S
Does anyone cycle wearing a MOTORCYCLE HELMET ?
- Thread starter [email protected]
- Start date
Z
Zog The Undeniable
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
>
Because they're hotter than hell?
> If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
>
Because they're hotter than hell?
D
davek
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
Too heavy. Too hot. Poor visibility. Too uncomfortable. Hard to breathe.
Don't forget that riding a pushbike tends to be a lot more physically
demanding than riding a motorbike.
d.
> If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
Too heavy. Too hot. Poor visibility. Too uncomfortable. Hard to breathe.
Don't forget that riding a pushbike tends to be a lot more physically
demanding than riding a motorbike.
d.
A
Adrian Boliston
Guest
"davek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> > If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
>
> Too heavy. Too hot. Poor visibility. Too uncomfortable. Hard to breathe.
>
> Don't forget that riding a pushbike tends to be a lot more physically
> demanding than riding a motorbike.
Also it would make it harder to *hear* other traffic, but the main reason is
that most cyclist are not travelling anything like the sort of speeds
motorcyclists travel at, so it less likely to suffer such severe accidents.
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
> > If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
>
> Too heavy. Too hot. Poor visibility. Too uncomfortable. Hard to breathe.
>
> Don't forget that riding a pushbike tends to be a lot more physically
> demanding than riding a motorbike.
Also it would make it harder to *hear* other traffic, but the main reason is
that most cyclist are not travelling anything like the sort of speeds
motorcyclists travel at, so it less likely to suffer such severe accidents.
C
Colin Blackburn
Guest
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 18:21:10 +0100, Adrian Boliston
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "davek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
>>
>> Too heavy. Too hot. Poor visibility. Too uncomfortable. Hard to breathe.
>>
>> Don't forget that riding a pushbike tends to be a lot more physically
>> demanding than riding a motorbike.
>
> Also it would make it harder to *hear* other traffic, but the main
> reason is
> that most cyclist are not travelling anything like the sort of speeds
> motorcyclists travel at, so it less likely to suffer such severe
> accidents.
One of the emeritus profs in Oxford used to cycle wearing a motorbike
helmet. Not a modern full face helmet but the older open helmet.
Colin
<[email protected]> wrote:
> "davek" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
>>
>> Too heavy. Too hot. Poor visibility. Too uncomfortable. Hard to breathe.
>>
>> Don't forget that riding a pushbike tends to be a lot more physically
>> demanding than riding a motorbike.
>
> Also it would make it harder to *hear* other traffic, but the main
> reason is
> that most cyclist are not travelling anything like the sort of speeds
> motorcyclists travel at, so it less likely to suffer such severe
> accidents.
One of the emeritus profs in Oxford used to cycle wearing a motorbike
helmet. Not a modern full face helmet but the older open helmet.
Colin
G
Gawnsoft
Guest
On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 17:56:25 +0100, [email protected] wrote (more or
less):
>If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
(In the following post, 'bike' refers exclusively to pedal cycle)
This has actually been addressed before, but anyway:
1) Motorcycle helmets are very heavy.
[
Motorcyclists vehicle and kit are moved along by the effort expended
from burning petro-fuels.
This means that the kit can be as heavy as you like, and the
motorcyclist does not have to work harder.
So motorcycle helmets are very heavy things. As you'd expect from any
helmet strong enough to actually provide substantial protection.
Tho' motorcycle helmets do cause exarcerbated and additional
rotational injuries, so they are not an unalloyed good. (There are
new proposed designs to address this problem - they would provide a
surface that glides over the main helmet body).
The tendency for helmets to cause these (often worse) kinds of injury
is something that is not even mentioned in bicycle helmet manufacturer
or pro-bike helmet fanatic literature.
It /is/ a possible explanation for why whole population stats show
helmets worsening the injury rates for cyclists.
]
2) Motorcycle helmets are sealed over. There is very little, or no,
ventilation.
[
The average heat output from a persons head while seated (like
watching TV, or motorcycling) is 20W.
When cycling, this can go up to 160W. Bike helmets /need/ a lot of
ventilation.
There are studies which show the negative effect of sealed helmets on
the judgement and abilities of people taking part in physical activity
due to the heat stress created..
]
Meandering last thoughts:
Motorcycle helmets are probably over-engineered for 25mph impacts,
tho' do not provide any neck support for the additional pendulum
effects that the big heavy helmet will cause.
Human neck muscles are only designed to hold up human heads at human
speeds (humans can run at up to 25mph).
