Aeroscreen without helmet

[Equus]

Sbend said:

Hi Equus, you talk a lot of crap. Cheers.

So can we assume by your ire that you're even 'unluckier' than poor old Coppice?

How many animals have you killed so far in your driving career?

[scubadude]

Equus said:

You can also steer well clear of any vehicle that looks like it might shed bits of load or components. You'll no doubt complain that you lack the necessary sixth sense: I'll suggest that you lack the necessary common sense (and observation skills).

By that logic you must pull over and stop anytime a vehicle approaches on a 2 way road and leave 500mtr+ gap to any vehicle in front?

Absolutely cockjuice, you cannot "steer well clear of any vehicle" and ALL vehicles can/could shed bits, I have seen brand new cars drop pieces (number plate of 17-plate car on the Autobahn just last week), cyclists drop bottles (I've done it myself, bounced and emptied 0.7ltrs all over a Fiesta, fortunately female driver saw the funny side)

FFS Even an enormous Seagull st would blind a badly dressed 7 driver so avoid all vehicles isn't enough- you need to drive them indoors only!!!

Equus said:

It's called 'defensive driving'.

NO sh*t Sherlock... how does that prevent things falling ON your vehicle (as detailed by a poster above) a cow or a raindrop are equally unavoidable thanks to 9.8m/s/s....

Oh I forgot, Equus can dodge raindrops too, silly me.

[Equus]

scubadude said:

By that logic you must pull over and stop anytime a vehicle approaches on a 2 way road and leave 500mtr+ gap to any vehicle in front?...so avoid all vehicles isn't enough- you need to drive them indoors only!!!

I'd point out that I'm the one who has done tens of thousands of miles in aeroscreened cars, without any difficulties.

It's Coppice who is apalled at the whole idea, because of the all the viciously suicidal wildlife and flying debris that he magnetically attracts.

My view is that if you drive with a modicum of common sense, the risks are minimal.

[analog_me]

sdio said:

So far have only had my car with standard windscreen and i wonder is it OK if i fit an aeroscreen and only use a pair of glasses to drive the car on the road or is a full face helmet a must have.
Performance aside I dont see the point of replacing the windscreen with an aeroscreen if one wears a full face helmet.
You loose the sounds, the smells and the wind baffering and all your connections to the elements in general.

I found so far a windscreen and half doors are most comfortable while allowing you to have 100% of the sensations a caterham can offer.
So i think adding up an aeroscreen will only increase the thrills and most probably create a more streamline airflow to your face than the windscreen, then a good set of glasses will protect your eyes from all the road debries, stones, mosquittos, etc.

What is your opinion and experiences?

Gentlemen!

All of you being more experienced than me with regards to caterhams I started up a thread to get your experiences and point of view on a subject i have no idea,
I did NOT open up the thread to start up a stupid fight over who is more prone to accidents.
Please find better ways to share your experiences.


Ex-Sdio

[knight]

I've done both.

During the cold winter months and when rain is on the cards I'd wear a crash helmet, any other time I've just worn safety specs. I had an R500 with aeroscreen and no doors

Try both and see what you prefer

[TheTwitcher]

Equus said:

The laws of physics apply: anything heavy enough to seriously hurt you when you're driving an aeroscreened car will come to the attention of gravity fairly quickly.

I was under the impression that the effect of gravity was independent of mass, i.e. a heavy object falls at the same rate as a lighter one. Clearly the "Laws of Physics" are different in your universe, where gravity has to look your way before it comes into play...

Edited by TheTwitcher on Wednesday 17th May 22:24

Edited by TheTwitcher on Wednesday 17th May 22:25

[Sbend]

Equus said:

So can we assume by your ire that you're even 'unluckier' than poor old Coppice?

How many animals have you killed so far in your driving career?

