Kawasaki VN750 Forum banner

1 - 9 of 9 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,236 Posts
Yeah I read that same article a while back ,I don't know how well it would really work though.Looks good on paper though.
 

·
Columbus, Ohio
Joined
·
523 Posts
I don't even think it looks good on paper. I don't see how a soft exterior would be better than a hard one. Less friction on the hard surface.

Maybe I am missing something. We'll see what D.O.T. and Snell have to say about it.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,778 Posts
The helmet isnn't soft, it just has an external "skin" that slips and may reduce the amount of force the brain receives in an accident.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,236 Posts
I don't even think it looks good on paper. I don't see how a soft exterior would be better than a hard one. Less friction on the hard surface.

Maybe I am missing something. We'll see what D.O.T. and Snell have to say about it.
Did you watch the video?The Idea is that the soft skin would move a little before it starts to grip the helmet, absorbing part of the energy before the helmet starts to rotate from the initial contact thereby reducing the movement of the head.It is a lot like the new softer walls in Auto Racing. Except in this case the energy energy absorbing material is on the object that is moving rather than the stationary one.The function if a helmet is to absorb energy before it is transferred to the head .If this movable outer layer soaks up part of the impact in addition to everything else that a helmet is supposed to do,I can see how it could be beneficial.The key is that it is movable stretchy if you will,and even a smooth helmet is not smooth after it the ground with any lateral force,If you think so, take a piece of 40 grit sandpaper and press really hard on it and rub it across an old helmet's surface and see how easy it slides,or look at a helmet that fas slid on the pavement during a crash and see if it is still slick.In a helmet this is just another layer of energy absorption.It still looks good on paper to me.whether you see it or not and these people have done a bunch of research.
 

·
Linkmeister Supreme
Joined
·
7,960 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,236 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,027 Posts
I am by no means an engineer, but after putting some thought into it, it looks like a good idea to me. I couldn't care less what Snell thinks about it, To me their testing procedure actually results in a less safe helmet than the DOT standard. I see no issue with this helmet passing DOT, but I doubt we will be seeing it in the U.S. anytime soon. This might be one idea that would convince me to spend over $100 for a helmet. When I buy a helmet, I'm buying protection, plain and simple. That includes not only protection in the event of an accident, but protection from the environment, the wind, and all the crap in it. My helmet has been hit hard by airborne debris many times before. I don't pay for a fancy name, paint job, or a bunch of features that I don't need. Jerry.
 

·
Columbus, Ohio
Joined
·
523 Posts
I did not see the video. I was thinking of the skin as added friction, rather than solid lubricant. I withdraw my reservations.
 
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Top