[email protected] a écrit :
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:42:35 -0600, "Bestest Handsander"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>> Neither the aerodynamics nor the "extra" vents created by
>>> adding a rib across an existing hole are likely to be
>>> noticeable in blind helmet testing.
>>>
>>> That is, the rider couldn't tell which helmet he was wearing
>>> if he closed his eyes while someone else buckled the strap
>>> under his chin.
>>>
>>> Indeed, it's not likely that the rider could tell the
>>> slightly lighter models from the slightly heavier models.
>>> Carl Fogel
>> Source? I mean this opinion of yours is based upon some data... not just
>> your assumptions, correct?
>>
>
> Dear BH,
>
> Go to a local bike shop and enlist the aid of a puzzled
> employee.
>
> With his help, pick out ten helmets and adjust their straps.
> Turn your back, have him buckle one on your head, go for a
> ride, and close your eyes when you come back and take it
> off.
>
> Repeat, making sure that your helper occasionally gives you
> the same helmet again.
>
> Let us know if you could tell how many vents were on each
> helmet, how heavy it was, and what its aerodynamics were.
>
> Or even when he gave you the same one again.
>
> I predict that you won't enjoy much success.
>
> We distinguish bicycle helmets by sight. Once they're in
> place, we can't see the colors, logos, number of vents that
> aren't touching our heads, or much of anything else.
>
> You might be able to notice a wildly different time trial
> helmet with a duck's-butt back or an "old-school" helmet
> that looks more like a hockey helmet.
>
> But the rest of them are pretty much the same as socks of
> roughly the same thickness. Even the vents are typically so
> similar that buyers count them by hand and feel satisfied
> when they reach a higher number of holes created by slapping
> a rib across an existing hole.
>
> I may seem cynical, but it turns out that I'm not cynical
> enough. I just saw a post nearby from Chalo that mentions
> that Bell and Giro are actually the same company--fooled me!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Carl Fogel
Carl -
Since you're so fond of making things up, I can't add here in the same
way. But I wear a helmet, and can add insight, just maybe.
I have one helmet, Selev Alien, which fits the contours of my skull
perfectly. However, the front of it has a little bit of a beak, and
that is really distracting when in the drops. I got a heavier
replacement, the Selev Martix, also cost a little more, and it is
cooler, has not distracting protrusion, and the straps fit better.
Within the Matrix, there were color choices. I didn't decide to take
the Mao Tse Tung approach, and chose one I liked - blue white red
(different blue and red, as this is in France). I didn't pay more for
the color. Cooling is also better, and that is another safety factor.
The front pads are better placed for me, and sweat doesn't stream
directly into my eyes any longer. And I will likely not get woozy from
being overheated.
On another front, I did crash in the first race of the year, and
(nearly) enjoyed the feeling of hearing the (different) helmet
progressively crack as I did a double bounce I suspect that ANY helmet
that is certified and fits my skull would do, no question. I think
comfortable fit indicates the more likely an impact will be well
distributed, so it doesn't matter what the cost differences are. Not to
my skull.
As to style, I DO get the impression that you want us to wear uniforms
in all environments. You may deny that freely, but it's clear in your
text. Also clear in your text, you think that spending money many only
be rationally done. And for you, rationally means only as you see fit.
Not everyone will agree with that. We ought to send a team of
inspectors to your digs to see what you have in your cupboards in terms
of clothes. It could tell the real story. Or, maybe they would vomit ;
who knows.
More, you don't like people making money, seemingly ANY money, from the
wishes of a buyer to have what he wants. It's only because of
ridiculous and unreal standards like the ones you promulgate, that
people would feel obliged to say their helmet choices are due to
exceptional quality and design. Really, they bought something pretty,
and find it no longer acceptable to be seen as wanting that - they are
forced to come up with some lame-brained technical slop to defend their
choices. Balenciaga evening gowns probably don't seem at place at work,
but some women buy them, and wear them in suitable environments. They
are not BAD women. It's cool that women find no shame in looking good,
at least from my point of view. It's my tickle[sic]-down theory.
So, if you wear a helmet, fine. If it's ugly and that pleases you,
fine. But your whole line of thinking makes it seem that fields of corn
grown for ethanol use in extremely efficient mini-cars is more pleasant
to view than a single beautiful flower that serves no particular
purpose. That's what you are writing, in your own inimitable style, and
I think it's ****.
--
Bonne route
Sandy
His statements stand for themselves. You claiming your $39
