Replacing a helmet

[Graham Harrison[_3_]]

My helmet was manufactured in December 2004 so it's coming to the end of
its' life. This one is the first I've had and if I'm to be honest it was
something of a spur of the moment purchase in a shop with a small selection.

I have 2 options (1) buy a new one (2) go back to bear head. That's a
debate I need to have with myself and I'm reading the various debates here
and the references provided with great interest.

I was in my local H******s yesterday (looking for a car related item) and
had a look at their helmets and was surprised by the age (January 08) of
some of them. How do you buy a recently manufactured one? How do you buy
one that you can be reasonably sure hasn't been mishandled (dropped) at some
time? I had a look at Wiggle and while it provides an enormous selection
you can't help wondering whether, by the time it's been through delivery to
them and then the postal system the helmet will be useable but then shops,
handling, the public trying them etc.

But, let's assume you can overcome all that, how do you decide between a
Giro Monza at 34.96 and a Met Stradivarius at 109.99 and the myriad in
between? I can see the Met claims to be the first under 200g and is made
of all sorts of wonderful composites but if helmets do provide protection
how much more does the Met provide? Is there a price/performance scale?

My cycling is largely local in rural Somerset with maybe the occasional
sortie in the Thames Valley but still pretty local. In Somerset I ride a
Ridgeback Nemesis and I usually use my Brompton in the Thames Valley.

[Peter Fox[_5_]]

Graham Harrison wrote:
> My helmet was manufactured in December 2004 so it's coming to the end of
> its' life. This one is the first I've had and if I'm to be honest it
> was something of a spur of the moment purchase in a shop with a small
> selection.
>
> I have 2 options (1) buy a new one (2) go back to bear head. That's a
> debate I need to have with myself and I'm reading the various debates
> here and the references provided with great interest.
Bear heads tend to frighten people a lot - but if that's what they do in Rural
Somerset then who am I to object.


Seriously: For off-road spills and thrills or pottering through the lanes?

> My cycling is largely local in rural Somerset with maybe the occasional
> sortie in the Thames Valley but still pretty local. In Somerset I ride
> a Ridgeback Nemesis and I usually use my Brompton in the Thames Valley.


--
Peter (Prof) Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
<http://vulpeculox.net>

[Paul Rudin[_2_]]

"Graham Harrison" > writes:



> But, let's assume you can overcome all that, how do you decide between
> a Giro Monza at 34.96 and a Met Stradivarius at 109.99 and the myriad
> in between? I can see the Met claims to be the first under 200g and
> is made of all sorts of wonderful composites but if helmets do provide
> protection how much more does the Met provide? Is there a
> price/performance scale?


It have a feeling that it's not so much the difference in protection,
but the difference in weight and ventilation that you're paying for.

I use a helmet for mountain biking, but not (usually) on the roads, and
I do feel that my neck can ache a bit after a day with the helmet on
(which is a pretty old, heavy, clunky one). I'm tempted to replace it
with something rather lighter and better ventilated.

[Graham Harrison[_3_]]

"Peter Fox" > wrote in message
...
> Graham Harrison wrote:
>> My helmet was manufactured in December 2004 so it's coming to the end of
>> its' life. This one is the first I've had and if I'm to be honest it
>> was something of a spur of the moment purchase in a shop with a small
>> selection.
>>
>> I have 2 options (1) buy a new one (2) go back to bear head. That's a
>> debate I need to have with myself and I'm reading the various debates
>> here and the references provided with great interest.
> Bear heads tend to frighten people a lot - but if that's what they do in
> Rural Somerset then who am I to object.
>
>
> Seriously: For off-road spills and thrills or pottering through the
> lanes?
>
>> My cycling is largely local in rural Somerset with maybe the occasional
>> sortie in the Thames Valley but still pretty local. In Somerset I ride
>> a Ridgeback Nemesis and I usually use my Brompton in the Thames Valley.
>
>
> --
> Peter (Prof) Fox
> Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
> <http://vulpeculox.net>
>

Whoops bare heads. :-)
Lanes/Roads. And this is South Somerset not the Mendips or Quantocks.

