UK and Europe · Public discussion

Oh no, not again!

Started by Just Zis Guy · · Last activity · 90 posts · 3,227 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
8 March 2004
Last activity
16 March 2004
Original author
Just Zis Guy
Posts
90
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
3,227
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 41–60 of 90
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. "Cletus D. Lee" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Do you think you could document those astute counter
    points with some substantiated facts?

    As I understand it there is an article due for publication
    soon which describes the way in which helmets are supposed
    to work. They are supposed to absorb energy by plastic
    deformation - polystyrene absorbs very little energy in
    brittle failure (which is why they introduced the kerb-edge
    test, because so many helmets were cracking open and not
    working at all when hitting kerb edges). The old Snell
    standards (as used when Thompson, Rivara and Thompson
    produced their first study) were also much stricter than the
    standards used for modern vented helmets. As an aside, if
    you replace TR&T's control group with the street counts
    conducted by Rivara on the streets the year before, the
    "protective effect" vanishes entirely; the control group
    they used was middle class white families riding on bike
    trails, but the case group was mainly street cyclists. This
    may explain why nobody, including TR&T, has subsequently
    been able to duplicate the result.

    I will post the contents of the helmet article when
    published.

    --
    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
    posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
    Washington University

  2. "Prints" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Is this fault due to lack of heat treatment? I understand
    that aluminium welding requires heat treatment after
    welding to dissipate the stresses


    that

    Quoted message said:

    cause cracks.

    I dunno. All I can tell you is: it's bust agin.

    --
    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
    posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
    Washington University

  3. Zust zis Guy said:

    "Prints" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Is this fault due to lack of heat treatment? I understand
    that aluminium welding requires heat treatment after
    welding to dissipate the stresses

    that

    Quoted message said:

    cause cracks.

    I dunno. All I can tell you is: it's bust agin.

    Without examining the failure surface one can only speculate
    as to the cause of the failure, but the most probable is
    fatigue. The junction of the head and main tubes will be
    subject to repetitive loads while riding, and if these loads
    are more than a small fraction of the yield strength [1] of
    the material, crack propagation and failure will occur after
    relatively few loading cycles (1000 miles worth in the case
    of Guy's bike).

    The corrective action would be to use a material that has a
    fatigue limit well above the stresses encountered in normal
    use (such as steel or titanium alloy) or to redesign the
    frame to reduce stresses in the failure area (which Optima
    did with the gussets on the second generation Baron frame).

    [1] This depends on the exact aluminium alloy used and its
    heat treatment/aging.

    Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

  4. Zust zis Guy said:

    "W K" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Mildly surprised they let you on with it. Much more
    surprised that you got on with it in the morning.

    Heh! You've been reading the Nugentoid of Kager IV
    again ;-)

    No bike restrictions on Thames Trains heading away from
    London in the mornings. I go from Reading to Didcot
    Parkway.

    Apropos which, anyone know about the (im)possibility of
    taking a recumbent trike by train from Kings X to Hull?

    [waits expectantly]

    --

    Dave Larrington - legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uklegslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
    ===========================================================
    Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
    bhpc.org.ukbhpc.org.uk
    ===========================================================

  5. Cletus D. Lee said:

    ... (I'll let Mikael skate for a while since he's a Dane
    and what do Danes know?)

    How to raid and pillage Great Britain. 😉

    Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

  6. "harv" <[email hidden]> wrote in :"]news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    If you bring in a cracked skull, will they give you a
    new head?

    I've just realised that although I wear a cycling helmet,
    when I was a kid I had many thumps and whacks to my head
    (including a smack with a hammer), many of them greater than
    those which have wrecked my last few helmets. Other than the
    odd cut, none of them had any permanent measurable effect. I
    now have visions of my head being hung outside a police
    station, hunting trophy style :-/

    Graeme

  7. "Mikael Seierup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    "Dave Kahn" skrev

    Quoted message said:

    Unfortunately the smashed helmets have all failed. If
    the riders were not hurt in their various accidents this
    indicates that the helmets failed in minor collisions.

