[Closed] Wear your helmet kids!

Where's TJ when you need his "facts"?

A bit of superglue will fix that right up for you!

Has anyone on here ever claimed on Specialized' helmet replacement, are they going to want to see a receipt do you think?

Has anyone on here ever claimed on Specialized' helmet replacement, are they going to want to see a receipt do you think?

LOL at CFH

Helmets? Useless. There's no way my skull would have cracked that badly.

I'd hold off on spending on a new hat

You just wait until the results of the rotational forces kick in - you'll wake up dead one morning

Judging by the shape of the bruise on your back it looks like you landed on a small kiwi-type bird! 😆

Bit of gaffer tape and that will be fine.

Wasn't as soft as a kiwi, might have been a quail!

Spesh just need proof of purchase and a cheque for the value of the new helmet sending to their head office. They basically do you a cheap upgrade that's the way the crash replacement policy works. . . . .looks like you we're one lucky boy. Good effort though, 10/10 for breakage.

Guys - I know you are baiting me but...........

that helmet has failed - it provided little protection. A helmet that has worked has crushed not split
Rotational forces from helmets are real and proven experimentally as shown by the TRL amongst others.

Don't be sheep -be sceptical and look for proof. Follow the science

Simwit, off you go, you need to re-create the same crash with no lid on and come back and tell us the outcome (or not come back) 🙂

I've never worn a helmet for high speed crashes ( where those rotational forces might start to play a part), but for this type of low speed impact. My worst crashes have been at less than 10mph and resulted in ( on different occasions) a fractured pelvis, a fractured shoulder and fractured ribs. These low speed smack-downs are where helmets really come into play.

I'm also really interested in the fact that the extra coverage at the back of the head touted by mtb helmets isn't just a fashion affection after all...

Sorry but STW has taught me that although you may believe you are OK, you will at some point wake up dead and it's your helmet that will have done it. At present it is only specialized's helmet marketing hype that is keeping you alive, where do I send the flowers?

that helmet has failed - it provided little protection. A helmet that has worked has crushed not split
Rotational forces from helmets are real and proven experimentally as shown by the TRL amongst others.

I'm quite interested in what type of polystyrene crushes rather than splits or cracks. Oh, here's some [i]scientific[/i] facts.

1/ My first helmet, cracked when i landed hard after a bad crash
2/My second helmet also cracked after i crashed and
3/ guess what, my own science proved that my 3rd helemt also split after craching hard.

Now 2 of these were specialized and 1 was a giro. I think my own science has proved that a cracked helmet has done its job properly.
Beats men in white coats in a lab i bet as well.

Also, his 'non protected' back looks worse off than his 'failed, but protected' head i bet

TandemJeremy
that helmet has failed - it provided little protection. A helmet that has worked has crushed not split

Can you provide a reference for that you old waffler? If the helmet has absorbed and dissipated some of the energy rather than the skull, then it has worked.

Tootall - plenty but it won't be believed on here. I will be mocked for even suggesting it and the cyclehelmets.org site will be mocked

People have the is evangelical belief in helmets - and a broken helmet is taken as proof of it preventing injury. They simply are not that good. If the helemt is cracked without being crushed then it has failed and not absorbed much energy

Helmets designed to handle major crash energy generally contain a layer of crushable foam. When you crash and hit a hard surface, the foam part of a helmet crushes, controlling the crash energy and extending your head's stopping time by about six thousandths of a second (6 ms) to reduce the peak impact to the brain. Rotational forces and internal strains are likely to be reduced by the crushing.

But my helmet broke - isn't that proof?
A helmet is a fragile piece of equipment. On seeing a damaged one, it is easy to assume that a serious injury has been prevented. Cycle helmets split very readily, and often at forces much lower than those that would lead to serious head injury. Helmets work by absorbing impact energy through the crushing of an expanded polystyrene liner. Once compressed the liner stays compressed. It does not bounce back to its original form like reusable helmets for some other activities. If a helmet splits before the liner has partially or fully compressed - and this is often the case - then it has simply failed. It will not have provided the designed protection and may in fact have absorbed very little energy at all.

I wrote off 2 spesh helmets (along time ago though) first one was a compression complete with a small split ride up the middle from the back where I hit my head. 2nd one was compression only on the front right from a faceplant. Had a bit of a headache both times but that was all. Sent them both back with a fiver (that was what it said in the policy at the time) and received an upgrade helmet in return

The one time I needed a helmet I wore it. Sheet ice on my road I washed out sideways and I was still holding the bars on the floor.

@ TamdemJeremy

I was present when Simwit had his tumble and I don't need to read any websites, test results or tea leaves to realise that the helmet saved him from a head injury. As you say the helmet has "failed" because it has split but the helmet has nevertheless prevented a head injury and that has to be a good thing.

The ground where the incident occurred had exposed rocks on it and one/some of those rocks impacted with Simwit's helmet. The helmet received the impact from the rocks and this helmet has the marks to prove this (although the photo's don't show this too clearly). If he had not been wearing the helmet the rocky ground would have impacted directly with his skull and caused injury.

As Simwit says - Wear your helmet kids.

piha +1

I am a bit confused here which would be the safest helmet then
the Mullet style which covers the head closely or the interlaced polystyrene things which sit on top .

ref rotational injuries they look to have more leverage to cause neck problems

Trout - http://www.bhsi.org/ideal.htm

The crucial things are fit, smooth outer shell and plenty of EPS

Rotational injuries are not just neck injuries but a type of brain injury called diffuse axon injury

Piha - read the second link I gave.

