Cannondale: ³It's a better quality, nicer weld, with more patents.²

SMS

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Taking this on a tangent, I see that the Vapor is only available on one
> universal size. (I'm actually thinking I ought to get a new helmet, and
> if I could get a good one for 40 bucks that'd be even better.) I guess
> I just ASSumed that a helmet should be fitted to one's dome. It appears
> Trek doesn't agree. Who's right?

Not sure if it's still the case, but last time I bought a helmet
Specialized was one of the only ones available that still had Snell
certification. It was around $30 on sale for the Chamonix model. I
checked their web site, and the MSRP is now $50, and it's still Snell
approved. Their more expensive models are not Snell approved, presumably
because the design is such that they can't pass.

One thing you can be sure of that if a helmet is Snell approved the
manufacturer will use that in the marketing, so the absence of any
markings on the helmet, or logos on the web site, that show that it's
Snell approved is a pretty good indicator that it's not.

Nate Nagel

SMS wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>> Taking this on a tangent, I see that the Vapor is only available on
>> one universal size. (I'm actually thinking I ought to get a new
>> helmet, and if I could get a good one for 40 bucks that'd be even
>> better.) I guess I just ASSumed that a helmet should be fitted to
>> one's dome. It appears Trek doesn't agree. Who's right?
>
>
> Not sure if it's still the case, but last time I bought a helmet
> Specialized was one of the only ones available that still had Snell
> certification. It was around $30 on sale for the Chamonix model. I
> checked their web site, and the MSRP is now $50, and it's still Snell
> approved. Their more expensive models are not Snell approved, presumably
> because the design is such that they can't pass.
>
> One thing you can be sure of that if a helmet is Snell approved the
> manufacturer will use that in the marketing, so the absence of any
> markings on the helmet, or logos on the web site, that show that it's
> Snell approved is a pretty good indicator that it's not.

Interesting post.

I found this:

http://www.smf.org/

http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-9...-90C_B-95C.html

which seems to indicate that *only* those helmets on the list are
certified. Interesting reading.

I'm guessing that the CPSC standards are less stringent than the Snell
standards? I guess if I'm going to wear a silly looking lid it might as
well work if required.

nate


--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

SMS

Nate Nagel wrote:

> I found this:
>
> http://www.smf.org/
>
> http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-9...-90C_B-95C.html
>
> which seems to indicate that *only* those helmets on the list are
> certified. Interesting reading.
>
> I'm guessing that the CPSC standards are less stringent than the Snell
> standards? I guess if I'm going to wear a silly looking lid it might as
> well work if required.

CPSC is self-certification.

I'm sure there's never been a study comparing accident death and injury
rates of Snell approved helmets versus CPSC approved helmets. There's
probably a very narrow window where it would make a difference.

Frank Krygowski

On May 17, 10:34 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>
> I found this:
>
> http://www.smf.org/
>
> http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-9...-90C_B-95C.html
>
> which seems to indicate that *only* those helmets on the list are
> certified. Interesting reading.
>
> I'm guessing that the CPSC standards are less stringent than the Snell
> standards? I guess if I'm going to wear a silly looking lid it might as
> well work if required.
>

Snell uses a drop height that's 10% higher than CPSC. That difference
is almost certainly insignificant. Both tests are laughably weak,
with Snell's only marginally less weak.

Snell periodically buys helmets and tests them. CPSC relies on
companies fear of selling an illegal product.

Snell makes money off every Snell-certified helmet. CPSC does not.

It's absolute fantasy to think that a Snell hat would "work" when a
CPSC on would not. It's like putting a sweater over your bulletproof
vest - because you're afraid someone might shoot you with a howitzer.

Helmets are bump protectors, period. When they "work" at all, it's
just to prevent a bruise. And the long and pleasant history of
bicycling, with billions upon billions of cyclists, proves that even
bump protection is not needed.

Instead of reading Snell's advertising, consider reading a site that
exists for the science, not to make money. Visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org/

Try not to be such a gullible, fearful fashion slave.

