Helmet needed?

[Sooperburd]

ignorance is scary!

I figured I'd get intelligent discussion from my post. I didn't expect to be insulted. Call me what you like, but I am certainly not ignorant.

I have a degree in mechanical engineering. I understand the physics involved very well, and I made a rational decision to not wear my helmet based on the types of riding I do and helmet design. My mechanical engineering peers agree with me that the forces are not diminished by a helmet that doesn't absorb the impact. Only a helmet that deforms to absorb an impact will actually decrease the deceleration of the brain.

You should be careful that you're not getting a false sense of security from a helmet that doesn't absorb an impact and simply transmits the force directly to the skull.

[Sooperburd]

OK, I'll post up just so we have the official signature. :D

But some may want to take a different approach - recent research shows that progesterone has a very strong protective effect for the brain in the event of head injuries. Sooperbud, maybe you should ride like a girl? I can point you toward a source of good quality progesterone cream.

Wow. Are we in junior high?

[rhaskins]

Helmet? I have destroyed 2 helmets on the slopes, and I know I would have concussed without the helmet on. In the picture below, I was wearing the black one on the right when I pulled a major concussion at slow speed on a motorcycle wheelie that went all wrong. I retired that helmet but keep it around as a reminder. I wear helmets for pretty much all my sports - unless it is tooling around the lake on a skateboard. Personal preference, but they have kept me out of the hospital for the most part. I like Giro's for biking and snowsports. The rock climbing helmet saved my noggin a couple of time - I am positive my head would not bounce when hitting rock nor would the rock absorb the shock.

BTW, FWIW, REI replaced both destroyed helmets with no hassle. Both were high end Giros's.

Rick

[Sooperburd]

A real push by the press last week may drag politicians into this debate soon. The point was made that helmets for the most part don't prevent concussion. I wear a helmet because i think it could lessen injury. If they are mandated by law will it advance the standards to include more protection from concussion ? For Sale Glass coiler: and 7 foam and plastic helmets.:AR15firin:AR15firin

Like I said, build a kevlar shelled, air bladder helmet (like the ones the NFL players get) and I'll be the first one to buy it.

[lonbordin]

I figured I'd get intelligent discussion from my post. You should be careful that you're not getting a false sense of security from a helmet that doesn't absorb an impact and simply transmits the force directly to the skull.

This is BOL you're going to get both.

As far as intelligent discussion goes I'd be really interested in reading any recent scientific (peer-reviewed) papers that support your claims about transmission directly to the skull.

[Sooperburd]

This is BOL you're going to get both.

As far as intelligent discussion goes I'd be really interested in reading any recent scientific papers that support your claims about transmission directly to the skull.

Here's one. I have a problem with studies that show how "helmets reduce the risk of head injury by this or that percentage". None of the studies take into account the type of riding that is done. Certainly, if you like to fly through the trees, a helmet will reduce some kinds of head injury.

If you spend all your time in the moguls, away from other skiers and trees, a helmet will increase your chance of concussion. This is because a helmet has a larger surface area than a a head with a beanie on it. The beanie head will hit the snow and travel deeper into it before stopping, while a helmeted head will stop faster, increasing the deceleration.

I'm in complete agreement that carvers on alpine equipment need helmets, but other types of riding are not necessarily safer with a helmet.

[two_ravens]

Wow. Are we in junior high?

Maybe you are. I'm totally serious. Progesterone is the latest first line treatment for limiting brain damage in head injured patients. Higher levels at the time of injury also provides protection. You can look up progesterone - it actually is not a a specifically female hormone, although females generally have higher levels than males. You don't like the helmets you've seen, so there's a proven alternative for you.

[anke]

I also was one of those who held off on buying a helmet for the longest time.

After getting into hardbooting last year I finally made the decision that safety is more important, and I still can't believe I was so naive to ride without for way too long.

Would you ride a motorcycle without a helmet? I hope not.

It already paid off on several occasions, note: OFF the slopes :lol:

– Accidentally getting hit in the head by a ski pole in the lift line

– Getting smashed in the head (=helmet) by the metal frame of a fast approaching lift

Last time I forgot my helmet, I felt so insecure I could not believe I ever rode without!

I personally really love soft fleece lining in my helmet. Comfy AND warm!!

http://www.smithoptics.com/Intrigue_72_965.html?fl=flase

[Sooperburd]

Maybe you are. I'm totally serious. Progesterone is the latest first line treatment for limiting brain damage in head injured patients. Higher levels at the time of injury also provides protection. You can look up progesterone - it actually is not a a specifically female hormone, although females generally have higher levels than males. You don't like the helmets you've seen, so there's a proven alternative for you.

I just added you to my ignore list. Have a nice life.

[Sooperburd]

I also was one of those who held off on buying a helmet for the longest time.

I've had a helmet for over 10 years. I stopped wearing it about 6 years ago for the above stated reasons.

After getting into hardbooting last year I finally made the decision that safety is more important, and I still can't believe I was so naive to ride without for way too long.

I agree, hardbooting needs a helmet.

Would you ride a motorcycle without a helmet? I hope not.

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.

– Getting smashed in the head (=helmet) by the metal frame of a fast approaching lift

Yikes!

[teach]

Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td class="alt2" style="border: 1px inset ;"> Originally Posted by lonbordin

This is BOL you're going to get both.

As far as intelligent discussion goes I'd be really interested in reading any recent scientific papers that support your claims about transmission directly to the skull.

</td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Here's one.

The article you cite

• is not a scientific paper.
  
• supports the argument for standards for helmets, which many countries have but Canada oddly does not.
  
• The author "assumed" the helmet was "approved". Who would do that? The author writes: "Even with such lax standards, Kinar says a bad helmet is better than no helmet"...

