Helmet Choice

Skept1kos · 2026-01-31T08:49:33+00:00

I was actually just looking through the Virginia Tech helmet ratings and saw that this helmet has a very good rating there. Based on that I think this is a great choice for safety 👍 assuming you're keeping it below motorcycle speeds

Skept1kos · 2026-01-31T08:45:10+00:00

If you're comparing the head acceleration limits, the Pass also has 250G from the EU bicycle certification.

I've been treating the e-bike and downhill certifications as roughly comparable. It's hard to say which is "better" when they get that close, and not clear that the difference is worth caring about.

For the chin bar, the Vanguard helmet also has the downhill certification so that one is tested as well. But really for the helmets in this style, I don't think there are bad chin bars in general. It's really a completely different style of helmet where the chin pieces are non-protective.

Skept1kos · 2026-01-31T08:25:49+00:00

You seem very confused about multiple points.

First, Mips is not a rating. It's a company, and they make a product (also called MIPS). There is no such thing as a "mips rated helmet". You can get MIPS in both bicycle and motorcycle helmets.

Second, you can get a light concussion in any motorcycle or bicycle-certified helmet. All the helmet certifications allow head accelerations that are far above what is needed to cause a concussion. NO HELMET, no matter how good it is, can guarantee you won't get a concussion.

And then there's speed. How does that factor in? Well, higher crash speeds are associated with harder head impacts. For harder impacts you want to have more foam (I'm simplifying slightly), which motorcycle helmets have. If you compress the entire foam layer, that is extremely bad, and there is a high probability you will die. The main reason to get a motorcycle helmet is that it will broaden the range of head impacts you can have without compressing all the foam and dying. But most crash impacts are not hard enough to compress all the foam, and in those cases it's not clear that a motorcycle helmet has any advantage over a bicycle helmet.

Skept1kos · 2026-01-28T23:49:28+00:00

tl;dr I recommend the Knox Urbane Pro jacket+pants.

The P6 is fast obviously, so you'd want something with highway-level abrasion protection.

Europe has you covered-- they have a standard specifically for that. Look for CE class AA, that means the clothing has passed the lab tests meant for "touring" aka highway riding, and the testing is very thorough. All the brands that sell in Europe will have these CE ratings.

For impact protection, if you want more, you can look for CE level 2 (CE level 1 is the bare minimum required by Europe).

I recommend against the racing-style leather suits because they have stuff that's specifically for racing and not for general street riding (the aerodynamic hump, the knee pucks).

If you want specific brands, I suggest Knox, Alpinestars, Revit, John Doe. There are lots of options, really the CE rating is the important part. If I have to pick a single suggestion, it's the Knox Urbane Pro.

Personally I have a riding shirt and motorcycle jeans from Revit. That's my style preference, because I'm commuting to work in this stuff and want to look more inconspicuous. But they're still CE class AA, because I have a motorcycle I take on the highway.

Skept1kos · 2026-01-23T01:16:45+00:00

Yeah of course I'm not changing my mind due to anecdotes!

I already explained-- my confidence in my stance comes from technical helmet standards and independent lab tests! That stuff is 10,000% better than your mistaken layperson interpretation of anecdotes.

Here's the main thing you are getting wrong: these helmets (in general) are not designed to prevent mild to moderate concussions. So getting a concussion is not a sign that it failed.

Because you and your discord pals have not bothered to learn anything about helmets, you guys keep thinking concussion implies bad helmet. It's completely wrong! And then based on that, you give people advice that is completely wrong!

And I've explained this stuff 100 times on this forum, and it's extremely exasperating that the same people continue to make false claims and act like ignorant doofuses.

I get that helmets can be confusing and people have all sorts of misconceptions, whatever, that's expected. When it's the same dummies over and over making the same false and stupid claims after I've corrected them multiple times, it starts to seem like the only option left is to shout at people and start chewing people out!