- Frank Krygowski

Nate Nagel

Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On May 17, 10:34 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>I found this:
>>
>>http://www.smf.org/
>>
>>http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-9...-90C_B-95C.html
>>
>>which seems to indicate that *only* those helmets on the list are
>>certified. Interesting reading.
>>
>>I'm guessing that the CPSC standards are less stringent than the Snell
>>standards? I guess if I'm going to wear a silly looking lid it might as
>>well work if required.
>>
>
>
> Snell uses a drop height that's 10% higher than CPSC. That difference
> is almost certainly insignificant. Both tests are laughably weak,
> with Snell's only marginally less weak.
>
> Snell periodically buys helmets and tests them. CPSC relies on
> companies fear of selling an illegal product.
>
> Snell makes money off every Snell-certified helmet. CPSC does not.
>
> It's absolute fantasy to think that a Snell hat would "work" when a
> CPSC on would not. It's like putting a sweater over your bulletproof
> vest - because you're afraid someone might shoot you with a howitzer.
>
> Helmets are bump protectors, period. When they "work" at all, it's
> just to prevent a bruise. And the long and pleasant history of
> bicycling, with billions upon billions of cyclists, proves that even
> bump protection is not needed.
>
> Instead of reading Snell's advertising, consider reading a site that
> exists for the science, not to make money. Visit http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
>
> Try not to be such a gullible, fearful fashion slave.
>
> - Frank Krygowski

HA!

you obviously have not looked into my closet lately.

Seriously, I'm just trying to make an educated purchasing decision. It
seems like helmets are de rigeur in my area; I'm about the only person I
see on any given ride not wearing one. Plus, there's TONS of traffic in
my area, so the thought of having a little extra safety equipment,
within reason, isn't ludicrous.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to replace the Porsche with an SUV
just to get airbags and some "road hugging weight," but good lights and
a helmet are not a bad idea.

Speaking of lights, I got my package from DealExtreme yesterday with the
lenses someone here recommended, I'll check 'em out tonight to see if
they make an acceptable (to me) headlight, if it's not raining. (I just
got back from a quick spin to the LBS to get a new lock; it was a
beautiful ride out, and rather moist coming back.) I just wish I wasn't
blind without my glasses; makes riding in the rain a little less
pleasant than it needs to be.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

Nate Nagel

Nate Nagel wrote:
> Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
>> On May 17, 10:34 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I found this:
>>>
>>> http://www.smf.org/
>>>
>>> http://www.smf.org/certlist/std_B-9...-90C_B-95C.html
>>>
>>> which seems to indicate that *only* those helmets on the list are
>>> certified. Interesting reading.
>>>
>>> I'm guessing that the CPSC standards are less stringent than the Snell
>>> standards? I guess if I'm going to wear a silly looking lid it might as
>>> well work if required.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Snell uses a drop height that's 10% higher than CPSC. That difference
>> is almost certainly insignificant. Both tests are laughably weak,
>> with Snell's only marginally less weak.
>>
>> Snell periodically buys helmets and tests them. CPSC relies on
>> companies fear of selling an illegal product.
>>
>> Snell makes money off every Snell-certified helmet. CPSC does not.
>>
>> It's absolute fantasy to think that a Snell hat would "work" when a
>> CPSC on would not. It's like putting a sweater over your bulletproof
>> vest - because you're afraid someone might shoot you with a howitzer.
>>
>> Helmets are bump protectors, period. When they "work" at all, it's
>> just to prevent a bruise. And the long and pleasant history of
>> bicycling, with billions upon billions of cyclists, proves that even
>> bump protection is not needed.
>>
>> Instead of reading Snell's advertising, consider reading a site that
>> exists for the science, not to make money. Visit
>> http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
>>
>> Try not to be such a gullible, fearful fashion slave.
>>
>> - Frank Krygowski
>
>
> HA!
>
> you obviously have not looked into my closet lately.
>
> Seriously, I'm just trying to make an educated purchasing decision. It
> seems like helmets are de rigeur in my area; I'm about the only person I
> see on any given ride not wearing one. Plus, there's TONS of traffic in
> my area, so the thought of having a little extra safety equipment,
> within reason, isn't ludicrous.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm not about to replace the Porsche with an SUV
> just to get airbags and some "road hugging weight," but good lights and
> a helmet are not a bad idea.
>
> Speaking of lights, I got my package from DealExtreme yesterday with the
> lenses someone here recommended, I'll check 'em out tonight to see if
> they make an acceptable (to me) headlight, if it's not raining. (I just
> got back from a quick spin to the LBS to get a new lock; it was a
> beautiful ride out, and rather moist coming back.) I just wish I wasn't
> blind without my glasses; makes riding in the rain a little less
> pleasant than it needs to be.
>
> nate
>

