1 1
yobnoc

Full-face helmets

Recommended Posts

(edited)
11 minutes ago, meat.missile said:

Dumb, just dumb. 

 

Standards are a pain. To add some more info, XP S 72-600 is EN966 + some stuff relating to snag resistance. But as far as impact goes, it is the same. (I can't find my source on that, but I'll keep looking for it.)

You assert "insignificance" without any data to compare the performance. I have no doubt the G4 performs better than the G3. Without data to back it up, your assertion that the G3 protection is insignificant as you define it, is unworthy of an engineer.

Edited by sundevil777

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, sundevil777 said:

You assert "insignificance" without any data to compare the performance. I have no doubt the G4 performs better than the G3. Without data to back it up, your assertion that the G3 protection is insignificant as you define it, is unworthy of an engineer.

When you have a fundamental understanding of a subject you don't always need to see the numbers to know the general outcome. 

 

Anyway, found the reference to the standard from chuting star.

"The XPS 72-600 is a Skydiving and Windtunnel Helmet standard used for the G4. The impact testing is the same as the EN966 standard for drop height and conditioning prior to impact (5.47 m/s at roughly 1.6 meters). The impact must be less that 250G. The XPS standard also requires a SNAG test, while the EN966 does not. The XPS requires the chinstrap to be on the exterior of the shell so that a line cannot pass up the inside of the helmet, while the EN966 does not. The EN966 is a Hanggliding helmet standard and also has a penetration test, while the XPS does not require a penetration test. However, Cookie has tested the G4 helmet for penetration according to EN966 and it passes with "great results," says Cookie."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, meat.missile said:

When you have a fundamental understanding of a subject you don't always need to see the numbers to know the general outcome. 

 

Anyway, found the reference to the standard from chuting star.

"The XPS 72-600 is a Skydiving and Windtunnel Helmet standard used for the G4. The impact testing is the same as the EN966 standard for drop height and conditioning prior to impact (5.47 m/s at roughly 1.6 meters). The impact must be less that 250G. The XPS standard also requires a SNAG test, while the EN966 does not. The XPS requires the chinstrap to be on the exterior of the shell so that a line cannot pass up the inside of the helmet, while the EN966 does not. The EN966 is a Hanggliding helmet standard and also has a penetration test, while the XPS does not require a penetration test. However, Cookie has tested the G4 helmet for penetration according to EN966 and it passes with "great results," says Cookie."

Knowing the general outcome is very different than so confidently asserting the G3 provides insignificant protection as you have defined. You are not the only one with an engineering/technical background. The info you provided does nothing to clarify how much better the G4 is. It would have been very easy for Cookie to let us know how much improved their new helmet is, but they did not. Quoting the new standard's test setup and pass criteria gives us nothing with which to compare the G3. Quoting what the old DOT motorcycle helmet standard was does nothing to inform us of how well it compared to typical helmets that were common before the standard.

Most engineers I think would not make such assertions without evidence. Why are you so determined to defend your position. I really don't understand. Can't this be discussed without insults?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
34 minutes ago, sundevil777 said:

Knowing the general outcome is very different than so confidently asserting the G3 provides insignificant protection as you have defined. You are not the only one with an engineering/technical background. The info you provided does nothing to clarify how much better the G4 is. It would have been very easy for Cookie to let us know how much improved their new helmet is, but they did not. Quoting the new standard's test setup and pass criteria gives us nothing with which to compare the G3. Quoting what the old DOT motorcycle helmet standard was does nothing to inform us of how well it compared to typical helmets that were common before the standard.

Most engineers I think would not make such assertions without evidence. Why are you so determined to defend your position. I really don't understand. Can't this be discussed without insults?

 

I don't believe I've ever insulted you.

I'd defending my position because people in here keep saying the G3 is going to reduce or prevent brain injuries. 

The information I provided was to inform people on how helmet testing and standards work. It seems they don't understand the physics behind it. 

Quote

Knowing the general outcome is very different than so confidently asserting the G3 provides insignificant protection as you have defined.

Thought I said negligible, at this point it doesn't really matter. In this case it would be really easy to define significant as 250G since it is laid out in the standard. If the helmet doesn't reduce the force to below that, the reduction is insignificant. 

