Paramount

Michael Warner said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

You're an anti-cyclist. A person who rides but is, in the big scheme
of things, hurting cycling with your views.

<plonk>

I thought spirited discussion was part of the fun of Usenet?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Sun, 08 Jul 2007 19:47:11 -0700, Michael Press <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden].
net>,

Michael Press said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Try to guess which helmet sells for $175, which for $85, and which for
$24:

http://www.performancebike.com/product_images/250/40-3784-BWH-ANGLE.jpg

$85

Quoted message said:

http://www.performancebike.com/product_images/250/40-3693-RDS-ANGLE.jpg

$175

Quoted message said:

http://www.performancebike.com/product_images/250/40-3688-BWH-ANGLE.jpg

$24

So, Carl, how did I do?

0/3

1) $175
http://www.performancebike.com/product_images/250/40-3784-BWH-ANGLE.jpg

2) $24
http://www.performancebike.com/product_images/250/40-3693-RDS-ANGLE.jpg

3) $85
http://www.performancebike.com/product_images/250/40-3688-BWH-ANGLE.jpg

***

1) $174.99 helmet = Giro Atmos Road Helmet
http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=24221&subcategory_ID=4210
http://www.performancebike.com/product_images/250/40-3784-BWH-ANGLE.jpg
......................................................____
26 vents, 240 grams, RocLoc 4 retention system
three sizes
"The Atmos is the perfect marriage of sleek styling, strength and
ventilation." available 08-31-2007

***

2) $23.99 helmet = 2007 Giro Transfer Sport Helmet
http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=23108&subcategory_ID=4210
http://www.performancebike.com/product_images/250/40-3693-RDS-ANGLE.jpg
......................................................____
20 vents, 255 grams, accu-lock retention system
single size
"Competitive styling at a great price!"

***

3) $84.99 helmet = 2007 Giro Monza Road Helmet
http://www.performancebike.com/shop/profile.cfm?SKU=23120&subcategory_ID=4210
http://www.performancebike.com/product_images/50/40-3688-BWH-ANGLE.jpg
.....................................................____
24 vents, 265 grams, RocLoc 4 retention system
three sizes
"Designed to inspire racers and club riders alike with top-level
features and styling usually only the pros get to enjoy."

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

I thought spirited discussion was part of the fun of Usenet?

I thoroughly enjoy a good argument, although I don't read these
bike groups with that in mind, since (a) most people here know
much more about bikes than I do, and (b) I already inhabit a
non-topic-specific discussion group on a private server, and much
prefer not having to worry about trying to stay on-topic.

IMHO worthwhile "spirited discussion" doesn't include being targeted
with increasingly outlandish, humourless insults intended only to provoke
the same reaction and start a flame war. Once I see this behaviour, I
plonk people.

Another indicator that one is dealing with a relentless zealot is the
constant creation of straw men. This one has somehow concluded that
I'm in favour of mandatory helmet laws for adults everywhere, and that I'd
always wear one if I had a choice. Neither is the case, FWIW.

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the
table's surface is reduced.

No, force does NOT remain constant.

You guys are pathetic. You're so emotionally invested in this lid biz that
you won't even admit that padding reduces the impact of, for example, a
hammer on a table top. (Or a golf robot swing thing hitting a bare golf
ball and then one with a little fuzzy sweater on it.)

Frank IS right about one thing, at least. These helmet threads do not
belong in wreck tech. It's not a technical subject. (In fact it's
literally subjective.)

The topic in general and of MHLs in particular does have a place in cycling
newsgroups, of course: rec.soc or .laws, not .tech.

Go ride your bikes.

Flame away, Frank -- you're plonked.

BS

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the
table's surface is reduced.

No, force does NOT remain constant.

You guys are pathetic. You're so emotionally invested in this lid biz that
you won't even admit that padding reduces the impact of, for example, a
hammer on a table top.

We might if you put it this way, but those boring engineering types get
belingerent if laymen start using force, velocity, kinetic energy etc
interchangably 😉

--
/Marten

info(apestaartje)m-gineering(punt)nl

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 13:17:56 +0930, Michael Warner <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

You're an anti-cyclist. A person who rides but is, in the big scheme
of things, hurting cycling with your views.

<plonk>

It would be far more helpful if you stopped posting about helmet and
thought/read about them more.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

On Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:18:20 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

These helmet threads do not
belong in wreck tech. It's not a technical subject. (In fact it's
literally subjective.)

