|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...y#.WyPRf0q99PI
-- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
AMuzi wrote:
https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...y#.WyPRf0q99PI "The counterfeit helmets were found not to contain roll cages or the internal reinforcements that are standard in high-end authentic Specialized and Giro bicycle helmets. When placed on a head form and dropped onto a testing surface at approximately 11 miles per hour, the counterfeit helmets broke into pieces during impact testing, resulting in direct contact between the head forms and the testing surface," the U.S. Attorneys Office said in a news release. Wow, great job by the US officers! What kind of sentence do you get for something like that? And what is the Alibaba doing dealing with knock offs? Shouldn't they be trialed as well or is that impossible to do? -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
On 6/15/2018 11:54 AM, Emanuel Berg wrote:
AMuzi wrote: https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...y#.WyPRf0q99PI "The counterfeit helmets were found not to contain roll cages or the internal reinforcements that are standard in high-end authentic Specialized and Giro bicycle helmets. When placed on a head form and dropped onto a testing surface at approximately 11 miles per hour, the counterfeit helmets broke into pieces during impact testing, resulting in direct contact between the head forms and the testing surface," the U.S. Attorneys Office said in a news release. Wow, great job by the US officers! What kind of sentence do you get for something like that? About tree fiddy. And what is the Alibaba doing dealing with knock offs? Shouldn't they be trialed as well or is that impossible to do? Probably not a lot--but then, many people don't understand how difficult it can be to police Chinese industry. I read an article once about counterfeit/knockoff iPods back when they first came out. Most of the copies were coming from China, and manufacturers in China tend not to be vertically integrated--that is, they don't make the entire product. They just make one part, for someone else who ordered it. So they often don't know exactly how it gets used or where it ends up. To make an iPod clone, there was five major 'parts' involved: the plastic case, the LCD screen, the printed circuit boards, the electronics assembly, and the packaging. One estimate was that there was a total of 120,000 different companies in China capable of making at least one of those parts. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote:
https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...y#.WyPRf0q99PI So the counterfeits lacked the internal reinforcement in those top of the line helmet models. In other words, they were like helmets that are not top of the line. But those inexpensive genuine are still magic. The real problem? These Alibaba helmets were made on a production line that didn't feature a wizard to inject the magic. - Frank Krygowski |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
Frank Krygowski wrote:
So the counterfeits lacked the internal reinforcement in those top of the line helmet models. In other words, they were like helmets that are not top of the line. What about the "counterfeits" that are identical to the real deal only produced, in the same factories, but off the record and then sold thru other distribution channels? If those items are truly identical, I suppose there is no safety/health aspect anymore to it, just a regular crime involving money like any other? -- underground experts united http://user.it.uu.se/~embe8573 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
On 6/15/2018 1:20 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote: https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...y#.WyPRf0q99PI So the counterfeits lacked the internal reinforcement in those top of the line helmet models. In other words, they were like helmets that are not top of the line. But those inexpensive genuine are still magic. The real problem? These Alibaba helmets were made on a production line that didn't feature a wizard to inject the magic. - Frank Krygowski The real punishment is trademark violation which in civil court can be 3x damages plus costs. It's a very expensive crime. I've known guys who won and also guys who lost in those suits; the money really flows. -- Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org/ Open every day since 1 April, 1971 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote: https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...y#.WyPRf0q99PI So the counterfeits lacked the internal reinforcement in those top of the line helmet models. In other words, they were like helmets that are not top of the line. As I read the article, the helmets didn't pass the usual impact tests. But those inexpensive genuine are still magic. The real problem? These Alibaba helmets were made on a production line that didn't feature a wizard to inject the magic. Well, it was a mail fraud and federal counterfeiting case, so helmet safety was not really the issue, but the fact is that these knock-offs were junk. I've smashed two or three helmets, so having one that works to the extent they can work is a good thing. No, they don't protect you from all harms, etc., etc. (please refer to last 25 years of posts), but they can protect against certain harms if well manufactured. -- Jay Beattie. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
