makes sense to me
I don't see the logic in that statement. Subjecting your head to 300 G's seems like it would do a lot more damage than 150 G's. Lower G's on my head seems like the best choice. The problem is making the helmet able to do that without making an 8 foot helmet.If a G exposure below this limit is safe, another exposure 40 G's lower cannot be any safer
yeah but lets say 300 G's is "safe" and only gives you an AIS 4 but 150 G's is also "safe" and only gives an AIS 2. It just seems to me the less G's your brain smashes into your skull with are safer.motojedi said:I believe he's saying that by his definition of safe; you can't have "more safe". Once you establish what level of G's are considered safe; a level below that isn't more safe, it's just safe.
This is a long read, but it actually requires that length for a well researched and well written scientific discussion about helmet standards. I am personally very grateful that RR posted that link, as many of my questions have been addressed in this article.RRWANTR said:
:rotfl: I'm with you.jaim said:
So is 1G safer than 2Gs? 2G's is 100% more...tikki50 said:lower G's will ALWAYS be better on your head, period. Of course Snell will have a response like this, what would you expect. Motorcyclist mag kind of attacked them and they feel backed in a corner. Overall the USA needs to adopt a better safety system which includes helmets, jackets, back protectors, etc. I seriously doubt that will happen but it would be nice.
I'll stick with my Suomy as well...