Wrap a large and heavy object around the head, and human neck muscles
can only control it at lower speeds.
Formula One drivers work /very/ hard to build up their neck muscles,
so the weight of head and helmet thro' mutliple-g corners is
controllable.
--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
less):
>If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
(In the following post, 'bike' refers exclusively to pedal cycle)
This has actually been addressed before, but anyway:
1) Motorcycle helmets are very heavy.
[
Motorcyclists vehicle and kit are moved along by the effort expended
from burning petro-fuels.
This means that the kit can be as heavy as you like, and the
motorcyclist does not have to work harder.
So motorcycle helmets are very heavy things. As you'd expect from any
helmet strong enough to actually provide substantial protection.
Tho' motorcycle helmets do cause exarcerbated and additional
rotational injuries, so they are not an unalloyed good. (There are
new proposed designs to address this problem - they would provide a
surface that glides over the main helmet body).
The tendency for helmets to cause these (often worse) kinds of injury
is something that is not even mentioned in bicycle helmet manufacturer
or pro-bike helmet fanatic literature.
It /is/ a possible explanation for why whole population stats show
helmets worsening the injury rates for cyclists.
]
2) Motorcycle helmets are sealed over. There is very little, or no,
ventilation.
[
The average heat output from a persons head while seated (like
watching TV, or motorcycling) is 20W.
When cycling, this can go up to 160W. Bike helmets /need/ a lot of
ventilation.
There are studies which show the negative effect of sealed helmets on
the judgement and abilities of people taking part in physical activity
due to the heat stress created..
]
Meandering last thoughts:
Motorcycle helmets are probably over-engineered for 25mph impacts,
tho' do not provide any neck support for the additional pendulum
effects that the big heavy helmet will cause.
Human neck muscles are only designed to hold up human heads at human
speeds (humans can run at up to 25mph).
Wrap a large and heavy object around the head, and human neck muscles
can only control it at lower speeds.
Formula One drivers work /very/ hard to build up their neck muscles,
so the weight of head and helmet thro' mutliple-g corners is
controllable.
--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
S
>There are studies which show the negative effect of sealed helmets on
>the judgement and abilities of people taking part in physical activity
>due to the heat stress created..
>]
that would certainly explain the behaviour of US animals in Iraq.
D
Dave Larrington
Guest
[email protected] wrote:
> If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
I /did/ once see a bloke riding a sit-up-and-beg bike wearing not only a
full-face motorcycle helmet, but a set of leathers as well. Given that this
was on the southbound A3 at the bottom of the hill past Richmond Park,
perhaps it wasn't such a bad idea, but I still wouldn't have liked to sit
next to him in the cinema.
--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
> If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
I /did/ once see a bloke riding a sit-up-and-beg bike wearing not only a
full-face motorcycle helmet, but a set of leathers as well. Given that this
was on the southbound A3 at the bottom of the hill past Richmond Park,
perhaps it wasn't such a bad idea, but I still wouldn't have liked to sit
next to him in the cinema.
--
Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================
C
Colin Blackburn
Guest
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:23:17 +0100, Dave Larrington <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>> If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
>
> I /did/ once see a bloke riding a sit-up-and-beg bike wearing not only a
> full-face motorcycle helmet, but a set of leathers as well. Given that
> this
> was on the southbound A3 at the bottom of the hill past Richmond Park,
> perhaps it wasn't such a bad idea, but I still wouldn't have liked to sit
> next to him in the cinema.
You followed him to the cinema?!
Colin
> [email protected] wrote:
>> If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
>
> I /did/ once see a bloke riding a sit-up-and-beg bike wearing not only a
> full-face motorcycle helmet, but a set of leathers as well. Given that
> this
> was on the southbound A3 at the bottom of the hill past Richmond Park,
> perhaps it wasn't such a bad idea, but I still wouldn't have liked to sit
> next to him in the cinema.
You followed him to the cinema?!
Colin
T
Tumbleweed
Guest
"Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news
[email protected]...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:23:17 +0100, Dave Larrington <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
> >
> > I /did/ once see a bloke riding a sit-up-and-beg bike wearing not only a
> > full-face motorcycle helmet, but a set of leathers as well. Given that
> > this
> > was on the southbound A3 at the bottom of the hill past Richmond Park,
> > perhaps it wasn't such a bad idea, but I still wouldn't have liked to
sit
> > next to him in the cinema.
>
> You followed him to the cinema?!