Well........since you ask. In just over four decades of driving I've accounted for a couple of sparrows, couple of starlings, one kamikaze pheasant and a rabbit on a country road at night. Had to run over it a second time since the poor thing hadn't been killed outright. I haven't collided with any sheep, goats, cows, elephants or fish (although the last one was an almost, as a pick-up loaded with hundreds of the slippery things overturned just as I was passing it). I guess like you, I've just been lucky

[Equus]

TheTwitcher said:

I was under the impression that the effect of gravity was independent of mass, i.e. a heavy object falls at the same rate as a lighter one. Clearly the "Laws of Physics" are different in your universe, where gravity has to look your way before it comes into play...

So in your universe, a feather shed by one of Scubadude's incontinent seagulls falls at the same rate as a half brick dropping from the back of a lorry, does it?

OK, so I know I'm talking about density, not mass, but anybody with an ounce (geddit?) of common sense will appreciate the point being made...

[Equus]

Sbend said:

Well........since you ask. In just over four decades of driving I've accounted for a couple of sparrows, couple of starlings, one kamikaze pheasant and a rabbit on a country road at night.

Must try harder. You're nowhere near to Mr Coppice's score.

You want a galore of pheasants, at least.

[sundance002]

I have only ever driven my 7 with a Brooklands screen, no doors , and in 5 years of ownership, And not wearing a helmet, I have only been hit By flies and insects.
I do not drive behind, or beside, vans, lorries, and Mpvs, I will not even sit behind a car parking in a car park, these cars are so low, Some folk just dont see us, I do agree common sense, and avoidance, is a key part of driving a 7.
And thats living in Essex, where anything can fall on your roof,

[TheTwitcher]

Equus said:

So in your universe, a feather shed by one of Scubadude's incontinent seagulls falls at the same rate as a half brick dropping from the back of a lorry, does it?

OK, so I know I'm talking about density, not mass, but anybody with an ounce (geddit?) of common sense will appreciate the point being made...

No, you're talking about the effects of air resistance, which for similarly-dense objects over short distances is negligible. Your post implies that a housebrick would fall appreciably faster than a pebble, which isn't the case.

As for the OP:

The question is essentially tied to how much risk you are prepared to shoulder in return for the additional thrill of travelling bare-headed with an aeroscreen.

There is a small additional risk of a life-changing impact injury. No-one else on here has experienced this, though you might bear in mind that those who have may be busily engaged in pushing up daisies rather than writing on the internet.

There is apparently a moderate risk of permanent hearing damage. I SAID, PERMANENT HEARING DAMAGE!

High risk of arriving at your destination with a smile like a Garibaldi biscuit, until you get the flies out of your teeth.

It's your call...

[Equus]

TheTwitcher said:

No, you're talking about the effects of air resistance...

Ah, OK.

So in your universe you're driving in a vacuum?

That must certainly solve a number of problems for you: no hearing damage, the bumblebees will have difficulty flying, and your eyelids won't turn inside out at 120mph. Sounds like a winner!

Bet it makes it a bugger to set up twin Webers, though?

My post said that anything heavy enough to cause serious injury would be affected by gravity. It didn't say that anything light enough not to cause injury wouldn't. That was your assumption. You know what they say: should never assume anything - it makes an ASS out of U and ME... or U at least, in this case.

[TheTwitcher]

I would suggest that as a horse, you're the one who's quite close to being an Ass...

[Sbend]

analog_me said:

Gentlemen!

All of you being more experienced than me with regards to caterhams I started up a thread to get your experiences and point of view on a subject i have no idea,
I did NOT open up the thread to start up a stupid fight over who is more prone to accidents.
Please find better ways to share your experiences.


