Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
I know I feel a little bit safer.
The Jofa would have helped, the face fender was in place but gave way......But did not hurt my colloar bone one damn bit!
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
So, for example, you put a piece of wood in a fire. It does not disappear, it becomes energy (heat and light) and ash (mass). The energy never goes away, although it does dissipate.
The same goes for the kinetic energy applied to your body when you crash. If you have all of your mass moving at a certain speed (F=MA is the equation of force, which means Force = Mass x Acceleration) and you land on your head, and your head is stopped from buckling in one direction or another, but is forced to take the hit without moving, then more of the force will be delivered directly to your head because it is not dissipated. Imagine punching a wall. Now, imagine punching a wall that is mounted on a frictionless surface. Which will hurt you? The regular wall will break your hand. The other wall probably won't, because the energy will be dissipated by the wall taking your force and moving away from you.
Like these:
Is there any of that which you disagree with?
I was responding to a number of things Steve made reference too. That's all. Then you made it sound like I was over the top about the Leatt to the point of it being a religion. Maybe you weren't talking about me, but in this form some times its hard to tell.
Steve is trying hard to make a point, that most everyone already understands. That's all I was trying to say. Nothing more.
BTW, not that it makes any difference but my kids are 29, 19 and 15.. Just a point of reference.
a product like the Leatt will always be, due to its conception and the way it works, in between assumptions and wrong assumptions, depending on which side you stand. Riders like Jake Moss, Chris Blaise, Esteve Pujol and some less famous broke their backs and got paralyzed below the navel, or lost temporary use of leg, while wearing a Leatt brace. Do we assume the brace had something to do with it? Some doctors in Europe, and in the US, do. Do they assume wrongly? maybe yes, maybe no. Does it mean the brace saved their neck during those crashes? Maybe yes, maybe no, the assumption that it did has as much value as the assumption that it broke the backs. Did it break the backs while protecting the neck, or wasn't the neck threatened in those cases?
Guess-work, guess-timates, assumption. Any one and every one is right... without data.
It's a natural human instinct to want to take things on faith because it's emotionally satisfying to do so. If you're really afraid of dogs, you might be able to be convinced that a certain color shirt will make dogs leave you alone, and then you might wear that shirt when you're out walking around "just in case it's true" because, hey, what can it hurt?
It's natural.
But this is about why the person should get data proving that the shirt will keep dogs away, because at some point, a dog may attack them and they may be a little more careless about the dog because they think the shirt is doing its job.
Data is the point. We may prove that the Leatt Brace is highly functional and reduces the risk of cervical injury without increasing the risk of any other injury, at which point it's a no-brainer and everyone should own one, or one like it.
But why are so many people fighting against the need for this data? That seems peculiar to me.
Kinda funny how this thread got to people saying what you meant, saying what I meant, and now we are talking about milk.
Gotta love a good thread!
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig.
Pit Row
How is it that you need data to substantiate wearing a brace, yet it's fine using an excuse about "heavier head injuries" as a reason to not wear a neck brace when you have no real world data to support that "heavier head injuries" are occurring when wearing a neck brace.
Your whole "heavy head injuries" theory which was supposed to be an argument against wearing a neck brace states that the brace prevents the neck from absorbing the impact of lawn darting...right? That being the case, it seems that your own argument is stating the obvious...that neck braces do what they're supposed to do. Don't take offense but with this particular topic, you come across as a guy who's book smart ("I need data") but short on common sense.
Oh, by the way. I'm perfectly fine with folks NOT wearing neck braces and would never get into an argument with someone about their need to wear one. However, like Racer92s pig whose being trained to sing, I find it annoying when someone goes out of there way to argue the point that there's no need to wear certain pieces of safety equipment when they don't have data to support their argument.
It's a personal decision for everyone.
As mentioned, I question the need for folks like Nerd arguing so heavily against the need to wear a piece of safety equipment.
There have been many statements by medical professionals that they believe the brace works.
Steve Cox is a MOTOJOURNALIST not a trained medical professional. Steve Cox is not a biomechanical engineer but within this thread He has tried to discredit the testing that Dr. Leatt has done, who by the way is a Neurosurgeon and has enlisted the services of Biomechanical engineers to develop his product, as being nothing more than marketing tools and without merit.
The Leatt Brace does in fact shift energy away from the cervical spine in the vast majority of impacts.
The Cervical Spine is a weak link and a common pathway to SCI's.
Ask yourself one question if you knew you were going to sustain an impact to the cervical spine would you want to be wearing one or not wearing one.
I don't believe the use of Leatt type Braces should be mandatory but I also think it is the height of stupidity to try and defend the position that we don't know if they are beneficial because we don't have unique focused "data" for their use in motorsport.
Why few others can seem to grasp this, or make up arguments or things I didn't say (WORCSRacer), I don't understand.
I'm not saying it doesn't work. I'm not saying it does, either. I'm saying that it may or may not, but we don't know until we see the data.
Post a reply to: Leatt Brace