[AndyC]

"Peter Fox" > wrote in message
...

> Bear heads tend to frighten people a lot - but if that's what they do in
> Rural Somerset then who am I to object.

I think he meant riding "Charles".

[Peter Clinch]

Graham Harrison wrote:

> I was in my local H******s yesterday (looking for a car related item)
> and had a look at their helmets and was surprised by the age (January
> 08) of some of them. How do you buy a recently manufactured one?

Same as anything else: check the stock dates. Bigger retailers
will typically have greater stock turnover so be more likley to
have recent stock.

> do you buy one that you can be reasonably sure hasn't been mishandled
> (dropped) at some time?

If not on actual display they typically live in boxes which should
be more than adequte at stopping damage to a low mass object like a
helmet falling onto the floor, even from a top shelf, or having a
load of other boxes dumped on it. So not really a worry unless it's
come off the display, and not /that/ much of one even then.

> But, let's assume you can overcome all that, how do you decide between a
> Giro Monza at 34.96 and a Met Stradivarius at 109.99 and the myriad in
> between? I can see the Met claims to be the first under 200g and is
> made of all sorts of wonderful composites but if helmets do provide
> protection how much more does the Met provide? Is there a
> price/performance scale?

Sort of, but the performance isn't safety. Helmets are built
*down* to a standard (typically EN1078) because exceeding the
standard will mean, all else being equal, more weight and less
ventilation, which are Bad for cyclists. So what you get by
spending more isfancier materials and design which give you the
same protection but with less weight and more ventilation.

The degree to which you need that is your call. Keen racers
benefit a great deal more from light weight (more the comfort
aspect than anything else) and good ventilation than someone on the
odd trundle of a couple of miles, as they go further and put in
more effort for longer.

However, you can only assume a more expensive helmet will be more
comfortable through ventilation and weight if the fit is otherwise
equal, but different helmets are slightly different shapes (as are
heads) and thus fit is not otjerwise equal. The only way to find
what's best is to try stuff on in person. The degree to which a
helmet's shape is right for your head will not only determine
comfort but the degree to which it can sit as it should: many
riders have helmets tipped well back on their heads and they are
much less likely to be any use at all, even against minor damage,
if they're sat back at an angle. The main reason for sitting a
helmet back like that seems to be doesn't fit properly, so the fit
will have a direct bearing on safety. So I would very strongly
suggest you buy on the basis of having tried helmets on. Once
you've done that, /then/ work out how much you want to pay for
extra ventilation.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Pete Biggs]

Peter Clinch wrote:

> Keen racers
> benefit a great deal more from light weight (more the comfort
> aspect than anything else) and good ventilation than someone on the
> odd trundle of a couple of miles, as they go further and put in
> more effort for longer.

A lot of slower riders put in lots of effort, so get hot, but don't get the
benefit of air flowing so quickly through the vents. They need all the help
they can get from the vents in any helmet they wear.

~PB

[Paul Boyd[_5_]]

Graham Harrison said the following on 28/07/2008 11:03:

> But, let's assume you can overcome all that, how do you decide between a
> Giro Monza at 34.96 and a Met Stradivarius at 109.99 and the myriad in
> between?

In the same way you decide between a £4.99 pair of shoes that fit, and a
£204.99 pair of shoes that don't fit. Or vice versa. Fit is more
important than cost, so I wouldn't recommend buying one mail order. The
head circumference measurement is pretty useless because it doesn't take
into account head shape.

Admittedly though, I wouldn't wear one at all for the sort of riding you
describe, especially in this heat!

> In Somerset I ride a Ridgeback Nemesis...

Just beware of the bears :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

[Just zis Guy, you know?]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:03:27 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
> said in
>:

>My helmet was manufactured in December 2004 so it's coming to the end of
>its' life.

I have a sneaking suspicion that this is marketing bull****.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

[Graham Harrison[_3_]]

"Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
...
> Graham Harrison wrote:
>
>> I was in my local H******s yesterday (looking for a car related item) and
>> had a look at their helmets and was surprised by the age (January 08) of
>> some of them. How do you buy a recently manufactured one?
>
> Same as anything else: check the stock dates. Bigger retailers will
> typically have greater stock turnover so be more likley to have recent
> stock.
>
>> do you buy one that you can be reasonably sure hasn't been mishandled
>> (dropped) at some time?
>
> If not on actual display they typically live in boxes which should be more
> than adequte at stopping damage to a low mass object like a helmet falling
> onto the floor, even from a top shelf, or having a load of other boxes
> dumped on it. So not really a worry unless it's come off the display, and
> not /that/ much of one even then.
>
>> But, let's assume you can overcome all that, how do you decide between a
>> Giro Monza at 34.96 and a Met Stradivarius at 109.99 and the myriad in
>> between? I can see the Met claims to be the first under 200g and is
>> made of all sorts of wonderful composites but if helmets do provide
>> protection how much more does the Met provide? Is there a
>> price/performance scale?
>
> Sort of, but the performance isn't safety. Helmets are built *down* to a
> standard (typically EN1078) because exceeding the standard will mean, all
> else being equal, more weight and less ventilation, which are Bad for
> cyclists. So what you get by spending more isfancier materials and design
> which give you the same protection but with less weight and more
> ventilation.
>
> The degree to which you need that is your call. Keen racers benefit a
> great deal more from light weight (more the comfort aspect than anything
> else) and good ventilation than someone on the odd trundle of a couple of
> miles, as they go further and put in more effort for longer.
>
> However, you can only assume a more expensive helmet will be more
> comfortable through ventilation and weight if the fit is otherwise equal,
> but different helmets are slightly different shapes (as are heads) and
> thus fit is not otjerwise equal. The only way to find what's best is to
> try stuff on in person. The degree to which a helmet's shape is right for
> your head will not only determine comfort but the degree to which it can
> sit as it should: many riders have helmets tipped well back on their heads
> and they are much less likely to be any use at all, even against minor
> damage, if they're sat back at an angle. The main reason for sitting a
> helmet back like that seems to be doesn't fit properly, so the fit will
> have a direct bearing on safety. So I would very strongly suggest you buy
> on the basis of having tried helmets on. Once you've done that, /then/
> work out how much you want to pay for extra ventilation.
>
> Pete.
> --
> Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
> Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
> Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
> net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/


Thank you for that. When I've decided what to do I reckon I need to go to
Johns in Bath or AW in Caversham depending on where I am.

[Paul Rudin[_2_]]

"Graham Harrison" > writes:


> Thank you for that. When I've decided what to do I reckon I need to
> go to Johns in Bath or AW in Caversham depending on where I am.

.... you mean you don't know where you are? :)

[Peter Clinch]

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:03:27 +0100, "Graham Harrison"
> > said in
> >:
>
>> My helmet was manufactured in December 2004 so it's coming to the end of
>> its' life.
>
> I have a sneaking suspicion that this is marketing bull****.

And/or simple caution, though it may be of the more paranoid
variety than the sensible variety. of course, you can't be /sure/...

It /is/ entirely common procedure to routinely replace safety
equipment. Doesn't mean you have to, but it is certainly not
limited to cycle helmets.

I replaced my last one with a Bianchi cotton cap, no regrets thus far.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Rob Morley]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 11:03:27 +0100
"Graham Harrison" > wrote:
>
> I was in my local H******s yesterday (looking for a car related item)
> and had a look at their helmets and was surprised by the age (January
> 08) of some of them. How do you buy a recently manufactured one?
>

Does it particularly matter? I don't suppose a helmet in a box indoors
is going to degrade significantly over several years (as long as it's
kept away from solvents, ozone and UV sources). I wouldn't be so sure
about one that had been stuck in a shop window for ages.