Ex-Sdio

My tuppence worth. I have a basic crossflow which I drive minus sidescreens whenever the weather permits. I get wind in my hair and battered ears, but if I wear ear protection (mandatory), it's comfortable and enjoyable up to legal speeds. I've been in a Caterham with Brookland screens and it nearly blew my head off. Yeah, it felt like you were going like the clappers, but comfortable?.....no way. I'd have no desire to spend a couple of hours on public roads in a car like that, and I can't see any point in it unless you're after an adrenaline rush, and if that's your objective, why are you on a public road? Early on/ late on in the year when it's chilly,I wear an open face helmet. It protects my hearing, keeps my ears and head warm and looks a lot cooler than a beanie (my opinion).
On the subject of safety. There are quite a few quarries in my area and I've had several encounters with wayward rocks, thankfully when I was in my saloon. Seeing what they did to my windscreen/bonnet/roof , I'm thankful I wasn't in the Caterham - even with my windscreen - and the idea of dealing with that sort of hazard with absolutely no form of protection is scary. Equus is contemptuous of impact injuries - he's been very lucky - but it'll only take one bird in his face - no warning, no time to get his head down, no time to drive to the other side of the road - for his blase attitude to change forever.
My face, and everything on it, is important to me, and having got this far I do my best to minimize risks - it's called defensive living Equus - so the question is - you're pretty vulnerable in a Caterham on the highway, how much more vulnerable do you want to be?

[Equus]

Sbend said:

Equus is contemptuous of impact injuries - he's been very lucky - but it'll only take one bird in his face - no warning, no time to get his head down, no time to drive to the other side of the road - for his blase attitude to change forever.

Please don't presume to second guess how I'd respond to something. You don't know me nearly well enough.

Having been driving this sort of car for the 30 years, I've got a fairly good handle on the risks involved, and I'm comfortable with them.

Although, yes, birds materialising instantly out of the ether would probably spook me, I admit. The fastest one I've ever encountered was a peregrine falcon diving to chase a pigeon in front of me at deck level as I was crossing the old Severn Bridge (hence at motorway speeds) one morning. Even for that, I had time to check-brake so that I missed it (much, albeit briefly, to the disappointment of the pigeon, I suspect). When pheasants start kamikaze diving at 200mph, I'll start worrying...

One comment: I personally don't like wearing helmets on the road (though I used to when I was driving Sevens all year round, as my only transport, as a means of keeping my head warm in winter): no matter how good they are, they restrict your peripheral vision, and if you're strapped in tightly enough for the harnesses to stand a chance of doing their job, they also severely restrict your ability to glance over your shoulder when changing lane or overtaking.

My personal view is that they increase risk more than they mitigate it.

[bcr5784]

This thread seems to have generated more heat than light. There isn't a simple answer. It depends (to a degree) what type of screen - deflector, brooklands or old style perspex screen AND how tall you are (sat down) and whether you have lowered floors. Personally, I'm short,didn't have lower floors and did 10K+ miles on the roads with an old style perspex screen (very similar to the deflector, but perhaps a bit higher).

The best solution for me was an OPEN face helmet (with a visor obviously) - it avoids the (valid) criticism of isolation that a full face helmet invites, you don't need earplugs (at least not with the helmet I used) - but you still look a berk. Without a helmet a much taller relative found he couldn't breath - as I say the answer isn't that simple.

Personally wouldn't go without a helmet at the speeds the (perhaps) imprudent but younger self indulged in.

I think you have to suck it and see.

Edited by bcr5784 on Thursday 18th May 21:13

[greengreenwood7]

I'm an aero fan, the one on my kit is a double bubble style one, which has a lip to deflect some of the wind. Yes i get wind in my face, but the major portion is forehead and above.
I hate wearing a helmet on the road, to me if i ever wanted/decided to go down that route i'd get rid of the car; i like feeling the temp changes, smelling the fresh air and it ass to the raw spirit of the car.

I wear ballistic rated glasses. Have covered roughly 50k+ miles. I must drive/live in a part of the uk that is insect free, as i can't recall having contact with more than a few flies over the years, and a few stones - so far, none more than a slight 'smarting'.
I'm happy taking the ca on a m/way, but no way i'll be too close to whatever is in front, especially lorries, and if i ever happen to be behind something that's transporting lose materials - ie/ dumper truck, then i'll get out of its slipstream asap.

I think as much as anything else the following are factors in the decision to 'helmet or not'
the type of screen and the way that it deflects or not
decent shatterproof glasses
whether the OP prefers a bit of wind in the face vs a screen with buffeting or a helmet that dulls the experience

each to their own.....oh and if we're tallying roadkill....a brace of pigeons in 1 go, and a pheasant.....i second guessed wrong on all 3, but in doing so they clipped the cycle wings and nowt else.