George de Randich
To all of my friends:
I think I have a nice Noggin; a late 1946 Model; I've grown accustomed to it! The fur on top of it has changed color over the years from light brown, to dark brown to a streaked grey and finally to solid white!
I prefer keeping my noggin un crunched! Therefore I will continue to use safety gear that will tend to keep my brains;those that a Graduate from Nathaniel Hawthorne College; should have maintained!
I am looking forward to seeing you during the run thru Washington to Portland!!
George de Randich
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P.S. Hello to Hans Voldengen NHC Class of '69.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Greg Crane"
To:
Sent: Sunday, May 06, 2007 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: [OBRA Chat] Interesting note about USCF helmets
> Interesting info. The only problem I have with it is;
> a "sexy Euro helmet" might be the only way to make
> some local team kits look less CMGish. Not that there
> is anything wrong with the way CMG kits look. I like
> the CMG kits. I can spot them a mile away, which just
> happens to be how far up the road most CMG riders are
> from me.
>
> Greg
> --- Candi Murray wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Les Earnest [mailto:les@cs.stanford.edu]
>> Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 3:00 PM
>> To: ncnca@ncnca.org
>> Cc: Farrell, Shawn
>> Subject: USA Cycling invites you to break your
>> noggin
>>
>> Last year, USA Cycling announced a helmet rule
>> change, allowing
>> helmets meeting a European standard called CEN to be
>> used -- see
>>
> http://www.usacycling.org/news/user/story.php?id=2109.
>> The Chair and
>> Vice Chair of the Headgear Subcommittee (F08.53) of
>> ASTM
>> International promptly contacted the USA Cycling
>> staff to recommend
>> that they reconsider this change, pointing out that
>> even though some
>> helmets meeting that standard also meet U.S.
>> requirements, which are
>> set by the U.S. Consumer Products Safety Commission
>> (CPSC), many such
>> helmets do not. The key issue is that the CEN
>> testing procedures can
>> be fiddled so as to get helmets to pass that are
>> actually unsafe.
>> Specifics on the inadequacy of the CEN standard in
>> the opinion of
>> Dave Halstead, F08.53 Chair, are given at the end of
>> this note.
>>
>> Halstead invited USA Cycling staff members to come
>> to his testing lab
>> to witness comparative tests of helmets meeting the
>> CEN and the CPSC
>> standards. When I returned from a trip to Alaska
>> last September I
>> joined the discussion and also urged that USA
>> Cycling reconsider its
>> helmet rule change. I received friendly responses
>> indicating a
>> willingness to reconsider but the invitation to
>> witness comparative
>> texts was not accepted and nothing further happened.
>>
>> Having tried and failed to get this matter resolved
>> off-line, I am
>> now going public. Fortunately, Helmets meeting just
>> the CEN standard
>> cannot legally be sold in the U.S. but you or your
>> friends can get
>> them overseas and bring them back. Please do not
>> succumb to the urge
>> to buy a sexy Euro helmet that might put you in a
>> coma for awhile or
>> that might leave you with impaired speech for the
>> rest of your life.
>>
>> If you would like to know what happened the last
>> time we had really
>> stupid helmet rules, go to the Cyclops USA web site
>> at
>> http://www.stanford.edu/~learnest/cyclops/, scroll
>> down to September
>> 1989 and read "The brain bucket bash."
>>
>> -Les Earnest, Speaking for myself and not for any
>> of the
>> organizations with which I'm affiliated
>>
>> -----------------------------------
>>
>> As pointed out in September 2006 by Dave Halstead:
>> "The issue is that the helmeted head form is
>> unrestrained, it is not
>> riding a rail. As such, by playing with the
>> geometry of the
>> shell/helmet you can get the helmet to spin on
>> impact. The spinning
>> action attenuates or more correctly redirects the
>> energy from a
>> linear motion to a rotational motion. The linear
>> only accelerometers
>> in the head form record the low g's and everyone is
>> happy. Here then
>> is the problem , if you do not get the spin, then
>> you get the high
>> linear g's. If you do get the spin, the linear g's
>> are in fact low,
>> but the rotational forces are high. It is a stupid
>> test
>> system. These helmets will result in increased
>> injury."
>>
>> Dave also remarked:
>> "I do think that the error is in an attempt to make
>> a direct
>> comparison. If the CEN standard required a
>> restrained, direct impact
>> then the difference is not that much, but it does
>> not require a
>> restrained direct impact. We tested two CEN
>> compliant models here
>> last week to the CPSC standard. This was a case of
>> the manufacturer
>> stating `We will test to the CPSC just to be sure
>> but as it passes
>> CEN we know they are fine, except maybe for the
>> label'. The best
>> number we got was a 338 [g] and the worst a 420.
>> This is not a
>> surprise to us and happens in almost every case of a
>> CEN helmet
>> submitted to us for CPSC."
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OBRA mailing list
>> obra@list.obra.org
>> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
>> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>>
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________________
> Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check.
> Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
> _______________________________________________
> OBRA mailing list
> obra@list.obra.org
> http://list.obra.org/mailman/listinfo/obra
> Unsubscribe: obra-unsubscribe@list.obra.org
>
>