[Peter Fox[_5_]]

Graham Harrison wrote:
> Lanes/Roads. And this is South Somerset not the Mendips or Quantocks.

My _personal choice_ of headgear for cycling on all roads is a silly hat, either
a fish or a duck. Both keep the sun out of the eyes with the peak, both can be
whipped off for more breeze when slogging up a hill, but the duck wins in the
winter when its wings fold down to cover the ears. (See and be seen.)

If I was a helmet wearer then I wouldn't be too worried about 'best before
dates' because they won't suddenly turn into dust; and given the vague nature of
actual protection and the many variables involved in using them for their
secondary purpose[1] what is some unspecified deterioration in the scheme of things?

My second sight tells me that you're not afraid of traffic or keep finding
yourself in traffic trouble so here is a thought: If you had a niece or a
nephew you could give them the money you'd spend on a new helmet towards
training (which would be 100 times more cost effective).




[1] Primary purpose to make money for manufacturers and give minnow-brains (yes
this means YOU, Judith) something to bleat about. Secondary purpose is to avoid
painful bumps, bloody scratches and possibly reduce internal head injuries.


--
Peter (Prof) Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
<http://vulpeculox.net>

[judith]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:43:02 +0100, Peter Fox
> wrote:

<snip>

>[1] Primary purpose to make money for manufacturers and give minnow-brains (yes
>this means YOU, Judith) something to bleat about. Secondary purpose is to avoid
>painful bumps, bloody scratches and possibly reduce internal head injuries.


>Peter (Prof) Fox


Why thank you "Prof" - may I call you that?

Does it translate into "pretentious tosser" where you come from.

I am wary of those who have to shout their qualifications on usenet.
When they don't have any and they have to "pretend" - then I am even
more cautious.

[Graham Harrison[_3_]]

"Paul Rudin" > wrote in message
...
> "Graham Harrison" > writes:
>
>
>> Thank you for that. When I've decided what to do I reckon I need to
>> go to Johns in Bath or AW in Caversham depending on where I am.
>
> ... you mean you don't know where you are? :)

Oh I know where I am now. It's where I'll be when I make a decision.
Johns is my nearest shop that I feel will have a biggish, fresh stock. On
the other hand I go up to Maidenhead occasionally and Caversham is only just
off route so if I'm using a c*r it's probably more environmentally friendly
to add 5 miles to the 100 I'm already doing (that doesn't make sense does
it?)!

And, of course that all assumes I continue to wear a helmet.

[Graham Harrison[_3_]]

"judith" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:43:02 +0100, Peter Fox
> > wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>[1] Primary purpose to make money for manufacturers and give minnow-brains
>>(yes
>>this means YOU, Judith) something to bleat about. Secondary purpose is to
>>avoid
>>painful bumps, bloody scratches and possibly reduce internal head
>>injuries.
>
>
>>Peter (Prof) Fox
>
>
> Why thank you "Prof" - may I call you that?
>
> Does it translate into "pretentious tosser" where you come from.
>
> I am wary of those who have to shout their qualifications on usenet.
> When they don't have any and they have to "pretend" - then I am even
> more cautious.
>

I'm coming to respect him more than I do you.

[Graham Harrison[_3_]]

>
> Just beware of the bears :-)

If they're as dumb as the local badgers they'd be roadkill. It amazes me
the number of carcasses there are.

[David Hansen]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 13:13:10 +0100 someone who may be Peter Clinch
> wrote this:-

>It /is/ entirely common procedure to routinely replace safety
>equipment. Doesn't mean you have to, but it is certainly not
>limited to cycle helmets.

Cycle helmets are not safety equipment and thus the issue does not
arise.

Replacing safety equipment to a regular schedule does have
advantages, provided it is not too often.




--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[Graham Harrison[_3_]]

"Peter Fox" > wrote in message
...
> Graham Harrison wrote:
>> Lanes/Roads. And this is South Somerset not the Mendips or Quantocks.
>
> My _personal choice_ of headgear for cycling on all roads is a silly hat,
> either a fish or a duck.

