Hairnets and head health

[Synthesis]

Less tongue in cheek than earlier, helmets and how they work are something that I think about a LOT.

I’m reasonably savvy in understanding how forces/acceleration etc work. Until this year it had never occurred to me that helmets reduce the forces that cause skull fracture but do comparatively little to prevent concussions. (Thank you articles for the Concussion movie. I did a lot of reading due to those)

Do helmets absorb impact? Yes, hooray for lack of skull fracture
Do helmets deccelerate the head for that the brain doesn’t ricochet back and forth in the skull? Not much. Watch a video on scrambling an egg inside the shell for a pretty good visual.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but that scares me. I’ve hit my head LOADS of times over the years coming off and written it off because “I’ll be fine, I was wearing my helmet” I bet most of you have done the same.

So, do I believe the helmet manufacturers on ‘what is better/safer?’ Not without some actual data, thanks. Because beyond the testing standards, its all fluff. If there was an actual data-proven competitive advantage, they’d be trumpeting it from the rooftops. Instead, we get sparkles and custom colors.

Do I believe the neurologists? Damn straight I do.

[Bogie]

A few years ago a new helmet design was introduced by Devon-Aire. I thought it was an interesting development and was pretty surprised that these helmets sunk like a stone and never caught on. I have two. I think I heard that riders thought they were “ugly”.

I’m not sure whether they really would help absorb the force of an impact but fro $75 or so, I was certainly willing to give it a try!

http://www.riders4helmets.com/2013/02/devon-aire-announces-new-matrix-safety-helmet-with-conehead-technology

One of the larger problems in the industry is there is only the pass/fail ASTM test. None of the helmet manufacturers want to do more extensive or comparative testing, and the studies that were done about 10 years ago in the UK (which did compare the safety of specific helmets) was quashed by the manufacturers and you can no longer find it online. Partially this was (I believe) because the more expensive helmets did not necessarily test better.

One of the interesting things that I remember from those tests is that the efficacy of helmets diminishes when they get larger . . . even among the same brand & model. So, buying a larger helmet to accommodate a lot of hair already reduces its protective qualities . . . whether or not the hair under the helmet creates other issues is open for debate. I’ve read several times that helmet manufacturers do NOT recommend putting your hair up, but I do not think that there’s been any real testing done to quantify performance.

[btswass]

[QUOTE=Synthesis;8628317]
Less tongue in cheek than earlier, helmets and how they work are something that I think about a LOT.

I’m reasonably savvy in understanding how forces/acceleration etc work. Until this year it had never occurred to me that helmets reduce the forces that cause skull fracture but do comparatively little to prevent concussions. (Thank you articles for the Concussion movie. I did a lot of reading due to those)

Do helmets absorb impact? Yes, hooray for lack of skull fracture
Do helmets deccelerate the head for that the brain doesn’t ricochet back and forth in the skull? Not much. Watch a video on scrambling an egg inside the shell for a pretty good visual.

I don’t know about the rest of you, but that scares me. I’ve hit my head LOADS of times over the years coming off and written it off because “I’ll be fine, I was wearing my helmet” I bet most of you have done the same.

So, do I believe the helmet manufacturers on ‘what is better/safer?’ Not without some actual data, thanks. Because beyond the testing standards, its all fluff. If there was an actual data-proven competitive advantage, they’d be trumpeting it from the rooftops. Instead, we get sparkles and custom colors.

Do I believe the neurologists? Damn straight I do.[/QUOTE]

I’m glad someone else understands how little helmets really do to protect us. Which also terrifies me.
Concussions all comes down to energy. The first law of thermodynamics: energy cannot be created or destroyed it can only change form. So when our heads hit the ground all that energy gets transferred to our brains bouncing around. Imagine dropping a marble onto the floor. Its going to bounce until it eventually comes to rest. Now imagine dropping it onto a piece of foam. It won’t bounce as high and will come to rest faster because some of that energy is being absorbed by the foam and transferred into heat. A helmet absorbs some of that energy. The key to preventing concussions is a helmet that can absorb 100% of energy. Is it possible? Probably not yet. Can our helmets be improved to absorb more energy? Absolutely.

[alterGS]

I remember reading an article about this years ago and trying to find it (or any information) when a previous thread like this came up and couldn’t.

