Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Morning Pride vs. Cairns

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FireMedic049
    replied
    Originally posted by JJR512 View Post
    Wrong.

    Consider a modern Mercedes-Benz. Take that car and run it into a pole (direct frontal impact) at, say, 10 mph. You're a firefighter so you probably know about how much damage the car is going to have. Now think of, say, a 1930s-era Chevrolet. Run it into the same pole at 15 mph. How badly was it hurt? I doubt there was much, if any, visible damage at all. So is the 1930s-era Chevrolet the better car?

    No.
    Running into a pole at 10-15 mph is not what I'd consider to be "bumping into something".

    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.
    You're missing my point in regards to the comments that this quote referred to and the car analogy is misplaced as a result.

    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:


  • Rescue101
    replied
    WHY,of all the vehicles in the WORLD, would you pick a MB to use as a example?They are the reason Chrysler went to schit by using their electronics. I wouldn't give one of those POS yard space.As far as a 10 mph crash,I'd take MY chances on the old Chevy. BTDT and survived to tell the tale. The helmet argument is VALID,however. T.C.

    Leave a comment:


  • JJR512
    replied
    Originally posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    You bump your helmet into something and it easily gets damaged. Well, to me that's a sign of an inferior product.
    Wrong.

    Consider a modern Mercedes-Benz. Take that car and run it into a pole (direct frontal impact) at, say, 10 mph. You're a firefighter so you probably know about how much damage the car is going to have. Now think of, say, a 1930s-era Chevrolet. Run it into the same pole at 15 mph. How badly was it hurt? I doubt there was much, if any, visible damage at all. So is the 1930s-era Chevrolet the better car?

    No.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • FireMedic049
    replied
    Originally posted by WD6956 View Post
    I always ask about gear with firefighters who work in different departments. Part of my work in my department is choosing what brands and models of gear to demo and/or purchase. The fact that Ben II's are well known to be an unpopular helmet, i always ask any firefighter who wears one what they think. I ask about boots, gloves and coats too. All the time.
    Maybe that's "well known" where you are at, but that's not the case here.

    I did not say it gets damaged easily, i simply said it's easy to fix if and when it gets damaged. The front on my Leather is coming up on 15 years old and it's fine. And the fact something gets damaged easily does not mean it's an inferior product, look at any brand of eye protection.
    Your statement implied being damaged easily by saying that "it's simply a way to not transmit the force to the helmet. And i have seen many bent front holders that resulted from impacts that did not cause any issue to the wearer".

    As I stated, any significant impact to this part of the helmet will be transmitted to the wearer regardless of weather or not this part is collapsible. So, if the impact was enough to damage this part of the helmet, but not cause a problem for the wearer, then to me that equals easily damaged and inferior to one that is more sturdy.

    Making everything "bulletproof" is not a solution either. The idea that a Cairns front holder will collapse under impact is not a defect. It is designed to do that.
    I didn't call it a defect and I know that it's designed to do what it does. You stated earlier that "It's not a shock absorbing aspect, it's simply a way to not transmit the force to the helmet." Now, 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".

    And when that does happen, it's not as though you your helmet is ruined.
    No, but it will be damaged with a collapsible eagle if that area takes a direct impact.


    Regardless of shield manufacturer, a standard 6" front will work with ANY traditional style Cairns, Paul Conway or Bullard helmet except the Morning Pride Ben II? Seems kind of odd.
    Maybe to you, but it's really not that odd of a thing. I've seen lots of similar things that aren't interchangeable from one manufacturer to another.

    The front holder needs a special front to which no shield manufacturer i have seen offers and you don't see the design of it being a problem? I do.
    No, I don't see the design being the problem that you do. Again, it's not a "special" front, it's just "different". There are shield manufacturers that offer the proper style shield. In addition to the "factory" shields from MP, Paul Conway offers notched shields and they can also be obtained from some other "custom" shield manufacturers.


    When a great deal of photo's of one particular helmet show this gap under the eagle, their is most definatley an issue. The Ben II is the only helmet i see with this issue so common.
    Again, I agree that there's an issue. We just disagree on the source of the issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • WD6956
    replied
    Originally posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Yes, I find it more comfortable. We also have several now in use in my department (both issued and non-issued) and nobody using them dislike them.



    By the way, you had the time to conduct a survey of all the Ben II wearers?.
    I always ask about gear with firefighters who work in different departments. Part of my work in my department is choosing what brands and models of gear to demo and/or purchase. The fact that Ben II's are well known to be an unpopular helmet, i always ask any firefighter who wears one what they think. I ask about boots, gloves and coats too. All the time.

    Originally posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    You bump your helmet into something and it easily gets damaged. Well, to me that's a sign of an inferior product.
    I did not say it gets damaged easily, i simply said it's easy to fix if and when it gets damaged. The front on my Leather is coming up on 15 years old and it's fine. And the fact something gets damaged easily does not mean it's an inferior product, look at any brand of eye protection.