So what is your point with this article? That a fake helmet might not help you in a crash? Yes, consider your purchase carefully! It may also be that the more expensive helmets don't provide more protection, rather they're lighter and/or more comfortable and/or more fashionable. A Consumers Reports study of bicycle helmets found this, for example.

The fact about the larger surface area a helmet presents increasing severity of injury explains why all the mogul riders I see wear conical helmets! They present far less friction than beanies and hence greatly reduce injury rates.

[Galen]

Here's one..

Did you read the article? I found nothing in it about your claims, rather about the need for higher safety standards in they'er manufacturing. In fact it mentions "a bad helmet is still better then no helmet". I'd be very interested in seeing any study that shows riding/sking with out a helmet is safer then with one regardless of conditions or terrain, not just one person anecdotle offerings. But hey, if you dont want to wear a helmet, that's your business...knock yourself out;)

Opps. Teach, you type faster then I do :)

[lonbordin]

Here's one. I have a problem [snip]

As teach and Galen both pointed out the article you linked is not a scientific peer-reviewed paper and it does not support your argument of, "a helmet that doesn't absorb an impact and simply transmits the force directly to the skull".

[Bobby Buggs]

And seat belts cause more deaths :rolleyes:

[RideGuy]

My family doesn't go on the hill without our helmets. It's not just for protection from falls, but from other skiers. Same applies for ice skating. We even wear helmets tobogganing if the hill is icy.

[Sooperburd]

And seat belts cause more deaths :rolleyes:

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.

[Corey]

My mechanical engineering peers agree with me that the forces are not diminished by a helmet that doesn't absorb the impact. Only a helmet that deforms to absorb an impact will actually decrease the deceleration of the brain.

I 100% agree that a helmet that doesn't absorb energy by crushing or deforming is useless or worse. But: What snowsports helmet doesn't crush or deform to absorb energy? Every one out there is constructed from closed-cell foam that is designed to crush with impact, just like any modern bicycle, motorbike, or motorsports helmet.

Air bladder helmets do not absorb energy, they simply spread the impulse over a longer time. Most air bladder helmets are designed for relatively light things (like a football or a puck) hitting the helmet, not a head striking something fairly rigid.

It's a free world (for now) so you can choose whatever you want though. One local ski hill has specifically banned football and hockey helmets. Not sure what precipitated that but they clearly aren't designed for the type of impacts that skiing or snowboarding see.

[Sooperburd]

I 100% agree that a helmet that doesn't absorb energy by crushing or deforming is useless or worse. But: What snowsports helmet doesn't crush or deform to absorb energy? Every one out there is constructed from closed-cell foam that is designed to crush with impact, just like any modern bicycle, motorbike, or motorsports helmet.

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.

Air bladder helmets do not absorb energy, they simply spread the impulse over a longer time. Most air bladder helmets are designed for relatively light things (like a football or a puck) hitting the helmet, not a head striking something fairly rigid.

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.

[Neil Gendzwill]

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.

What the hell are you talking about? Have you even seen a snowboarding helmet? The whole thing is foam except for a thin shell for cosmetics/sliding, just like a bike helmet. There's some padding to take up space and for comfort but the bulk of the helmet is a harder foam that is designed to crush on impact.

The thing helmets don't do very well is what you say you want it for - impacts with hard objects at a good clip. In those cases, the helmet is almost incidental. But smacking your head on an icy bump, that's exactly what they're good for. Have a look at this article.

[Corey]

Have you even seen a snowboarding helmet? The whole thing is foam except for a thin shell for cosmetics/sliding, just like a bike helmet. There's some padding to take up space and for comfort but the bulk of the helmet is a harder foam that is designed to crush on impact.

While I may have said it a little differently :p, this is my point. My Giro G10 helmet is entirely closed-cell foam with a thin veneer of plastic on the outside.

Cutaway view: http://www.khulsey.com/giro_omen_snow_helmet.jpeg

[Sooperburd]

What the hell are you talking about? Have you even seen a snowboarding helmet?

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

[Sooperburd]

While I may have said it a little differently :p, this is my point. My Giro G10 helmet is entirely closed-cell foam with a thin veneer of plastic on the outside.

Cutaway view: http://www.khulsey.com/giro_omen_snow_helmet.jpeg

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

[photodad2001]

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 know the study you are talking about with the seat belts and that has been around since before airbags and is based on lap belts without shoulder harnesses or wearing your seat belt with the shoulder harness behind you. In an accident with only a lap belt your upper body if free to slam into the steering wheel or dash board and the lap belt itself can do serious damage to your abdominal area. Wearing a seat belt with a shoulder harness properly will always be better. Unless the car is sinking in water and the belt is jammed.

[Neil Gendzwill]

Wearing a seat belt with a shoulder harness properly will always be better. Unless the car is sinking in water and the belt is jammed.

Actually I know a guy who survived a crash where he slid under a semi that took off the windshield and the top half of his seat. He ended up under the dash, severely injured but alive. Had he worn his seatbelt there would have been two of him. I am not in any way endorsing not wearing seatbelts, I feel naked without one. But there are some freakish circumstances where they are detrimental.

[Aracan]

I don't have data on this, but ending up underwater with a seatbelt on is quite dangerous.

AFAIK, ending up underwater in a car is dangerous, period.

As soon as the car is submerged, you won't be able to open the doors. You'd have all the time in the world to unbuckle and die free.

Of course, the doors will open once the pressure has equalized. But as long as the car is sinking, the pressure outside will rise faster than water enters the car (unless you're in a convertible). You would have to wait for the car to hit bottom, which, depending on the depth of the waterbody, might or might not improve your chances of survival.