Yes, helmets work! - TwoWheelForum: Motorcycle and Sportbike forums
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
post #1 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 12:06 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,335
Yes, helmets work!

I believe I may have posted this before, but I couldn't find the original thread. Anyway, here it is again.





But this guy disagrees:


Last edited by Captain Morgan; 06-01-2007 at 12:14 AM.
Captain Morgan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 12:25 AM
First 1000 Member
 
dubbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 673
Send a message via AIM to dubbs
Tatoo Jesse is a retard in more ways then I care to describe..



Car - 2003 Honda S2000 - Black
Bike - 2007 Kawasaki ZZR600 - Black

Bike n Car Pics Updated 07 Pics

dubbs is offline  
post #3 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 12:31 AM
TWF Board Of Directors

 
Trip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 11,484
Send a message via AIM to Trip
Dale Earnhardt plowed his face through a steering wheel, it was a little more than a helmet snapping his neck.

I do agree with that guy about banning cellphones/food/drink while driving, msf for everyone, and 1 year in jail for DUIs as well.

2005 Honda CRF88RR - 2007 Honda CBR600RR
Trip is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #4 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 09:14 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 429
Is it true that the requirement on helmets is that they be able to withstand direct impact at just 14.5 miles/hour?
logan1 is offline  
post #5 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 09:41 AM Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip View Post
Dale Earnhardt plowed his face through a steering wheel, it was a little more than a helmet snapping his neck.

I do agree with that guy about banning cellphones/food/drink while driving, msf for everyone, and 1 year in jail for DUIs as well.
I agree with the above as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by logan1 View Post
Is it true that the requirement on helmets is that they be able to withstand direct impact at just 14.5 miles/hour?
Well, I don't see anything about a specific MPH, but I also didn't try to read the entire wording. http://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcyc...T-standard.htm
Captain Morgan is offline  
post #6 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 09:51 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 940
Quote:
Originally Posted by logan1 View Post
Is it true that the requirement on helmets is that they be able to withstand direct impact at just 14.5 miles/hour?

That's a little simplified: the actual TEST(S) involve multiple strikes on helmets for both penetration (a pointed striker) flat solid surface tests (dropped on a flat anvil with a headform inside) and curved solid surface tests (dropped on a curved anvil with a headform inside)...and multiple strike tests, where the helmet is re-subjected to strikes in the same area( to simulate your head bouncing along the road).

The MPH figures are deceiving: Fatal head injuries occur in the 7mph range (yep, truth). That's how fast your head would contact a solid surface at a drop from 4ft, unimpeded to a curved or pointed surface (like a rock). The fact is that you have to take into account how most bike accidents happen, and then factor in how most motorcycle head injuries occur to determine reasonable standards for helemt construction.

The old Snell standards were developed for racecar drivers, who were subjected to different types of headstrikes than bikers.....bikers were dying with incorrectly constructed Snell helmets. New Dot, Snell, and Ansi specs take into account the difference in motorcycle on auto accidents.

The mean speed motorcycle accidents occur at is 21 mph. Unless you suffer direct contact with your head (horizontal speed, NOT verticle speed) to a solid (like a brick wall....contact with an auto will be different because sheetmetal and plastic deform, absorbing energy) object, the helmet will most likely do it's job.

The problem with guys like "Tattoo Jesse" is that they never paid attention in physics class; (they were out smokin' a joint in the boys bathroom during the lecture on thermodynamics) therefore when they hear "14 mph" they only focus on that one small piece of info, not knowing that your helmet can absorb TWICE the lethal dose of kenetic energy (E=Mass*Velocity) in a single strike....much more if you calculate multiple strikes.

Last edited by oldetymebiker; 06-01-2007 at 09:54 AM.
oldetymebiker is offline  
post #7 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 10:27 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 136
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldetymebiker View Post
That's a little simplified: the actual TEST(S) involve multiple strikes on helmets for both penetration (a pointed striker) flat solid surface tests (dropped on a flat anvil with a headform inside) and curved solid surface tests (dropped on a curved anvil with a headform inside)...and multiple strike tests, where the helmet is re-subjected to strikes in the same area( to simulate your head bouncing along the road).

The MPH figures are deceiving: Fatal head injuries occur in the 7mph range (yep, truth). That's how fast your head would contact a solid surface at a drop from 4ft, unimpeded to a curved or pointed surface (like a rock). The fact is that you have to take into account how most bike accidents happen, and then factor in how most motorcycle head injuries occur to determine reasonable standards for helemt construction.

The old Snell standards were developed for racecar drivers, who were subjected to different types of headstrikes than bikers.....bikers were dying with incorrectly constructed Snell helmets. New Dot, Snell, and Ansi specs take into account the difference in motorcycle on auto accidents.

The mean speed motorcycle accidents occur at is 21 mph. Unless you suffer direct contact with your head (horizontal speed, NOT verticle speed) to a solid (like a brick wall....contact with an auto will be different because sheetmetal and plastic deform, absorbing energy) object, the helmet will most likely do it's job.