It's arguably not bike tech so perhaps it doesn't belong here, but
it's assurdely technical in the sense that numbers and logic can
improve our understanding of what helmets tend to do or not due.

To say that is subjective is a clear example of your disdain for
trying to better understand reality. That's why you are wrong on so
many things.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Michael Warner said:

Quoted message said:

I did that, and it worked quite well. An hour with the dremel gave it
significantly better ventilation (I first did one side, then went for
a ride to get a somewhat fair comparison). It went from around 280
grams initially to around 180 grams when I was done

I think 180g is about what fancy poseur helmets weigh. I still use
the AUD$40 ones, which are probably about 250g.

I used to think they were about that light too, but the new ones I've
weighed recently have come in around 260-300 grams, even mid- to high-
end models. I hate to sound like a retro-grouch but I think helmets
might have passed their prime, both in light weight and drop heights.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>, John

Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:35:56 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
wrote: {ABOUT WHAT?!?}

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> Brain injury?!? How about a nasty owwie?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You will get little or no argument that helmets can reduce cuts
and scrape over the area they cover, if you fall and hit your head
that way.

Quoted message said:

I certainly wouldn't argue against helmets as providing protection
from abrasions, lacerations or bruises.

Then why do you keep injecting brain injuries into the conversation?

Because that's what helmets are marketed to protect against.

Michael Warner said:

Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman said:

I thought spirited discussion was part of the fun of Usenet?

I thoroughly enjoy a good argument, although I don't read these
bike groups with that in mind, since (a) most people here know
much more about bikes than I do, and (b) I already inhabit a
non-topic-specific discussion group on a private server, and much
prefer not having to worry about trying to stay on-topic.

IMHO worthwhile "spirited discussion" doesn't include being targeted
with increasingly outlandish, humourless insults intended only to provoke
the same reaction and start a flame war. Once I see this behaviour, I
plonk people.

Another indicator that one is dealing with a relentless zealot is the
constant creation of straw men. This one has somehow concluded that
I'm in favour of mandatory helmet laws for adults everywhere, and that I'd
always wear one if I had a choice. Neither is the case, FWIW.

Welcome to hemet threads! Although the posters have changed a little
over the last 10 years, the content and tone have not. In the past,
there has been some useful information exchanged, but that is drying
up as later threads become short-hand for earlier threads. The later
threads skip over the information and go right to the name calling,
particularly when cross-posted to the U.K. groups. This is a rather
tame go-round by recent standards. -- Jay Beattie.

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

On Jul 8, 2:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the
table's surface is reduced.

Quoted message said:

No, force does NOT remain constant.

You guys are pathetic. You're so emotionally invested in this lid biz that
you won't even admit that padding reduces the impact of, for example, a
hammer on a table top. (Or a golf robot swing thing hitting a bare golf
ball and then one with a little fuzzy sweater on it.)

Frank IS right about one thing, at least. These helmet threads do not
belong in wreck tech. It's not a technical subject. (In fact it's
literally subjective.)

Actually, discussion on whether helmets reduce "force" or "impact" ARE
technical. Those terms have precise meanings, and they can be used
correctly or wrongly. (IOW, some posts really do deserve red marks.)
Many of us can learn from those technical discussions.

Similarly, evaluation of helmet performance data is math-intensive and
technical, as is a lot of the helmet issue. Granted, your typical
insults (things like "Oh, go smack your head against a wall! LOL!"😉
are decidedly non-technical.

But I note that your little attempt at physics ("Force remains
constant"😉 ended in dismal failure. It's probably best that you stay
out of technical discussions.

- Frank Krygowski

Jay Beattie said:

Welcome to hemet threads! Although the posters have changed a little
over the last 10 years, the content and tone have not.

Well, it _is_ discouraging when people will post to these threads for
10 years without bothering to read any of the science that's available
on the subject!

Try www.cyclehelmets.org, Jay.

- Frank Krygowski

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Bill Sornson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In article <[email hidden]>, John
Forrest Tomlinson <[email hidden]> wrote:

> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007 15:35:56 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]>
> wrote: {ABOUT WHAT?!?}

Quoted message said:

>> Brain injury?!? How about a nasty owwie?

Quoted message said:

> You will get little or no argument that helmets can reduce cuts
> and scrape over the area they cover, if you fall and hit your head
> that way.