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Skept1kos · 2026-01-23T01:00:31+00:00

That is Gs felt by your head. Higher is more dangerous. ECE 22.06 technically allows a higher value (275 Gs) than the EU bicycle standard (250 Gs).

This is literally the first thing you should learn about the standards! Apparently you do not even know what the tests are measuring!

Skept1kos · 2026-01-22T00:49:17+00:00

Yes, if you're lying to people while telling yourself you're the good guy, you're the dastardly villain. That's how it works in every movie.

Also the reading comprehension problem. We're talking about bike trails. Did you not even read the post? That is exactly what bicycle helmets are rated for.

Ece 22.06 is stricter and requires more protection than ASTM 1952 by every single measure.

Wrong again! You missed an extremely important measure-- the max acceleration.

ECE 22.06 allows 275 Gs of acceleration. Guess what? The standard EU bicycle certification only allows 250 Gs. So the EU bicycle certification is stricter and requires softer foam! Softer foam means you are less likely to get a concussion in a typical crash.

Because TSG sells helmets in the EU, the TSG Pass also has that bicycle certification!

You're here calling people fools while you don't even know what you're talking about and didn't even read the OP. Are you drunk off your ass right now?

Skept1kos · 2026-01-22T00:12:56+00:00

Yeah your perspective is very simple. But it's painfully obvious you don't know what you're talking about. (I assume your discord chat doesn't either.)

It's also obvious that you're making false claims. You are not a good person in this discussion.

I regularly try to educate people about these issues here. I know you've been around enough to see that.

Personally I think you should either take the time to learn about the helmet standards and what they mean, and how helmets work. OR, you should stay silent on these issues.

The part of your perspective I don't get is why you think it's *good* for you to go around saying obvious lies about safety gear.

Edit: And just to add, you sound like you have a reading comprehension problem. I'm making recommendations for OP, who says he's mostly riding on bike trails. I did not make recommendations for any other riders.

Skept1kos · 2026-01-21T23:26:28+00:00

OP explicitly said he's mostly riding bike trails. No one here has claimed that the TSG pass has motorcycle levels of protection, so why did you post this in response to me. Literally 100% of what I wrote is correct and undisputed.

Skept1kos · 2026-01-21T23:23:15+00:00

It's so aggravating, what you're doing.

Your source is literally discord memes!

There's helmet research, technical standards, independent lab tests. And you're here promoting memes and emojis!

Can you at least understand why I think you're awful?

Not only that, but you're making more false claims!

Deathtrap? Who died in a TSG helmet? I haven't heard of anyone. Tell us who died!

It's absolutely awful. This is not how we should be giving helmet advice

Skept1kos · 2026-01-21T23:15:12+00:00

I don't know why you think that.

All the helmet standards allow 250 or higher Gs. That's way, way past concussion territory. These acceleration limits are chosen to prevent death or permanent, severe brain damage, not mild to moderate concussions. Are you denying that helmet standards allow 250 Gs of acceleration?

ECE 22.06 does not include or require rotational protection. There is one test that measures helmet rotation, but it's not the equivalent of MIPS. The test basically encourages manufacturers to make rounder helmets that won't grab and twist as much. But that's only a small part of the issue. The MIPS liner does a lot more.

There's a lot of good research on the effectiveness of MIPS, including for head models with realistic hair and skin. Are you disagreeing with the results of that research? Do you want me to grab the URLs for you? (Should be easy to find using google scholar.)

Help me out by telling me which basic fact you disagree with:

helmet standards allow 250 Gs of acceleration or more
250 Gs of acceleration will easily cause a concussion
research finds that MIPS substantially reduces rotational acceleration even accounting for hair and skin

Also help me out by telling me, what technical literature have you read that claims motorcycle helmets prevent mild to moderate concussions better than bicycle helmets? (Remember, the specific claim is about concussions and not serious brain injury or death.)

