A Cycling & bikes forum. CycleBanter.com

Go Back   Home » CycleBanter.com forum » rec.bicycles » Techniques
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Shimano Headset



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #291  
Old May 20th 17, 02:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
John B.[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,697
Default Shimano Headset

On Fri, 19 May 2017 13:07:12 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 3:25:49 PM UTC-4, Doug Landau wrote:
On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:30:34 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2017 4:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:


There are all sorts of these studies. Not surprisingly, they prove that if you hit your head on a hard object, you're better off if you're wearing a helmet. That's kind of why we have helmets, no?

Not in the case of bike helmets. Because if it were really that simple,
we would have helmets for walking, for jogging, for ladder climbing, for
stair descending, for riding in cars, and for all the other normal
activities that produce more TBI cases than riding bikes.

We have bike helmets for a different reason: Bell Sports, then other
companies, saw that it was possible to sell them by portraying bicycling
as a big source of serious brain injury.

And it worked because from their point of view, bicycling hit a sweet
spot: Unpopular enough to be considered "not a normal activity" and
thereby having few defenders; but popular enough to form a profitable
market.


--
- Frank Krygowski


Clever marketers, they promoted "price: high to low" as the proper way to make purchasing decisions: "If you have a ten dollar head, buy a ten dollar helmet".


Which is particularly dishonest, because not only do all helmets sold in the
USA pass the same (minimal) impact test; but the more expensive helmets tend
to barely pass it, or pass it by a smaller margin.


I read an article written by a bloke who actually tests helmets for a
living. He stated that test standards today are more lenient then they
had been previously.
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1081.html

More money gets you a helmet deemed to be more "stylish" (at least, in the
opinion of those who manage to find beauty in this weird headgear). It gets
you lighter weight and it gets you more holes (read "less helmet") for
ventilation. Reducing mass and coverage while still barely passing the test
requires more sophisticated and expensive design and prototyping work. The
result is typically a helmet that's _less_ protective.

It's the people with ten dollar heads who don't realize this and blow $200
on an even less protective helmet.

- Frank Krygowski


The author I mentioned above states that "After all the Snell B-90
standard called for four impacts on each test sample, two of which
were tested against flat surfaces with an impact energy of 100 joules
each. The tragedy is you cannot buy helmets to this standard any more.
Manufacturers prefer the easier standard that they helped to write."

--
Cheers,

John B.

Ads
  #292  
Old May 20th 17, 02:40 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
SMS
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,477
Default Shimano Headset

On 5/19/2017 4:30 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
sms writes:

On 5/19/2017 7:20 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:

Given the low cost, I would call the idea a success even if it saved but
one or two lives.


But how many lives were lost because people refused to buy a
refrigerator due to this law and ate food that was unsafe due to lack
of refrigeration?


Very few, I'd wager. The main cost was in publicity (initially I think
a lot was private, but later done at public expense), and, as you surely
know, passing laws isn't free.


That's right. I'm now getting paid about 17ΒΆ an hour to pass laws.
  #293  
Old May 20th 17, 02:52 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Radey Shouman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,747
Default Shimano Headset

writes:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 11:37:12 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/17/2017 11:30 PM,
wrote:
On Wed, 17 May 2017 22:40:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Emanuel Berg writes:

Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring a head injury, you exclude the
cases where helmets actually prevented head
injury (or where helmets caused a head injury
that would otherwise not have happened).

By requiring an accident, you exclude the
cases where a helmeted rider took more risk
than she otherwise would have, and had
a crash she would have avoided without
a helmet.

By comparing bikers with and without helmets,
you risk comparing two populations that are
quite different, in ability, in age, in their
tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek
medical attention, in economic status, and
many other factors.

Still, it is bikes, helmets, accidents, and
head injuries, as opposed to pedestrians,
MCs, etc.

All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head injuries to pedestrians
should have some personal interest. Similarly most of us are drivers,
and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least some of the time.

And who never uses a ladder?

