go again, scaremongering. "Bicyclists are only 0.6% of traumatic brain injury fatalities" -- on what basis? Miles covered? Airlines got you beat hollow, Franki-boy. And trains and buses and walking too. Cycling is far, far less than 1/167 of all activities that lead to "traumatic brain injury fatalities" (what a pompous asshole you are!), so people will instantly conclude that you are bull****ting them (again) and that cycling is more dangerous than you say.

2. Everyone interested knows that your "only 0.6% of traumatic brain injury fatalities" make up 700 cyclists dead a year in the US, and equally large numbers in relation to total population in other nations. Yet the New York compilation of serious cyclist incidents has shown cyclists who wear helmets are less likely to die from head injuries than those who don't. It is difficult not to conclude that some cyclists are dying unnecessarily because they don't wear a helmet.

3. We all know current helmets can be improved. Therefore some cyclists die because current helmets are ****.

4. Now we have two causes of cyclists dying unnecessarily: not wearing a helmet, and wearing a poor quality helmet. But you continue to undermine any discussion of saving these cyclists' lives with your irrelevant statistics (which by themselves amount to scaremongering because no one believes you), and obstructing threads like this one, in which I want only to discover whether a better helmet could be made light enough (and cool enough, it now turns out) to be acceptable to those who want to wear it.

5. You don't want people to wear helmets, you don't want to discuss helmet technicalities, you don't want to save those lives, so what are you doing here? **** off and let those of us with something to contribute get on with it.

Andre Jute
Out of patience with this peasant's obstruction of all useful work

On 7/21/2014 12:19 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 21, 2014 8:54:05 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2014 1:56 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:





My guess(tm) is that the concept will need to be proven in football,

motorcycle, climbing, equestrian, and BMX helmets, before it can be

sold to cyclists. The problem is that while the participants in all

the aforementioned activities recognize the need for a protective

helmet, cyclists do not.



Most cyclists do not recognize a need for a protective helmet because

most cyclists do not need a protective helmet. IOW, their estimate of

the (tiny) risk is correct.



A few classes of cyclists do believe helmets are really necessary. For

example:



* The riders who "need" a helmet because their government will fine them

if they dare ride without one. It's government idiocy, and it hurts

cycling and cyclists. But if those riders want to avoid fines, they do

need a helmet. But any helmet will do.



* The mountain bikers who recently built a series of renegade ramps and

"features" in our local forest preserve (since dismantled). They are

probably correct in their guess that their stunting makes them more

likely to hit their heads, and that the impact will be within the very

limited capacity of their helmets.



* The riders who adopt the style choices of Tour de France competitors.

Now that those racers are required to wear helmets, one can't

fantasize about riding like they do unless one dons the proper plastic

hat. The old-style pre-mandate hat

http://images.delcampe.com/img_large...70/842_001.jpg

just doesn't fit the fantasy. You "need" what your heroes now wear.

Do you just make this stuff up? Maybe 80% of the riders here in PDX wear helmets, with some variation by neighborhood. Maybe 5% pay close attention to the TdF, and maybe 2% dress-up like TdF riders. A lot of riders dress up like racers because they are racers, albeit in local clubs and not European trade teams. If you were so inclined, you could race 7 days a week around here. http://obra.org/ Helmets are mandatory for racing, and I assume some percentage of those riders are simply accustomed to wearing their helmets.

I don't see helmet wearing as being fashion driven -- except, perhaps, for a tiny portion of riders (who knows). In fact, the non-helmet wearers seem to be more concerned about fashion than the helmet wearers. They wear retro caps and fedoras and what-have-you. The hipsters go to great length to be, well, hip.

As for the commuters and utility cyclists, based on my experience, they have deduced that there is a risk involved with cycling, and they see helmets as a way of reducing that risk. Perhaps they over-estimate the risk (particularly the head injury risk capable of reduction through helmet use), but they don't seem to mind wearing a helmet, and if it makes them feel better, so be it. Every time a well-meaning legislator floats a mandatory helmet law, it gets turned-back. So the fear of Big Helmet enslaving our heads is low.

About mountain biking, have you ever done it? You don't need scary terrain features to fall. A root-pot and inexperience are all you need.

-- Jay Beattie.


No quibbles with your comments, Jay, but that 1967 Merckx
photo proves that in a brutal horrific Tour with grisly
crashes and a death, Merckx finish unscathed due to his
genuine Peugeot cotton cap.

http://bikeraceinfo.com/tdf/tdf1967.html

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, July 21, 2014 4:54:05 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

* The great majority of believers who have been sucked in by fear

mongering propaganda. They've been convinced that even very tame

bicycling is a great risk for serious brain injury. Obviously, they've

never bothered to look for comparative data that shows that cycling is

extremely safe - for example, that bicyclists are only 0.6% of traumatic

brain injury fatalities. So these people really don't need a helmet;

but they _believe_ they do.