>
> Colin
LOL
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
news
[email protected]...> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:23:17 +0100, Dave Larrington <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
> >
> > I /did/ once see a bloke riding a sit-up-and-beg bike wearing not only a
> > full-face motorcycle helmet, but a set of leathers as well. Given that
> > this
> > was on the southbound A3 at the bottom of the hill past Richmond Park,
> > perhaps it wasn't such a bad idea, but I still wouldn't have liked to
sit
> > next to him in the cinema.
>
> You followed him to the cinema?!
>
> Colin
LOL
--
Tumbleweed
email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com
A
Ambrose Nankivell
Guest
"Dave Larrington" <[email protected]> writes:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
>
> I /did/ once see a bloke riding a sit-up-and-beg bike wearing not only a
> full-face motorcycle helmet, but a set of leathers as well. Given that this
> was on the southbound A3 at the bottom of the hill past Richmond Park,
> perhaps it wasn't such a bad idea, but I still wouldn't have liked to sit
> next to him in the cinema.
There was someone who claimed to do this who posted here for a
while. Christopher Blackmuir was his name, IIRC. I assumed he was a
troll from the way he talked about it, but he may have been serious.
A
> [email protected] wrote:
> > If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
>
> I /did/ once see a bloke riding a sit-up-and-beg bike wearing not only a
> full-face motorcycle helmet, but a set of leathers as well. Given that this
> was on the southbound A3 at the bottom of the hill past Richmond Park,
> perhaps it wasn't such a bad idea, but I still wouldn't have liked to sit
> next to him in the cinema.
There was someone who claimed to do this who posted here for a
while. Christopher Blackmuir was his name, IIRC. I assumed he was a
troll from the way he talked about it, but he may have been serious.
A
A
Ambrose Nankivell
Guest
"Colin Blackburn" <[email protected]> writes:
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:23:17 +0100, Dave Larrington <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
> >
> > I /did/ once see a bloke riding a sit-up-and-beg bike wearing not only a
> > full-face motorcycle helmet, but a set of leathers as well. Given
> > that this
> > was on the southbound A3 at the bottom of the hill past Richmond Park,
> > perhaps it wasn't such a bad idea, but I still wouldn't have liked to sit
> > next to him in the cinema.
>
> You followed him to the cinema?!
>
Wise not to sit next to him though. I've found people get surprisingly
touchy about that.
A
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:23:17 +0100, Dave Larrington <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] wrote:
> >> If not why not ? (seeing all the posts regarding unsafe helmets.)
> >
> > I /did/ once see a bloke riding a sit-up-and-beg bike wearing not only a
> > full-face motorcycle helmet, but a set of leathers as well. Given
> > that this
> > was on the southbound A3 at the bottom of the hill past Richmond Park,
> > perhaps it wasn't such a bad idea, but I still wouldn't have liked to sit
> > next to him in the cinema.
>
> You followed him to the cinema?!
>
Wise not to sit next to him though. I've found people get surprisingly
touchy about that.
A
M
Mark Stammers
Guest
[email protected] wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >There are studies which show the negative effect of sealed helmets on
> >the judgement and abilities of people taking part in physical activity
> >due to the heat stress created..
> >]
> that would certainly explain the behaviour of US animals in Iraq.
Chipmunks, prairie dogs, grizzly bears? Can't say I've noticed any of
them despite the extensive TV coverage.
> >There are studies which show the negative effect of sealed helmets on
> >the judgement and abilities of people taking part in physical activity
> >due to the heat stress created..
> >]
> that would certainly explain the behaviour of US animals in Iraq.
Chipmunks, prairie dogs, grizzly bears? Can't say I've noticed any of
them despite the extensive TV coverage.
D
dwb
Guest
Adrian Boliston wrote:
>>
>> Too heavy. Too hot. Poor visibility. Too uncomfortable. Hard to
>> breathe.
>>
>> Don't forget that riding a pushbike tends to be a lot more physically
>> demanding than riding a motorbike.
>
> Also it would make it harder to *hear* other traffic, but the main
> reason is that most cyclist are not travelling anything like the sort
> of speeds motorcyclists travel at, so it less likely to suffer such
> severe accidents.
>>
>> Too heavy. Too hot. Poor visibility. Too uncomfortable. Hard to
>> breathe.
>>
>> Don't forget that riding a pushbike tends to be a lot more physically
>> demanding than riding a motorbike.
