• Ironfist@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    The point in the video that you are missing is that the material when new, has oils that makes it spongy and more effective. Those oils evaporate with time. The demonstration with the hammer is just to show very casually how brittle the material becomes compared with a new one, and the difference is evident.

    The study you linked, as yourself said, is for bicycle helmets. They are not designed to protect you against the same amount of force as a motorcycle helmet.

    edit: typo

    • Fox
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      But they’re made of the same material so it shouldn’t make a difference. They also didn’t hit the foam with a hammer in the study, by the way.

      To the point of FortNine’s accuracy in the figures, Ryan says himself that he’s not aware of a proper study performed on used motorcycle helmets and he has his own personal formula, so… reasoned but not a source of scientific truth.

      • Ironfist@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 month ago

        But they’re made of the same material so it shouldn’t make a difference

        They are not designed to protect you against the same amount of force as a motorcycle helmet. That study just proves that expired bicycle helmets are still good for bicycle accidents, not motorcycle accidents. I rest my case.

        • Fox
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          You rest your case? You haven’t presented any real evidence in support of it.

          You are free to throw your helmet away every couple years if you want to.