Conclusion The study is not complete with one additional helmet to test and is a single blind study. Therefore, the material properties of ARL1 and ARL3 are not yet known to the experimentalist. However, both helmets appear similar in design. One difference that is apparent is that ARL1 appears to be larger than ARL3. ARL3 appears to fit the crash test head better than ARL1. The pads in ARL1 are not preloaded to the same level as ARL3 even though the chin straps are tightened to the same degree. This could explain differences in dynamic effectiveness. ARL3 is the more effective helmet from a standpoint of dynamic absorption over the frequency range considered. The response of ARL1 is strongly coupled to the head, neck and table. In essence, the head appears to be directly excited by impacts on ARL1 whereas ARL3 absorbs more force and transfers less force to the head. Fig 10 Helmet ARL3: Impulse location average transmissibility for all three axes, based on sensor located at F3 Fig 9 Helmet ARL1: Impulse location average transmissibility for all three axes, based on sensor located at F2 564
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTMzNzEzMQ==