Aussie Helmet Spec Change.

Discussion in 'Technical Chat' started by Simon Mason, Nov 20, 2010.

  1. Simon Mason

    Simon Mason Guest

    Simon Mason, Nov 20, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sat, 20 Nov 2010 22:58:45 +0000
    It's the Herald, do not expect accuracy....

    Some folk are saying there is no practical difference in the
    standards, that it's only a new one becuase it's 5 years after the old
    one. Which seems odd to me because they dont do that with motorcycle
    helmets.

    I have a copy of the old standard, but not the new one, have to pay for
    that...

    Zebee
     
    Zebee Johnstone, Nov 20, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Simon Mason

    Tony Raven Guest

    Perhaps someone in Australia is being extremely smart. Knowing that the
    do-gooders will never accept cyclists not wearing helmets but realising
    that helmets might increase injuries they have invented a helmet which
    jettisons itself moments before any impact ;-)

    Or it could be a defence of the mandatory helmet law by being able to
    dismiss all the evidence on helmet ineffectiveness by saying that was
    with the old helmets and the new ones are much better (but without any
    evidence of that of course).

    Tony
     
    Tony Raven, Nov 20, 2010
    #3
  4. In uk.rec.cycling.moderated on Sat, 20 Nov 2010 23:31:08 +0000
    you can find the preface which says the following. NOt that helpful.


    This Standard was prepared by the Joint Standards Australia/Standards
    New Zealand Committee CS-014, Pedal Cycle Helmets to supersede
    AS/NZS 2063:1996, Pedal cycle helmets.

    Changes in this edition of the Standard from the 1996 edition include:

    (a)

    The adoption of the projection requirements from AS/NZS 3838:1998,
    Helmets for horse riding and horse-related activities (see Clause
    5.3).

    (b)

    The specification of the use of ISO headforms through reference to
    AS/NZS 2512.1 (see Clause 6.5).

    (c)

    Reduction of the impact energy attenuation requirements from an
    allowed maximum of 300g to 250g (see Clause 7.4).

    (d)

    Replacing the retention system test with a dynamic strength test
    through reference to AS/NZS 2512.5.2 (see Clause 7.6).

    (e)

    Peak deflection test introduced.

    NOTE: The committee is investigating the possibility of including the
    following specifications:
    (a) Dynamic stability test to replace the static stability test in
    Clause 7.3.
    (b) Lowering the loading measured by the force transducer to 350 N in
    ‘load distribution’
    specification (Clause 7.5).

    The term ‘informative’ has been used in this Standard to define the
    application of the appendix to which it applies. An ‘informative’
    appendix is only for information and guidance.
     
    Zebee Johnstone, Nov 20, 2010
    #4
  5. Simon Mason

    Marc Guest

    After Nikki Lauda's crash(Where his helmet came off allowing him to both
    ingest and aspirate flame) there was a long running debate about
    "frangible" bolts holding the straps, and the pros and cons of the bolts
    giving way or his head being ripped off
     
    Marc, Nov 21, 2010
    #5
  6. Simon Mason

    Marc Guest


    And then waiting another ten years " To get the full picture" before
    having to think about changing their mind? Isn't this called " Kicking
    it into the long grass" in SirHumphreyspeak?
     
    Marc, Nov 21, 2010
    #6
  7. Simon Mason

    EMB Guest

    No idea what it is supposed to improve, but it's a 2008 standard with a
    2010 implementation so the retailers are being less than honest by
    acting all surprised about it.
     
    EMB, Nov 24, 2010
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.