I’m wondering how something like the no knot hairnet changes things. Since you don’t have a ponytail the remaining hair is spread more evenly across the back/top of your head creating less air pockets especially right at the back. I’m in the camp of ‘my hair is so thin that my helmet fits the same hair in/hair out’, but I’ve started using the no knot and the fit is a lot more comfortable!

[IPEsq]

This thread reminds me of this product:

http://www.hovding.com/how_hovding_works

[Dewey]

I remember that awhile ago someone posted a link to a very informative article on TBI and helmet technology. The “conehead” technology was discussed as a promising new design that would increase safety for all sorts of helmets used by participants in various sports. I know Devon Aire put out a few helmet models with this technology, the Matrix and the Prism.

What happened with these helmets? At the time the article came out, I was under the impression (or maybe I just assumed) that helmet manufacturers would all follow suit and that this new, superior technology would become the norm. Now it’s hard to find a Matrix (I’ve seen a few on closeout), and the Prism never got beyond the prototype. I was really interested in the Prism. I emailed Devon-aire repeatedly, and they kept telling me, “It will be out in the spring.” “Look for it in late summer.” “We are aiming for fall.” I finally gave up.

Does anyone know anything about why the conehead technology is not more generally available in riding helmets?

[Bogie]

[QUOTE=Dewey;8629165]

Does anyone know anything about why the conehead technology is not more generally available in riding helmets?[/QUOTE]

I remember reading that people didn’t like the look of the helmets. I also thought they were promising and still use my Matrix.

[touchstone]

[QUOTE=Madeline;8628228]
Who are you going to listen to? A helmet rep whose only interest is in selling high end helmets to people who are seeking the approval of their coaches for whom “the look” is all, or a neurologist who knows how head injuries work?[/QUOTE]

Are you a neurologist?

I’d seriously like to see some science on this question. My understanding is that the foam in the helmet helps slow deceleration on impact. I don’t exactly understand how the hair would substantially impede that process.

It seems like some air between foam and skull could still be theoretically safe. I wear a One-K helmet, which is ASTM/SEI approved in every size. It has only two shell sizes, with 5 different liner sizes. If you’re wearing the smallest size liner for your shell size, I’d think there’s actually way more space between your head and the foam than would be created by some hair in, say, the largest liner size for that shell.

Surely someone has studied this???

[UnlacedDreams]

[QUOTE=Bogie;8628701]
A few years ago a new helmet design was introduced by Devon-Aire. I thought it was an interesting development and was pretty surprised that these helmets sunk like a stone and never caught on. I have two. I think I heard that riders thought they were “ugly”.

I’m not sure whether they really would help absorb the force of an impact but fro $75 or so, I was certainly willing to give it a try!

http://www.riders4helmets.com/2013/02/devon-aire-announces-new-matrix-safety-helmet-with-conehead-technology

One of the larger problems in the industry is there is only the pass/fail ASTM test. None of the helmet manufacturers want to do more extensive or comparative testing, and the studies that were done about 10 years ago in the UK (which did compare the safety of specific helmets) was quashed by the manufacturers and you can no longer find it online. Partially this was (I believe) because the more expensive helmets did not necessarily test better.

One of the interesting things that I remember from those tests is that the efficacy of helmets diminishes when they get larger . . . even among the same brand & model. So, buying a larger helmet to accommodate a lot of hair already reduces its protective qualities . . . whether or not the hair under the helmet creates other issues is open for debate. I’ve read several times that helmet manufacturers do NOT recommend putting your hair up, but I do not think that there’s been any real testing done to quantify performance.[/QUOTE]

It might have gone over a little better if they hadn’t called it “CONEHEAD” technology. I saw that and immediately thought “We are from France!”

[snowrider]

[QUOTE=touchstone-;8629230]
Are you a neurologist?

I’d seriously like to see some science on this question. My understanding is that the foam in the helmet helps slow deceleration on impact. I don’t exactly understand how the hair would substantially impede that process.

It seems like some air between foam and skull could still be theoretically safe. I wear a One-K helmet, which is ASTM/SEI approved in every size. It has only two shell sizes, with 5 different liner sizes. If you’re wearing the smallest size liner for your shell size, I’d think there’s actually way more space between your head and the foam than would be created by some hair in, say, the largest liner size for that shell.

Surely someone has studied this???[/QUOTE]

Not a neurologist but my amateur understanding is this: the impact come from outside the helmet, basically the shell hits the ground and the force travels through the shell to your head via the foam. The force from the shell causes the foam to deform, absorbing some of the energy and meaning the inside of the foam decelerates slightly slower than the outside and the shell and so does your head if it’s touching the foam. Basically the compressing of the foam gives some travel to your skull, slowing the speed at which it impacts and spreading the force laterally via the foam. So a very fast point impact becomes a slightly slower, lower force impact spread over a wider area which reduces the peak force at any one point to then outside of your head, helping prevent fractures, shearing and cushioning the bouncing of your brain. If there is an air gap the foam compresses before your head hits it and it also doesn’t spread the forces over a wide area as effectively. So it’s much more similar to just hitting your head on the shell/ ground. That is the gist of what I’ve been told.

Here is a graph showing the peak impacts: http://www.helmets.org/general.htm

Here is a youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA5bHYoIC1g

And another, more entertaining one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF-Ft8FG2Mg

One thing most riders really should do is learn how to fall. Professional skaters and tumblers can fall dozens of times in one day and not impact their head because they know how to fall. We learned in pony club as kids and it’s a good skill. Although it gets harder as you age and become more stiff and have other injuries you unconsciously protect!

[Kalele]

The reason hair up = bad is because a lot of time so much hair is up there that it will allow the slightest “slide” of the helmet because the hair is loose against the skull.

I have disappointed many girls with their long thick hair because I would not in good conscious sell them a helmet. They wanted their hair up – and there comes a point where that is not safely possible. Did I probably give another store money? Yup. I did have one girl come back days later with her hair much shorter ready for a properly fitting helmet though

[Dewey]

[QUOTE=Bogie;8628701]
A few years ago a new helmet design was introduced by Devon-Aire. I thought it was an interesting development and was pretty surprised that these helmets sunk like a stone and never caught on. I have two. I think I heard that riders thought they were “ugly”.

I’m not sure whether they really would help absorb the force of an impact but fro $75 or so, I was certainly willing to give it a try!

http://www.riders4helmets.com/2013/02/devon-aire-announces-new-matrix-safety-helmet-with-conehead-technology

One of the larger problems in the industry is there is only the pass/fail ASTM test. None of the helmet manufacturers want to do more extensive or comparative testing, and the studies that were done about 10 years ago in the UK (which did compare the safety of specific helmets) was quashed by the manufacturers and you can no longer find it online. Partially this was (I believe) because the more expensive helmets did not necessarily test better.

One of the interesting things that I remember from those tests is that the efficacy of helmets diminishes when they get larger . . . even among the same brand & model. So, buying a larger helmet to accommodate a lot of hair already reduces its protective qualities . . . whether or not the hair under the helmet creates other issues is open for debate. I’ve read several times that helmet manufacturers do NOT recommend putting your hair up, but I do not think that there’s been any real testing done to quantify performance.[/QUOTE]

I didn’t see your post earlier before I posted about the conehead technology. (And just for the record, I agree with whoever commented that the name is unfortunate. I picture the SNL characters whenever I hear “conehead.”)

The Matrix is funny-looking in the pics. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s why it didn’t sell. It looks better on a real person, but by itself it was kind of off-putting. I admit that’s why I wanted the Prism and was really looking forward to its introduction. But since it is never going to come out (apparently), I may go ahead and get the Matrix. It is still available although the price has gone up.

I am still surprised that the technology was not adopted by other helmet manufacturers. I would think safety would be a big selling point for a lot of riders.

[touchstone]

@snowrider;8629588

Not a neurologist but my amateur understanding is this: the impact come from outside the helmet, basically the shell hits the ground and the force travels through the shell to your head via the foam. The force from the shell causes the foam to deform, absorbing some of the energy and meaning the inside of the foam decelerates slightly slower than the outside and the shell and so does your head if it’s touching the foam. Basically the compressing of the foam gives some travel to your skull, slowing the speed at which it impacts and spreading the force laterally via the foam. So a very fast point impact becomes a slightly slower, lower force impact spread over a wider area which reduces the peak force at any one point to then outside of your head, helping prevent fractures, shearing and cushioning the bouncing of your brain. If there is an air gap the foam compresses before your head hits it and it also doesn’t spread the forces over a wide area as effectively. So it’s much more similar to just hitting your head on the shell/ ground. That is the gist of what I’ve been told.

Here is a graph showing the peak impacts: http://www.helmets.org/general.htm

Here is a youtube video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HA5bHYoIC1g

And another, more entertaining one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wF-Ft8FG2Mg

Thanks!

[Mistysmom]

Thanks for sharing!