Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hou2h.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!hou2h!an
From: an@hou2h.UUCP (A.NGUYEN)
Newsgroups: net.cycle
Subject: Re: Need Helmet Info - (nf)
Message-ID: <425@hou2h.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 1-May-84 09:24:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: hou2h.425
Posted: Tue May  1 09:24:07 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 2-May-84 05:00:54 EDT
References: <1442@zehntel.UUCP>, <906@ihuxq.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ
Lines: 31

--
> Consumer Report once [claimed] that DOT standards were good enough,
> since any impact that would break a DOT but not a Snell would probably
> not make much difference in your now over-with life.

Yes and no!  First of all, helmets protect your skull by *ABSORBING*
the force of a blow while transmitting as little force to your head
as possible.  (Hence the one-use only polystyrene liner).

Therein lies the compromise.  If the helmet is hard enough to absorb
mucho G's (Snell-80), then it would not give enough to absorb small
forces, so in lesser blows, they actually transmit more force to
your skull.  On the other hand, if the helmet is soft enough to cushion
a minor blow (DOT), then it would transmit more G's to your head in a
major get-off.

(That's how Vetter got away with their claims that their DOT-only
Vetterlites provide more protection than big name lids BTW.  Their
testing involves impacts that are too small to be effectively
absorbed by hard helmets like Snell '80 certified hats).

Take your pick.  Do you expect to step off at lower speeds more than
high speeds?  Yes?  You're better off with a DOT helmet.  Me?  I wear
a Bell Star with Snell '80 certification.

	Au

PS.  The fiberglass shell in helmets is less than 1/4" thick and is
designed more to prevent penetration by sharp objects than to absorb
impact.  I have never seen one actually breaks like an egg.