Originally posted by JJR512
View Post
Modern cars, just like the eagle shield holder on the front of a traditional helmet, are designed to crush on impact. Crushing absorbs some of the impact energy. This means less impact energy is transmitted through. Take those same two cars I just mentioned. I'd rather be in the M-B and hit that pole 50 mph than be in that Chevy hitting it at 30 mph. If I'm in the M-B, the car is most likely totaled, but I can probably walk away. If I'm in the Chevy, well whatever happens to the car can probably be fixed pretty cheaply by any body shop, but it's going to take more specialized training to fix me up.
In one post WD6956 is saying that the collapsible eagle is not designed to be a "shock absorbing aspect, it's simply a way to not transmit the force to the helmet." Then in another he says "The idea that a Cairns front holder will collapse under impact is not a defect. It is designed to do that."
As I already stated, "maybe it's just semantics, but collapsing upon impact in order to not transfer the impact is pretty much the very definition of being a "shock absorbing aspect".
He also stated that he's "seen many bent front holders that resulted from impacts that did not cause any issue to the wearer". So, what type of impact will this collapsible eagle take (while being worn) that won't also directly impact the helmet itself? How much force can the eagle "absorb" without the impact affecting the wearer in some fashion?
I'm really not seeing where having the eagle collapse is a significant benefit. It's only one small portion of the helmet with this feature. Should we be worried about side and rear impacts to the helmets that don't have something to collapse and absorb the impact? So to me, if the eagle can easily be damaged without causing a problem for the wearer, then it strikes me as being "inferior" to something more sturdy.
Leave a comment: