Aldi/Lidl Helmet - The Truth!
Discussion
Castrol Craig said:
good old fashioned word of mouth and experience.
and the race paddock is always a good place to rely on.
nome of the guys in bsb etc get paid to wear lids, but yet the majority wear arai.....i dont see anyone wearing lidld 'pishpot special'
While word of mouth is always worth listening to and sometimes worth acting on, it is however, not very scientific and is often based on totally irrational factors.and the race paddock is always a good place to rely on.
nome of the guys in bsb etc get paid to wear lids, but yet the majority wear arai.....i dont see anyone wearing lidld 'pishpot special'
As you say, Arai helmets are used by most racers so there is not too wide a range of alternatives to compare them to. Word of mouth will be “I use Aria because he uses Arai” but he uses Aria because I use Aria!
Marketing people have, in many markets, long since been using our natural loyalty to help tie us to a brand or product. Very often it is not that these brands or products are any better than their competition, only that the marketing people have been successful in tapping into our natural loyalty and making is feel that by leaving their brand or product we would be letting it and ourselves down. It’s what kept the British motorcycle industry (just) afloat for many years after it should have died a natural death. The motorcycle helmet market is no different.
The other thing about word of mouth is how often it is proven to be wrong. The best example in a similar vein was jut before the introduction of the ENCAP tests. Everyone ‘knew’ just how safe Volvos were because word of mouth had told us so. The ENCAP tests showed a very different result!
black-k1 said:
The other thing about word of mouth is how often it is proven to be wrong. The best example in a similar vein was jut before the introduction of the ENCAP tests. Everyone ‘knew’ just how safe Volvos were because word of mouth had told us so. The ENCAP tests showed a very different result!
If I had the choice between a 10 yr old Renault espace and a similar age Volvo V70 I know where I'd rather be sat in a shunt, ENCAP tests to are also flawed adding stars for things like how long the seat belt warning stays or whether it buzzes or not don't add up to a safer car if we assume everyone wears a sear belt. How do you work out that last statement, a 97 S70 scores 4 stars, my C70 the same.
A 97 ford escort scores 2 stars.
A early e36 bmw is only a 1 star car, until the update in 2001, then its a 4 star.
Up to 2002 even the c class merc, is only a 2 star.
Am i missing something ?
A 97 ford escort scores 2 stars.
A early e36 bmw is only a 1 star car, until the update in 2001, then its a 4 star.
Up to 2002 even the c class merc, is only a 2 star.
Am i missing something ?
Edited by Shadow R1 on Thursday 10th March 19:53
Shadow R1 said:
How do you work out that last statement, a 97 S70 scores 4 stars, my C70 the same.
A 97 ford escort scores 2 stars.
A early e36 bmw is only a 1 star car, until the update in 2001, then its a 4 star.
Am i missing something ?
black-k1 s Implication is that ENCAP tests showed that Volvos (renowned for their safety) were in fact not as safe as ‘word of mouth’ would suggest I don't necessarily agreeA 97 ford escort scores 2 stars.
A early e36 bmw is only a 1 star car, until the update in 2001, then its a 4 star.
Am i missing something ?
Castrol Craig said:
lmfao. yeah, better than an arai. i heard colin edwards was binning off his arai contract and signing with aldi/lidl.
does anyone here actually beleive the sharp ratings, or are you all mindless sheep?
They just make up the numbers so I heard, they don't do any impact testing or measurement at all. The people that work there hate Arai so always mark them down if possible.does anyone here actually beleive the sharp ratings, or are you all mindless sheep?
Sharp test helmets in a sterile laboratory, they drop spiked weights and fire ball bearing at all areas of the helmet without any actual data or means of testing what happens to a living head once a helmet has had a sudden impact.
Certain helmets received a low score because they were not as tough around the chin bar as the cheaper helmets were.
Helmets like any shock absorbing safety kit have to flex somewhere to absorb the energy.
Take body armour. It isn't as strong as steel. I wouldn't expect a 5mm steel plate back protector to do my back any good if I fell off my bike and slid backwards into a tyre wall at 100 mph.
SHARP based their testing on how solid helmets were which anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that isn't the way a helmet works.