>
> Also it would make it harder to *hear* other traffic, but the main
> reason is that most cyclist are not travelling anything like the sort
> of speeds motorcyclists travel at, so it less likely to suffer such
> severe accidents.
D
dwb
Guest
Adrian Boliston wrote:
>>
>> Too heavy. Too hot.
Agree with this if you're cycling hard - 1.2kg isn't that heavy, but might
be after awhile!
>Poor visibility.
Disagree completely here - it's obviously dependant on the helmet, but you
can get helmets that don't restrict the view at all - i've got two different
types that meet that criteria.
>Too uncomfortable.
Not sure what you're measuring this against - I can wear my bike helmet all
day long with out discomfort - okay if I was cycling at the same time it may
well get a bit hot and uncomfortable, but not in 'normal' use.
>Hard to
>> breathe.
As above - no problems at all - and in fact I don't see how it could make it
hard to breathe at all unless you've got an odd helmet that you can suck
in??
>> Don't forget that riding a pushbike tends to be a lot more physically
>> demanding than riding a motorbike.
Yes.
>
> Also it would make it harder to *hear* other traffic,
Again, depends on the helmet, but really I don't think that statement is
true - MC helmets (without earplugs) do not block that much sound, if any at
all.
>but the main
> reason is that most cyclist are not travelling anything like the sort
> of speeds motorcyclists travel at, so it less likely to suffer such
> severe accidents.
Hmm - I've had 3 on road incidents on a motorcycle, one where the helmet hit
the ground, all at speeds less than 30mph so I'd say that statement is most
definitely false. from general posts to Uk.Rec.Motorcycles it seems a lot of
bike crashes occur at this sort of speed - okay yes the helmet may perform
to higer speeds than your average bicycle can ever get to, but bicycles are
definitely capable of 30mph!
I think the main reason would be the discomfort one.
>>
>> Too heavy. Too hot.
Agree with this if you're cycling hard - 1.2kg isn't that heavy, but might
be after awhile!
>Poor visibility.
Disagree completely here - it's obviously dependant on the helmet, but you
can get helmets that don't restrict the view at all - i've got two different
types that meet that criteria.
>Too uncomfortable.
Not sure what you're measuring this against - I can wear my bike helmet all
day long with out discomfort - okay if I was cycling at the same time it may
well get a bit hot and uncomfortable, but not in 'normal' use.
>Hard to
>> breathe.
As above - no problems at all - and in fact I don't see how it could make it
hard to breathe at all unless you've got an odd helmet that you can suck
in??
>> Don't forget that riding a pushbike tends to be a lot more physically
>> demanding than riding a motorbike.
Yes.
>
> Also it would make it harder to *hear* other traffic,
Again, depends on the helmet, but really I don't think that statement is
true - MC helmets (without earplugs) do not block that much sound, if any at
all.
>but the main
> reason is that most cyclist are not travelling anything like the sort
> of speeds motorcyclists travel at, so it less likely to suffer such
> severe accidents.
Hmm - I've had 3 on road incidents on a motorcycle, one where the helmet hit
the ground, all at speeds less than 30mph so I'd say that statement is most
definitely false. from general posts to Uk.Rec.Motorcycles it seems a lot of
bike crashes occur at this sort of speed - okay yes the helmet may perform
to higer speeds than your average bicycle can ever get to, but bicycles are
definitely capable of 30mph!
I think the main reason would be the discomfort one.
D
dwb
Guest
Gawnsoft wrote:
>
> 1) Motorcycle helmets are very heavy.
1-1.5kg - compared to bicycle helmets, yes heavy.
>
> [
> Motorcyclists vehicle and kit are moved along by the effort expended
> from burning petro-fuels.
>
> This means that the kit can be as heavy as you like, and the
> motorcyclist does not have to work harder.
Not quite true - it's hard work wearing a heavy lid because your head moves
a lot and as you mention below, your neck does have to support that weight -
that's weight bike helmets are getting lighter.
>
> Tho' motorcycle helmets do cause exarcerbated and additional
> rotational injuries, so they are not an unalloyed good. (There are
> new proposed designs to address this problem - they would provide a
> surface that glides over the main helmet body).
This of course depends on the type of accident - and generally the negatives
are offset by the postives.
> 2) Motorcycle helmets are sealed over. There is very little, or no,
> ventilation.
Complete and utter tosh - modern motorcycle helmets have excellent
ventilation.
> [
> The average heat output from a persons head while seated (like
> watching TV, or motorcycling) is 20W.