- Frank Krygowski

1. I've spoken to you before about making cycling sound more dangerous
than it really is, Frank, and frightening off would-be cyclists. Here you
go again, scaremongering. "Bicyclists are only 0.6% of traumatic brain
injury fatalities" -- on what basis? Miles covered? Airlines got you beat
hollow, Franki-boy. And trains and buses and walking too. Cycling is far,
far less than 1/167 of all activities that lead to "traumatic brain
injury fatalities" (what a pompous asshole you are!), so people will
instantly conclude that you are bull****ting them (again) and that
cycling is more dangerous than you say.

2. Everyone interested knows that your "only 0.6% of traumatic brain
injury fatalities" make up 700 cyclists dead a year in the US, and
equally large numbers in relation to total population in other nations.
Yet the New York compilation of serious cyclist incidents has shown
cyclists who wear helmets are less likely to die from head injuries than
those who don't. It is difficult not to conclude that some cyclists are
dying unnecessarily because they don't wear a helmet.

3. We all know current helmets can be improved. Therefore some cyclists
die because current helmets are ****.

4. Now we have two causes of cyclists dying unnecessarily: not wearing a
helmet, and wearing a poor quality helmet. But you continue to undermine
any discussion of saving these cyclists' lives with your irrelevant
statistics (which by themselves amount to scaremongering because no one
believes you), and obstructing threads like this one, in which I want
only to discover whether a better helmet could be made light enough (and
cool enough, it now turns out) to be acceptable to those who want to wear it.

5. You don't want people to wear helmets, you don't want to discuss
helmet technicalities, you don't want to save those lives, so what are
you doing here? **** off and let those of us with something to contribute get on with it.

Andre Jute
Out of patience with this peasant's obstruction of all useful work


+1


--
duane

jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 21, 2014 8:54:05 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2014 1:56 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:





My guess(tm) is that the concept will need to be proven in football,

motorcycle, climbing, equestrian, and BMX helmets, before it can be

sold to cyclists. The problem is that while the participants in all

the aforementioned activities recognize the need for a protective

helmet, cyclists do not.



Most cyclists do not recognize a need for a protective helmet because

most cyclists do not need a protective helmet. IOW, their estimate of

the (tiny) risk is correct.



A few classes of cyclists do believe helmets are really necessary. For

example:



* The riders who "need" a helmet because their government will fine them

if they dare ride without one. It's government idiocy, and it hurts

cycling and cyclists. But if those riders want to avoid fines, they do

need a helmet. But any helmet will do.



* The mountain bikers who recently built a series of renegade ramps and

"features" in our local forest preserve (since dismantled). They are

probably correct in their guess that their stunting makes them more

likely to hit their heads, and that the impact will be within the very

limited capacity of their helmets.



* The riders who adopt the style choices of Tour de France competitors.

Now that those racers are required to wear helmets, one can't

fantasize about riding like they do unless one dons the proper plastic

hat. The old-style pre-mandate hat

http://images.delcampe.com/img_large...70/842_001.jpg

just doesn't fit the fantasy. You "need" what your heroes now wear.

Do you just make this stuff up? Maybe 80% of the riders here in PDX wear
helmets, with some variation by neighborhood. Maybe 5% pay close
attention to the TdF, and maybe 2% dress-up like TdF riders. A lot of
riders dress up like racers because they are racers, albeit in local
clubs and not European trade teams. If you were so inclined, you could
race 7 days a week around here. http://obra.org/ Helmets are mandatory
for racing, and I assume some percentage of those riders are simply
accustomed to wearing their helmets.

I don't see helmet wearing as being fashion driven -- except, perhaps,
for a tiny portion of riders (who knows). In fact, the non-helmet wearers
seem to be more concerned about fashion than the helmet wearers. They
wear retro caps and fedoras and what-have-you. The hipsters go to great
length to be, well, hip.

As for the commuters and utility cyclists, based on my experience, they
have deduced that there is a risk involved with cycling, and they see
helmets as a way of reducing that risk. Perhaps they over-estimate the
risk (particularly the head injury risk capable of reduction through
helmet use), but they don't seem to mind wearing a helmet, and if it
makes them feel better, so be it. Every time a well-meaning legislator
floats a mandatory helmet law, it gets turned-back. So the fear of Big
Helmet enslaving our heads is low.

About mountain biking, have you ever done it? You don't need scary
terrain features to fall. A root-pot and inexperience are all you need.


+1 but if you didn't copy Frank's point by point delineation of how
ignorant people are when they disagree with him on each point I wouldn't
have to see it.

Although the bike helmet as a fashion statement bit was a real hoot.


--
duane

On 7/21/2014 1:39 PM, Duane wrote:
jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, July 21, 2014 8:54:05 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 7/21/2014 1:56 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:





My guess(tm) is that the concept will need to be proven in football,

motorcycle, climbing, equestrian, and BMX helmets, before it can be

sold to cyclists. The problem is that while the participants in all

the aforementioned activities recognize the need for a protective

helmet, cyclists do not.



Most cyclists do not recognize a need for a protective helmet because

most cyclists do not need a protective helmet. IOW, their estimate of

the (tiny) risk is correct.



A few classes of cyclists do believe helmets are really necessary. For

example:



* The riders who "need" a helmet because their government will fine them

if they dare ride without one. It's government idiocy, and it hurts

cycling and cyclists. But if those riders want to avoid fines, they do

need a helmet. But any helmet will do.