I'm a Tilley Hat man (off the bike). I take the fish and the duck are
"elasticated" in some way to stop them blowing off?

It's a bit odd, but I find that, when wearing the Tilley, I am less likely
to brain myself on low branches, beams etc. It's something to do with the
fact that the feel of the hat changes as the crown or brim begins to touch
something. And if I don't react fast enough there's a little bit of
cushion effect. However, I reckon I'm more likely to come into contact
with things because the brim restricts vision very slightly and increases my
natural height.

[Peter Clinch]

judith wrote:
<snip>

judith, in your time on urc you have apparently made about zero
friends and antagonised a lot of people with your reactions and
posting style.

If you go on blowing up like a spoilt bairn spitting insults any
time someone as much as posts something you don't agree with that
won't change.

As it is not many folk are giving you the time of day, but it /is/
your own doing. If you wish to gain anything positive out of urc
then it's time to realise you're in the doghouse because you've
been behaving like a dog. Carry on and even fewer folk will give
you the time of day.

Explode in apoplectic reaction and pour insults on me if you really
can't help yourself, but don't expect me to bother taking any time
to answer your questions again if you do.

Your call...

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Marc[_2_]]

Graham Harrison wrote:

>>
>> Does it translate into "pretentious tosser" where you come from.
>>
>> I am wary of those who have to shout their qualifications on usenet.
>> When they don't have any and they have to "pretend" - then I am even
>> more cautious.
>>
>
> I'm coming to respect him more than I do you.

I have more respect for Comical Ali than "her"!

[Marc[_2_]]

Graham Harrison wrote:
>
> "Peter Fox" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Graham Harrison wrote:
>>> Lanes/Roads. And this is South Somerset not the Mendips or Quantocks.
>>
>> My _personal choice_ of headgear for cycling on all roads is a silly
>> hat, either a fish or a duck.
>
> I'm a Tilley Hat man (off the bike).
On, off, always unless I'm sleeping or in work.

[Nigel Cliffe]

Graham Harrison wrote:
> "Peter Fox" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Graham Harrison wrote:
>>> Lanes/Roads. And this is South Somerset not the Mendips or
>>> Quantocks.
>>
>> My _personal choice_ of headgear for cycling on all roads is a silly
>> hat, either a fish or a duck.
>
> I'm a Tilley Hat man (off the bike). I take the fish and the duck
> are "elasticated" in some way to stop them blowing off?

If you have one, wear it on the bike ! The cords are good to hold them on
in a gale at sea, so fine on a bike.

I have a T4 which I use in the summer on the bike; keeps sun off face and
neck so I avoid sunburn. Flip the brim upwards at the rear helps with the
airflow (less inclined to lift at speed) and means the brim doesn't rub the
neck when using dropped bars. Even works in the rain to keep the spots off
my glasses.


- Nigel



--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[Ian Smith]

On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:13:13 +0100, Nigel Cliffe > wrote:

> Flip the brim upwards at the rear helps with the airflow (less
> inclined to lift at speed)

So, you're saying you added an after-market spoiler to your head?

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

[Nigel Cliffe]

Ian Smith wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 20:13:13 +0100, Nigel Cliffe >
> wrote:
>
>> Flip the brim upwards at the rear helps with the airflow (less
>> inclined to lift at speed)
>
> So, you're saying you added an after-market spoiler to your head?

<topgear>

Its got downforce increasing the grip whilst cornering(*).
If I could reach 4 squillion mph I could cycle upside down!

</topgear>


More seriously, I found out by accident, but it seems to work.


(*) does that mean I'll risk compensate and be able to ride quicker ?


- Nigel

--
Nigel Cliffe,
Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/

[Peter Fox[_5_]]

Graham Harrison wrote:
> I'm a Tilley Hat man (off the bike). I take the fish and the duck are
> "elasticated" in some way to stop them blowing off?
Just for the record the fish is adjustable with a plastic poppet strip at the
back and the fish has a velcro adjuster. Both methods are effective.