    No idea why I bother but helmets are supposed to break.
    Thats whats absorbs the energy and keeps your noggin in
    one piece.

    This is a common misconception in spite of your patronising
    tone. The energy absorption is achieved through plastic
    deformation of the foam. Brittle failure of the helmet
    structure absorbs very little energy. In the section on
    impact test interpretation the Snell B-90A standard states:
    "The peak acceleration of the headform shall not exceed 300
    G's for any valid test impact. Similarly, the helmet's
    protective structures shall remain intact throughout the
    testing. If, the Foundation's technical personnel conclude
    that the headgear has been compromised by breakage, the
    sample shall be rejected."

    --
    Dave...

  8. "Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Zust zis Guy, you know? wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    Without examining the failure surface one can only
    speculate as to the cause of the failure, but the most
    probable is fatigue.

    It is a classic fatigue failure, looking at it, as the last
    one was. Whether this would have been mitigated by better
    heat treatment I couldn't say.

    --
    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
    posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
    Washington University

  9. Let me see if I have this right....

    You "now have visions of [your] head being hung outside a
    police station", but none of the "thumps and whacks to
    [your] head (including a smack with a hammer)", have "had
    any permanent measurable effect." ???

    Well, OK then... aren't you lucky. :}

    Just so you're having fun...

    JD

    "Graeme" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "harv" <[email hidden]> wrote in
    :"]news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    If you bring in a cracked skull, will they give you a
    new head?

    I've just realised that although I wear a cycling helmet,
    when I was a kid I had many thumps and whacks to my head
    (including a smack with a hammer), many of them greater
    than those which have wrecked my last few helmets. Other
    than the odd cut, none of them had any permanent
    measurable effect.


    I

    Quoted message said:

    now have visions of my head being hung outside a police
    station, hunting trophy style :-/

    Graeme

  10. Let me see if I have this right....

    You "now have visions of [your] head being hung outside a
    police station", but none of the "thumps and whacks to
    [your] head (including a smack with a hammer)", have "had
    any permanent measurable effect." ???

    Well, OK then... aren't you lucky. :}

    Just so you're having fun...

    JD

    "Graeme" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "harv" <[email hidden]> wrote in
    :"]news:[email hidden]:

    Quoted message said:

    If you bring in a cracked skull, will they give you a
    new head?

    I've just realised that although I wear a cycling helmet,
    when I was a kid I had many thumps and whacks to my head
    (including a smack with a hammer), many of them greater
    than those which have wrecked my last few helmets. Other
    than the odd cut, none of them had any permanent
    measurable effect.


    I

    Quoted message said:

    now have visions of my head being hung outside a police
    station, hunting trophy style :-/

    Graeme

  11. "Mikael Seierup" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    |
    | "Cletus D. Lee" skrev...
    |
    | Dave Kahn blurted...

    Actually that was me blurting...

    | > > No it isn't.
    |
    | bhsi.orghenderso.htm 4.5 and 4.6

    You may be confusing "It is the liner of the helmet that is
    responsible for absorbing the energy of impact through its
    own destruction." with the whole helmet being broken.
    "destruction" here means "being crushed to absorb energy
    that would otherwise deform your skull", and the outer shell
    keeps the inner foam in place in order that it does that,
    which it won't if it breaks.

    However, there are helmets with no outer shell. To me that
    just emphasises how little protection bike helmets are
    intended to give.

    | Oh, yes it is. You just ride without one though. Ride like
    | the wind, Sonnyboy, and take lots of chances.

    I don't ride like the wind & I take as few chances as I can.

    | Oh wait, maybe you already did. Yea, that sure explains a
    | lot. ;o)

    <twitch><twitch>

    --
    Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK anweald.co.ukanweald.co.uk

    Eala Earendel engla beorhtast ofer middangeard monnum
    sended.

  12. "Mikael Seierup" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    |
    | "Cletus D. Lee" skrev...
    |
    | Dave Kahn blurted...

