Originally Posted by Garrett
I suppose you don't watch much motorcycle racing.
Well, no, because I find it rather silly.
But I'm still not sure I see the relevance. As you keep asserting (most likely correctly), the big problem everyone's addressing with motorsport helmets (in cars or, I guess, on motorcycles) is how to manage the movement of a helmet, because its mass presents a danger.
How would you possibly manage the movement of a ski helmet on a downhill racer?
I think you rather dramatically misinterpreted my previous post. I wasn't trying to say anything about what would be a good helmet in a race car. I was simply noting that your discussion of what makes a good helmet in a race car, and what is currently the most pressing design problem, is some combination of:
- irrelevant, and
- supportive of the post you're criticizing.
Though mostly the former, so only slightly the latter.
The bottom line:
I think everyone agrees that motorcycle racing (not to mention car racing) presents a whole different range of dangers and requirements than ski racing does. Speeds/surfaces/most likely injury mechanisms/other equipment/position of racers ... all are different. What works best in one situation is of very limited value in determining what will work in other situations.
It is important to remember that this discussion started with -- and what the posters who, I guess, you consider to be unqualified value-judgment-makers have been responding to -- was this: "Those race helmets most of these guys use are crap.... they do nothing. Go full-face or go home."
I'm not sure how a discussion of the state of motorsport helmet design (what manufacturers are working on and talking about, etc.) is dramatically more relevant to this subject than is the state of ski racing helmet design (what manufacturers are working on and talking about, etc.)