At one time I used to wear a cowboy hat on the bike but anything with a
non-porous headband tends to get too sweaty.

--
Peter (Prof) Fox
Multitude of things for beer, cycling, Morris and curiosities at
<http://vulpeculox.net>

[Peter Clinch]

David Hansen wrote:

> Cycle helmets are not safety equipment

They are IMHO... but on about the same plane as gardening gloves.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Jeremy Parker]

"Graham Harrison" > wrote

[snip]

> But, let's assume you can overcome all that, how do you decide
> between a Giro Monza at 34.96 and a Met Stradivarius at 109.99 and
> the myriad in between? I can see the Met claims to be the first
> under 200g and is made of all sorts of wonderful composites but if
> helmets do provide protection how much more does the Met provide?
> Is there a price/performance scale?

All helmets meet the same safety standard (or perhaps a similar
standard from another country).

The helmets compete not on safety, but on how light they are and how
cool they keep your head. Both lightness and coolness are achieved
by having less protective material.

It is likely, therefore, that the designers of the expensive helmet
have gone to great effort to ensure that the helmet only just meets
the safety standard, and likely that the manufacturers have paid no
attention at all to accidents with a slightly different scenario.

So, probably, the more you pay, the worse you get.

They know their market.

How long does styrofoam last? Those bits of styrofoam gradually
filling up the oceans will probably last for ever.

Jeremy Parker

[Chris Malcolm]

Nigel Cliffe > wrote:
> Graham Harrison wrote:
>> "Peter Fox" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Graham Harrison wrote:
>>>> Lanes/Roads. And this is South Somerset not the Mendips or
>>>> Quantocks.
>>>
>>> My _personal choice_ of headgear for cycling on all roads is a silly
>>> hat, either a fish or a duck.
>>
>> I'm a Tilley Hat man (off the bike). I take the fish and the duck
>> are "elasticated" in some way to stop them blowing off?

> If you have one, wear it on the bike ! The cords are good to hold them on
> in a gale at sea, so fine on a bike.

> I have a T4 which I use in the summer on the bike; keeps sun off face and
> neck so I avoid sunburn. Flip the brim upwards at the rear helps with the
> airflow (less inclined to lift at speed) and means the brim doesn't rub the
> neck when using dropped bars. Even works in the rain to keep the spots off
> my glasses.

Agreed. I wear a cheaper hat which looks like a Tilley on the bike. It
keeps the sun out of my eyes and the rain off my spectacles. Unlike a
Tilley it doesn't have cords, and unlike the Tilleys I've tried it
fits my head perfectly and very comfortably. I was surprised to
discover that all I need to do in wind is pull it further down so that
it grips more securely. Much the best bicycle headgear I've ever come
across.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

[Peter Clinch]

Jeremy Parker wrote:

> All helmets meet the same safety standard (or perhaps a similar
> standard from another country).

Almost. The Snell standard is a fair bit better than EN1078, though
it's getting harder to find Snell conforming lids these days.

> The helmets compete not on safety, but on how light they are and how
> cool they keep your head. Both lightness and coolness are achieved
> by having less protective material.

Just to clarify a possible misinterpretation, that is less /quantity/ of
protective material, not a lower quality (and thus less protective)
material. Indeed, the material may be higher quality to make up for
being less of it.

> It is likely, therefore, that the designers of the expensive helmet
> have gone to great effort to ensure that the helmet only just meets
> the safety standard, and likely that the manufacturers have paid no
> attention at all to accidents with a slightly different scenario.
>
> So, probably, the more you pay, the worse you get.