Quoted message said:

I certainly wouldn't argue against helmets as providing protection
from abrasions, lacerations or bruises.

Then why do you keep injecting brain injuries into the conversation?

Because that's what helmets are marketed to protect against.

But that's not what is being discussed here.

M-gineering said:

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

On Jul 8, 2:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
> the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on
> the table's surface is reduced.
No, force does NOT remain constant.

You guys are pathetic. You're so emotionally invested in this lid
biz that you won't even admit that padding reduces the impact of,
for example, a hammer on a table top.

We might if you put it this way, but those boring engineering types
get belingerent if laymen start using force, velocity, kinetic energy
etc interchangably 😉

Agreed...but I didn't. I /did/ say that force is not necessarily the same
as impact, when some variable (such as a pad or buffer or barrier) is
introduced.

I mistakenly read this group to learn about /cycling/ matters, since I'm not
much of a mechanic and am relatively new to road bikes. A helmet is just a
"plastic hat", after all; you'd think all these "boring engineering types"
would be above discussing such a lowly subject...TO DEATH. <eg>

Oh, well. JB will come along and post a political piece soon and get the
group back on track...

BS

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

Quoted message said:

On Jul 8, 2:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
> the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the
> table's surface is reduced.

Quoted message said:

No, force does NOT remain constant.

You guys are pathetic. You're so emotionally invested in this lid biz that
you won't even admit that padding reduces the impact of, for example, a
hammer on a table top. (Or a golf robot swing thing hitting a bare golf
ball and then one with a little fuzzy sweater on it.)

Frank IS right about one thing, at least. These helmet threads do not
belong in wreck tech. It's not a technical subject. (In fact it's
literally subjective.)

Actually, discussion on whether helmets reduce "force" or "impact" ARE
technical. Those terms have precise meanings, and they can be used
correctly or wrongly.

What's the technical meaning of "impact"?

Quoted message said:

Jay Beattie said:

Welcome to hemet threads! Although the posters have changed a little
over the last 10 years, the content and tone have not.

Well, it _is_ discouraging when people will post to these threads for
10 years without bothering to read any of the science that's available
on the subject!

Trywww.cyclehelmets.org, Jay.

Frank, I was reading that [censored] before I even started posting to this
group. It was a work requirement -- particularly those studies
showing that helmets reduce focal injury (such as skull frature). I
had a spate of fork failure cases 10-15 years ago involving helmetless
bohemians who smacked their noggins (fractures, stitches mostly -- and
MBI). I talked to real MD/PhD biomechanics about the protective
benefits of bicycle helmets -- in those cases and several others.

Regrettably, the MHL in Oregon did away with my comparative fault
defense based on the failure to wear a helmet. The local anti-MHL
people ignore the fact that the Oregon law says that evidence of
failure to wear a helmet is not admissible in a personal injury
action. This protects adults who are not even subject to the law
(which only requires that kids wear helmets).

Note that wearing a helmet is often a credibility booster for the
plaintiff in MBI cases. I have had to look at a fair number of cracked
helmets and had to endure plaintiffs and their lawyers pointing and
saying "ahah, there, you see -- it was a serious impact. It cracked
the helmet." It's like body damage in an auto case. We never even get
in to the evidentiary value of helmets on this NG. I suppose if you
don't wear a helmet, you get a laceration or a skull fracture -- which
is even more dramatic evidence of impact, but then the jury goes "why
weren't you wearing a helmet"? Wear a helmet. Collect evidence
without getting stitches. Never know when something on one of these
uber-light bikes might break and send you OTB.

BTW, I do not represent motorists or their insurers in auto v. bike
cases -- only manufacturers and sellers in products cases. The
accidents I see generally involve falls and not impacts with cars,
except for the very rare case against a helmet manufacturer. I had a
case against a helmet manufacturer brought by a cyclist who got hit by
a Taurus and broke his neck. Didn't pay a dime on that since, as you
know, helmets don't magically prevent neck injuries. -- Jay Beattie.

In article
<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

You complain about people who say you're not very intelligent. But do
you ever stop to think that you're the ONLY one who can't grasp that
Usenet shows context in prior posts? Despite having it explained to
you literally dozens of times?

When you are using google groups
you are not necessarily fully adhering to
Usenet standards and usage.
gg shows context through a web interface
and does not always quote context in replies.