Ouch! That looks sore...

As far as helmet breaking goes, I'm no expert but I was under the impression that although compression of the helmet would result in more of the energy being dissipated surely the cracking of the helmet is going to have an effect? And just the fact it has a hard shell means its going to offer protection. Might not prevent your brain being thrown around in your skull and what not but anything that puts a barrier between head and potentially sharp, pointy rocks has got to be a good thing right?

TandemJeremy- Thanks for that but I don't have time to read all the info at the moment but will read it when I get time. What I would say is the the link [i]looks[/i] like it get much of its information from RTA records and police reports of RTA. This does not reflect the tumble Simwit had.

Can you find a link that supports your view that is mountain biking specific?

becky -thats about right I believe

piha - unfortunately there is virtually no research about MTBs and helmets. A big gap in the evidence

The three lads I saw on sunday afternoon could do with reading this, nice shiny bikes and camelbaks etc and not one of them wearing a helmet as they headed off into the woods!! Still amazes me!!

Anyone know what giros crash replacement policy is in the uk? Doesn't seem to say on their site

Analogue Andy cheers for the offer but I'm a bit sore/stiff at the moment, do you think it can wait 'til next week 😆

Like Piha says there were exposed rocks where I fell & the evidence of where one impacted is on the helmet so I have no doubt that it did what it's meant to and protected my head from serious injury. Wether it should have cracked or crushed is neither here nor there AFAIC

unfortunately there is virtually no research about MTBs and helmets

Astounding! An opinion based on no fact whatsoever.

flatfish - but there is loads of research about how helmets work in general and what I said above is based on the science and the evidence

TandemJeremy - Member

Piha - read the second link I gave.

which bascially says if you're going extremely fast and crash into a lamppost or car you may still die. if you're going more slowly and crash, your helmet may well mean you don't injure yourself. the world waits for the next astonishing update!

It says a lot more than that flatboy including some discussion on how helmets work. Still - as I predicted above I will be mocked for following the evidence

but what you don't grasp is the evidence such as that in this very thread. there is a real person with a real helmet. he had a crash that caused the illustrated damage to his back. his head was unscathed while his helmet broke. with me so far?

flatboy - anecdote is not evidence, you don't know what would have happened without the helmet, from my reading of the evidence about helmets that one has failed in such a way it could not possibly have absorbed much energy therefore it did not prevent a serious injury. It probably prevented minor cuts and bruises but if there had been enough energy in the impact to have caused major injury without the helmet the still would have been major injury with the helmet as that one cannot have absorbed much energy

Although helmets are designed to compress on impact, this is in specific conditions on a flat surface. The majority of mtb impacts (and maybe road impacts) will be point impacts. This is more likely to cause cracking (source-wild speculation) and therefore absorbing the impact.

Well I KNOW that my helmet has stopped me gouging big chunks of flesh out of my scalp (over hanging branches) and prevent gashes when I have fallen. I am well aware going 30mph on a descent and coming off it WILL hurt and I MAY even break sommink bad and WILL not pr0tect my neck 🙄

TandemJeremy - The evidence is that Simwits helmet stopped the rocky ground from impacting with skin and bone. I don't think that cannot be denied.

anecdote is not evidence

maybe not in isolation, but given the choice between a swathe of ancedotal evidence - as offered by many many people on here including myself - and none at all - as offered by you - i know where i'd put my money.

Personally I don't care. I'd rather have even the [i]tiniest[/i] bit of energy dissipation than have the lot delivered to my noggin.

It probably prevented minor cuts and bruises but if there had been enough energy in the impact to have caused major injury without the helmet the still would have been major injury with the helmet as that one cannot have absorbed much energy

Surely the point of helmets is to protect against injury? It might not help if you hit a tree at 30mph or maybe fall off a cliff, but for the majority of us, not visiting casualty for stitching or cleaning of gravel rash is a big plus.

Back to the boring bit about Specialized crash replacement...

Every time I've used it, I've either mailed or phoned their customer services dept and told them roughly what happened and which helmet I'm looking at as a replacement. They have given me a price, and I've sent the old helmet off with a letter and cheque. It usually takes about 2 days to get the replacement on my desk. The last one was a Deviant, and I was offered the option to upgrade to the carbon one at £85.

They did once tell me to use the "crash replacement scheme" because the pads had worn out and they didn't have any left, as it was an old model - I certainly wasn't complaining about that one!

tj you do know that specialized helmet have succeded in the snell test...

sorry, this case provides no 'evidence'

simwit himself says that he doesn't really know how he ended up landing like he did.

so,

how did he land? (angles and things)

what did he land on? (friction values, shape and size of penetrators)

how much energy was involved?

how much energy was absorbed?

how much ... etc.

what ... etc.

i'm very glad simwit is still alive, and relatively unhurt, and personally i suspect he benefitted from wearing his crash-hat, but there isn't much evidence from this case you could take away and study*. i've no idea how you'd use this case to make a better helmet - that's the kind of thing evidence can do.

(*except maybe, 'had a helmet on, didn't die' - which i suppose is evidence of sorts)

(yes i wear a helmet habitually)