| Author | Message | ||
     Dsergison |
wow, I was really impressed by the article. hopefully there are some changes in the way lids are marketed. I'd rather see a complicated list of stats for a helmet than to see a certification stamp. (typical engineers type brain  And it was the first time I've ever know what the different certifications actually meant. though It may have fallen short of being a full-on scientific method study (small sample size?) It did show some interesting results. Dan | ||
| Crusty |
though It may have fallen short of being a full-on scientific method study I trust nothing that bigoted yellow - journalistic piece of crap says. | ||
| Bomber |
Crsuty -- I semi-agreew with ya, but it was an interesting piece of work, nonetheless -- pointed out what many have been saying for years, i.e., the Snell Foundation's focus on autoracing (no sin, of course), and their lack of real world research in MC matters . . . . good read, good data, it appears (backed up by other's research), and only reenforces the need for an up to date Hurt study | ||
| Kevyn |
That article, depending on final fit and finish, may influence my next helmet selection... ...interesting that some of better known helmet manufacturers declined to participate. | ||
| Kevyn |
Hey Crusty, in the same issue Mitch Boehm takes a race prepped XB out for a spin with a good report... (Message edited by Kevyn on May 11, 2005) | ||
| Crusty |
Tell me; did they try to run it up to 8 grand so they could see it smoke like they did with the S2 10 years ago? |
