 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@dp, interesting comment. Have the basics changed much? Ski helmets I've seen (including mine) use EPS, maybe 12mm thick for energy absorption, with a very thin ABS shell to hold the EPS place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
@Old Fartbag, hmm. Looking at your link:
| Quote: |
| The shell is the main part of the ski helmet that is designed to protect you. The shell is designed to absorb both impact and sharp, blunt forces caused by collisions or falls where you hit your head on ice or protruding rocks. |
Bearing in mind the minute thickness of shells I have seen, I wouldn't bank on much protection. However, Mechanics of Sport takes a different view:
| Quote: |
The shell and core of a helmet are the parts of the helmet who's primary function is to protect you. The shell is generally made from polycarbonate plastic, and the core from expanded polystyrene, although shells can also be made from fibre glass and carbon fibre. Both the polycarbonate and polystyrene plastics are light weight and good at absorbing impacts, making ski helmets light and comfortable to wear.
The shell helps spread out the force of an impact and protects you from sharper objects, as well as protecting the core from day to day abrasions and scratches. The core is the part of the helmet that absorbs the energy of an impact, which it does through compression or destruction. |
Googling around (I admit quickly) I have seen little to suggest modern design has caused more protection with lighter weight. Carbon fire may have an effect, though its strength can be affected by knocks not necessarily noticed by the owner (for example in storage or transit).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
I don’t think the standard(s) for helmet testing have changed - still a drop test and measure of the deacceleration. The new innovation is MIPS which provides protection against rotational forces. My helmet doesn’t have MIPS, and I’m not convinced it’s enough to buy a new lid. But if I were buying a new one I’d get it with MIPS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| stevepick wrote: |
| ... Coincidence? Who knows. ... |
Most of us, I hope 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
@achilles, as @Old Fartbag provided that link I shouldn't have to say much.
MIPS is a bit of a new technology that can provide a lot of energy absorption in the event of an impact.
But I mean look at cars for a second. People used to think that if you were in a car crash, you'd be better off in a Land Rover because it had a big steel chassis that would just demolish the tin can it crashed into. Then people started testing this stuff more thoroughly, and discovered that the tin can hairdresser's car would actually buckle up and absorb all the energy, where the rigid Land Rover would not and thus those crash forces would not be absorbed, they'd be transmitted into the driver with maximum efficiency. Meaning that yes - the Land Rover would come off better, but not the driver.
The same has been realised with skiing helmets. One thing that isn't often realised is that openings in the material are not just vents for ventilation sake. A lot of modern safety helmets for cycling and skiing have a lot more openings, which still give the helmet the same ability to protect the head from blunt force trauma but give the helmet more places to deform and break. This is really important in absorbing and dissipating the fall forces.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is of course a very straightforward testing procedure for helmet protection. One does not need namby pamby health n safety eu/ce/fia regulations and poncey drop tests.
1) Stand precisely 15 steps away from a solid brick wall.
2) Wear a blindfold and tilt your head forward until your chins touch your chest.
3) Then sprint towards the brick wall and ensure an even impact across the front of your skull.
4) Note down any pain, damage to your head and wall, if any.
5) Repeat, facing backwards with rear tilt, to test rear skull impact.
6) Note down any pain, damage to your head and wall, if any.
7) Now repeat steps 1 to 6 with a helmet on.
8 ) Note down any differences in pain, damage to your head and wall.
Don’t forget to share your findings with us on here. A video would be very useful. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Or to make the test more realistic to on piste skiing, replace aforementioned brick wall with the Mrs and/or boarder!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| achilles wrote: |
| Griggs wrote: |
| .. I really found the latest helmets more comfortable, better ventilated and generally much lighter. .... |
And so probably less effective? I know they meet the CE tests ... but so did Volkswagen diesels. |
Speaking of which....
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/how_toxic_is_your_car_exhaust
Interesting how the pollution industry works.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