Forgot to mention; the last helmet I owned was destroyed by one of my
old roommates when he borrowed my old bike to do a little trail riding
with another roommate. So there is at least one (admittedly anecdotal)
data point very close to me that does indicate that at least in some
cases they can turn what would be a nasty bump at best into something
you can ride home from.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

SMS

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Forgot to mention; the last helmet I owned was destroyed by one of my
> old roommates when he borrowed my old bike to do a little trail riding
> with another roommate. So there is at least one (admittedly anecdotal)
> data point very close to me that does indicate that at least in some
> cases they can turn what would be a nasty bump at best into something
> you can ride home from.

That's really what they do best. You don't even see helmet makers
claiming that they protect the rider in a high impact crash with a motor
vehicle.

See the compendium of studies at
"http://depts.washington.edu/hiprc/practices/topic/bicycles/helmeteffect.html"

Mike Jacoubowsky

| > Forgot to mention; the last helmet I owned was destroyed by one of my
| > old roommates when he borrowed my old bike to do a little trail riding
| > with another roommate. So there is at least one (admittedly anecdotal)
| > data point very close to me that does indicate that at least in some
| > cases they can turn what would be a nasty bump at best into something
| > you can ride home from.
|
| That's really what they do best. You don't even see helmet makers
| claiming that they protect the rider in a high impact crash with a motor
| vehicle.

Helmet makers will *never* make that claim, even if they thought it to be
true. For that matter, helmet makers don't really make safety-related claims
at all, if you read their literature. They're scared to death of lawsuits.
The easiest way to attract lawsuits is to try and make something that will
make someone safer. You have to market it based on style and inference, but
cannot make any claim past passing xzy standard, because to do so will most
certainly put you in court when someone's killed or injured, regardless of
whether the impact was clearly beyond the design of the helmet.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com

SMS

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:

> "*Unlikely* to make a significant difference to the likelihood of serious
> injury or death?" Do they offer studies showing the dynamics of an impact,
> specifically force over time? Not that I can find. What they say *sounds*
> reasonable, but that doesn't make it good science.

Yes, they have some writers that have taken the edge off many of the
same anti-helmet arguments that you see endlessly posted on Usenet, and
they are smart enough to not include many of the exceptionally stupid
arguments (gardening helmets, walking helmets, driving helmets, etc.)
that would drive people away, but as you stated, 'sounding reasonable'
doesn't make it good science.

There's enough weasel words on cyclehelmets.org for anyone with any
critical thinking skills at all to realize that they have no idea what
they're talking about, but their target audience isn't those people that
have a scientific background. I liken them to the "Intelligent Design"
people, who try to sound scientific, but have no use for the
uncomfortable facts of science. They have an audience of readers that
_want_ to believe what isn't so, and want reassurance of their faith.

"Sounding reasonable" is a common tactic used by individuals and
organizations that have nothing to support their positions. You could
listen to Mike Huckabee and his minions on conservative talk radio rage
about the "Fair Tax" and think it sounded reasonable if you didn't know
the facts, when in reality there was no economic science behind it. You
could listen to the "Intelligent Design" people and think that their
arguments were reasonable if you didn't know the facts. You could
believe in Reaganomics, even though every economist will tell you that
it's completely bogus, and that it led to huge deficits and merely
postponed the day of reckoning when the spending without revenue party
would be over.