>
> When cycling, this can go up to 160W. Bike helmets /need/ a lot of
> ventilation.
This bit however is true - you will get hot in a full face helmet. It has
much more padding etc than a bicycle helmet which is effectively just (part
of ) the outer polystyrene.
>
> There are studies which show the negative effect of sealed helmets on
> the judgement and abilities of people taking part in physical activity
> due to the heat stress created..
Quite possible, though I've rode a motorcycle for hours on a really hot day
and not noticed too many ill effects - vents work pretty well as long as
you're moving
>
> 1) Motorcycle helmets are very heavy.
1-1.5kg - compared to bicycle helmets, yes heavy.
>
> [
> Motorcyclists vehicle and kit are moved along by the effort expended
> from burning petro-fuels.
>
> This means that the kit can be as heavy as you like, and the
> motorcyclist does not have to work harder.
Not quite true - it's hard work wearing a heavy lid because your head moves
a lot and as you mention below, your neck does have to support that weight -
that's weight bike helmets are getting lighter.
>
> Tho' motorcycle helmets do cause exarcerbated and additional
> rotational injuries, so they are not an unalloyed good. (There are
> new proposed designs to address this problem - they would provide a
> surface that glides over the main helmet body).
This of course depends on the type of accident - and generally the negatives
are offset by the postives.
> 2) Motorcycle helmets are sealed over. There is very little, or no,
> ventilation.
Complete and utter tosh - modern motorcycle helmets have excellent
ventilation.
> [
> The average heat output from a persons head while seated (like
> watching TV, or motorcycling) is 20W.
>
> When cycling, this can go up to 160W. Bike helmets /need/ a lot of
> ventilation.
This bit however is true - you will get hot in a full face helmet. It has
much more padding etc than a bicycle helmet which is effectively just (part
of ) the outer polystyrene.
>
> There are studies which show the negative effect of sealed helmets on
> the judgement and abilities of people taking part in physical activity
> due to the heat stress created..
Quite possible, though I've rode a motorcycle for hours on a really hot day
and not noticed too many ill effects - vents work pretty well as long as
you're moving
G
Gawnsoft
Guest
On Sun, 22 Aug 2004 14:33:22 +0100, "dwb" <[email protected]>
wrote (more or less):
>Gawnsoft wrote:
....
>> 2) Motorcycle helmets are sealed over. There is very little, or no,
>> ventilation.
>
>Complete and utter tosh - modern motorcycle helmets have excellent
>ventilation.
Compare the ventilation on a motorbike helmet, with the ventilation on
a bicycle helmet.
Then get back to me again.
>
>> [
>> The average heat output from a persons head while seated (like
>> watching TV, or motorcycling) is 20W.
>>
>> When cycling, this can go up to 160W. Bike helmets /need/ a lot of
>> ventilation.
>
>This bit however is true - you will get hot in a full face helmet.
Or in an old open-face motorbike helmet. It has no ventilation fo the
top of the head either.
>It has
>much more padding etc than a bicycle helmet which is effectively just (part
>of ) the outer polystyrene.
Exactly. The difference is in the ventilation.
>>
>> There are studies which show the negative effect of sealed helmets on
>> the judgement and abilities of people taking part in physical activity
>> due to the heat stress created..
>
>Quite possible, though I've rode a motorcycle for hours on a really hot day
>and not noticed too many ill effects - vents work pretty well as long as
>you're moving
That's because on a motorbike you sare, essentially, sedentary.
A motorbiker does not have to provide /any/ motive power for himself
or his vehicle. his motorbike provides /all/ of it.
The bike does the bulk of the work. (As you said earler, the only
work the rider has to do is in keeping in the same seated position,
(plus a little upper body movement to help unbalance the bike for
cornering).
A cyclist, on the otherhand can be putting out over 800 Watts, and 20%
of that comes out from the top of the head.
--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
wrote (more or less):
>Gawnsoft wrote:
....
>> 2) Motorcycle helmets are sealed over. There is very little, or no,
>> ventilation.
>
>Complete and utter tosh - modern motorcycle helmets have excellent
>ventilation.
Compare the ventilation on a motorbike helmet, with the ventilation on
a bicycle helmet.
Then get back to me again.
>
>> [
>> The average heat output from a persons head while seated (like
>> watching TV, or motorcycling) is 20W.
>>
>> When cycling, this can go up to 160W. Bike helmets /need/ a lot of
>> ventilation.