It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet reduces ones
chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year, or over a
lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a health
researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain injuries over a whole
population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle.

Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I suspect that the
original question in the minds of those who started the bike helmet
thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of brain injury can
we actually change human behavior, to use the protective equipment that
surely will fix the problem?

That might be a possible explanation if the promotions weren't kick
started almost entirely by Bell Inc.

The very first article I read touting bike helmets was talking about
Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the market. (There was
one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't recall anything
but its own ads promoting it.)

Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids began lobbying
for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as they say.

Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S., a country where
bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy to portray as
dangerous. If public health people were really at the root of the
promotion, why would it not have happened in those European countries
where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported) benefit?
Cycling has always been camparatively rare in the USA????

When I was growing up, just about every kid had a bicycle in Canada -
and it seemed there were a lot more in the USA. Every school had a
bank of bike racks, and large numbers of kids biked to school instead
of being ferried in by parents in mini-vans / suvs, cuvs etc. Every
small town had at least one bicycle shop,
In the summer, there were kids on bikes all over town, and we biked
out to our favorite fishing holes and swimming holes. The common bike
was a single speed coaster bike - with 3 speed Sturmey Archer equipped
bikes a close second, and "french gear" bikes - usually 5 or 10 speed,
but not uncommonly even 3 and 6 speed (3 on the back and 2 on the
crank)


I think you missed the word "comparatively." Bike use in the U.S. has
always been much smaller than in Europe and Asia.

And it's interesting that American kids once rode bikes very much more
than they do now. My friends and I certainly rode a lot when I was a
kid; but the only common warning then was from a mom saying "Watch out
for cars."

Today, warnings come from well-funded institutions pushing publications
saying "You can fall off your bike and die even in your own driveway!
You MUST wear a helmet every time you ride a bike!"

Do you think there may be a connection between the "Danger! Danger!"
warnings and the drop in kids' bicycling? Just maybe?

The drop in cycling happened prior to the helmet wars. Parents fear
of letting their kids play outside started it. Parents afraid to let
their kids walk or bike 2 or 3 blocks to school, and bussing kids to
school reduced kids cycling, long before helmets became mandatory or
even recommended in most areas.

I live less than a block from a school, and VERY few kids walk to
school, there are cars everywhere - and a lot of them from within the
"village" - a6 or 8 block radius from the school. Those that do walk
are walking with parents - and this is in a VERY safe part of a very
safe city.


From what I see when riding to work, only the most disadvantaged urban
youts are even allowed to *wait for the bus* alone. Most have parents
with them, some in idling mommy vans, none more than 50 yards from home.
--
  #294  
Old May 20th 17, 03:49 AM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
Frank Krygowski[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,538
Default Shimano Headset

On 5/19/2017 7:36 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 3:25:49 PM UTC-4, Doug Landau wrote:
On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:30:34 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2017 4:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:


There are all sorts of these studies. Not surprisingly, they
prove that if you hit your head on a hard object, you're better
off if you're wearing a helmet. That's kind of why we have
helmets, no?

Not in the case of bike helmets. Because if it were really that simple,
we would have helmets for walking, for jogging, for ladder climbing, for
stair descending, for riding in cars, and for all the other normal
activities that produce more TBI cases than riding bikes.

We have bike helmets for a different reason: Bell Sports, then other
companies, saw that it was possible to sell them by portraying bicycling
as a big source of serious brain injury.

And it worked because from their point of view, bicycling hit a sweet
spot: Unpopular enough to be considered "not a normal activity" and
thereby having few defenders; but popular enough to form a profitable
market.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Clever marketers, they promoted "price: high to low" as the proper
way to make purchasing decisions: "If you have a ten dollar head,
buy a ten dollar helmet".


Which is particularly dishonest, because not only do all helmets sold in the
USA pass the same (minimal) impact test; but the more expensive helmets tend
to barely pass it, or pass it by a smaller margin.