    Actually that was me blurting...

    | > > No it isn't.
    |
    | bhsi.orghenderso.htm 4.5 and 4.6

    You may be confusing "It is the liner of the helmet that is
    responsible for absorbing the energy of impact through its
    own destruction." with the whole helmet being broken.
    "destruction" here means "being crushed to absorb energy
    that would otherwise deform your skull", and the outer shell
    keeps the inner foam in place in order that it does that,
    which it won't if it breaks.

    However, there are helmets with no outer shell. To me that
    just emphasises how little protection bike helmets are
    intended to give.

    | Oh, yes it is. You just ride without one though. Ride like
    | the wind, Sonnyboy, and take lots of chances.

    I don't ride like the wind & I take as few chances as I can.

    | Oh wait, maybe you already did. Yea, that sure explains a
    | lot. ;o)

    <twitch><twitch>

    --
    Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK anweald.co.ukanweald.co.uk

    Eala Earendel engla beorhtast ofer middangeard monnum
    sended.

  13. "Mikael Seierup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Dave Kahn blurted...

    Quoted message said:

    > No it isn't.

    Ooops... Patrick Herring of course. Sorry, Dave.

    Yes, you do seem a bit confused.

    --
    Dave...

  14. "Mikael Seierup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Dave Kahn blurted...

    Quoted message said:

    > No it isn't.

    Ooops... Patrick Herring of course. Sorry, Dave.

    Yes, you do seem a bit confused.

    --
    Dave...

  15. "Patrick Herring" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Mikael Seierup" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    |
    | "Cletus D. Lee" skrev...
    |
    | Dave Kahn blurted...

    Actually that was me blurting...

    | > > No it isn't.
    |
    | bhsi.orghenderso.htm 4.5 and 4.6

    You may be confusing "It is the liner of the helmet that
    is responsible for absorbing the energy of impact through
    its own destruction." with the whole helmet being broken.
    "destruction" here means "being crushed to absorb energy
    that would otherwise deform your skull", and the outer
    shell keeps the inner foam in place in order that it does
    that, which it won't if it breaks.

    However, there are helmets with no outer shell. To me that
    just emphasises how little protection bike helmets are
    intended to give.

    | Oh, yes it is. You just ride without one though. Ride
    | like the wind, Sonnyboy, and take lots of chances.

    I don't ride like the wind & I take as few chances
    as I can.

    | Oh wait, maybe you already did. Yea, that sure explains
    | a lot. ;o)

    <twitch><twitch>

    --
    Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK anweald.co.ukanweald.co.uk

    Eala Earendel engla beorhtast ofer middangeard
    monnum sended.

    Fellow peddelers,

    Two ways to dissipate the impact of an impact is by
    expanding the area of the impact, which is what the hard
    shell of a helmet does, and by expanding the duration of
    time of the impact which is what the foam does. While this
    is an oversimplified explanation, it is the basic physics on
    which good helmet design is based. But, on my 'bent, I don't
    wear one.....

    it's not very far to the ground and I go very slow....

    JD

  16. "Mikael Seierup" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    bhsi.orghenderso.htm 4.5 and 4.6

    And you believe what BHSI say? I asked them why they are
    still quoting the original Thompson, Rivara and Thompson
    figures despite their having been revised (substantially
    downwards) in 1996. This is their reply:

    "We are aware of the second study, but by the time it
    appeared the 85% figure was so deeply ingrained in the
    injury prevention community that a change will not be
    helpful. I regard any similar numbers published in those
    or other studies as approximations anyway. Over the years
    observation of who gets head-injured and who does not
    seems to support the 85% number. So we have left it up
    that way. We do have references to the later study for
    those who need more."

    In other words, don't confuse people with the facts, we'll
    lead with the biggest made-up number we can find and if
    folks can be bothered to dig around the site they might
    discover it's [censored].

    Oh, and the "observation" appears to be in the form of meta-
    analyses, all based on the same small group of original
    studies. No country has ever approached even within an order
    of magnitude the kinds of injury savings TR&T predict.

    Oh, and "88%" and "85%" in the original studies are, within
    the confidence limits used by the authors, actually
    "somewhere between 60% and 100%" - a very wide margin of
    error which is inconsistent with the degree of precision of
    the figure quoted (the engineer in me speaking).

