I know we've beat the whole helmet issue into the ground here, but I have a bit more to add you might find interesting (and it's not about full-face versus three-quarter)...
I've been researching motorcycle helmets, and found a detailed article recently published in Motorcyclist magazine. They conducted an extensive series of impact tests on 15 different brands of motorcycle helmets, and made some very interesting discoveries:
1. With motorcycle helmets, more money does not get you more safety.
2. The helmet that did best in the impact tests was one of the cheapest (an $80 ZR1 helmet). This helmet transmitted significantly fewer Gs to the headform than the $600 Shoei and Arai helmets.
3. (Related to no.2 above) Helmets with plastic/polycarbonate shells (which are also typically the cheapest ones) transmitted fewer Gs to the headform because the plastic flexed more on impact, allowing the EPS foam under the shell to do its job better---absorbing the impact. More expensive helmets typically have fiberglass/kevlar/composite layups which are stiffer---they did not flex as well, and did not enable the EPS to absorb as much of the impact (studies have shown that accident victims wearing stiff helmets suffered more diffuse brain injuries, which is actually worse).
4. Helmets with SNELL ratings did not fare better in impact tests than those with only a DOT rating. This study pretty much debunked the notion that SNELL = more safe. (You can read exactly why in the article.)
The study's bottom line was that pretty much ALL modern helmets, regardless of price, brand, model, or construction, do a very good job at protecting your head. The differences are in fit, comfort, ventilation, slick graphics, etc.
So you might keep this in mind when/if you're in the market for a new flying helmet.
Oh, here's the link to the Motorcyclist magazine test article.
Scott
Helmets revisited (again)
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
Helmets revisited (again)
Wiley (one of the Quest proprietors) and Lisa (tug pilot) were discussing motorcycle helmets down here (cloudy windy day) and Wiley pointed out that abrasion resistance is important too. He had a a relatively cheap Vega ($130 - also marketed as HJS) flip-up full face helmet (the exact same one I have). Was wearing one when he took a dive off his bike at 100 mph. Skated down the road on his face, then did flops and other gymnastic maneuvers. Flip-up latch held even though chinguard was pretty eaten up by abrasion. Can't imagine the injuries if he had been wearing an open face or no helmet...
Took a Dragonfly lesson yesterday with Rhett Radford (premier Dragonfly pilot from Pura Vida video) in windy conditions. Air work was OK, although I find it difficult to recognize accelerated stalls and it's easy to end up in a spin or a spiral dive with a rapid build-up in airspeed and loss of altitude. Landings were challenging in the building crosswind. Rained out so far today... - Hugh
>From: Scott <sw@shadepine.com>
>Date: Mon Nov 28 16:29:07 CST 2005
>To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: Helmets revisited (again)
>
>I know we've beat the whole helmet issue into the ground here, but I have a bit more to add you might find interesting (and it's not about full-face versus three-quarter)...
>
>I've been researching motorcycle helmets, and found a detailed article recently published in Motorcyclist magazine. They conducted an extensive series of impact tests on 15 different brands of motorcycle helmets, and made some very interesting discoveries:
>
>1. With motorcycle helmets, more money does not get you more safety.
>
>2. The helmet that did best in the impact tests was one of the cheapest (an $80 ZR1 helmet). This helmet transmitted significantly fewer Gs to the headform than the $600 Shoei and Arai helmets.
>
>3. (Related to no.2 above) Helmets with plastic/polycarbonate shells (which are also typically the cheapest ones) transmitted fewer Gs to the headform because the plastic flexed more on impact, allowing the EPS foam under the shell to do its job better---absorbing the impact. More expensive helmets typically have fiberglass/kevlar/composite layups which are stiffer---they did not flex as well, and did not enable the EPS to absorb as much of the impact (studies have shown that accident victims wearing stiff helmets suffered more diffuse brain injuries, which is actually worse).
>
>4. Helmets with SNELL ratings did not fare better in impact tests than those with only a DOT rating. This study pretty much debunked the notion that SNELL = more safe. (You can read exactly why in the article.)
>
>The study's bottom line was that pretty much ALL modern helmets, regardless of price, brand, model, or construction, do a very good job at protecting your head. The differences are in fit, comfort, ventilation, slick graphics, etc.
>
>So you might keep this in mind when/if you're in the market for a new flying helmet.
>
>Oh, here's the link to the Motorcyclist magazine test article. (http://motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/hatz/)
>
>Scott
Took a Dragonfly lesson yesterday with Rhett Radford (premier Dragonfly pilot from Pura Vida video) in windy conditions. Air work was OK, although I find it difficult to recognize accelerated stalls and it's easy to end up in a spin or a spiral dive with a rapid build-up in airspeed and loss of altitude. Landings were challenging in the building crosswind. Rained out so far today... - Hugh
>From: Scott <sw@shadepine.com>
>Date: Mon Nov 28 16:29:07 CST 2005
>To: hg_forum@chgpa.org
>Subject: Helmets revisited (again)
>
>I know we've beat the whole helmet issue into the ground here, but I have a bit more to add you might find interesting (and it's not about full-face versus three-quarter)...
>
>I've been researching motorcycle helmets, and found a detailed article recently published in Motorcyclist magazine. They conducted an extensive series of impact tests on 15 different brands of motorcycle helmets, and made some very interesting discoveries:
>
>1. With motorcycle helmets, more money does not get you more safety.
>
>2. The helmet that did best in the impact tests was one of the cheapest (an $80 ZR1 helmet). This helmet transmitted significantly fewer Gs to the headform than the $600 Shoei and Arai helmets.
>
>3. (Related to no.2 above) Helmets with plastic/polycarbonate shells (which are also typically the cheapest ones) transmitted fewer Gs to the headform because the plastic flexed more on impact, allowing the EPS foam under the shell to do its job better---absorbing the impact. More expensive helmets typically have fiberglass/kevlar/composite layups which are stiffer---they did not flex as well, and did not enable the EPS to absorb as much of the impact (studies have shown that accident victims wearing stiff helmets suffered more diffuse brain injuries, which is actually worse).
>
>4. Helmets with SNELL ratings did not fare better in impact tests than those with only a DOT rating. This study pretty much debunked the notion that SNELL = more safe. (You can read exactly why in the article.)
>
>The study's bottom line was that pretty much ALL modern helmets, regardless of price, brand, model, or construction, do a very good job at protecting your head. The differences are in fit, comfort, ventilation, slick graphics, etc.
>
>So you might keep this in mind when/if you're in the market for a new flying helmet.
>
>Oh, here's the link to the Motorcyclist magazine test article. (http://motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/hatz/)
>
>Scott