More money gets you a helmet deemed to be more "stylish" (at least, in the
opinion of those who manage to find beauty in this weird headgear). It gets
you lighter weight and it gets you more holes (read "less helmet") for
ventilation. Reducing mass and coverage while still barely passing the test
requires more sophisticated and expensive design and prototyping work. The
result is typically a helmet that's _less_ protective.

It's the people with ten dollar heads who don't realize this and blow $200
on an even less protective helmet.


On the other hand, I read somewhere that those funny looking time-trial
helmets actually give an aero advantage over an uncovered head.
Particularly if not shaved.


As a recovering aerodynamics freak, I agree with that. However, it has
nothing to do with the vast majority of helmet promotion.


--
- Frank Krygowski
  #295  
Old May 20th 17, 09:06 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Shimano Headset

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 4:38:44 PM UTC-7, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 10:20:27 AM UTC-4, Radey Shouman wrote:
John B. writes:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 23:45:29 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 18 May 2017 11:49:16 -0400, Radey Shouman
wrote:

Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/18/2017 9:43 AM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Frank Krygowski writes:

On 5/17/2017 9:50 PM, Radey Shouman wrote:
Emanuel Berg writes:

Radey Shouman wrote:

By requiring a head injury, you exclude the
cases where helmets actually prevented head
injury (or where helmets caused a head injury
that would otherwise not have happened).

By requiring an accident, you exclude the
cases where a helmeted rider took more risk
than she otherwise would have, and had
a crash she would have avoided without
a helmet.

By comparing bikers with and without helmets,
you risk comparing two populations that are
quite different, in ability, in age, in their
tendency to follow traffic rules or to seek
medical attention, in economic status, and
many other factors.

Still, it is bikes, helmets, accidents, and
head injuries, as opposed to pedestrians,
MCs, etc.

All of us are pedestrians at some point, so head injuries to pedestrians
should have some personal interest. Similarly most of us are drivers,
and almost all are passengers in motor vehicles at least some
of the time.

And who never uses a ladder?

It's reasonable to ask whether wearing a bike helmet reduces ones
chances of suffering a brain injury, today, this year, or over a
lifetime. But it's also reasonable to ask, if you're a health
researcher, what the best way of minimizing brain injuries over a whole
population, many of whom may not ever ride a bicycle.

Frank seems to think it was purely mercenary, but I suspect that the
original question in the minds of those who started the bike helmet
thing was: In what activity with a non-trivial risk of brain injury can
we actually change human behavior, to use the protective equipment that
surely will fix the problem?

That might be a possible explanation if the promotions weren't kick
started almost entirely by Bell Inc.

The very first article I read touting bike helmets was talking about
Bell Biker helmets, when they first arrived on the market. (There was
one tiny manufacturer, Skid-Lid, before Bell. I don't recall anything
but its own ads promoting it.)

Bell soon became a sponsor of Safe Kids Inc. Safe Kids began lobbying
for mandatory helmets, and we were off to the races, as they say.

Also, note that the entire industry started in the U.S., a country
where bicycling has always been comparatively rare, thus easy to
portray as dangerous. If public health people were really at the root
of the promotion, why would it not have happened in those European
countries where there is lots of cycling, so lots more (purported)
benefit?

Because such a promotion would have succeeded just like driving helmets
would in the US. Extra hassle for activities seen as ordinary and
obligatory is hard to sell.

Precisely. And the word "sell" is very appropriate.

Ideas are sold, not just products. Like, say, the idea that
refrigerator doors should be removed before putting them on the curb.
You got a problem with that???
A kid creawls into s frig to hide as part of a game, and the door ,
with a magnetic seal ispretty easy to open. No problem, right? Untill
the frig gets knocked over or the door gets blocked. Too many kids
died in refrigerators and fweezers beforwe the law was changed
requiring the doors to be removed. It's only a couple bolts - not a
problem at all for ANYONE who can move a fridge to remove.

Out of curiosity how common was this problem? Did hordes of kids get
trapped in fridges? Or is this another of these laws that are passed
primarily to demonstrate that "Your government really does care about
you?"

