Re: Helmet efficacy test

On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 17:02:01 -0500, Mark J cleary
<mcleary08@comcast.net> wrote:

On 3/24/2025 4:47 PM, Catrike Ryder wrote:

On Mon, 24 Mar 2025 21:20:33 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
 

On Mon Mar 24 10:35:26 2025 AMuzi  wrote:

https://www.rfi.fr/en/sports/20250324-vingegaard-reveals-concussion-from-paris-nice-fall

>
>
>
>
I will repeat my previous recommendation. I sustained a serious concussion that caused brain injuries severe enough to cause siezures that took 2 years to cause enough consternation in my friends that they got me to a competent neurologist. Most people don't even know when you're having seizures and the local neurologists I consulted were not competent with serious concussions.
>
Finally my cop friend and his nurse wife who recognized my seisures as such got my GP to agree to recommend me to a Stanford Professor who knew the symptoms and treatment though it took almost a year to work out the proper medication plan.
>
The foam used and recommended by an international standard is FAR too rigid to protect you from a concussion. Originally Bell Helmets reasoned that the danger from hitting your head was fracturing your skull. Hitting your head that hard would kill you from brain damage anyway so while a good theory was not a practical safety limit.
>
The UCI expanded on this by simply calculating how large a helmet could be without interfearing with your vision and set an international standard for helmets that was in practical terms no better than the older Bell standard.
>
While Trek owned and financed Bontrager, Keith started thinking of this problem. Most injuries to cyclists that are serious are from concussions. Broaken bones generally heal and scraped skin regrows but brain damage from hitting your head hard while wearing a helmet that doesn't correctly allow deceleration from a head strike can caused even more damage than I recieved.
>
I have no memory of discussing my injury with Keith, but perhaps I did since I know him.
>
In any case, he designed the Wavecell helmet that used a 3D printing process which is designed to reduce the deceleration rate of a head blow from a fall and have used them since he began making them. Disconnected from Trek he is still making them but they are not of the same quality as the Trek versions.
>
I do not believe that I have struck my head since my recovery hard enough to cause injury but I certainly have hit my head upon occassion. Wavecell seems to self-heel marks and there are none on my present helmet.
>
I cannot attest to the efficacy of the Wavecell helmets but if nothing else it is better than the foam plastic which provides essentially no protections from a hard head strike.
>
So, unless you're Frank who has never hit his head because he rides slow enough to never lose control, anyone that wears a helmet should use this type. Of course Catrike doesn't have to worry since he cannot fall off. Though I suppose a case could be made that a car could hit him and his head might be involved.

 
I've been riding bicycles for 75+ years and I've never worn a helmet.
It wasn't because some narcissistic wussy advised against them. I put
one on my head in a bike shop once and quickly took it off.
 
--
C'est bon
Soloman

I like to wear helmet for extra protection against a fall. I do agree
that for me even running with a helmet would be good since I have no
balance to run anymore. However, Frank is I think in the minority about
helmets and while he may have data to support it sometimes we humans
overlook data. I rely sometimes only on intuition and what I think might
be good. I really don't understand the length's Frank goes to dis
helmets but maybe I am simply taking it more than it is. Small news
group so?

I'm a hundred percent behind do what you think is best for you, and it
doesn't bother me a bit that most bicyclists wear helmets.

--
C'est bon
Soloman