BROOKES HELMETS

[mjr]

n my experience, one ends up with a neck/shoulder injury before you get used to it.

Hold on your head is about 5000gms, the helmet about 250gms so about 5% extra for your neck muscles to contend with.

A motorcycle helmet is about 1500gms and on top of that is the wind force which is from speeds much higher than a bike helmet and a square law applying.

Women and men both ride motorbikes happily don't they. That really is going to extremes to justify a reason for not wearing a bike helmet .

Rotational force is mass times distance from the pivot so it's more than 5% force increase even at that weight.

I don't ride motorbikes and haven't looked at how they avoid injuring riders' necks.

[old_windbag]

You are missing the point of what I'm getting at here. Your neck muscles cope with a heavy mass( your head ), they tilt it, turn it, hold it in place looking down at a book. The muscles are already of a size in shoulder/neck to allow this and not demonstrate fatigue in most everyday use. The addition to that large mass of a small mass.... it could be a trilby hat not a bike helmet, shouldn't cause you neck issues especially when on the bike for an hour or two.

Motorcycling involves wearing a heavier helmet subject to much higher wind forces and it isn't an unpopular pastime, so a bike helmet at typically 15mph shouldn't cause neck issues as the wind forces and size/frontal area of helmet are smaller and they are predominantly vented. A woman with wet hair probably has 1-200gms extra weight on their head.

[mjr]

And you seem to be missing my point: wet hair is closer to the pivot than a hat.

Plus it dries out soon enough.

Also, most other hats are a fraction of the weight of a helmet - my fleece is 40g and my sun hat is 55g - which is a bigger difference when it's being multiplied.

And I ride a bit more than an hour or two.

I don't doubt that some people can learn to balance half a pound on top of their head but it shouldn't be a surprise that some get injured trying.

[Cunobelin]

Hi
We're all individuals and what suits one person may not suit another.
For my purposes the Brooks seems to be quite heavy, in medium size it's more than twice the weight of my road helmet.
From the images alone (no experience of this helmet) I'd be looking into the ventilation aspect in some more detail too.

...meet EN1078, which is a ridiculously low standard

It isn't just about impact, for cycling helmets the European EN standard asks for a lower test line than Snell. In practical terms brain trauma stats appear no worse in Europe than anywhere else (Standards link)

Regards
tim-b

Which is why twice in the full sentence I qualified this with the words ... in "theory"


The article is perfectly correct in that whichever helmet you buy there is a likelihood that in anything except a narrow range of accidents it may not be that effective

It also clearly states that to be thinner and lighter a helmet needs to be denser and hence absorbs less impact (ie as allowed by EN1078)

What standards do is inform the decision, and enable the individual to decide

[Cunobelin]

Hi
We're all individuals and what suits one person may not suit another.
For my purposes the Brooks seems to be quite heavy, in medium size it's more than twice the weight of my road helmet.
From the images alone (no experience of this helmet) I'd be looking into the ventilation aspect in some more detail too.

...meet EN1078, which is a ridiculously low standard

It isn't just about impact, for cycling helmets the European EN standard asks for a lower test line than Snell. In practical terms brain trauma stats appear no worse in Europe than anywhere else (Standards link)

Regards
tim-b

Which is why twice in the full sentence I qualified this with the words ... in "theory"


The article is perfectly correct in that whichever helmet you buy there is a likelihood that in anything except a narrow range of accidents it may not be that effective

It also clearly states that to be thinner and lighter a helmet needs to be denser and hence absorbs less impact (ie as allowed by EN1078)

What standards do is inform the decision, and enable the individual to decide

Also when you look at ventilation beware of "snag points"

These are sharp edges and large ventilation ports which can catch or "snag"

Instead of a helmet sliding on impact these can arrest that forward movement and hence transfer an injury causing force, even on occasion a rotational force.

Also as the helmet has more ventilation, the amount of absorbent material present decreases and need to be stiffer to supportive shape (again decreasing the effectiveness.

Again decide whether the "Rounder, Smoother, Safer" helmets are what you want having weighed up the evidence