>
>This bit however is true - you will get hot in a full face helmet.
Or in an old open-face motorbike helmet. It has no ventilation fo the
top of the head either.
>It has
>much more padding etc than a bicycle helmet which is effectively just (part
>of ) the outer polystyrene.
Exactly. The difference is in the ventilation.
>>
>> There are studies which show the negative effect of sealed helmets on
>> the judgement and abilities of people taking part in physical activity
>> due to the heat stress created..
>
>Quite possible, though I've rode a motorcycle for hours on a really hot day
>and not noticed too many ill effects - vents work pretty well as long as
>you're moving
That's because on a motorbike you sare, essentially, sedentary.
A motorbiker does not have to provide /any/ motive power for himself
or his vehicle. his motorbike provides /all/ of it.
The bike does the bulk of the work. (As you said earler, the only
work the rider has to do is in keeping in the same seated position,
(plus a little upper body movement to help unbalance the bike for
cornering).
A cyclist, on the otherhand can be putting out over 800 Watts, and 20%
of that comes out from the top of the head.
--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
D
dwb
Guest
Gawnsoft wrote:
>>> 2) Motorcycle helmets are sealed over. There is very little, or
>>> no, ventilation.
>>
>> Complete and utter tosh - modern motorcycle helmets have excellent
>> ventilation.
>
> Compare the ventilation on a motorbike helmet, with the ventilation on
> a bicycle helmet.
>
> Then get back to me again.
Here I am - your claim (written above!) was "there is very little or no
ventilation". I said that was rubbish, because it is. I at no point claimed
a helmet that only covers the top of your head is not going to have better
ventilation.
Suggest you write what you mean, rather than adding meaning to it later.
>>
>> This bit however is true - you will get hot in a full face helmet.
>
> Or in an old open-face motorbike helmet. It has no ventilation fo the
> top of the head either.
What about an old cycle helmet then? They're weren't so good on ventilation
either.
Why do you have to use 'old'? You appear to have a problem with anything you
say possibly being 'wrong', but I do find your 'counter arguments' most odd.
> Exactly. The difference is in the ventilation.
>
>>>
>>> There are studies which show the negative effect of sealed helmets
>>> on the judgement and abilities of people taking part in physical
>>> activity due to the heat stress created..
>>
>> Quite possible, though I've rode a motorcycle for hours on a really
>> hot day and not noticed too many ill effects - vents work pretty
>> well as long as you're moving
>
> That's because on a motorbike you sare, essentially, sedentary.
Ever watched a MotoGP bike race? They're anything but sedentary. Not saying
that's the norm, but that's where the helmets are developed and those guys
are climbing around for an hour at a time.
>
> A motorbiker does not have to provide /any/ motive power for himself
> or his vehicle. his motorbike provides /all/ of it.
Except when it breaks down
>
> The bike does the bulk of the work. (As you said earler, the only
> work the rider has to do is in keeping in the same seated position,
> (plus a little upper body movement to help unbalance the bike for
> cornering).
Not strictly true - it's dependant on the bike and the style of riding. But
yes, if you're popping down the chippy the movement is going to be
negligible.
>
> A cyclist, on the otherhand can be putting out over 800 Watts, and 20%
> of that comes out from the top of the head.
So we're agreeing with each other. Great.
>>> 2) Motorcycle helmets are sealed over. There is very little, or
>>> no, ventilation.
>>
>> Complete and utter tosh - modern motorcycle helmets have excellent
>> ventilation.
>
> Compare the ventilation on a motorbike helmet, with the ventilation on
> a bicycle helmet.
>
> Then get back to me again.
Here I am - your claim (written above!) was "there is very little or no
ventilation". I said that was rubbish, because it is. I at no point claimed
a helmet that only covers the top of your head is not going to have better
ventilation.
Suggest you write what you mean, rather than adding meaning to it later.
>>
>> This bit however is true - you will get hot in a full face helmet.
>
> Or in an old open-face motorbike helmet. It has no ventilation fo the
> top of the head either.
What about an old cycle helmet then? They're weren't so good on ventilation
either.
Why do you have to use 'old'? You appear to have a problem with anything you
say possibly being 'wrong', but I do find your 'counter arguments' most odd.
> Exactly. The difference is in the ventilation.
>
>>>
>>> There are studies which show the negative effect of sealed helmets
>>> on the judgement and abilities of people taking part in physical
>>> activity due to the heat stress created..
