Volvo's 'World First' Bicycle-Helmet-Versus-Car Test Flags Helmet Safety Flaws
I'm just gonna leave this right here
https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlton.../#7f04c3fb6f6e |
Dang. I was going to ride my carbon Emonda in the local monster truck demolition derby next week, but this has given me pause.
|
I'm not sure what that specific testing method in the video emulates. Perhaps clipping into a bicycle that was hanging upside down from hooks above a car in a garage, and then falling head first onto the hood of that car.
But seriously...any research into making helmets safer is good. Any research that makes cars safer to collide with is good. |
I spent 10 years in the automotive testing industry; I was always amazed (and generally confused) by the test methodology, the test engineers are doing amazing stuff taking real-world data and transitioning it to repeatable lab test. The biggest key is the repeatably, that way you can test one material versus a different material with the exact same forces and motions to find out how it effects the performance (in this case, protecting a skull). I'm very happy to see companies pushing research further. Volvo has made major investments in safety test systems over many years, they go way above and beyond government required testing.
Funny footnote, I just got my new POC helmet last week and plan to replace our Volvo with another Volvo this week. |
The safest helmet setup is one that is never used, you never have an accident.
|
Bicycle helmets are not designed to protect against motor-vehicle impacts |
The obvious solution for a lot of collision safety issues is Nerf auto body technology.
|
Originally Posted by Stadjer
(Post 20963032)
Motor vehicles are not designed for bicyclist impacts. That's what motor vehicle manufacturers should be concerned with.
Volvo Cars’ City Safety system is a technology that can detect, warn and auto-brake to avoid collisions with cyclists. It was the industry’s first step to seriously address cyclist safety. Volvo Cars and POC to demonstrate life-saving wearable cycling tech concept at International CES 2015 Footnote: in case you didn't see the full story from the Uber autonomous vehicle fatal crash - Uber disabled emergency braking in self-driving car: U.S. agency At 1.3 seconds before impact, the self-driving system determined emergency braking was needed. But Uber said, according to the NTSB, that automatic emergency braking maneuvers in the Volvo XC90 were disabled while the car was under computer control in order to “reduce the potential for erratic vehicle behavior.” |
Originally Posted by Hypno Toad
(Post 20963104)
I might be a "Homer" since we just put money down on our 6th Volvo ... but I am a fan of Volvo for the strong history leading safety advances.
(All cars sold by Volvo Car with a model year of 2014 or later is equipped with City Safety Generation II) Volvo Cars and POC to demonstrate life-saving wearable cycling tech concept at International CES 2015 In my opinion not even cyclists should promote the helmet as a safety feature for cycling, it's sports equipment. Car manufacturers have to stay out of that all together, because they are the cause and should tackle the problem there. I don't believe bicycle helmets exist at all, it's a crash helmet. It has no function in cycling at all, only in crashes and the name gives the wrong impression about cycling. Wear a helmet if you're likely to crash, but people and certainly companies with an adverse interest shouldn't interfere with that choice at all and for just cycling helmets have no use at all. |
I agree, the auto manufactures hold the responsibility for the 2 to 3 ton killing machine rolling around with texting-distracted drivers.
I see a few different things in the stories here - I'll try to unpack them as I see them. 1. Working with POC, Volvo is recognizing that not all collisions can be avoided by the best driver or 'smartest' car; so let's create better helmets to save lives. This research could lead to changes in auto design too, like the pedestrian impact standards (see 4). I'm encouraged to see the car company working with the bike company, it's better than no collaboration. 2. Volvo leads the industry with bike avoidance tech - this is based on the vehicle's cameras; and does not require the person on bike to do anything. BTW the newest version of this camera system will avoid cars, pedestrians, bikes, and now large animals - this system is called City Safety System and only works at low speeds (like in the city). 3. The cell phone tech (ie using Strava) to detect a person on bike is next level to avoid collisions where the camera systems can not see a person on bike. 4. All cars were forced by EU standards to improve car design for pedestrian impacts (not all US cars meet these standards). https://www.caranddriver.com/feature...atter-feature/ 5. I've kept my old XC70 for the love of the boxy design; Lisa gets bored, so she keeps getting new curvy cars. |
Sorry, testing-type folks, but the impact against say the solid concrete of a curb, sidewalk, or trail is going to be worse than the sproingy sheet metal of a car hood... unless that car is you know, moving at 30mph and hits the cyclist. Which is of course what usually happens. I cannot see how you could design a helmet to be safer by firing it downward at a 45º angle at a car hood.
You wanna improve my safety? Teach people how to drive. |
I'm clearly about safer drivers and safer cars making people using bikes safer.
However, I'm sorry to sound like an a$$, but unless you've spent the time in school and industry you really shouldn't express your opinions on impact test methodologies. The angle on the test in the video represents the fact that a person on a bike sits much higher than the hood of a car. In a crash, the head will come down at an angle. This video with a test dummy helps illustrate the angle of impact of a cyclists head on a car during an impact. The system used in the Volvo/POC video is a modification of the EU pedestrian impact test system, this graphic also helps clarify the angle of this impact test. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...9a8063a5dc.jpg source - https://etsc.eu/pedestrian-protection/ |
Originally Posted by Hypno Toad
(Post 20965044)
I'm clearly about safer drivers and safer cars making people using bikes safer.