Alas, there are plenty of non-critical thinkers out there that fall for
the "sounds reasonable" ploy. What's even worse (IMVAIO) is those people
that _know_ the facts, but still parrot the false statements of
organizations and web sites such as cyclehelmets.org for their own reasons.

SMS

Bill Sornson wrote:

>> Duh, they've never had any credibility. They put up that site to try
>> to convince themselves that the numerous scientific studies showing a
>> benefit to helmet use don't apply to them. The most dishonest thing
>> they do is intentionally mixing whole population data with ER statistics,
>> though they take the whole population data out of context as well.
>> Well maybe that's not the most dishonest thing they do, it's hard to
>> know where to start! When they start up comparing the Netherlands with the
>> U.S. and other non-cycling-centric countries that's also very
>> misleading.
>
> Just substitute "Frank and the AHZs" for "they" and that paragraph is good
> to go.

Does Frank have anything to do with authoring that site? He quotes it
and promotes it, but I don't think he created any of the content.

Bill Sornson

SMS wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>
>>> Duh, they've never had any credibility. They put up that site to try
>>> to convince themselves that the numerous scientific studies showing
>>> a benefit to helmet use don't apply to them. The most dishonest
>>> thing they do is intentionally mixing whole population data with ER
>>> statistics, though they take the whole population data out of
>>> context as well. Well maybe that's not the most dishonest thing they do,
>>> it's hard to
>>> know where to start! When they start up comparing the Netherlands
>>> with the U.S. and other non-cycling-centric countries that's also
>>> very misleading.
>>
>> Just substitute "Frank and the AHZs" for "they" and that paragraph
>> is good to go.
>
> Does Frank have anything to do with authoring that site? He quotes it
> and promotes it, but I don't think he created any of the content.

I didn't say he wrote or contributed to the site. He and others USE it and
its faux arguments.

HTH

SMS

Bill Sornson wrote:

> I didn't say he wrote or contributed to the site. He and others USE it and
> its faux arguments.

Actually though, maybe I was wrong. Look at
"http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1121.html"

It's a whose who of the people that reject all the scientific evidence
and studies regarding helmets, and who promote an agenda based on
ignorance, fraud, and subjective interpretation. Riley Geary, Avery
Burdett, Guy Chapman, etc., though apparently in a vert wise move by the
board, Frank doesn't contribute to editorial content, but is listed as a
"patron."

I'm glad that I didn't have a mouthful of coffee when I read their
objective: "to undertake, encourage, and spread the scientific study of
the use of bicycle helmets, in the context of risk compensation and
sustainable transport." My g-d, have you looked at their site? It's a
compendium of unscientific conclusions, misinterpretation, and lack of
scientific basis, all designed to promote their agenda. Come on people,
there are ways to oppose helmet laws without resorting to this sort of
fraud.

Chalo

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
> But Giro somehow manages to make hard
> foam with a thin plastic shell actually look like something someone would
> pay $200+ for.

The critical term is "someone".

I think they look like something "someone" would pay $200 for-- in
that a complete and total tool will probably pay $200 for a dried-up
dog turd if it comes with the proper marketing credentials.
Especially if he's been told it will surely save his life.

I'm just sayin'.

Chalo

SMS

Chalo wrote:
> Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>> But Giro somehow manages to make hard
>> foam with a thin plastic shell actually look like something someone would
>> pay $200+ for.
>
> The critical term is "someone".
>
> I think they look like something "someone" would pay $200 for-- in
> that a complete and total tool will probably pay $200 for a dried-up
> dog turd if it comes with the proper marketing credentials.
> Especially if he's been told it will surely save his life.

Hey, women buy $5000 purses when a $25 purse will work just as well.

The person spending $200 on a Giro Ionos helmet is doing so with the
full knowledge that it will work no better at protecting their head than
a $40 helmet. Well actually some of the $40 helmets will work slightly
better, as they are designed to a higher standard, while the more
expensive helmets are designed to the minimum legal standard.