Bike and car helmets are manufactured differently too but SHARP tests them the same way.
Some people are blinded by the fact that these tests are run by the Government who never ever do things half cocked!
Racing brings better things to biking such as better designed leathers, gloves, boots, body armour and helmets.
Manufacturers testing and improving their products or a couple of University graduates with plenty of computer analysis theory on how complex safety equipment should behave in a crash by dropping a metal spike on it.
Hmmmm.
Certain helmets received a low score because they were not as tough around the chin bar as the cheaper helmets were.
Helmets like any shock absorbing safety kit have to flex somewhere to absorb the energy.
Take body armour. It isn't as strong as steel. I wouldn't expect a 5mm steel plate back protector to do my back any good if I fell off my bike and slid backwards into a tyre wall at 100 mph.
SHARP based their testing on how solid helmets were which anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that isn't the way a helmet works.
Bike and car helmets are manufactured differently too but SHARP tests them the same way.
Some people are blinded by the fact that these tests are run by the Government who never ever do things half cocked!
Racing brings better things to biking such as better designed leathers, gloves, boots, body armour and helmets.
Manufacturers testing and improving their products or a couple of University graduates with plenty of computer analysis theory on how complex safety equipment should behave in a crash by dropping a metal spike on it.
Hmmmm.
budd said:
black-k1 said:
The other thing about word of mouth is how often it is proven to be wrong. The best example in a similar vein was jut before the introduction of the ENCAP tests. Everyone ‘knew’ just how safe Volvos were because word of mouth had told us so. The ENCAP tests showed a very different result!
If I had the choice between a 10 yr old Renault espace and a similar age Volvo V70 I know where I'd rather be sat in a shunt, ENCAP tests to are also flawed adding stars for things like how long the seat belt warning stays or whether it buzzes or not don't add up to a safer car if we assume everyone wears a sear belt. Firstly I'm not a biker but I bought an Aldi helmet in the previous sale around May 10. Why? for track & karting days in the car to stop having to wear a disgusting sweaty, worn by 1000's of people helmet. The Large Aldi one fitted me perfectly & I was perfectly happy to buy & wear it. Apparently it is a Caberg?
Biker's Nemesis said:
Sharp test helmets in a sterile laboratory, they drop spiked weights and fire ball bearing at all areas of the helmet without any actual data or means of testing what happens to a living head once a helmet has had a sudden impact.
Certain helmets received a low score because they were not as tough around the chin bar as the cheaper helmets were.
Helmets like any shock absorbing safety kit have to flex somewhere to absorb the energy.
Take body armour. It isn't as strong as steel. I wouldn't expect a 5mm steel plate back protector to do my back any good if I fell off my bike and slid backwards into a tyre wall at 100 mph.
SHARP based their testing on how solid helmets were which anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that isn't the way a helmet works.
Bike and car helmets are manufactured differently too but SHARP tests them the same way.
Some people are blinded by the fact that these tests are run by the Government who never ever do things half cocked!
Racing brings better things to biking such as better designed leathers, gloves, boots, body armour and helmets.
Manufacturers testing and improving their products or a couple of University graduates with plenty of computer analysis theory on how complex safety equipment should behave in a crash by dropping a metal spike on it.
Hmmmm.
Would these be the same SHARP tests that specify the exact point where the metal spike has to impact so unscupulous manufactures can re-enforce the helmet at that point?Certain helmets received a low score because they were not as tough around the chin bar as the cheaper helmets were.
Helmets like any shock absorbing safety kit have to flex somewhere to absorb the energy.
Take body armour. It isn't as strong as steel. I wouldn't expect a 5mm steel plate back protector to do my back any good if I fell off my bike and slid backwards into a tyre wall at 100 mph.
SHARP based their testing on how solid helmets were which anyone with an ounce of common sense knows that isn't the way a helmet works.
Bike and car helmets are manufactured differently too but SHARP tests them the same way.
Some people are blinded by the fact that these tests are run by the Government who never ever do things half cocked!
Racing brings better things to biking such as better designed leathers, gloves, boots, body armour and helmets.
