ohhh looks what's in the shop...(Warning Full Face content)

Bike Forum

[closed]

ohhh looks what's in the shop...(Warning Full Face content)

94 posts & 41 voices | Started 2 years ago by juan | Latest reply from juan

Tags:

Pages: « Previous 1 23

TandemJeremy - Member

GavinB - Member

Desperate stuff TJ

Bit like the AA canvassing against wearing seat belts.

Not at all - I am not saying what anyone else should do - merely stating what I believe from reading the evidence - which 99% of people have not - and on seatbelts the evidence is pretty convincing - on helmets it is not. Have you read the research? I have and its pretty depressing reading how poor quality it is and how poor cycle helmets are at protecting from serious injury

But at the end of the day....do you not think that new POC helmet looks buff? C'mon, admit it, you'd love to be seen in one? On your tandem?

I would never wear a FF cycle helmet - wearing a motorcycle one if the risks are that high makes more sense.

The key points are that cycle helmets are not as effective as many folk seem to believe and they have drawbacks that do not exist in other types of helmet. I want folk to be able to make informed decisions

No one who has argued against me has actually come up with any evidence to refute what I say

What I also want is for people to lobby for better research into what types of helmets are effective for cycling and for the manufacturers to design better helmets- as POC have done.

Why do other sports helmets with similar risk have such differnet designs?

You are not getting the protection you think you are from cycle helmets because of flawed design and testing of them.

Posted 2 years ago #
ex-pat - Member

Having tried face plants with and without a FF helmet; when I consider the risk of a speedy dismount is high (the more extreme XC & DH) I'll be wearing a FF helmet thanks.
If I had been wearing a FF in one incident I reckon I'd not have the broken nose I do now.
Would I have given myself whiplash etc? maybe, maybe not - but I reckon I could guarantee that with a FF I wouldn't have smashed my face quite so convincingly into the ground.

Posted 2 years ago #
toys19 - Member

Interesting case:
1) Bloke this weekend went over the bars wearing an xc lid, did a face plant in softish sandy forest.

Result - very sore face, cut nose lips and toungue. and bad whiplash and broke his scaphoid (in wrist).

2) Another bloke (me) went over the bars in a gnarly rockgarden because the bottom of my forks made contact with a rock , wearing a fullface and body armour stormtrooper outfit. Hit rocks with head.

Result - head fine, rest of body fine although I did break my scaphoid too..

Bloke with xc lid is off to buy a FF, I'm buying wrist guards.

I've had tons of wipeouts wearing my ff, always been pleased with the results.

Science -
Papers that you can draw your own conclusions from:
FF and neck injuries
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/INJURY/pedbimot/motorcycle/Motorcycle_HTML/appb.html helmet effectiveness
joe clark
cervical injuries
the best one but you will have to pay for it unless you are a medline or science direct subscriber like me.

There is one study that finds a small neck injury risk from FF but its been widely discredited as the guy who wrote it couldn't do his maths and was sponsored by the US anti helmet lobby.

Every time I go over the bars my head hits the ground sideways anyway so the visor chin bar remains unscathed..

My conclusion is that FF offer better protection, any perceived risk of neck injury is more than offset by the benefit of not having your face caved in.

Posted 2 years ago #
juan - Member

you can get the urge by clicking on my name. will send you to my lbs. from there send them an e-mail or give them a phone call they are very helpfull

Posted 2 years ago #
juan - Member

Why do other sports helmets with similar risk have such differnet designs?

that's were you are wrong tj there is no sport with the similar patern of use. I can only think of MX being close to DH but with more speed. Most of the DH lids comes from companies that do MX lids. So I am prettu confident they will be fairly similar. Contrary to a lot of people on here I have been browsing ISI for article (thus getting an unbias information TJ ) and I have made my mind I'll wear one. POC helmets have (as far as I am aware) only the CE norm. So they may not protect much more than the others. And use some marketing bullpoo to sell and justify the high cost.

Posted 2 years ago #
GavinB - Member

stevomcd - Member
That green POC one matches our "corporate" colours. It's calling to me. Even though I don't need a new FF.

Yup, it is a clean match for my new 224 too. Bugger!

I do not need a new full-face, I do not need a new full-face, I do not need a new full-face, I do not need a new full-face, I do not need a new full-face, I do not need a new full-face

Posted 2 years ago #
kenneththecurtain - Member

No one who has argued against me has actually come up with any evidence to refute what I say

As a self-proclaimed advocate of science, you will of course agree that that is not how science works.

If you come up with a theory, it's up to you to prove it is valid. Advocates of the established theory do not have to waste time trying to prove your theory wrong, that's not how it works.

Posted 2 years ago #
rOcKeTdOg - Member

them POC pisspots look lush, can i have the bottom left one please?

Posted 2 years ago #
geetee1972 - Member

I am going to rush to TJ's side on this issue (just so long as he doesn't start spouting his lefty union rubbish )

His point is important and actually the annecodotal evidence of riders in the real world is that many more DH racers are now wearing neck braces, which shows that the issue of rotational spinal injuries is real.

The answer is not to not wear FF helmets. It's to add a neck brace to augment the added protection that a FF helmet affords.

I predict in five years or so we will regard the use of neck braces as obligatory in the same way we do FF helmets now.

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Kenneth - have you looked at any of the links? I am not making this stuff up.

The cycle helmets.org site has a series of bits of research about rotational impoacts and is rather interesting. Now the cyclehelmets.org site needs a pinch of salt with its own conclusions - but the research from such people as the TRL raises questions.

Rotational injury is not all about neck injury - its also about what is known as a diffuse axon injury.

Overall, it was concluded that for the majority of cases considered, the helmet can provide life saving protection during typical linear impacts and, in addition, the typical level of rotational acceleration observed using a helmeted headform would generally be no more injurious than expected for a bare human head. However, in both low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases, linear and rotational accelerations may increase to levels corresponding to injury severities as high as AIS 2 or 3, at which a marginal increase (up to 1 AIS interval) in injury outcome may be expected for a helmeted head.

The true response of the bare human head to oblique, glancing blows is not known and these observations could not be concluded with certainty, but may be indicative of possible trends. A greater understanding is therefore needed to allow an accurate assessment of injury tolerance in oblique impacts. Linear impact performance, head inertia and helmet fit were identified as important contributory factors to the level of induced rotational motion and injury potential. The design of helmets to include a broad range of sizes was also concluded to be detrimental to helmet safety, in terms of both reduced linear and rotational impact performance. The introduction into EN1078 of an oblique impact test could ensure that helmets do not provide an excessive risk of rotational head injury.

Assessment of current bicycle helmets for the potential to cause rotational injury

V J M St Clair, B P Chinn. TRL Project Report PPR213, 2007, ISBN: 978-1-84608-846-9

Other research has clearly established a link between rotational accelerations on the head and diffuse axon injury. It is also clearly shown that cycle helmets perform worse in oblique impacts that other types of helmets.

All the various links to the research here
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html

Even teh TRL - which is a body well know for its evangelical approach towards protective kit states that in some circumstances rotational injuries can be made worse by helmets and that further research is needed as well as a recommendation that rotational impacts are tested for in cycle helmets

Posted 2 years ago #
geetee1972 - Member

TJ see the post above this one.

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

I saw it GeeTee - my conclusion is that the design of the helmet needs to be adjusted - other styles of helmet perform better in these oblique impact situations.

I want a slippy outside shell - like the POC or the helmet with the sliding layer discussed recently, less sticky out bits, chinbar containing poly and close to the face like roadracing motorcycle helmets.

I am not arguing against wearing helmets - I am trying to show the limitations and am arguing for better helmets tested to higher standards and to include rotational impacts.

As you say anecdotally there is a lot of evidence about both diffuse axon injury and neck breaks.

Anything we can do to reduce this must be a good idea.

However on here I am seen as a heretic so am shouted down and rubbished by folk who have not looked at the data.

FFS - I got suck into this again

Posted 2 years ago #
GavinB - Member

Can I make a suggestion, that a sticky is added called the 'Helmet thread', as this comes up about every week, or at least TJ drags theads in this direction about every other week.

Juan started this thread to talk about a nice looking Urge helmet, and some others have then added a link to talk about some very nice looking POC ones.

Is it just me, or are there others getting increasingly bored with the predictable way that any thread on here talking about new safety kit (helmets, armour, Leatt braces etc) always ends up with a game of 'internet table tennis'?

btw - I'm perfectly happy for TJ and others to carry on debating this until the cows come home (and probably a long time after that), but it just seems that potentially interesting threads are getting hijacked time and again by the same old arguments.

Posted 2 years ago #
toys19 - Member

TJ
Even teh TRL - which is a body well know for its evangelical approach towards protective kit states that in some circumstances rotational injuries can be made worse by helmets and that further research is needed as well as a recommendation that rotational impacts are tested for in cycle helmets

Hmm despite your advocacy of science your conclusions are not scientific, you have committed a bit of a logical fallacy here - just because the TRl have said we need an oblique standard does not mean that ff lids do cause neck injuries, they just recognise that the current standard does not take account of it.

That quote also makes no mention of ff vs not ff they just talk about helmets, they point they are making there is that any helmeted head at a very oblique angle (ie scraping along the ground) will rotate, but only gives a marginal increase in risk.

Posted 2 years ago #
juan - Member

I think TJ needs to chill out (and consider that mtb is a different sport than skiing/horse riding and motorcycling therefore helmet needs to tick different boxes) and I think we need to get bock to the original topic.
Urge helmet are nice factomnudo.

Posted 2 years ago #
TandemJeremy - Member

Geetee - you are absolutely right and I do apologise. I got called for stuff I have never said before I had even posted and tried to set the record straight. Foolish of me. 4 times was what I say quoted wrongly before I posted

Toys - you need to read all the research as I have done. The TRL stuff is a part of it. The larger the diameter of the helmet the greater the risk of rotational injury. "sticky out bits" also increase the risk. the form of the chinbar on most cycle helmets does both these things.

Go on - do yourself a favour. Follow the reference I have provided back to the research and read it. You will be suprised.

Some research puts this increased risk in the 50% range. Thats significant.

EDit - Juan - that may be true but in testing cycle helmets perform worse than other types of helmet - that surely means cycle helmets could be better?
I won't answer anymore.

Posted 2 years ago #
GavinB - Member

Urge helmet are nice factomnudo.

Mmmm, think I'm preferring the look of the POC, and also like the fact that it doesn't look like a graffiti artists masterpiece which most of the TLD ones do.

Posted 2 years ago #
toys19 - Member

TJ, having just crashed I read all your links overnight with interest. I came to a very different conclusion than you.

Juan, I think they look sexy too, if I hadn't got a cheap and lightweight 661 evolution helmet (which TJ will be glad to note, is light and not bulky so its increase in diameter is smaller) which has proven to save my bonce in a few decent crashes I think I'd go for one too.

Posted 2 years ago #
ChunkyMTB - Member

POC, as Alpine tested by Mark. He did look buff in it.

Posted 2 years ago #
epicsteve - Member

I was initially trained as a scientist and my reading of the research is that while there is a potential, but as yet unproven, risk that the helmet could make injuries worse in a very small percentage of accident situations, but that in the majority of accident situations it's proven to have a positive impact. Many of the same arguments were trotted out by groups like MAG in their anti motorcycle helmet days.

Using that research to justify an anti-helmet crusade would appear irresponsible. Using that research to justify additional work on making helmets even more beneficial in accident situations is however reasonable.

Posted 2 years ago #
toys19 - Member

epicsteve - Member

I was initially trained as a scientist and my reading of the research is that while there is a potential, but as yet unproven, risk that the helmet could make injuries worse in a very small percentage of accident situations, but that in the majority of accident situations it's proven to have a positive impact. Many of the same arguments were trotted out by groups like MAG in their anti motorcycle helmet days.

Using that research to justify an anti-helmet crusade would appear irresponsible. Using that research to justify additional work on making helmets even more beneficial in accident situations is however reasonable.

Exactly.

Posted 2 years ago #
juan - Member

Can we go back on topic please... Helmet match the corporate kit or helmet matching the bike

Posted 2 years ago #
epicsteve - Member

Matching the kit IMHO.

Posted 2 years ago #
juan - Member

Well I think unless I can sell a kidney It's going to be none

Posted 2 years ago #