--
Michael Press

Jay Beattie said:

Quoted message said:

Jay Beattie said:

Welcome to hemet threads! Although the posters have changed a little
over the last 10 years, the content and tone have not.

Well, it _is_ discouraging when people will post to these threads for
10 years without bothering to read any of the science that's available
on the subject!

Trywww.cyclehelmets.org, Jay.

Frank, I was reading that [censored] before I even started posting to this
group. It was a work requirement -- particularly those studies
showing that helmets reduce focal injury (such as skull frature). I
had a spate of fork failure cases 10-15 years ago involving helmetless
bohemians who smacked their noggins (fractures, stitches mostly -- and
MBI). I talked to real MD/PhD biomechanics about the protective
benefits of bicycle helmets -- in those cases and several others.

Regrettably, the MHL in Oregon did away with my comparative fault
defense based on the failure to wear a helmet. The local anti-MHL
people ignore the fact that the Oregon law says that evidence of
failure to wear a helmet is not admissible in a personal injury
action. This protects adults who are not even subject to the law
(which only requires that kids wear helmets).

Note that wearing a helmet is often a credibility booster for the
plaintiff in MBI cases. I have had to look at a fair number of cracked
helmets and had to endure plaintiffs and their lawyers pointing and
saying "ahah, there, you see -- it was a serious impact. It cracked
the helmet." It's like body damage in an auto case. We never even get
in to the evidentiary value of helmets on this NG. I suppose if you
don't wear a helmet, you get a laceration or a skull fracture -- which
is even more dramatic evidence of impact, but then the jury goes "why
weren't you wearing a helmet"? Wear a helmet. Collect evidence
without getting stitches. Never know when something on one of these
uber-light bikes might break and send you OTB.

BTW, I do not represent motorists or their insurers in auto v. bike
cases -- only manufacturers and sellers in products cases. The
accidents I see generally involve falls and not impacts with cars,
except for the very rare case against a helmet manufacturer. I had a
case against a helmet manufacturer brought by a cyclist who got hit by
a Taurus and broke his neck. Didn't pay a dime on that since, as you
know, helmets don't magically prevent neck injuries. -- Jay Beattie.

Dear Jay,

No offense, but are you confusing law and money with science and
physics?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Dans le message de news:[email hidden],
[email hidden] <[email hidden]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré
:

Quoted message said:

Jay Beattie said:

Quoted message said:

On Jul 9, 11:15 am, Jay Beattie <[email hidden]> wrote:

> Welcome to hemet threads! Although the posters have changed a
> little over the last 10 years, the content and tone have not.

Well, it _is_ discouraging when people will post to these threads
for 10 years without bothering to read any of the science that's
available on the subject!

Trywww.cyclehelmets.org, Jay.

Frank, I was reading that [censored] before I even started posting to this
group. It was a work requirement -- particularly those studies
showing that helmets reduce focal injury (such as skull frature). I
had a spate of fork failure cases 10-15 years ago involving
helmetless bohemians who smacked their noggins (fractures, stitches
mostly -- and MBI). I talked to real MD/PhD biomechanics about the
protective benefits of bicycle helmets -- in those cases and several
others.

Regrettably, the MHL in Oregon did away with my comparative fault
defense based on the failure to wear a helmet. The local anti-MHL
people ignore the fact that the Oregon law says that evidence of
failure to wear a helmet is not admissible in a personal injury
action. This protects adults who are not even subject to the law
(which only requires that kids wear helmets).

Note that wearing a helmet is often a credibility booster for the
plaintiff in MBI cases. I have had to look at a fair number of
cracked helmets and had to endure plaintiffs and their lawyers
pointing and saying "ahah, there, you see -- it was a serious
impact. It cracked the helmet." It's like body damage in an auto
case. We never even get in to the evidentiary value of helmets on
this NG. I suppose if you don't wear a helmet, you get a laceration
or a skull fracture -- which is even more dramatic evidence of
impact, but then the jury goes "why weren't you wearing a helmet"?
Wear a helmet. Collect evidence without getting stitches. Never
know when something on one of these uber-light bikes might break and
send you OTB.

BTW, I do not represent motorists or their insurers in auto v. bike
cases -- only manufacturers and sellers in products cases. The
accidents I see generally involve falls and not impacts with cars,
except for the very rare case against a helmet manufacturer. I had a
case against a helmet manufacturer brought by a cyclist who got hit
by a Taurus and broke his neck. Didn't pay a dime on that since, as
you know, helmets don't magically prevent neck injuries. -- Jay
Beattie.