 

Quote

Most engineers I think would not make such assertions without evidence. 

I have evidence, is it the construction materials of both helmets. 

Edited by meat.missile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is so magical about that standard? I am certain that a tougher standard could be written, that would provide more protection that would help in some scenarios, and that would require a heavier, bulkier helmet to comply. The standard is a compromise, but you don’t seem to see it that way. I have no doubt that it performs better than the G3, but to assert that not meeting the standard makes the protection provided insignificant is not correct. This is not how engineers should analyze problems. I was sure we could have an interesting conversation about the new helmet, but this is really tiresome. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, meat.missile said:

The G3 protects you less than the G4 from the same impact. 

It also isn't about injury free. It is about reducing the severity of the injury. 

And you have something other than your gut feeling to support this?  How much less?

 

Derek V

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
2 hours ago, sundevil777 said:

What is so magical about that standard? I am certain that a tougher standard could be written, that would provide more protection that would help in some scenarios, and that would require a heavier, bulkier helmet to comply. The standard is a compromise, but you don’t seem to see it that way. I have no doubt that it performs better than the G3, but to assert that not meeting the standard makes the protection provided insignificant is not correct. This is not how engineers should analyze problems. I was sure we could have an interesting conversation about the new helmet, but this is really tiresome. 

This is tiresome, it is more tiresome when your rebuttals are all over the place. 

My first claim is that the G3 will protect a person less than a G4, and my second claim is that the G3 will protect a negligible amount compared to no helmet. Obviously protection is about limiting or preventing brain damage, concussions, TBI. My first claim is obviously correct and arguing against is would just be ignorant. My second clam you can likely form a good argument against, or say that I can't conclude that without numbers. So I will allow you to form that counter argument. 

1 hour ago, Hooknswoop said:

And you have something other than your gut feeling to support this?  How much less?

 

Derek V

Derek, 

What I have is an education in mechanical engineering with experience in helmets effectiveness during head impacts.  I also know how significant the difference in materials is between the G3 and G4. I can't say exactly how much because there are no numbers to compare, but I would estimate it is the difference between a concussion and no concussion for the same impact. 

 

So everyone knows, the G3 was never put through testing to see the difference (I asked). 

 

Edited by meat.missile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, meat.missile said:

People that make a living with their brains. 

Ok, since you insist.

you have been making claims that you can’t back up with any facts, all you have is assumptions and gut feeling.

As one mechanical engineer (who makes a living using his head) to another: you should know better than that. It’s just  dumb, so dumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
8 hours ago, evh said:

Ok, since you insist.

you have been making claims that you can’t back up with any facts, all you have is assumptions and gut feeling.

As one mechanical engineer (who makes a living using his head) to another: you should know better than that. It’s just  dumb, so dumb.

Where do you get this idea that I can’t back it up with facts? Are you really so ignorant about helmet construction that you can’t understand how the G4 will protect more than the G3? 

 

A good example is saying wood is a better insulator than glass. We don’t need to see numbers to know it’s true. 

 

Edited by meat.missile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, evh said:

It depends. Is it certified? Everybody knows that uncertified wood has negligible insulation properties, right?

Try commenting in good faith. 

 

2 hours ago, neilmck said:

In terms of protection in case of impact how do the G3 and G4 compare with the old fashioned and infinitely cheaper open-faced Protec?

 The pro tech would be better than the G3, but I’m not sure how it compares to the G4. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, meat.missile said:

Where do you get this idea that I can’t back it up with facts? Are you really so ignorant about helmet construction that you can’t understand how the G4 will protect more than the G3? 

 

A good example is saying wood is a better insulator than glass. We don’t need to see numbers to know it’s true. 

 

Of course we understand the G4 will perform better, but you insisted the G3 has negligible benefit, insignificant. Decide which.

Of course wood is a better thermal insulator than glass, but it is not insignificant. 

Engineers worth anything don’t think like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, sundevil777 said:

Engineers worth anything don’t think like that.

Something something personal attacks. 

Way to not address my last post.

Also, I didn’t say anything about the insignificance of glass (Even though the “it” in your comment would be Wood) My example only was only for the comparison between the G3 and G4.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account. It's free!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
1 1