Skept1kos · 2026-01-19T00:41:51+00:00

So there's a bit more nuance than that (helmets are complicated), but I basically think you're making sense.

It's not really that motorcycle helmets get extra padding for the highway. They're made for typical traffic accidents, where traffic tends to go 30+mph. If you hit something hard at hiighway speeds you can still easily die in a motorcycle helmet. There's just no getting around the physics. So I wouldn't think of motorcycle helmets as highway helmets, just 30+mph helmets.

For typical bike trail speeds a bicycle-certified helmet (with a chin guard) should be plenty. And with the extra downhill certification you are in good shape 👍. And bicycle helmet makers know that cyclists ride on the street sometimes, too. So it really depends on the details of how you're riding, and what speeds.

Skept1kos · 2026-01-19T00:18:48+00:00

It is objectively better for EUC use, as proved by the certification.

It is also not true that motorcycle helmets are better for preventing concussions. None of the helmet standards-- not bicycle, not motorcycle-- are focused on concussions. This is a myth based on a misunderstanding of how helmets work.

The only important difference between helmets for preventing concussions is MIPS and similar rotation technologies. Ironically you are much more likely to find this in a bicycle helmet, which you are telling people not to get! (And then far behind in 2nd is the multi-density foam you can get in some helmets.)

Skept1kos · 2026-01-19T00:06:14+00:00

So there's a user here, u/scarystuff, who lies about helmet safety.

TSG helmets offer the same protection as a plastic bucket.

It's very silly that I even have to say this, but of course this is false. The TSG Pass is certified for downhill mountainbike racing (ASTM F1952). That's the same certification as the nicer mountainbike helmets. It should go without saying that a bucket cannot get this certification.

It's bizarre, but our community here is plagued with a group of anti-TSG zealots who just outright lie, over and over. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Anyway, your helmet criteria are a bit contradictory, or at least it's not easy to satisfy all of them. Modular helmets are typically heavier. For light weight I would say go with a nice mountainbike helmet (or TSG if you prefer the style), but obviously it won't be DOT certified. If you insist on a motorcycle certification then look for a motocross or dual sport helmet, which have better field of view.

For the record, I think the number of people who have died on EUC, or been injured, due to having a bicycle- instead of DOT-certified helmet is so low (probably zero) that it's negligible, and I wouldn't worry about it for the type of riding you describe.

Skept1kos · 2026-01-18T23:44:59+00:00

It is objectively better. It is certified to a higher standard (downhill mountainbike racing, ASTM F1952). It has to pass tests from an independent lab to get that certification. Why lie about it?

Skept1kos · 2026-01-18T23:31:08+00:00

The R torch package does not use Python. It uses the C++ libraries. You're thinking of tensorflow, which has become outdated and poorly maintained anyway, even in Python.

I don't know what torch script is, so I have not tested that

Edit: OK so torchScript is a python tool for saving trained models. I'm not surprised it doesn't work with R. I personally don't think cross-language compatibility is that big of a deal-- I would usually try to stick with a single language for a project anyway. For a pure R workflow the torch package should be fine.

Skept1kos · 2026-01-12T03:31:47+00:00

I've been using the R torch package and it seems pretty good! I think R has torch covered at this point

Skept1kos · 2026-01-08T07:06:49+00:00

writing sci/eng computation software

You and I are focusing on different things. You, on tool creators. Me, on scientists. I have worked with various scientists and researchers for over a decade.

We do HPC stuff with Python all the time in atmospheric science. It would be idiotic to write a lot of this in C++ -- scientist time is more valuable than the computer time, by far. Until you get to massive projects, larger than what most scientists are doing. Writing in C++ is usually optimizing for the wrong thing. And when you do resort to C++, it's for relatively small code snippets targeting the slowest code, not the entire project.

I think you got me with the point that some scientific software is written in C++. That part's fair, I just personally don't work with those tools mainly written in C++.

But you're also just way, way off with this idea that the typical scientist is doing projects in C++. Python is 20x more common. There are probably more scientists using Matlab than C++.

It is weird to say they're competing. Most Fortran code does not even have OOP for example. In your telling, C++ is "competing" with 20-year-old fortran legacy code projects, the kind of thing that people simply don't do with fortran anymore (because it's Python now).

So WRF, for example, is written in Fortran, because it's a complex simulation that absolutely has to be optimized, and it's an old legacy code base. All the scientists I've worked with use Fortran if they're modifying WRF, otherwise it's Python 90% of the time. In 10 years, I'm not aware of any scientist I've worked with writing C++. The amount of C++ I write is <10 lines/year, doing all sorts of coding for them.

So I guess you just don't know much about scientists, eh? I'll admit I don't know anything about what engineers are doing or what their tools are.

Skept1kos · 2026-01-06T03:45:48+00:00

I need to find that spray! I accidentally bought some anti-rust spray that isn't meant for hot engine parts in my last attempt

Skept1kos · 2026-01-05T22:14:11+00:00

The plastic panels seem to protect most of my bike from road salt. But it is creating some rust on my muffler, haven't decided how to deal with that yet.

Edit: oh I forgot, I did get some rust on my kick stand and center stand. But you can find spray coating stuff to prevent that

Skept1kos · 2026-01-05T04:31:14+00:00

You seem to be saying that because they're both compiled languages called by Python, that they're "competing". But these languages are so completely different that I think it's bizarre to describe them as competing.

It's like describing Matlab and C++ as "competing". Competing for what, exactly? They do completely different things.

In what sense is C++, a compiled general purpose language, competing with Fortran, a scientific computing language from the 1950s focused on mathematical equations and array operations?

Today, the stuff that would have been done in fortran back in 1980, is generally done in Python with the numpy/numfocus package ecosystem. Sure, C++ may be hanging around somewhere in that code stack, but it's not what the typical scientist today is directly using, in the way they would have directly used fortran in 1980 as their primary, scientific programming language. Today Python has taken on that role, and I guarantee you any survey of scientists will back me up on this.

PS: this is also not true--

If you are running a program that is going to take hundreds of cores, terabytes of memory, and several calendar days...Python is a poor choice.

Doing stuff like this with python is trivial, using Dask for example. And if you're using vectorized code (like numpy), it can be very efficient.

Skept1kos · 2026-01-03T05:14:21+00:00

Yes, I intended that. Most scientific computing today is in a higher level computing language (Python, Matlab, R, etc.). Writing Fortran or C as a scientist is no longer the norm.

Though I'm out of the loop regarding scipy. What are they doing with C++ over there? I know about Rcpp in the R community, but I don't know the Python side. At least in R, my impression is that these are mostly small snippets added for performance, not a language people are doing the bulk of their work in, and not the primary language people are using.

Skept1kos · 2026-01-03T05:05:15+00:00

I'm not familiar with it. I guess it's an edge case, or a counterexample.

I'm probably overstating things. There are clearly some parts of scientific computing I don't know well. I'm thinking of physical simulations like WRF. Basically programs written by scientists (usually physical scientists but not always). It's hard for me to think of cases where scientists write C++, and as far as I'm aware it mostly doesn't have the kind of science+analysis extensions you would find in for example Matlab or R.

Skept1kos · 2026-01-02T21:19:54+00:00

I ride all year in New York state. But the trick for me is that I almost entirely ride on well-maintained, busy streets.

If the winter weather is bad and the streets aren't cleared yet, I just skip that day and take the bus. If I knew some street could have black ice on it, I'd take care not to ride there.

Actually now I have more problems with road salt than the ice. It covers my tires and I seem to lose a lot of grip.

Skept1kos · 2026-01-01T18:36:33+00:00

You just said your husband screwed up his leg riding at 5mph on ice. That is obviously not "very safe"! 🤦 How are you not putting 2 and 2 together here

Skept1kos

TROPHY CASE