Helmets

[hal 1]

Without getting into whether i should/shouldn't or if they're any use at all, can i ask if there is any cycling helmet that has gone through any sort of impact test ?

Hal

[gary71]

All of them

[1 PST]

I tested mine at Afan forest about four weeks ago!

Came a way with a broken collar bone, couple of ribs and a few bumps and scrape! Damaged my helmet and would hate to think what would have happened if I didnt have it!!

Giro, tried and tested by me!!

[Jimbo.]

hal 1 said:

Without getting into whether i should/shouldn't or if they're any use at all, can i ask if there is any cycling helmet that has gone through any sort of impact test ?

Hal

They have to pass EN/BS tests to go on sale, so it can be argued that a £20 lid offers the same basic level of protection as a £200 lid.

[Bacon Is Proof]

The Australian "Snell" tests were meant to be one of the more stringent, not sure if they still are.

[Jimbo.]

Bacon Is Proof said:

The Australian "Snell" tests were meant to be one of the more stringent, not sure if they still are.

IIRC they are, yes, and on a parallel with the US tests. There are some lids for sale in the UK/EU that don't meet these standards, and have to be modified for these markets (Giro's Aeon, I believe, is one).

[GG89]

I would imagine it would be procedure to test every type of helmet before putting it on the market.

[Gizmoish]

All helmets are tested to BS/CE standards.

IIRC, this involves the helmet being fitted to a standard weight and dropped from a certain height (1.8 m I think). That is: protecting the user from a static fall. They are NOT tested for impacts at speed, hitting non-flat ground, etc. the Snell tests were more stringent as they're designed for open-face motorbike helmets - my Specialized helmet has that sticker.

But the fact is: if you hit a truck head on at 60mph, an inch of polystyrene is not going to stop it hurting.

[anonymous-user]

Gizmoish said:

All helmets are tested to BS/CE standards.

IIRC, this involves the helmet being fitted to a standard weight and dropped from a certain height (1.8 m I think). That is: protecting the user from a static fall. They are NOT tested for impacts at speed, hitting non-flat ground, etc. the Snell tests were more stringent as they're designed for open-face motorbike helmets - my Specialized helmet has that sticker.

But the fact is: if you hit a truck head on at 60mph, an inch of polystyrene is not going to stop it hurting.

i think thatas a bit sensationalist.
if you find yourself in a position whereby you hit a truck head on at 60mph something has gone very wrong...

alternatively, i'd hazard a guess that most accidents are at about 15mph, involve a head and some tarmac, and in these situations, a helmet will do a good job of protecting you from serious injury. i see a lot of commuters wearing trail-esque helmets these days which feature increased protection at the back of the head which people might think is worth considering?

[Gooby]

Gizmoish said:

But the fact is: if you hit a truck head on at 60mph, an inch of polystyrene is not going to stop it hurting.

Neither would a Volvo safety cell, airbags and seatbelts. Does this mean you should get rid of them?

[daz3210]

Gooby said:

Gizmoish said:

But the fact is: if you hit a truck head on at 60mph, an inch of polystyrene is not going to stop it hurting.

Neither would a Volvo safety cell, airbags and seatbelts. Does this mean you should get rid of them?

Actually it might. My dad knew a bloke who hit a bus in one of the old 240 volvo's head on. Car was a mess but he walked away. Car Speedo was stuck at 70, and he reckoned that was about the speed he was doing when they hit.

As for the helmet, if you get one too good, will it not just mean the injury is transferred elsewhere? It is no good keeping the head intact only to die from a broken neck.

[Gizmoish]

Gooby said:

Gizmoish said:

But the fact is: if you hit a truck head on at 60mph, an inch of polystyrene is not going to stop it hurting.

Neither would a Volvo safety cell, airbags and seatbelts. Does this mean you should get rid of them?

Of course not. I was suggesting that no helmet could protect against all injuries in all circumstances.

[Jimbo.]

daz3210 said:

Actually it might. My dad knew a bloke who hit a bus in one of the old 240 volvo's head on. Car was a mess but he walked away. Car Speedo was stuck at 70, and he reckoned that was about the speed he was doing when they hit.

As for the helmet, if you get one too good, will it not just mean the injury is transferred elsewhere? It is no good keeping the head intact only to die from a broken neck.

No: helmets absorb impacts/energy through the compression/destruction of the thick inner shell, rather than transferring it.

[MadDad]

I can offer a vote for the Giro Flak Jacket, I head-planted one from 8 ft in the air at 15.6 mph (according to my Edge 500), and although I did fracture my skull, jaw and loads of other stuff the helmet did its job. The polystyrene lining at the point of impact did a good job of absorbing a lot of energy and all but turned to dust, the hardshell external didn’t crack.

I replaced it with an Urge, not planning on finding out how well it will hold up in a crash though…..

[daz3210]

Jimbo. said:

No: helmets absorb impacts/energy through the compression/destruction of the thick inner shell, rather than transferring it.

But they can only absorb so much can they not? Or do more expensive ones absorb more/better?


What I am getting at is, what is the advatage over a £200 one as opposed to a £20 one?

[BalhamBadger]

daz3210 said:

But they can only absorb so much can they not? Or do more expensive ones absorb more/better?


What I am getting at is, what is the advatage over a £200 one as opposed to a £20 one?

The advantage will be in weight, styling and cooling. A £200 helmet won't be any safer for any given head coverage than a £20 one (assuming both have passed the same tests).

Unrelated to the above, but I do find it utterly bizarre that people question the benefits of helmets. Try headbutting a kerb stone with and without a helmet and see which hurts more (don't actually try this).

[daz3210]

I guess both impacts would hurt, but one would do more damage.

I'm not saying a helmet has its uses either, just to not get coaught up in the 'works wonders' philosophy.

[Gizmoish]

BalhamBadger said:

The advantage will be in weight, styling and cooling. A £200 helmet won't be any safer for any given head coverage than a £20 one (assuming both have passed the same tests).

Unrelated to the above, but I do find it utterly bizarre that people question the benefits of helmets. Try headbutting a kerb stone with and without a helmet and see which hurts more (don't actually try this).

Agreed. My face isn't exactly an oil painting but I quite like my nose not looking like a Picasso.

[samwilliams]

BalhamBadger said:

Unrelated to the above, but I do find it utterly bizarre that people question the benefits of helmets. Try headbutting a kerb stone with and without a helmet and see which hurts more (don't actually try this).

It's not quite that simple, and things should always be questioned! Ultimately, I'm very glad it's still down to an individual's choice and think it would be a stupid move to change that.

(for the record, I sometimes wear a helmet, I sometimes don't, depending on a number of things, not all sensible)

[P-Jay]

They 'should' all be much of a muchness in regards to the XC / Roadie type lid, they all pass the same EU standard. Some off more protection simply because they cover more of your head than others (Fox Flux for example).

It's difficult for them to offer more protection as someone mentioned if they have more / tougher material they absorb less energy and transfer more to your neck.

Fit is more important than brand in terms of protection as a well fitted helmet will stay in place more of the time in a crash.

I've crash tested a Fox Flux to destruction, saved me a serious head injury or worse, I've no doubt of that.