* The mountain bikers who recently built a series of renegade ramps and

"features" in our local forest preserve (since dismantled). They are

probably correct in their guess that their stunting makes them more

likely to hit their heads, and that the impact will be within the very

limited capacity of their helmets.



* The riders who adopt the style choices of Tour de France competitors.

Now that those racers are required to wear helmets, one can't

fantasize about riding like they do unless one dons the proper plastic

hat. The old-style pre-mandate hat

http://images.delcampe.com/img_large...70/842_001.jpg

just doesn't fit the fantasy. You "need" what your heroes now wear.

Do you just make this stuff up? Maybe 80% of the riders here in PDX wear
helmets, with some variation by neighborhood. Maybe 5% pay close
attention to the TdF, and maybe 2% dress-up like TdF riders. A lot of
riders dress up like racers because they are racers, albeit in local
clubs and not European trade teams. If you were so inclined, you could
race 7 days a week around here. http://obra.org/ Helmets are mandatory
for racing, and I assume some percentage of those riders are simply
accustomed to wearing their helmets.

I don't see helmet wearing as being fashion driven -- except, perhaps,
for a tiny portion of riders (who knows). In fact, the non-helmet wearers
seem to be more concerned about fashion than the helmet wearers. They
wear retro caps and fedoras and what-have-you. The hipsters go to great
length to be, well, hip.

As for the commuters and utility cyclists, based on my experience, they
have deduced that there is a risk involved with cycling, and they see
helmets as a way of reducing that risk. Perhaps they over-estimate the
risk (particularly the head injury risk capable of reduction through
helmet use), but they don't seem to mind wearing a helmet, and if it
makes them feel better, so be it. Every time a well-meaning legislator
floats a mandatory helmet law, it gets turned-back. So the fear of Big
Helmet enslaving our heads is low.

About mountain biking, have you ever done it? You don't need scary
terrain features to fall. A root-pot and inexperience are all you need.


+1 but if you didn't copy Frank's point by point delineation of how
ignorant people are when they disagree with him on each point I wouldn't
have to see it.

Although the bike helmet as a fashion statement bit was a real hoot.



Fashion is a cruel mistress:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9...o3_r1_1280.jpg

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Monday, July 21, 2014 10:10:47 PM UTC+1, AMuzi wrote:

Fashion is a cruel mistress:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m9...o3_r1_1280.jpg


You're looking good with it, Andy! Are you going to share your diet?

Andre Jute

On Monday, July 21, 2014 7:39:32 PM UTC+1, Duane wrote:

+1 but if you didn't copy Frank's point by point delineation of how

ignorant people are when they disagree with him on each point I wouldn't

have to see it.

Although the bike helmet as a fashion statement bit was a real hoot.

Have you seen me Wearing the Green? I thought I looked good in it. http://coolmainpress.com/BICYCLETour...ance&Andre.pdf

"Duane" wrote in message ....
Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, July 21, 2014 4:54:05 PM UTC+1, Frank Krygowski wrote:

* The great majority of believers who have been sucked in by fear

mongering propaganda. They've been convinced that even very tame

bicycling is a great risk for serious brain injury. Obviously, they've

never bothered to look for comparative data that shows that cycling is

extremely safe - for example, that bicyclists are only 0.6% of traumatic

brain injury fatalities. So these people really don't need a helmet;

but they _believe_ they do.

- Frank Krygowski

1. I've spoken to you before about making cycling sound more dangerous
than it really is, Frank, and frightening off would-be cyclists. Here you
go again, scaremongering. "Bicyclists are only 0.6% of traumatic brain
injury fatalities" -- on what basis? Miles covered? Airlines got you beat
hollow, Franki-boy. And trains and buses and walking too. Cycling is far,
far less than 1/167 of all activities that lead to "traumatic brain
injury fatalities" (what a pompous asshole you are!), so people will
instantly conclude that you are bull****ting them (again) and that
cycling is more dangerous than you say.

2. Everyone interested knows that your "only 0.6% of traumatic brain
injury fatalities" make up 700 cyclists dead a year in the US, and
equally large numbers in relation to total population in other nations.
Yet the New York compilation of serious cyclist incidents has shown
cyclists who wear helmets are less likely to die from head injuries than
those who don't. It is difficult not to conclude that some cyclists are
dying unnecessarily because they don't wear a helmet.

3. We all know current helmets can be improved. Therefore some cyclists
die because current helmets are ****.

4. Now we have two causes of cyclists dying unnecessarily: not wearing a
helmet, and wearing a poor quality helmet. But you continue to undermine
any discussion of saving these cyclists' lives with your irrelevant
statistics (which by themselves amount to scaremongering because no one
believes you), and obstructing threads like this one, in which I want
only to discover whether a better helmet could be made light enough (and
cool enough, it now turns out) to be acceptable to those who want to wear it.

5. You don't want people to wear helmets, you don't want to discuss
helmet technicalities, you don't want to save those lives, so what are
you doing here? **** off and let those of us with something to contribute get on with it.

Andre Jute
Out of patience with this peasant's obstruction of all useful work


+1


--
duane

+1
Graham

---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com