>>
>> Quite possible, though I've rode a motorcycle for hours on a really
>> hot day and not noticed too many ill effects - vents work pretty
>> well as long as you're moving
>
> That's because on a motorbike you sare, essentially, sedentary.
Ever watched a MotoGP bike race? They're anything but sedentary. Not saying
that's the norm, but that's where the helmets are developed and those guys
are climbing around for an hour at a time.
>
> A motorbiker does not have to provide /any/ motive power for himself
> or his vehicle. his motorbike provides /all/ of it.
Except when it breaks down
>
> The bike does the bulk of the work. (As you said earler, the only
> work the rider has to do is in keeping in the same seated position,
> (plus a little upper body movement to help unbalance the bike for
> cornering).
Not strictly true - it's dependant on the bike and the style of riding. But
yes, if you're popping down the chippy the movement is going to be
negligible.
>
> A cyclist, on the otherhand can be putting out over 800 Watts, and 20%
> of that comes out from the top of the head.
So we're agreeing with each other. Great.
D
davek
Guest
Gawnsoft wrote:
> Compare the ventilation on a motorbike helmet, with the ventilation on
> a bicycle helmet.
Indeed. Your head gets hot just riding as a passenger on a motorbike. I
can't imagine how hot it would get if you wore a full motorbike helmet
while cycling.
I've thought of another difficulty - it would be hard to take drink
while cycling in a full face motorbike helmet.
Don't F1 drivers have water and oxygen supplies to their helmets?
> A cyclist, on the otherhand can be putting out over 800 Watts, and 20%
> of that comes out from the top of the head.
"Can be". Yer average cyclist just pootling about probably does a lot
less work than Valentino Rossi in full flight. But those are two such
wildly different sets of circumstances as to not bear comparison.
Those fairings worn by track cyclists and time triallists must get their
heads pretty hot.
d.
> Compare the ventilation on a motorbike helmet, with the ventilation on
> a bicycle helmet.
Indeed. Your head gets hot just riding as a passenger on a motorbike. I
can't imagine how hot it would get if you wore a full motorbike helmet
while cycling.
I've thought of another difficulty - it would be hard to take drink
while cycling in a full face motorbike helmet.
Don't F1 drivers have water and oxygen supplies to their helmets?
> A cyclist, on the otherhand can be putting out over 800 Watts, and 20%
> of that comes out from the top of the head.
"Can be". Yer average cyclist just pootling about probably does a lot
less work than Valentino Rossi in full flight. But those are two such
wildly different sets of circumstances as to not bear comparison.
Those fairings worn by track cyclists and time triallists must get their
heads pretty hot.
d.
G
Gawnsoft
Guest
On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 10:41:55 +0100, "dwb" <[email protected]>
wrote (more or less):
>Gawnsoft wrote:
>
>>>> 2) Motorcycle helmets are sealed over. There is very little, or
>>>> no, ventilation.
>>>
>>> Complete and utter tosh - modern motorcycle helmets have excellent
>>> ventilation.
>>
>> Compare the ventilation on a motorbike helmet, with the ventilation on
>> a bicycle helmet.
>>
>> Then get back to me again.
>
>Here I am - your claim (written above!) was "there is very little or no
>ventilation". I said that was rubbish, because it is. I at no point claimed
>a helmet that only covers the top of your head is not going to have better
>ventilation.
>
>Suggest you write what you mean, rather than adding meaning to it later.
I did. There is little or no ventilation in a motorcycle helmet.
Whether that is adequate for motorcyclists is beside the point.
>>> This bit however is true - you will get hot in a full face helmet.
>>
>> Or in an old open-face motorbike helmet. It has no ventilation fo the
>> top of the head either.
>
>What about an old cycle helmet then? They're weren't so good on ventilation
>either.
>Why do you have to use 'old'? You appear to have a problem with anything you
>say possibly being 'wrong', but I do find your 'counter arguments' most odd.
>
>> Exactly. The difference is in the ventilation.
>>
>>>>
>>>> There are studies which show the negative effect of sealed helmets
>>>> on the judgement and abilities of people taking part in physical
>>>> activity due to the heat stress created..
>>>
>>> Quite possible, though I've rode a motorcycle for hours on a really
>>> hot day and not noticed too many ill effects - vents work pretty
>>> well as long as you're moving
>>
>> That's because on a motorbike you sare, essentially, sedentary.
>
>
>Ever watched a MotoGP bike race? They're anything but sedentary. Not saying
>that's the norm, but that's where the helmets are developed and those guys
>are climbing around for an hour at a time.
