This has been enlightening, and I'm sure that you all feel much better for having jumped down my throat. I was initially being deliberately provocative to raise an issue regarding something which I feel is unacceptable. But I think my point is being misunderstood.
I've read a few bit and pieces on helmet standards and testing sice this horrendous tragedy. Some posters have quoted figures about this and that, trying to justify this helmet's "correct" performance in empirical terms. I'm well aware that a conventional securing mechanism requires a quantifiable, pre-determined point of failure, - dunno about 5T, mind - and that with a bit of speculation thrown into the mix regarding impact force it is possible to see how a strap could have broken. Some of you said posted to say so. Thanks for that, I did consider it.
You are barking up absolutely the wrong tree.
If, as suggested, the strap failed intentionally as per design, by doing it's job the helmet was unable to do it's job. Conventional strap design is no longer good enough to ensure a lid can always stay on a rider's head. The proof has just been seen. Tragically. That was the design failure I referred to, not a manufacturing process failure. Worryingly, we now have a situation in which racers are using helmets whose retaining devices (straps) are, under certain circumstances seen in modern racing, not fit for purpose. This isn't just a AGV thing - it encompasses almost all manufacturers at the highest level. The retention system IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH if it's failsafe prevents it from providing protection from the forces that can exist.
What do we do about it? Well, we can either i) Tell R-Dog that he is making tasteless remarks and that he should show more respect, ii) bury our heads in the sand and pretend it will never happen again - seriously dangerous and retrogressive thinking - or iii) discuss it, on a forum. Which is what they are for.
I've obviously got something well and truly up my arse about this. I'm getting to the point finally.
In this article, AGV have just been given a load of free positive media coverage by a well read web-blog in which they are extolling the virtues of a helmet's aerodynamic efficiency when they (and everyone else involved in equipment safety in MotoGP) should be solely concentrating their efforts on improving rider safety. Not exhibiting advances in aerodynamics. IN AERODYNAMICS!!!!! That is a bloody disgrace, right there. Do you see why my helmet is in the bin now, Timpster?
The very least you would expect from any responsible company is for AGV to lead by example in launching an urgent internal enquiry into this matter (case to answer or not), announce their findings publically and follow up by a consultation with other manufacturers and bodies to discuss where they all go from here. Intergrated HANS devices? Other forms of helemt retention involving bracing on a rider's upper torso to withstand greater forces? Options MUST be available. The time for action is NOW. Has anything transpired? Do I even need to answer my own question?
I'm leaving this alone from now on. I hope this makes someone think.
Posted: 10/11/2011 at 20:24