    --
    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after
    posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at
    Washington University

  17. "Jack Davis" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:


    "Patrick Herring" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Mikael Seierup" <[email hidden]> wrote:

    |
    | "Cletus D. Lee" skrev...
    |
    | Dave Kahn blurted...

    Actually that was me blurting...

    | > > No it isn't.
    |
    | bhsi.orghenderso.htm 4.5 and 4.6

    You may be confusing "It is the liner of the helmet that
    is responsible for absorbing the energy of impact
    through its own destruction." with the whole helmet
    being broken. "destruction" here means "being crushed to
    absorb energy that would otherwise deform your skull",
    and the outer shell keeps the inner foam in place in
    order that it does that, which it won't if it breaks.

    However, there are helmets with no outer shell. To me
    that just emphasises how little protection bike helmets
    are intended to give.

    | Oh, yes it is. You just ride without one though. Ride
    | like the wind, Sonnyboy, and take lots of chances.

    I don't ride like the wind & I take as few chances as
    I can.

    | Oh wait, maybe you already did. Yea, that sure
    | explains a lot. ;o)

    <twitch><twitch>

    --
    Patrick Herring, Sheffield, UK anweald.co.ukanweald.co.uk

    Eala Earendel engla beorhtast ofer middangeard monnum
    sended.

    Fellow peddelers,

    Two ways to dissipate the impact of an impact is by
    expanding the area of the impact, which is what the hard
    shell of a helmet does, and by


    expanding

    Quoted message said:

    the duration of time of the impact which is what the foam
    does. While


    this

    Quoted message said:

    is an oversimplified explanation, it is the basic physics
    on which good helmet design is based. But, on my 'bent, I
    don't wear one.....

    it's not very far to the ground and I go very slow....

    JD

    Quite right Jack. If the forces on the foam are too low
    (load per unit area) to cause deformation, then the impact
    is not dissipated. The deformation of the cushion is not to
    keep the skull from deforming, but to decellerate the brain
    mass so it doesn't impact against the skull. It is this
    impact that can cause large trauma.

  18. "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Tom Sherman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message -"]news:[email hidden]-
    berlin.de...

    Quoted message said:

    Zust zis Guy, you know? wrote:

    Quoted message said:

    Without examining the failure surface one can only
    speculate as to the cause of the failure, but the most
    probable is fatigue.

    It is a classic fatigue failure, looking at it, as the
    last one was. Whether this would have been mitigated by
    better heat treatment I couldn't say.

    --
    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle
    after posting. chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.uk

    A recent article and discussion in Machine Design Magazine
    about welded aluminum and heat treatment indicate that
    proper design can mitigate the need for heat treatment.
    Weldments such as ships' superstructures were mentioned as
    examples of things impractical to heat treat, but that
    musn't fail in service.

  19. Jack Davis said:

    Two ways to dissipate the impact of an impact is by
    expanding the area of the impact, which is what the hard
    shell of a helmet does, and by expanding the duration of
    time of the impact which is what the foam does. While this
    is an oversimplified explanation, it is the basic physics
    on which good helmet design is based. But, on my 'bent, I
    don't wear one.....

    Quoted message said:

    it's not very far to the ground and I go very slow....

    And presumably you travel feet first and head last?

    --
    Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
    IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
    ["]http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

  20. On Mon, 08 Mar 2004 19:57:51 -0600, Tom Sherman
    <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    <[email hidden]>:

    Quoted message said:

    Does the Optima Stinger have the same gussets in this area
    that the second generation Baron has (after numerous
    failures at this point on the first generation)?

    Revised answer: up to a point. They have upgraded the
    aluminium and the heat treatment, and added a gusset plate,
    but no fillet as per the Baron. They've also increased the
    steering tube diameter to increase the size of the weld (not
    sure why that would help) and removed some drillings and
    routed cables outside the frame, which is less neat but
    removes some stress points.

    Hmmmm.

    --
    Guy
    ===
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    chapmancentral.co.ukchapmancentral.co.uk

    88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.