No you don't get it.
You know a few doctors smoking, well maybe... from how many??
I know 0 from at least 12.
But Longwhitecloud wrote that none of the doctors he knows wear helmets.
In your suspections, would that be equivalent to all doctors smoking?
Anyway, your suspections about doctors' motives are less relevant than the on-topic information from doctors about why they don't (or do) wear helmets.

Oops...

Ok, ok ok...

Is there anybody who has actually figured out the increase of torque on the neck that would be experienced in an impact with the water wearing a helmet? Picked some brands and determined the increased area? Figured out if an unprotected impact with just the water would be enough to cause a head injury at the velocities kiters are typically operating at (or in some kitemare scenario, worst case)? What kind of brain acceleration reduction would specific helmets give to a 'knockout blow' with the water? Will a helmet reduce concussion risk on a water impact?

I don't believe there is any rational argument against wearing a helmet when impact with hard objects is a possibility, like the beach, you board, another kiter, unseen obstacles, some other unforeseen circumstance...

But, if you are going to argue that you do not wear a helmet because it increases you risk of neck injury in water crashes (and it very likely will, but how much?), then this argument becomes one of risk assessment, and that cannot be done until you have all the information.

Only then can you also consider, ability, riding style, location, water knockout risk etc. to make an informed decision.

Exactly


I just like that I dont fry my ears into little crispy cancerous things.

For sure there are helmet induced injuries just as their are airbag and seatbelt induced injuries. In general the risk reward ratio falls in the favor of protective gear. The surfboard scrapes on my old helmet prove that point well enough.

I don't know what torque is, but I measured the circumference of my head above the nose, without a helmet and with 3 brands kitehelmet: 59 cm, 64, 68 and 70. (Gath was the largest, Smartcap the thinnest)
If the water replacement on impact is calculated as a half sphere, it is 1,7 liters, 2.2, 2.6 and 2.9.
So the average of these 3 helmets means a 50 % increase in force on the neck in the case of headfirst collision into a wave (as was the case in the broken neck above, in the case of rotational crashes, see Johnny Rotten)
Maybe this increase is lessened by time delay or absorbtion.
Smartcap is rare, the average helmet is like the Gath: could give 70% increase.
But perhaps it is better to calculate the surface, or the total volume of the head and helmet, not just half. I'm just guessing in the hope some physicist will take over with surface tension etc.
All I know is that a little more radius results in a lot more resistance.
That's why a belly flop is much more painful than a dive.
But Johnny Rotten brought up the benefit of a helmet in the rotational wakeboard crash that happens when the board and boots get stuck at high speed.
Since energy=1/2mv2, 70% of a squared increase in velocity can mean a lot.
This can also be a ground for linking helmet use to riding style: high speed riders who crash all the time might decide about helmets otherwise than cruising beginners who have more land crashes.

I think most serious neck injuries are caused by a backflop where the head snaps back and is not slowed enough by the water. It's possible a helmet will help prevent these injuries, though that's not their primary purpose.

Do you have records of serious neck injuries in kiteboarding?
And of the part that backflops play in them?
In which kind of crashes do backflops occur?
(I'm not familiar with the backflop, will look it up)
Isn't that something for boots that get stuck?

kiteschoolholland I meant just the reverse of the belly flop.

I took an awful beating two days ago and nearly got my neck torn off with a backflop. This also happened to me in exactly the same situation almost two years ago. A helmet seems to help. I've never hurt my neck coming in head first in a crash.

That's the third time you have posted this calculation of volume in this post and made the incorrect assumption that a 50% increase in volume = a 50% increase of force on your neck. The force on you neck is not directly proportional to the volume of your head! It is proportional to projected surface area plus lots of other things (speed, shape, angle...). It's not an easy thing to calculate.

Increase in projected area is smaller than increase in volume. Projected area is proportional to r^2 while volume is proportional to r^3

So there is an increase in projected surface area, and therefore an increase in force on the helmet at impact. Then you have the foam under the hard shell of the helmet absorbing some unknown amount of the total impact. The larger the helmet, the thicker the layer of impact energy absorbing foam! I don't have any proof of how much of the energy is absorbed, but I estimate that it is enough to make up for the increase in projected surface area.

Please do not say that wearing a helmet means an increase of 50% of force on your neck anymore.

The captain must have missed the first 2 times, because he asked.
I might keep posting it until one of our scientists helps out.

I agree with the other factors you bring up, and wish there were investigations that include surface tension.
However, I'm not convinced that volume doesn't play a role and we should only reckon with surface.
Because after the breaking of the surface, the crash continues, the head goes under water, and it is the neck that will have to bear the forces that come from the body-in-movement (1/2mvsquared) and the resistence of the water being deplaced by helmet/head.

That's why we dive into water and not into stone - we can't penetrate a stone surface.

And because, like you agree, volume works to the power of 3 and surface to the power of 2, to be on the safe side, we better work with volume until we can be sure it doesn't play a role.

So I won't state it as fact, but like this:
Wearing a helmet might increase the force on the neck by 70%, minus an unknown percentage of absorbation of the shock.
(Because the Gath was the biggest I measured, and amounted to 70%).

Please wake up to the fact that helmets were not invented for kitesurfing, but to
a- distribute the impact into a sharp or hard object over a bigger surface, so that the skull isn't penetrated
b- decrease the decelaration of the brain and thus prevent concussion. For this part, absorbing the energy would help the neck, but maybe delaying the energy wouldn't. The neck would still have to deal with the energy. I don't know, I'm just thinking about safety.
Water might absorb the energy better than the hard foam inside the helmet. The decelaration that comes with entering the water might be less without a helmet, and thus a helmet might increase concussion.

I for myself would certainly rather dive into water than into water with a layer of the hard foam of my helmets (I have several types, also soft, but water is softer).

Pro divers like Greg Louganis don't wear helmets, let's ask them why. Diving from 10 m. platform must get somewhere near the force to crack the neck or concuss the brain.

That's enough for this week, see you next week.