The problem with guys like "Tattoo Jesse" is that they never paid attention in physics class; (they were out smokin' a joint in the boys bathroom during the lecture on thermodynamics) therefore when they hear "14 mph" they only focus on that one small piece of info, not knowing that your helmet can absorb TWICE the lethal dose of kenetic energy (E=Mass*Velocity) in a single strike....much more if you calculate multiple strikes.
Nice job with the rant, buttt that has NOTHING to do with thermodynamics, also E, there is no such thing as E alone, does not equal mass*velocity, that would be force my friend, measured in Newtons. KE (kenetic energy is calculatated as 1/2mgh, also equal to U [aka PE for potential energy]) Perhaps you two should take a few pysics classes
jmat2407 is offline  
post #8 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 10:54 AM
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 2,017
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmat2407 View Post
Nice job with the rant, buttt that has NOTHING to do with thermodynamics, also E, there is no such thing as E alone, does not equal mass*velocity, that would be force my friend, measured in Newtons. KE (kenetic energy is calculatated as 1/2mgh, also equal to U [aka PE for potential energy]) Perhaps you two should take a few pysics classes
physics don't apply to motorycycle accidents. the natural law of karma prevails. i crashed at the track at over 120 mph. my helmet was unscratched. is this physically possible? of course it is.

using OTB's reasoning, my head before i fell was about 2 feet from the ground. i was kneedragging. rear end hit the edge of the track and i slid. karma dictated that i was a fine young gentleman and allowed me to slide harmlessly and not go airborne as other riders have.

not true, i slid then tumbled. still, my helmet didn't get damaged. but my body was battered. it hurt.

physics usually applies to controlled conditions. real world is not a controlled environment.

-a|ex

Last edited by Back _Marker; 06-01-2007 at 10:59 AM.
Back _Marker is offline  
post #9 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 11:08 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,673
I agree with 95% of what Tattoo Jesse was saying... Except for the crap about helmets...
OneSickPsycho is offline  
post #10 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 11:14 AM
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,030
It's simple. You have two choices:

a. Ride with helmets and gears.
b. Ride without.

It is your choice and your choice only. It doesn't hurt me if you ride without gears or helmet. It hurts you if you crash, but it sure as hell doesn't hurt me.

So why don't we all leave each other be? Ride your own ride. Wear your own gears. Let others do what they wish as far as personal protection goes.
fnfalman is offline  
post #11 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 11:18 AM
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmat2407 View Post
Nice job with the rant, buttt that has NOTHING to do with thermodynamics, also E, there is no such thing as E alone, does not equal mass*velocity, that would be force my friend, measured in Newtons. KE (kenetic energy is calculatated as 1/2mgh, also equal to U [aka PE for potential energy]) Perhaps you two should take a few pysics classes
Nice try, but pretty much everything you said to try to prove OTB wrong is wrong itself. Mass*velocity is NOT force. It is momentum. Ever hear of Newton's Law? Force = mass * acceleration, measured in Newtons.

Also, there is such a thing as E, it is total energy, the sum of all energies.

Regardless, Kinetic energy and potential energy are NOT the same thing. PE (or U as you called it) due to gravity ONLY is 1/2mgh. Kinetic energy due to translation is 1/2mv^2. These two things are only equal in very specific (and unrealistic) cases.

Before you try to trounce someone else's post after taking a half a year of a HS physics class and then misquoting half of the information, you should do your homework.

Last edited by ceo012384; 06-01-2007 at 11:30 AM.
ceo012384 is offline  
post #12 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 11:37 AM
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 940
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmat2407
Nice job with the rant, buttt that has NOTHING to do with thermodynamics, also E, there is no such thing as E alone, does not equal mass*velocity, that would be force my friend, measured in Newtons. KE (kenetic energy is calculatated as 1/2mgh, also equal to U [aka PE for potential energy]) Perhaps you two should take a few pysics classes
Pardon me. I simplified. Didn't want to get into ALL the math, as I frequently get "Cliff's Notes" comments when I get too technical or wordy. Again, excuse me. Guilty as charged.
And my comment about being high during the thermodynamic lecture was simply meant to be a general, albiet humorous one.

And as far as a Rant? I don't believe that could be construed as a rant. The comment was about putting the 14.5 mph standard in CONTEXT....that's all.

Sheesh......ya'll get up on the wrong side of the bed today? Lighten up.

Next time I'll post the charts, graphs and footnotes for you.

Last edited by oldetymebiker; 06-01-2007 at 12:52 PM.
oldetymebiker is offline  
post #13 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 11:41 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldetymebiker View Post
Pardon me. I simplified. Didn't want to get into ALL the math, as I frequently get "Cliff's Notes" comments when I get too technical or wordy. Again, excuse me. Guilty as charged.
And my comment about being high during the thermodynamic lecture was simply meant to be a general, albiet humorous one.

And as far as a Rant? I don't believe that could be construed as a rant. The comment was about putting the 14.5 mph standard in CONTEXT....that's all.