I don't know. There were at least a few fatalities. The laws
definitely followed the publicity campaign, they did not lead.

Given the low cost, I would call the idea a success even if it saved but
one or two lives.


That's fine, but it's very different from the history and motives of bike
helmet promotion.


That's true. The point is that there was an ad-style campaign to sell
the idea that the doors should be removed from junk refrigerators.
The idea sold, although it did not turn into a merchandizing opportunity
like bike helmets.


You have to think of this - the refrigerator locks on all of those old refrigerators was on the outside and really easy to remove and yet it was demanded that the doors be removed.

  #296  
Old May 20th 17, 09:12 PM posted to rec.bicycles.tech
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,345
Default Shimano Headset

On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 6:16:56 PM UTC-7, Doug Landau wrote:
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 1:07:14 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Friday, May 19, 2017 at 3:25:49 PM UTC-4, Doug Landau wrote:
On Thursday, May 18, 2017 at 8:30:34 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 5/18/2017 4:24 PM, jbeattie wrote:


There are all sorts of these studies. Not surprisingly, they prove that if you hit your head on a hard object, you're better off if you're wearing a helmet. That's kind of why we have helmets, no?

Not in the case of bike helmets. Because if it were really that simple,
we would have helmets for walking, for jogging, for ladder climbing, for
stair descending, for riding in cars, and for all the other normal
activities that produce more TBI cases than riding bikes.

We have bike helmets for a different reason: Bell Sports, then other
companies, saw that it was possible to sell them by portraying bicycling
as a big source of serious brain injury.

And it worked because from their point of view, bicycling hit a sweet
spot: Unpopular enough to be considered "not a normal activity" and
thereby having few defenders; but popular enough to form a profitable
market.


--
- Frank Krygowski

Clever marketers, they promoted "price: high to low" as the proper way to make purchasing decisions: "If you have a ten dollar head, buy a ten dollar helmet".


Which is particularly dishonest, because not only do all helmets sold in the
USA pass the same (minimal) impact test; but the more expensive helmets tend
to barely pass it, or pass it by a smaller margin.

More money gets you a helmet deemed to be more "stylish" (at least, in the
opinion of those who manage to find beauty in this weird headgear). It gets
you lighter weight and it gets you more holes (read "less helmet") for
ventilation. Reducing mass and coverage while still barely passing the test
requires more sophisticated and expensive design and prototyping work. The
result is typically a helmet that's _less_ protective.


On the motorcycle side it is a similar story - the more expensive helmets are made more with high speed impacts in mind (uh.. so to speak), egged-on by the pressure to have a "Such-and-such Approved" sticker on it, than with the 35-55 mph crash that most riders are infinitely more likely to experience, and the result is that the cheapest helmet on the market - the $55 Chinese noname - is not only the cheapest and the softest but also the one that works the best at legal speeds.


The impact resistance of a motorcycle helmet is almost exactly the same as a bicycle helmet. Remember I said that the limit is what a person will wear on his head.

The hard shell adds the protection where it is necessary - in a fall a motorcycle normally does a "fall over" and a rider tries to keep inside the heavy metal parts to protect most of his body. His head usually drags on the ground and the hard shell protects his head from abrasions and bouncing along the pavement. Remember that I was the safety director for the American Federation of Motorcyclists and this was something I was required to know. Including a tour of Bell's test facilities and a complete explanation of why helmets can't work any better than they do.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Shimano headset with hose clamp (for Frank) Joerg[_2_] Techniques 34 June 8th 16 03:04 PM
FA: NOS Shimano Dura Ace 1" HP-7410 threaded headset retrofan Marketplace 0 August 14th 08 04:41 AM
WTB: Mavic 305 or Shimano Dura Ace 1" threaded headset LawBoy01 Marketplace 2 August 14th 08 12:02 AM
Installing shimano 105 headset Neil Smith UK 1 November 7th 07 06:49 PM
FA: Pinarello frame, fork, Shimano Dura Ace headset retrofan Marketplace 0 July 6th 07 11:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 CycleBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.