True, but watch them again, analytically.
They never have to provide motive power for the bikes.
On the straight, they don't need to move their torsos.
On the curves, while it looks like they are moving their torsos
relative to the bike, it's because they move the bike a lot, and are
attempting not to move their torso /as much as that/.
>>
>> A motorbiker does not have to provide /any/ motive power for himself
>> or his vehicle. his motorbike provides /all/ of it.
>
>Except when it breaks down
Does he continue to wear his helmet once he is pushing a broken-down
bike?
All the bikers I've seen pushing have had their helmets on their arms
or on their bike.
>>
>> The bike does the bulk of the work. (As you said earler, the only
>> work the rider has to do is in keeping in the same seated position,
>> (plus a little upper body movement to help unbalance the bike for
>> cornering).
>
>Not strictly true - it's dependant on the bike and the style of riding. But
>yes, if you're popping down the chippy the movement is going to be
>negligible.
>
>>
>> A cyclist, on the otherhand can be putting out over 800 Watts, and 20%
>> of that comes out from the top of the head.
>
>So we're agreeing with each other. Great.
We don't seem to be. You think that a) motorbiking is a high exercise
activity, and b) motorbike helmets are highly ventilated.
I think the opposite.
--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
wrote (more or less):
>Gawnsoft wrote:
>
>>>> 2) Motorcycle helmets are sealed over. There is very little, or
>>>> no, ventilation.
>>>
>>> Complete and utter tosh - modern motorcycle helmets have excellent
>>> ventilation.
>>
>> Compare the ventilation on a motorbike helmet, with the ventilation on
>> a bicycle helmet.
>>
>> Then get back to me again.
>
>Here I am - your claim (written above!) was "there is very little or no
>ventilation". I said that was rubbish, because it is. I at no point claimed
>a helmet that only covers the top of your head is not going to have better
>ventilation.
>
>Suggest you write what you mean, rather than adding meaning to it later.
I did. There is little or no ventilation in a motorcycle helmet.
Whether that is adequate for motorcyclists is beside the point.
>>> This bit however is true - you will get hot in a full face helmet.
>>
>> Or in an old open-face motorbike helmet. It has no ventilation fo the
>> top of the head either.
>
>What about an old cycle helmet then? They're weren't so good on ventilation
>either.
>Why do you have to use 'old'? You appear to have a problem with anything you
>say possibly being 'wrong', but I do find your 'counter arguments' most odd.
>
>> Exactly. The difference is in the ventilation.
>>
>>>>
>>>> There are studies which show the negative effect of sealed helmets
>>>> on the judgement and abilities of people taking part in physical
>>>> activity due to the heat stress created..
>>>
>>> Quite possible, though I've rode a motorcycle for hours on a really
>>> hot day and not noticed too many ill effects - vents work pretty
>>> well as long as you're moving
>>
>> That's because on a motorbike you sare, essentially, sedentary.
>
>
>Ever watched a MotoGP bike race? They're anything but sedentary. Not saying
>that's the norm, but that's where the helmets are developed and those guys
>are climbing around for an hour at a time.
True, but watch them again, analytically.
They never have to provide motive power for the bikes.
On the straight, they don't need to move their torsos.
On the curves, while it looks like they are moving their torsos
relative to the bike, it's because they move the bike a lot, and are
attempting not to move their torso /as much as that/.
>>
>> A motorbiker does not have to provide /any/ motive power for himself
>> or his vehicle. his motorbike provides /all/ of it.
>
>Except when it breaks down
Does he continue to wear his helmet once he is pushing a broken-down
bike?
All the bikers I've seen pushing have had their helmets on their arms
or on their bike.
>>
>> The bike does the bulk of the work. (As you said earler, the only
>> work the rider has to do is in keeping in the same seated position,
>> (plus a little upper body movement to help unbalance the bike for
>> cornering).
>
>Not strictly true - it's dependant on the bike and the style of riding. But
>yes, if you're popping down the chippy the movement is going to be
>negligible.
>
>>
>> A cyclist, on the otherhand can be putting out over 800 Watts, and 20%
>> of that comes out from the top of the head.
>
>So we're agreeing with each other. Great.
We don't seem to be. You think that a) motorbiking is a high exercise
activity, and b) motorbike helmets are highly ventilated.
I think the opposite.
--
Cheers,
Euan
Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr
Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk
Similar threads