Sheesh......ya'll get up on the wrong side of the bed today? Lighten up.

Next time I'll post the charts, graphs and footnotes for you.
We'd appreciate that...
OneSickPsycho is offline  
post #14 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 11:43 AM
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldetymebiker View Post
Pardon me. I simplified. Didn't want to get into ALL the math, as I frequently get "Cliff's Notes" comments when I get too technical or wordy. Again, excuse me. Guilty as charged.
And my comment about being high during the thermodynamic lecture was simply meant to be a general, albiet humorous one.

And as far as a Rant? I don't believe that could be construed as a rant. The comment was about putting the 14.5 mph standard in CONTEXT....that's all.

Sheesh......ya'll get up on the wrong side of the bed today? Lighten up.

Next time I'll post the charts, graphs and footnotes for you.
I wasn't flaming you, just the kid trying to correct you with his own INCORRECT information. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose.

Your posts are always great OTB
ceo012384 is offline  
post #15 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 11:48 AM
TWF Board Of Directors

 
Trip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 11,484
Send a message via AIM to Trip
Quote:
Originally Posted by Back _Marker View Post
physics don't apply to motorycycle accidents. the natural law of karma prevails. i crashed at the track at over 120 mph. my helmet was unscratched. is this physically possible? of course it is.

using OTB's reasoning, my head before i fell was about 2 feet from the ground. i was kneedragging. rear end hit the edge of the track and i slid. karma dictated that i was a fine young gentleman and allowed me to slide harmlessly and not go airborne as other riders have.

not true, i slid then tumbled. still, my helmet didn't get damaged. but my body was battered. it hurt.

physics usually applies to controlled conditions. real world is not a controlled environment.

-a|ex
HAHAHAHHAAHHA, you can't be serious. Physics can explain every situation you have in your wrecks......... Karma is a load of s**t.

2005 Honda CRF88RR - 2007 Honda CBR600RR
Trip is offline  
post #16 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 11:50 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 11,673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip View Post
HAHAHAHHAAHHA, you can't be serious. Physics can explain every situation you have in your wrecks......... Karma is a load of s**t.
My psychic advisor says you are wrong...
OneSickPsycho is offline  
post #17 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 11:50 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldetymebiker View Post
That's a little simplified: the actual TEST(S) involve multiple strikes on helmets for both penetration (a pointed striker) flat solid surface tests (dropped on a flat anvil with a headform inside) and curved solid surface tests (dropped on a curved anvil with a headform inside)...and multiple strike tests, where the helmet is re-subjected to strikes in the same area( to simulate your head bouncing along the road).

The MPH figures are deceiving: Fatal head injuries occur in the 7mph range (yep, truth). That's how fast your head would contact a solid surface at a drop from 4ft, unimpeded to a curved or pointed surface (like a rock). The fact is that you have to take into account how most bike accidents happen, and then factor in how most motorcycle head injuries occur to determine reasonable standards for helemt construction.

The old Snell standards were developed for racecar drivers, who were subjected to different types of headstrikes than bikers.....bikers were dying with incorrectly constructed Snell helmets. New Dot, Snell, and Ansi specs take into account the difference in motorcycle on auto accidents.

The mean speed motorcycle accidents occur at is 21 mph. Unless you suffer direct contact with your head (horizontal speed, NOT verticle speed) to a solid (like a brick wall....contact with an auto will be different because sheetmetal and plastic deform, absorbing energy) object, the helmet will most likely do it's job.

The problem with guys like "Tattoo Jesse" is that they never paid attention in physics class; (they were out smokin' a joint in the boys bathroom during the lecture on thermodynamics) therefore when they hear "14 mph" they only focus on that one small piece of info, not knowing that your helmet can absorb TWICE the lethal dose of kenetic energy (E=Mass*Velocity) in a single strike....much more if you calculate multiple strikes.
thanx for the explanation.
logan1 is offline  
post #18 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 11:52 AM
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 429
Quote:
Originally Posted by onesickpsycho View Post
I agree with 95% of what Tattoo Jesse was saying... Except for the crap about helmets...
i agree his idea on restricting cell phone while driving alone will save a lotta life if implemented.
logan1 is offline  
post #19 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 11:53 AM
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 5,934
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trip View Post
HAHAHAHHAAHHA, you can't be serious. Physics can explain every situation you have in your wrecks......... Karma is a load of s**t.
Don't even get me started on this one...
ceo012384 is offline  
post #20 of 44 (permalink) Old 06-01-2007, 11:55 AM
TWF Board Of Directors

 
Trip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 11,484
Send a message via AIM to Trip
Quote:
Originally Posted by onesickpsycho View Post
My psychic advisor says you are wrong...
Ask your psychic advisor how many visits you are going to attend so she can go ahead and rip you off in one big payment.

2005 Honda CRF88RR - 2007 Honda CBR600RR
Trip is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the TwoWheelForum: Motorcycle and Sportbike forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in










Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Linear Mode



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome