Yeah, I don't get why in the hell Arai put that up. :huh:abtech said:yeah, that's what we need is major manufacturer product endorsement of brain dead activity. I'll never buy another ARAI helmet because of their apparent endorsement of this "customer" activity.
Community service hours?Mojave954 said:But nice to know the lid did its job and now he is lecturing on safety.
It was posted as a response to the Motoryclist Magazine article that brought into question the shell stiffness issues and load-concentrating impact severities of Snell testing. Soon after that article they posted this story up as an anecdote to the importnace of their belief in those issues or importance, after the info from Harry Hurt and the Cost study were quoted as saying that these types of accidents are rare, and implying that a shell that is too stiff will cause more severe injuries at lower levels of force on flat surfaces, which are more prevalent in the data. The demonstrations in that mag article showed the Arai they tested against a flat surface at lower eenrgy levels transmitted more g-force to the headform, and insinuated that it was more dangerous at those levels fo force. This is a debate within the industry, and the standards, but the perfromance standards all agree that the threshold for brain injury is somewhere between 275G's and 400G's. Wher it gets further complicated by the shell proopery issues is in the duration of those levels, which is typically greater with a stiffer shell. The other question, and the supposed need for a stiffer shell arises from the hemispherical anvil double-impact testing at the level of energy that Snell uses in it's testing protocols.This example by Arai was to show that these impacts can happen, and that a stiff shell and thick enough liner may have saved this guy from injury at impact energies well above those used for those less severe safety standard testing, while still keeping the force levels within that injury threshold.luvtolean said:Yeah, I don't get why in the hell Arai put that up. :huh:
Exactly. As stupid as it sounds, I guarantee this ends up being interpreted by many people to mean that if they buy and wear an ARAI helmet, they can get away with stupid actions relatively unscathed.Silent_Assassin said:I'm glad to know that My Arai will do it's job and them some, but on the other hand I'm glad I dont do 140 mph on the street either........
Arai should really re-think there line of thinking with using this info as a means of advertisement. Maybe thats not there intended purpose, but thats how I take it.
Great, maybe all the new to the sport first time riders can leave the store with an Arai lid to go with there new liter bikes. Now they will have the fastest bikes and the fastest lids. :thumbd: OK ........ I'm done.
Unfortunately, about 40% of the cost of a "real" helmet these days is just to cover the manufacturers product liability insurance due to a huge and very stupid successful lawsuit against Bell Helmets several years ago.asiliat said:Guys, I think you're reading too much into this thing. It's just nice to know that my Arai can at least provide an open casket funeral if I choose to go that route.