Dear Jay,

No offense, but are you confusing law and money with science and
physics?

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

Not want ting to answer for Jay, but it's scientists who confuse themselves
with porters of truth. For the greater part of the wold's population, i.e.,
non-scientists, experts are often seen as evangelists, especially when they
testify one against another in a simple lawsuit. How could it happen that
scientists come to different conclusions, if science must be true? Well,
blowhards of all types and orientations claim to know answers, and opposing
views (how could THAT be!?) are resolved by people who may not have that
heavenly gift of always knowing the ultimate truths. Sometimes wrong,
sometimes right, and almost always unpredictably.

Currently, there is a controversy, politically supported, in favor of
blaming mankind for global warming, and opposed by what appears to be a
minority of differing scientists.

And currently, pseudoscientists in this forum are presenting opinions based
on limited data and even more limited testing and "scientific principles" to
suggest your yellow half-globe is just decoration, and inimical to your
health at that.

To the first dilemma, let's wait 10,000 years and see who was righter.

For the second, let's pick nice colors or well groomed haircuts and leave it
at that.
--
Sandy
--
S'endormir au volant, c'est très dangereux.
S'endormir à vélo, c'est très rare.
S'endormir à pied, c'est très con.
- Geluck, P.

Ben C said:

Quoted message said:

Bill Sornson said:

[email hidden] wrote:
> On Jul 8, 2:55 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> Hit a table with a hammer. Now put a pad down and hit the pad with
>> the same /force/ as before. Force remains constant; /impact/ on the
>> table's surface is reduced.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> No, force does NOT remain constant.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You guys are pathetic. You're so emotionally invested in this lid bizthat
you won't even admit that padding reduces the impact of, for example, a
hammer on a table top. (Or a golf robot swing thing hitting a bare golf
ball and then one with a little fuzzy sweater on it.)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Frank IS right about one thing, at least. These helmet threads do not
belong in wreck tech. It's not a technical subject. (In fact it's
literally subjective.)

Quoted message said:

Actually, discussion on whether helmets reduce "force" or "impact" ARE
technical. Those terms have precise meanings, and they can be used
correctly or wrongly.

What's the technical meaning of "impact"?

Dear Ben,

Technically, impact is the impulse of force. Even your fussiest carbon-
based life-forms tend to use the shorter phrase, even when being as
technical as possible:

"The product of average force and the time it is exerted is called the
impulse of force. . . . The main utility of the concept is in the
study of the average impact force during collisions. For collisions,
the mass and change in velocity are often readily measured, but the
force during the collision is not. If the time of collision can be
measured, then the average force of impact can be calculated."

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/impulse.html#c3

Browse down that page for an example of a duck (not wearing a helmet)
hitting a jet head on.

The detailed calculator requires the grisly detail of the length of
the duck because the part that goes over the fence last strikes the
600 mph jet slightly later than the beak.

There's even another calculator for glancing rather than head-on
impacts.

(But there's nothing about rotational effect, since the duck is
expected to go splat! in a fashion quite different from a typical bike
crash.)

The assumption is that, since the jet is so massive and the duck's
speed so trivial, we can make a reasonable estimate of impact using
only the jet speed and the duck's mass and length.

Alas, for helmets containing heads, such assumptions don't work well.

While the pavement doesn't dent noticeably and can be ignored, we
can't use the length of the head and helmet, since few bicycle crashes
spread the rider's brains as thinly as impromptu duck paté à la
jetliner. There's also that pesky rotational business, which more and
more medical studies suggest causes many bicycling brain injuries.

For the curious, here's a link to one helmet test, with heights,
weights, and what the head forms actually hit:

http://www.smf.org/standards/b/b90astd.html

http://www.smf.org/standards/pdf/b95rev.pdf

Note that such drop tests ignore the rotational problem--the severed
fake head in a helmet is simply dropped straight down onto various
anvil forms. Since few bicycle crashes involve a lack of forward
motion, this has been criticized as well-meant, but unrealistic.

But in case anyone wants to compare the impulse of force of ducks
hitting jets to severed heads dropping straight down, this calculator
will give free-fall speeds from tiny heights:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/traj.html

Cheers,

Carl Fogel