On 6/15/2018 6:52 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote: https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...y#.WyPRf0q99PI So the counterfeits lacked the internal reinforcement in those top of the line helmet models. In other words, they were like helmets that are not top of the line. As I read the article, the helmets didn't pass the usual impact tests. Nope, that wasn't specified. They said they allowed the headform to contact the anvil. That in itself doesn't mean they didn't pass the 300g test. -- - Frank Krygowski --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 8:04:01 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/15/2018 6:52 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote: https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...y#.WyPRf0q99PI So the counterfeits lacked the internal reinforcement in those top of the line helmet models. In other words, they were like helmets that are not top of the line. As I read the article, the helmets didn't pass the usual impact tests. Nope, that wasn't specified. They said they allowed the headform to contact the anvil. That in itself doesn't mean they didn't pass the 300g test. Failing to pass some test other than the CPSC standard required for sale in the USA would make no sense from the standpoint of a criminal prosecution. From the AUSA's trial memo: The remaining two witnesses, Clint Mattacola and Niko Henderson, will testify about the destructive impact tests that they conducted on Specialized and Giro bicycle helmets, respectively. These helmets were put through a series of tests which were documented with photos and videos. Additionally, these findings were memorialized in the form of an affidavit written by Clint Mattacola, and a lab report written by Niko Henderson. The affidavit and lab report indicate that both helmets failed the impact tests pursuant to CPSC 16 CFR 1203, and therefore were unsafe for use by the general public. The affidavit written by Clint Mattacola was provided to the defendant soon after the defendant was indicted in this case. The lab report written by Niko Henderson was provided to the defendant on May 11, 2018, two days after the United States received the report on May 9, 2018. The videos of both of these impact tests were previously provided to the defendant soon after the defendant was indicted in this case. I pulled the docket. So yes, the helmets failed to meet CPSC standards. BTW, trial transcripts were not available and may not be part of the record in the Western District of Kentucky. Oddly, there was no expert disclosure of the USA's witnesses -- but there were disclosures for the defendant. Proving that the helmets didn't meet CPSC standards is not an element of either charged crime and was probably offered on some issue relevant to sentencing, e.g. potential harm to the public. -- Jay Beattie. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Helmet News
On 6/16/2018 8:29 PM, jbeattie wrote:
On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 8:04:01 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On 6/15/2018 6:52 PM, jbeattie wrote: On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 11:20:53 AM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote: On Friday, June 15, 2018 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-4, AMuzi wrote: https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...y#.WyPRf0q99PI So the counterfeits lacked the internal reinforcement in those top of the line helmet models. In other words, they were like helmets that are not top of the line. As I read the article, the helmets didn't pass the usual impact tests. Nope, that wasn't specified. They said they allowed the headform to contact the anvil. That in itself doesn't mean they didn't pass the 300g test. Failing to pass some test other than the CPSC standard required for sale in the USA would make no sense from the standpoint of a criminal prosecution. From the AUSA's trial memo: The remaining two witnesses, Clint Mattacola and Niko Henderson, will testify about the destructive impact tests that they conducted on Specialized and Giro bicycle helmets, respectively. These helmets were put through a series of tests which were documented with photos and videos. Additionally, these findings were memorialized in the form of an affidavit written by Clint Mattacola, and a lab report written by Niko Henderson. The affidavit and lab report indicate that both helmets failed the impact tests pursuant to CPSC 16 CFR 1203, and therefore were unsafe for use by the general public. The affidavit written by Clint Mattacola was provided to the defendant soon after the defendant was indicted in this case. The lab report written by Niko Henderson was provided to the defendant on May 11, 2018, two days after the United States received the report on May 9, 2018. The videos of both of these impact tests were previously provided to the defendant soon after the defendant was indicted in this case. I pulled the docket. So yes, the helmets failed to meet CPSC standards. BTW, trial transcripts were not available and may not be part of the record in the Western District of Kentucky. Oddly, there was no expert disclosure of the USA's witnesses -- but there were disclosures for the defendant. Proving that the helmets didn't meet CPSC standards is not an element of either charged crime and was probably offered on some issue relevant to sentencing, e.g. potential harm to the public. OK, that's information that wasn't mentioned in the article. It's been interesting to me that the primitive helmet certification test is so revered, despite its ignoring most TBI science since about 1970. Yes, "no helmet can protect against all foreseeable impacts" as the proudly state on the internal stickers. (IOW, "don't blame us if this thing doesn't work.") But nationwide data makes it fairly clear that approved helmets aren't making much of a difference at all, despite hundreds of gullible "it saved my life!!!" stories. As mentioned, the old Skid Lid helmets of 1974 or so accumulated lots of "saved my life!!!" stories too. That's even though they didn't come close to meeting the present standard - which some suspect was deliberately set at a level that Bell could pass but Skid Lid could not. Ah well. I know questioning helmets is blasphemy... -- - Frank Krygowski --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
HELMET NEWS | datakoll | Techniques | 0 | May 7th 13 12:34 PM |
Cyclists' helmet cameras (BBC 1 News, 1pm) | brass monkey | UK | 0 | February 2nd 11 12:29 AM |
Great news on the helmet front! | Squashme | UK | 0 | May 15th 09 09:13 PM |
In the News: Sizing up the sports helmet market | Jason Spaceman | Techniques | 3 | July 28th 08 12:35 AM |
The anti Helmet on this news group | gareth price | UK | 17 | August 19th 06 04:32 PM |