CPSC/Safety Test Statistics - Where? - Page 5 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

08-25-2004, 06:31 AM

On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 11:15:37 GMT, Gawnsoft
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].antispam.net > wrote:

>
> True, but then again people die putting on their socks [snip]
>

Quite.

However, at this point all I'm looking for is data regarding the relative
levels of protection offered by bicycle helmets. 'Consumer Reports' has
been suggested; and it seems that Specialized is preferred by the
gentleman who conducts testing in the UK.

If anyone knows of any other sources of information I'd be most grateful
(as, I am sure, would others).

08-25-2004, 11:40 AM

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:56:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>
> One of the few places I've found comparative results from objective
> tests has been Consumer Reports magazine here in the US. They don't
> report numerical answers, but with little color-coded bubbles indicating
> things like "Excellent", "Good", "Fair" etc.
>
> Based on their ratings, the definite trend is that less expensive
> helmets have heavier weight, less ventilation, perhaps klutzier straps,
> and more protection. For more expensive helmets, the opposite is true.
>

Just paid the subscription for Consumer Reports and read the July 2004
test of helmets. Interesting stuff, especially as the helmet the LBS sold
me was on the 'not recommended' list! *sigh*

Thank you very much, Frank.

08-25-2004, 11:40 AM

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:56:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>
> One of the few places I've found comparative results from objective
> tests has been Consumer Reports magazine here in the US. They don't
> report numerical answers, but with little color-coded bubbles indicating
> things like "Excellent", "Good", "Fair" etc.
>
> Based on their ratings, the definite trend is that less expensive
> helmets have heavier weight, less ventilation, perhaps klutzier straps,
> and more protection. For more expensive helmets, the opposite is true.
>

Just paid the subscription for Consumer Reports and read the July 2004
test of helmets. Interesting stuff, especially as the helmet the LBS sold
me was on the 'not recommended' list! *sigh*

Thank you very much, Frank.

08-25-2004, 11:40 AM

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:56:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>
> One of the few places I've found comparative results from objective
> tests has been Consumer Reports magazine here in the US. They don't
> report numerical answers, but with little color-coded bubbles indicating
> things like "Excellent", "Good", "Fair" etc.
>
> Based on their ratings, the definite trend is that less expensive
> helmets have heavier weight, less ventilation, perhaps klutzier straps,
> and more protection. For more expensive helmets, the opposite is true.
>

Just paid the subscription for Consumer Reports and read the July 2004
test of helmets. Interesting stuff, especially as the helmet the LBS sold
me was on the 'not recommended' list! *sigh*

Thank you very much, Frank.

08-25-2004, 11:40 AM

On Mon, 23 Aug 2004 22:56:17 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

>
> One of the few places I've found comparative results from objective
> tests has been Consumer Reports magazine here in the US. They don't
> report numerical answers, but with little color-coded bubbles indicating
> things like "Excellent", "Good", "Fair" etc.
>
> Based on their ratings, the definite trend is that less expensive
> helmets have heavier weight, less ventilation, perhaps klutzier straps,
> and more protection. For more expensive helmets, the opposite is true.
>

Just paid the subscription for Consumer Reports and read the July 2004
test of helmets. Interesting stuff, especially as the helmet the LBS sold
me was on the 'not recommended' list! *sigh*

Thank you very much, Frank.

08-25-2004, 06:58 PM

Glm wrote:

>
>
> Just paid the subscription for Consumer Reports and read the July 2004
> test of helmets. Interesting stuff, especially as the helmet the LBS
> sold me was on the 'not recommended' list! *sigh*
>
> Thank you very much, Frank.

As I recall (sorry, I'm too tired to double check) the "not recommended"
was because a buckle broke in a weight-drop test.

I'd say don't worry. One of the dozens of papers I have on file
reported on the forces on helmet straps in simulated collisions. The
conclusion was that in a typical collision, the forces are very small,
on the order of ten pounds.

And in any case, you're almost certainly going to go through your entire
cycling career without needing the helmet anyway. That's assuming
you're not into macho mountain biking, track racing or criterium racing.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

08-25-2004, 06:58 PM

Glm wrote:

>
>
> Just paid the subscription for Consumer Reports and read the July 2004
> test of helmets. Interesting stuff, especially as the helmet the LBS
> sold me was on the 'not recommended' list! *sigh*
>
> Thank you very much, Frank.

As I recall (sorry, I'm too tired to double check) the "not recommended"
was because a buckle broke in a weight-drop test.

I'd say don't worry. One of the dozens of papers I have on file
reported on the forces on helmet straps in simulated collisions. The
conclusion was that in a typical collision, the forces are very small,
on the order of ten pounds.

And in any case, you're almost certainly going to go through your entire
cycling career without needing the helmet anyway. That's assuming
you're not into macho mountain biking, track racing or criterium racing.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

08-25-2004, 06:58 PM

Glm wrote:

>
>
> Just paid the subscription for Consumer Reports and read the July 2004
> test of helmets. Interesting stuff, especially as the helmet the LBS
> sold me was on the 'not recommended' list! *sigh*
>
> Thank you very much, Frank.

As I recall (sorry, I'm too tired to double check) the "not recommended"
was because a buckle broke in a weight-drop test.

I'd say don't worry. One of the dozens of papers I have on file
reported on the forces on helmet straps in simulated collisions. The
conclusion was that in a typical collision, the forces are very small,
on the order of ten pounds.

And in any case, you're almost certainly going to go through your entire
cycling career without needing the helmet anyway. That's assuming
you're not into macho mountain biking, track racing or criterium racing.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

08-25-2004, 06:58 PM

Glm wrote:

>
>
> Just paid the subscription for Consumer Reports and read the July 2004
> test of helmets. Interesting stuff, especially as the helmet the LBS
> sold me was on the 'not recommended' list! *sigh*
>
> Thank you very much, Frank.

As I recall (sorry, I'm too tired to double check) the "not recommended"
was because a buckle broke in a weight-drop test.

I'd say don't worry. One of the dozens of papers I have on file
reported on the forces on helmet straps in simulated collisions. The
conclusion was that in a typical collision, the forces are very small,
on the order of ten pounds.

And in any case, you're almost certainly going to go through your entire
cycling career without needing the helmet anyway. That's assuming
you're not into macho mountain biking, track racing or criterium racing.

--
--------------------+
Frank Krygowski [To reply, remove rodent and vegetable dot com,
replace with cc.ysu dot edu]

08-26-2004, 06:20 AM

Glm wrote:
>
> I certainly don't want to rub salt into the wounds of the ongoing
> helmet debate, but I was wondering whether anyone knew where I could
> find statistics from safety tests (or other objective assessments)
> conducted on current bike helmets.
>
[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

will get you started. I asked too and Peter Keller sent me this link.

-paul