Manufacturers testing and improving their products or a couple of University graduates with plenty of computer analysis theory on how complex safety equipment should behave in a crash by dropping a metal spike on it.
Hmmmm.
The same SHARP tests that will only test for impact at that point just the once ignoring the fact that a helmet nedds to withstand multiple impacts?
What I would genuinly like to know is, did the government of the time discuss the method of testing with any of the manufactures before implementing the SHARP testing?
Aldi & Lidl motorcycle helmets are made to the EU ECE 22.05 (or Regulation 22) standard.
"Helmets certified to the ECE 22.05 standard are approved for competition events by AMA, CCS, FIM, Formula-USA and WERA and are chosen by nearly every professional motorcycle racers competing in world championship road racing, motocross and off road events, including the ultimate sport of Moto GP.
An advantage of the ECE 22.05 standard is the requirement for mandatory batch testing of helmets before they are released to the riding public. What this means to the consumer is the quality of the helmet in meeting the ECE 22.05 standard is assured by a mandatory sample testing of every production of helmets before they leave the factory, not with random testing performed after thousands of helmets with unknown quality are delivered to the dealers. "
They are top quality, the only difference is you're not paying for a big brand name & all of the marketing.
"Helmets certified to the ECE 22.05 standard are approved for competition events by AMA, CCS, FIM, Formula-USA and WERA and are chosen by nearly every professional motorcycle racers competing in world championship road racing, motocross and off road events, including the ultimate sport of Moto GP.
An advantage of the ECE 22.05 standard is the requirement for mandatory batch testing of helmets before they are released to the riding public. What this means to the consumer is the quality of the helmet in meeting the ECE 22.05 standard is assured by a mandatory sample testing of every production of helmets before they leave the factory, not with random testing performed after thousands of helmets with unknown quality are delivered to the dealers. "
They are top quality, the only difference is you're not paying for a big brand name & all of the marketing.
Silver993tt said:
Aldi & Lidl motorcycle helmets are made to the EU ECE 22.05 (or Regulation 22) standard.
"Helmets certified to the ECE 22.05 standard are approved for competition events by AMA, CCS, FIM, Formula-USA and WERA and are chosen by nearly every professional motorcycle racers competing in world championship road racing, motocross and off road events, including the ultimate sport of Moto GP.
An advantage of the ECE 22.05 standard is the requirement for mandatory batch testing of helmets before they are released to the riding public. What this means to the consumer is the quality of the helmet in meeting the ECE 22.05 standard is assured by a mandatory sample testing of every production of helmets before they leave the factory, not with random testing performed after thousands of helmets with unknown quality are delivered to the dealers. "
They are top quality, the only difference is you're not paying for a big brand name & all of the marketing.
Balls. That's a minimum standard. where do each of the helmets on sale sit with regards to that minimum? Sure, many attain it, but which surpass, and by how much? Maybe that standard is below SHARP's worst efforts, which seem lamentable, anyway."Helmets certified to the ECE 22.05 standard are approved for competition events by AMA, CCS, FIM, Formula-USA and WERA and are chosen by nearly every professional motorcycle racers competing in world championship road racing, motocross and off road events, including the ultimate sport of Moto GP.
An advantage of the ECE 22.05 standard is the requirement for mandatory batch testing of helmets before they are released to the riding public. What this means to the consumer is the quality of the helmet in meeting the ECE 22.05 standard is assured by a mandatory sample testing of every production of helmets before they leave the factory, not with random testing performed after thousands of helmets with unknown quality are delivered to the dealers. "
They are top quality, the only difference is you're not paying for a big brand name & all of the marketing.
Silver993tt said:
Aldi & Lidl motorcycle helmets are made to the EU ECE 22.05 (or Regulation 22) standard.
"Helmets certified to the ECE 22.05 standard are approved for competition events by AMA, CCS, FIM, Formula-USA and WERA and are chosen by nearly every professional motorcycle racers competing in world championship road racing, motocross and off road events, including the ultimate sport of Moto GP.
An advantage of the ECE 22.05 standard is the requirement for mandatory batch testing of helmets before they are released to the riding public. What this means to the consumer is the quality of the helmet in meeting the ECE 22.05 standard is assured by a mandatory sample testing of every production of helmets before they leave the factory, not with random testing performed after thousands of helmets with unknown quality are delivered to the dealers. "
They are top quality, the only difference is you're not paying for a big brand name & all of the marketing.