    Making everything "bulletproof" is not a solution either. The idea that a Cairns front holder will collapse under impact is not a defect. It is designed to do that.

    Originally posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Wear whatever you want, doesn't matter to me. I also make it a point not to drop my helmet, as does most firefighters I know. However, they still get dropped, knocked down, fall off apparatus, etc.
    And when that does happen, it's not as though you your helmet is ruined.

    Originally posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. It's not about needing a "special" front, it's about using the "proper" front. You wouldn't put a 6-inch traditionally helmet shield on a 660 metro or vice versa because the fit wouldn't be right. So why would you use a front not designed for the helmet and expect a proper fit?
    Regardless of shield manufacturer, a standard 6" front will work with ANY traditional style Cairns, Paul Conway or Bullard helmet except the Morning Pride Ben II? Seems kind of odd.


    Originally posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I don't disagree on either point. I just don't agree that the design is specifically the problem.
    The front holder needs a special front to which no shield manufacturer i have seen offers and you don't see the design of it being a problem? I do. When a great deal of photo's of one particular helmet show this gap under the eagle, their is most definatley an issue. The Ben II is the only helmet i see with this issue so common.

    Leave a comment:


  • FireMedic049
    replied
    Originally posted by WD6956 View Post
    It may be comfortable for you, but the majority disagrees. Again, i have yet to hear anybody who is issued one saying they like it. Every FDNY guy i have asked hates his. As for sitting too high, the Ben II sits higher then any Cairns i have worn.
    Yes, I find it more comfortable. We also have several now in use in my department (both issued and non-issued) and nobody using them dislike them.

    By the way, you had the time to conduct a survey of all the Ben II wearers?


    It's not a shock absorbing aspect, it's simply a way to not transmit the force to the helmet. And i have seen many bent front holders that resulted from impacts that did not cause any issue to the wearer.
    You bump your helmet into something and it easily gets damaged. Well, to me that's a sign of an inferior product.

    They easily bend back into shape with a pair of pliers and are easily and inexpensiveley replaced when the time comes. Ill take one over a solid eagle from any brand, any day. And seeing the importance of my helmet, i make it a point to not drop it.
    Wear whatever you want, doesn't matter to me. I also make it a point not to drop my helmet, as does most firefighters I know. However, they still get dropped, knocked down, fall off apparatus, etc.

    So why would you want a helmet that requires a "Special" front to work properly? I can use any brand of front with my helmet and have zero issues. Just my choice
    You're looking at it from the wrong perspective. It's not about needing a "special" front, it's about using the "proper" front. You wouldn't put a 6-inch traditionally helmet shield on a 660 metro or vice versa because the fit wouldn't be right. So why would you use a front not designed for the helmet and expect a proper fit?

    Again, i see WAY too many pictures of Ben II's with the fronts not secured on top. It's a safety hazard and looks like poo.
    I don't disagree on either point. I just don't agree that the design is specifically the problem.

    Leave a comment:


  • WD6956
    replied
    Originally posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    I would tend to disagree with your assessment of the Ben II (Plus?) helmet. I've worn several Cairns models over the years (N5A, N6A, 1010, 660 and 1 or 2 others) and my Ben II Plus helmet is by far the most comfortable overall and don't think it sits too high at all..
    It may be comfortable for you, but the majority disagrees. Again, i have yet to hear anybody who is issued one saying they like it. Every FDNY guy i have asked hates his. As for sitting too high, the Ben II sits higher then any Cairns i have worn.

    Originally posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    As for the eagle, I think it's better than the Cairns & Bullard models because it doesn't bend. Personally I like the fact that if my helmet falls to the ground, the piece doesn't get all bent out of shape. The "shock absorbing" aspect you talk about is minimal at best. Pretty much any impact strong enough to collapse the eagle on those helmets will be transmitted to the helmet itself (and the head inside it)..
    It's not a shock absorbing aspect, it's simply a way to not transmit the force to the helmet. And i have seen many bent front holders that resulted from impacts that did not cause any issue to the wearer. They easily bend back into shape with a pair of pliers and are easily and inexpensiveley replaced when the time comes. Ill take one over a solid eagle from any brand, any day. And seeing the importance of my helmet, i make it a point to not drop it.

    Originally posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Yes, the interface with the shield could be a little better, but I don't find it to be that bad if you place the shield properly and the shield has a small notch at the top. If you use a pointed shield, like usually found on a Cairns helmet, the top of the shield will not be supported properly. It's a more of a compatibility issue than a problem with the eagle itself.
    So why would you want a helmet that requires a "Special" front to work properly? I can use any brand of front with my helmet and have zero issues. Just my choice. Again, i see WAY too many pictures of Ben II's with the fronts not secured on top. It's a safety hazard and looks like poo.

    Leave a comment:


  • JJR512
    replied
    Originally posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    But why would some one buy a Ferrari , if they needed to haul firewood? A traditional helmet would be my last choice if I was EMS only.
    I was talking about something that doesn't necessarily make the most sense—which is why I said expressly that—and not something that doesn't make any sense at all. A Ferrari can't haul more than a handful of pieces of firewood, and nobody would ever choose it for that purpose. But a traditional helmet can do everything a modern helmet can do; the only difference is it looks different doing it. Notice I didn't say better, because although that is my opinion, it is just that—my opinion.

    So I appreciate the advice, and as I said, there is some practical sense in what neiowa said. Just not enough to make me change my mind. If I wanted something to haul firewood and had settled on a Ferrari, and you all were trying to talk me into getting, say, a pickup truck, I'd probably change my mind. But I don't think the difference between a modern and traditional helmet is that drastic.

    Leave a comment:


  • FireMedic049
    replied
    Originally posted by WD6956 View Post
    As for the Ben II, I have found few people who like that helmet from a comfort standpoint. Most complain it sits too high on the head. And i agree. The shield holding eagle is a piece of junk too. It does not bend like Cairns and Bullard eagles and front holders do so it will transmit any impact directly the shell instead of collapsing and absorbing it. And because it does not bend, you will see shields unsupported at the top of these helmets with a gap left that is perfect for snagging wires. Go look at the thousands of pictures of the FDNY guys with these helmets. I cannot believe how many i see with the gapped eagle.
    I would tend to disagree with your assessment of the Ben II (Plus?) helmet. I've worn several Cairns models over the years (N5A, N6A, 1010, 660 and 1 or 2 others) and my Ben II Plus helmet is by far the most comfortable overall and don't think it sits too high at all.

    As for the eagle, I think it's better than the Cairns & Bullard models because it doesn't bend. Personally I like the fact that if my helmet falls to the ground, the piece doesn't get all bent out of shape. The "shock absorbing" aspect you talk about is minimal at best. Pretty much any impact strong enough to collapse the eagle on those helmets will be transmitted to the helmet itself (and the head inside it).

    Yes, the interface with the shield could be a little better, but I don't find it to be that bad if you place the shield properly and the shield has a small notch at the top. If you use a pointed shield, like usually found on a Cairns helmet, the top of the shield will not be supported properly. It's a more of a compatibility issue than a problem with the eagle itself.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeputyChiefGonzo
    replied
    I'll take a Ferrari and a traditional Leather lid to go with it!

    Leave a comment:


  • Rescue101
    replied
    Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
    A traditional helmet would be my last choice for anything but a bar decoration.
    DUCK! and COVER! INCOMING! Hehe, T.C.

    Leave a comment:


  • hinesfire
    replied
    We wear the MP Ben 2 Plus helmets and really like them. Had a couple suspensions issues with a few and they immediatlye sent replacements no questions asked. They do sit higher, however, but they dont have foam liners to separate from the shell. We havent had any issues with our Paul Conway shields not being supported correctly. Love the EZ-Flips. Side note: never worn a Carnes. So you like what you have!
    Sitting in the back seat of a vehicle holding spinal imob, would likely be an issue with the taller helmet. Lots of lesser helmets offer debris protection. Sounds like the this isn't what you need for EMS work.
    Last edited by hinesfire; 09-22-2010, 04:23 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeputyMarshal
    replied
    Originally posted by slackjawedyokel View Post
    But why would some one buy a Ferrari , if they needed to haul firewood? A traditional helmet would be my last choice if I was EMS only.
    A traditional helmet would be my last choice for anything but a bar decoration.

    Leave a comment:


  • slackjawedyokel
    replied
    But why would some one buy a Ferrari , if they needed to haul firewood? A traditional helmet would be my last choice if I was EMS only.

    Leave a comment:


  • JJR512
    replied
    Originally posted by neiowa View Post
    I think the last thing you would want is a traditional style helmet. Clean and smooth with nothing sticking off of it to get in the way or snag on headliners etc.

    Carnes modern (as 660C) with the Defender shield would be my choice. Defender now has primary eye protection rating so you won't need googles on the helmet.

    For EMS only a Rescue style helmet would do all that is required.
    I understand what you're saying, and it does make good practical sense. But if everybody only ever made sensible decisions, Ferrari wouldn't exist, and everybody would have 10¢ Bic pens. Choosing something that doesn't necessarily make the most sense—buying a $300k car, a $300 pen, whatever—just because we like it better than the sensible choice...well that's what makes life interesting!

    Leave a comment:

300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

Collapse

Upper 300x250

Collapse

Taboola

Collapse

Leader

Collapse
Working...
X