However, I'm sorry to sound like an a$$, but unless you've spent the time in school and industry you really shouldn't express your opinions on impact test methodologies. The angle on the test in the video represents the fact that a person on a bike sits much higher than the hood of a car. In a crash, the head will come down at an angle. This video with a test dummy helps illustrate the angle of impact of a cyclists head on a car during an impact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Oud3iGXWY The system used in the Volvo/POC video is a modification of the EU pedestrian impact test system, this graphic also helps clarify the angle of this impact test. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...9a8063a5dc.jpg source - https://etsc.eu/pedestrian-protection/ BTW, before the EU and Japanese pedestrian crash tests, often just below the "sproingy sheet metal" were hard immovable objects. Now, some hoods are pedestrian helmets. Finally, Volvo Moose test: -mr. bill |
Originally Posted by Hypno Toad
(Post 20965044)
I'm clearly about safer drivers and safer cars making people using bikes safer.
However, I'm sorry to sound like an a$$, but unless you've spent the time in school and industry you really shouldn't express your opinions on impact test methodologies. The angle on the test in the video represents the fact that a person on a bike sits much higher than the hood of a car. In a crash, the head will come down at an angle. This video with a test dummy helps illustrate the angle of impact of a cyclists head on a car during an impact. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Oud3iGXWY The system used in the Volvo/POC video is a modification of the EU pedestrian impact test system, this graphic also helps clarify the angle of this impact test. https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...9a8063a5dc.jpg source - https://etsc.eu/pedestrian-protection/ It's as if Superman were diving from the sky to fly into an open manhole and a car came along and got in the way. Or, perhaps the theoretical bicycle crash victim got hit by a car, thrown in the air and came down on a second car? |
Originally Posted by FiftySix
(Post 20965094)
Except the helmet in the volvo test is coming down top first. Not side first or back first.
Baby steps. Learn what you can with a slightly modified test protocol, analyze. Adapt to make a better test, learn some more, adapt, and pretty soon.... -mr. bill |
Originally Posted by mr_bill
(Post 20965109)
So that makes the test useless in your expert opinion?
Baby steps. Learn what you can with a slightly modified test protocol, analyze. Adapt to make a better test, learn some more, adapt, and pretty soon.... -mr. bill It reminds me of motorcycle helmet testing I would look into back in the day. The testing was almost always done as a drop test, which only tested the top of the helmet. Of the motorcycle crashes my friends and myself had been in, none of the primary impacts were at the top of the helmet. |
The angle of the impact is appropriate, the helmets orientation may or may not be appropriate depending on the point of the test.... For example, if the test is related to the hood of the vehicle and it's ability to cushion the impact, the orientation of the helmet is not critical. The point of the test rig in the video is for pedestrian head impacts, they aren't engineering better skulls (or test skulls), they are engineering better hood/vehicles.
People in this thread are over focused the details of a couple seconds of a test in a 2-minute promotional video. That impact test in the video is there to show/promote the test with a POC helmet. Having spent my career working marketing teams, they will frequently use images/video based on what it looks like and how it shows the product; not it's technical accuracy. |
The Volvo tests apparently go beyond the safety-standard drop-tests, so I don't really see the objections here. I also doubt that what we see in the video is the full extent of Volvo's test methodology and I'd be surprised if they neglected to account for the helmet's angle of impact.
I'd be interested to see a more detailed report of Volvo's tests and the results. |
Originally Posted by Hypno Toad
(Post 20965142)
Having spent my career working marketing teams, they will frequently use images/video based on what it looks like and how it shows the product; not it's technical accuracy.
That probably is a real engineer in the still. Even a few decades later I can remember the photographer asking me to point at the screen and hold for the over the shoulder shot, and waiting for the POP of the strobe light. (They didn't use my over the shoulder shot. They liked that I wore glasses and had a beard. There's probably a few products brochures that might have survived out there somewhere with my face on it.) Anyhow, this cap from the video shows that it would be difficult to mount the helmet to the pedestrian headform in any other orientation. The "cannonball" can only come out of the "cannon" one way, and the helmet can only be mounted to the "cannonball" one way. Baby steps. https://i.imgur.com/zPEEEAW.png -mr. bill |
Excellent point, to impact the side of the helmet, the launcher connection would require a 'hole' in the opposite side of the helmet ... and that hole would invalidate the helmet and the test data.
|
Throw Back Thursday: that time I was a calendar model (OK, it was about the car). Funny enough, this calendar photo bring a few things together, including MTS (I sold their test systems to the auto industry of 10 years); and the head launcher system is featured on the same month as my goofy face!
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...176f90224a.jpg |
Great, now I'm stuck in a rabbit hole of bike helmet testing videos
V Tech third-party testing GCN - Bell lab (great video showing test rigs and protocols) |
Originally Posted by Hypno Toad
(Post 20965353)
Excellent point, to impact the side of the helmet, the launcher connection would require a 'hole' in the opposite side of the helmet ... and that hole would invalidate the helmet and the test data.
|
If Volvo did the same test with a pedestrian, they'll find out the same thing.
So... Volvo should limit the top speed of their cars to ensure survivability of pedestrians and cyclists in the case of a collision with a Volvo. |
Originally Posted by Daniel4
(Post 20966185)
If Volvo did the same test with a pedestrian, they'll find out the same thing.
So... Volvo should limit the top speed of their cars to ensure survivability of pedestrians and cyclists in the case of a collision with a Volvo. Also very inaccurate - just scroll up to see the GCN YouTube link, feel free to jump to 6:15 to see a drop test with a helmet and at roughly 7:45 the test engineer talks about the height you can drop the unprotected head form to get the same G load as the with helmet test. In a collision with a vehicle, a person with a helmet is not the same as a person without a helmet. Moreover, in a collision, a person on a bike is very different than a person on foot. Our cities should limit the max speed, and enforce those speed limits ... that's an honest solution to your snarky (troll-adjacent) post. |
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:34 AM. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.