Ah, thanks!

 

Read the Snell testing requirements. There is a lot of misinformation out there. The only significant difference is the SA test uses 3 anvils instead of the two used for M. the above is a common misconception.

 

Gee my response to that was quite different. In fact, I literally said "what the hell are you expecting?" None of us are experts in this field and the article was regarding motorcycle helmets and not auto racing helmets.

Interesting article, but pretty much any discussion by any of us regarding the relevance to auto racing is purely bore BS IMHO. Harsh, but that's how I see it.

 

Wrong George. The M tests use three anvils (flat, ball and edge) while the SA tests use four anvils (flat, ball, cylinder and edge). The SA test includes 3 drops against the cylinder (roll bar) anvil. Besides, I was talking about helmet construction, not the Snell certs. the Snell cert for a M helmet also requires a larger FOV than an SA helmet.

Never did hear back from you about your cage. How's it going?

Bro

 

Doh. I should have reread the tests. My real point here is that there is only one additional test. The all too common idea being passed around about how one helmet is designed for one thing and the other designed for something else is not true. Some helmets may be designed around special needs for motorcycles or auto racing, but any reference to the Snell tests indicating this is purely, ah, nicht so.

Things are good Steve, just way too busy.

 

Hmmm, perhaps my memory has failed me, but I recall there were plenty of non-experts (and a few experts) weighing in when the HANS issue was being debated here. Simply, I think it's unfortunate to have a topic, of which I know nothing about but am more than willing to listen, dismissed. Absorption of knowledge, despite all the chaff that we frequently have to separate, is one of the many reasons why I visit this board. Without discussion, this won't happen.

Back to your regularly scheduled progamming...

 

Yes, and as stated, any H&N restraint debate always turns into a jihad, a pointless jihad at that. Simple physics, politics and marketing....the science simply gets lost.

I do not understand how this statement:
As an engineer, and someone who never rides a motorcycle, I will not comment, as IMHO it's just another can of worms with little to no merit.
can be classified as 'dismissed'.
Anyone who wishes to comment need only press the 'Post Reply' button and type.

 

I think you'll rarely see me choose sides or argue one way or another for any of them. I've made my choice, but I'm not an expert to argue about them or even comment with any real technical knowledge. I have some opinions but don't get into them that much either for H&N devices. I did my research and made my choice.

As to this discussion and being dismissed, would you rather have a lot of commentary from folks who don't possess real technical knowledge on the topic? I'm not trying to kill the discussion. But what real value will the discussion have here? For my part I would have ignored this thread, but when ltc was chastized, I felt compelled to add my comments because I personally had a different view of the value of this discussion, and that is pretty much what I said.

 

I found the article raised some very interesting issues. Great to see a magazine which does not look at things so superficially. Great to see a real attempt at research. Great to see some thinking. Just wanted to let the brothers know. And I thought this is what a thoughtful discussion board such as Rennlist was about. I often find topics which do not interest me but I see no need or anything useful coming from putting in a meaningless demeaning response like this is of no merit; I am bored. I just move on. I also do not respond to the meaningless in-club chatter where the participants can do no wrong. There are a lot of people who think that detailed discussion of cars is simply boring. Each to their own. I thought people on this board were a little different. I thought we shared a passion. Evidently some like to share this selectively. I love people who observe and honestly challenge conventional wisdom. That is real science. And real science that challenges gets a whole lot of dumping on. Ask Joseph Lister. I have learnt from my error and I am out of here. Thank you for encouraging me to be observer. I will leave the participating up to the real men who ‘own’ this board and can rightly decide what deserves to be discussed. In the words of the great Sid Snot: ‘Who needs it’ or those of my wife, ‘Why do you bother’. Sad, but I guess I will get over it! As Mikie would say, 'Can't we discuss this over a latte?' Guess not.

 

Chris, sorry to see you leave. I don't think you should, but that's up to you. But if you do read this, my question is, what were you looking for in the discussion?

The article is indeed a very good one. But, it does not apply to auto racing. This board is indeed full of people with a passion for the sport. It's a pretty astute group. I'm regularly humbled by the knowledge here. I'm 100% certain if you have specific questions related to the article, you will get excellent specific answers. For my part, as I said, I posted because ltc was taking some grief and I saw things more or less in the same manner he did.

 

Guys,

In the upper left-hand corner, at least on my computer, it says "discussion board". If there was a requirement that only experts can or should contribute, I must have missed the memo. If this board required only industry professionals to chime in, it would be a very quiet place indeed. Have a question on, say, tire temps? Although valuable, I sure hope we don't have to wait for a tire engineer to speak up before we generate a discussion.

Also, I do not necessarily take a lack of replies to mean a lack of interest. I have nothing to contribute on the matter of helmets, for I am not an engineer or an expert on helmet testing, but simply want to hear what others have to say. I can separate the music from the static on my own.