Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yale.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!yale!dw
From: dw@yale.ARPA (David Wittenberg)
Newsgroups: net.bicycle
Subject: Re: Info needed on buying helmets
Message-ID: <404@yale.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 17-Oct-85 11:45:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: yale.404
Posted: Thu Oct 17 11:45:03 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 19-Oct-85 08:06:01 EDT
References: <848@decwrl.UUCP>
Reply-To: dw@yale-comix.UUCP (David Wittenberg)
Organization: Yale University CS Dept., New Haven CT
Lines: 24

Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:
Distribution:
Keywords:

The difference between the Vetta and the Bell helmets is that the
Bell (Biker or Toulite) have a lot more styrofoam in them.
The thickness of the foam is similar, but the Bell has much more
surface area.  Thus the Vetta will crush faster.  This is good,
as you get less energy transmitted to your head.  The problem comes
if you "bottom out" the Vetta, at which point you get no more energy
absorption.  For this reason, the Bell, which transmits more energy in
a minor fall (before the Vetta bottoms out) is much better in a bad fall
as it is much harder to bottom out.

In any kind of a fall with the Bell, you will probably get a concussion,
but in a really bad fall, you'll survive.  With the Vetta in a minor fall
you may avoid the concussion, but in a really bad fall things get bad.

I use the Bell, as I haven't fallen off my bike in 10 years, and I'm
willing to get a concussion every 10-20 years in exchange for surviving
a really bad fall.

These are both good helmets (they both pass the ANSI and Snell tests),
so I'm making relatively small distinctions between them.

	 David Wittenberg       decvax!yale!wittenberg  (uucp)
	 Yale University        wittenberg@yale   (csnet or arpa)