I'll not argue with that. My argument is with the way SHARP conduct their testing then publish their results."Helmets certified to the ECE 22.05 standard are approved for competition events by AMA, CCS, FIM, Formula-USA and WERA and are chosen by nearly every professional motorcycle racers competing in world championship road racing, motocross and off road events, including the ultimate sport of Moto GP.
An advantage of the ECE 22.05 standard is the requirement for mandatory batch testing of helmets before they are released to the riding public. What this means to the consumer is the quality of the helmet in meeting the ECE 22.05 standard is assured by a mandatory sample testing of every production of helmets before they leave the factory, not with random testing performed after thousands of helmets with unknown quality are delivered to the dealers. "
They are top quality, the only difference is you're not paying for a big brand name & all of the marketing.
shouldbworking said:
Silver993tt said:
They are top quality, the only difference is you're not paying for a big brand name & all of the marketing.
Not quite true. You are also paying for an easy means of identifying the brand snobs and people unable to make their own decisions
Well it seems unanimous that the SHARP test is rubbish and is to be ignored. For those that do care about the safety rating of a helmet, which test/rating/score should they look at?.
If Arai (or Shoei, Schuberth etc) is considered one of the safest, how have we come to that conclusion?. Which test did it pass with flying colours to give it that status?.
Anecdotal evidence such as "my mate walked away from a 200MPH crash cos he was wearing an Arai" is rubbish as is referencing the amount of pro racers that wear them as while they may be geniuses at racing a motorcycle, not one of them know sweet FA about scientific helmet safety testing.
I know that comes across as a stir, but seriously...which test places the "top range" helmets at the top?.
If Arai (or Shoei, Schuberth etc) is considered one of the safest, how have we come to that conclusion?. Which test did it pass with flying colours to give it that status?.
Anecdotal evidence such as "my mate walked away from a 200MPH crash cos he was wearing an Arai" is rubbish as is referencing the amount of pro racers that wear them as while they may be geniuses at racing a motorcycle, not one of them know sweet FA about scientific helmet safety testing.
I know that comes across as a stir, but seriously...which test places the "top range" helmets at the top?.
robstvr said:
Balls. That's a minimum standard. where do each of the helmets on sale sit with regards to that minimum? Sure, many attain it, but which surpass, and by how much? Maybe that standard is below SHARP's worst efforts, which seem lamentable, anyway.
Don't waste your breath Rob.SNEL testing> Even our lot won't let you use a Yank tested lid.
I don't want to confuse the confused anymore, I'm having trouble making them see the SHARP tests are not what people think they are.
redtwin said:
Well it seems unanimous that the SHARP test is rubbish and is to be ignored. For those that do care about the safety rating of a helmet, which test/rating/score should they look at?.
If Arai (or Shoei, Schuberth etc) is considered one of the safest, how have we come to that conclusion?. Which test did it pass with flying colours to give it that status?.
Anecdotal evidence such as "my mate walked away from a 200MPH crash cos he was wearing an Arai" is rubbish as is referencing the amount of pro racers that wear them as while they may be geniuses at racing a motorcycle, not one of them know sweet FA about scientific helmet safety testing.
I know that comes across as a stir, but seriously...which test places the "top range" helmets at the top?.
I don’t thinks it’s possible to produce a test that’s definitive, there are too many variables and any test will throw up anomalies, any test worth anything should also acquire data from more areas than just destruction testing and features. It should include data from users, manufacturers and actual real life RTAs / track crashes etc.If Arai (or Shoei, Schuberth etc) is considered one of the safest, how have we come to that conclusion?. Which test did it pass with flying colours to give it that status?.
Anecdotal evidence such as "my mate walked away from a 200MPH crash cos he was wearing an Arai" is rubbish as is referencing the amount of pro racers that wear them as while they may be geniuses at racing a motorcycle, not one of them know sweet FA about scientific helmet safety testing.
I know that comes across as a stir, but seriously...which test places the "top range" helmets at the top?.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff