Sooperburd

I was going to say that!

It was my mistake for thinking this was in the OT. I'll be more careful. I don't see a problem with hardbooters wanting to have a place all to their own. In most forums I visit, there's very little chance that I'll meet any of the members. This is the first forum I've joined where I actually could meet a lot of the members. ...and it's the first I've joined with so many hostile people. I will meet some of you this weekend. Are you going to be nice to me since you can't hide behind your keyboard anymore? I suppose your behavior on this thread might put you in a predicament when we meet. I have admitted where I was wrong. I have a clear conscience.

I had a misunderstanding and I cleared it up. TR is off my ignore list.

For some reason I thought this thread was in the OT. I looked again, and boy was I wrong. Well, I learn something new every day. I've learned a lot about some of you as well.

It's a misspelling of the name "Plymouth Superbird". The freak of a muscle car that was only produced for 1 year. It was only made in order to fulfill a Nascar requirement that the cars raced in Nascar needed to be real production vehicles. I'm no Nascar fan, but I love muscle cars, and I appreciate the huevos it took for Chrysler to build something that ridiculous in order to win a few races. The cars languished on car lots because they were so over the top. ...but Richard Petty won a lot of races that year.

...like I said. So quick to pass judgement and start name calling. I think you completely missed the point of Ironbird's post.

I couldn't agree more. This is why two_ravens is on my ignore list. Name calling is absolutely not necessary here. I forget who said it this (and I'm paraphrasing): "many people on BOL live to get their panties in a bunch". I've never seen a forum that has so many people that are so quick to pass judgement. I'm a reasonable person. I'm open to discussion and new ideas. Never have I called anyone a name, and never have I dismissed their behavior as ignorant or stupid. We're all adults (or at least we're chronologically adults), maybe some of you should start acting your age.

Because snow is much softer than pavement. Because I snowboard very slowly through the trees, generally avoid groomers, and spend 80-90% of my time in the bumps. While we describe icy bumps as "icy", they're not made of ice. They are packed snow, and they are not that hard of a landing. Like I said, though, if I can find a lightweight helmet that really does offer good impact protection, I'm not opposed to buying it and wearing it. My beef this whole time is that I didn't think the industry was making helmets with decent concussion protection. It seems that I'm mistaken.

What does what mean? I'm pretty sure that my helmet must be much heavier than the standard fare sold today. I'm going to check out some helmets very soon, thanks to many of you on this thread.

Yes, this is all true. However, I only brought up that situation (of being in an underwater car with your seatbelt on) in order to emphasize my main point that a helmet will not always help. Please read Neil's link that he posted above. It is very informative. This quote from that article is eye opening: "[When helmets are worn,] data indicate no decline in fatality incidence (or serious head injury incidence, for that matter...)" Generally, in accidents at high enough speed, if the helmet actually does protect your head, you'll probably die of something else. I guess the lesson here is, don't bomb down blue runs near the trees. If you want to really haul down a run, stay in the middle. ...and still wear a helmet for the low speed crashes.

That certainly looks like something that would deform greatly in a crash. I'll look into it. Thanks!

Yes, I own one, and it's not like what you describe. I really need to go look at some new designs.

No, not EVERY helmet is designed to deform. Every helmet I've seen has only minimal amounts of closed-cell foam that deforms in an impact. Half of that foam's travel is already compressed, just by putting on the helmet. Ok, I'll concede that air has a fairly limited energy absorption, but it certainly does absorb energy and convert it into heat, which is then (in small amounts) transferred to the air's surroundings. P*V = n*R*T, remember? Yes, air bladder helmets spread the impulse over a longer time and slow down the accelerations felt by the head. That's the whole point!Football and hockey helmets are designed for blunt impacts with the ground, or the ice. Yes, they defend against a stray football or puck, but a footballs and pucks don't cause concussions. Almost any helmet will protect against cuts, scrapes, and low energy impacts (tree branches, ski poles, etc.). We're talking about concussion protection here.

Yes, seat belts do cause more deaths in certain types of crashes. I don't have data on this, but ending up underwater with a seatbelt on is quite dangerous. My point is that no study has looked at helmet safety during different types of riding. You guys all glossed over this point when I mentioned it. It's a fact that riding quickly through the trees is more dangerous than through medium-pitch moguls. I can't give you numbers on this because nobody has done the study. My position is based on my engineering analysis of the different types of impacts, not on anecdotal evidence. Yep, that link didn't support my point. I shouldn't have posted it in haste.

I've had a helmet for over 10 years. I stopped wearing it about 6 years ago for the above stated reasons. I agree, hardbooting needs a helmet. I would absolutely wear a helmet on a motorcycle. ...but I don't ride motorcycles. I do ride bicycles and I always wear a helmet. Like I said, I choose not to wear one when on a snowboard because of the type of riding I do. Yikes!