There is also the degree to which one sort of accident, specifically a
narrow object (i.e., branch) can go through a vent much more easily if
there are more and bigger vents to catch and direct it. BMX and trials
riders tend to wear a more skateboard-style with fewer vents: not really
an issue while you're doing balance tricks, and without the aerodynamic
"tail" they've less to catch and lever things round. That style also
can be a bit cheaper, but it'll be hotter (can be a good thing, friend
got one specifically as he was getting cold on winter commutes)

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

[Jeremy Parker]

"Peter Clinch" > wrote in message
...
> Jeremy Parker wrote:
>
>> All helmets meet the same safety standard (or perhaps a similar
>> standard from another country).
>
> Almost. The Snell standard is a fair bit better than EN1078,
> though
> it's getting harder to find Snell conforming lids these days.

I think that is because the USA has mandated the use of one common
standard. I'm not sure which that is, an ANSI (American National
Standards Institute) standard, I would suspect. [This post is all
based on memory, I admit] The problem first became apparent when
Snell upgraded their old standard to a new one, and customers (and
therefore manufacturers) massively avoided the new hotter, heavier,
less fashionable, helmets. Snell couldn't withdraw support for their
old standard, because their bike helmet related income comes from a
royalty on each helmet claiming to meet a Snell standard.

With a monopoly on standards it would, presumably, be easier to
gradually "upgrade" the standard.

The question of upgrading has become complicated by the fact that
some of the pro-helmet people have become convinced by the statistics
apparently showing that helmets are essentially useless. To
reconcile theory - that helmets are vital - with practice - that they
don't actually seem to work - they have decided that helmets are
vital, but they ***must*** be worn in ***exactly*** the way that
permits them to be functional, which, alas, nobody does.

The solution is now believed to be some kind of course in helmet
wearing, or at least a set of instructions, from the bike shop
selling the helmet, plus a better set of straps, making miswearing
impossible.

Jeremy Parker

[Colin McKenzie]

Jeremy Parker wrote:
> The question of upgrading has become complicated by the fact that
> some of the pro-helmet people have become convinced by the statistics
> apparently showing that helmets are essentially useless. To
> reconcile theory - that helmets are vital - with practice - that they
> don't actually seem to work - they have decided that helmets are
> vital, but they ***must*** be worn in ***exactly*** the way that
> permits them to be functional, which, alas, nobody does.

Be very sure that eventually the standards will be 'upgraded', to a
point where the things are impossible to cycle in at any speed, if
enough jurisdictions have compulsion.

Colin McKenzie


--
No-one has ever proved that cycle helmets make cycling any safer at the
population level, and anyway cycling is about as safe per mile as walking.
Make an informed choice - visit www.cyclehelmets.org.

[Chris Malcolm]

Jeremy Parker > wrote:
> "Graham Harrison" > wrote

>> But, let's assume you can overcome all that, how do you decide
>> between a Giro Monza at 34.96 and a Met Stradivarius at 109.99 and
>> the myriad in between? I can see the Met claims to be the first
>> under 200g and is made of all sorts of wonderful composites but if
>> helmets do provide protection how much more does the Met provide?
>> Is there a price/performance scale?

> All helmets meet the same safety standard (or perhaps a similar
> standard from another country).

> The helmets compete not on safety, but on how light they are and how
> cool they keep your head. Both lightness and coolness are achieved
> by having less protective material.

> It is likely, therefore, that the designers of the expensive helmet
> have gone to great effort to ensure that the helmet only just meets
> the safety standard, and likely that the manufacturers have paid no
> attention at all to accidents with a slightly different scenario.

> So, probably, the more you pay, the worse you get.

> They know their market.

> How long does styrofoam last? Those bits of styrofoam gradually
> filling up the oceans will probably last for ever.

There are much better plastic foams for the purpose of protecting your
brains against concussive damage than styrofoam. They're well known,
come in many useful grades, and are widely used in packing. But they
suffer from the disadvantage that they're slightly more expensive and
aren't damaged by minor impacts like falling off a car roof.

I'm very impressed that what isn't much more than the kind of
styrofoam packing you get for free when you buy a bit of electronic
kit costing twice as much a bike helmet costs as much a bike
helmet. It's an excellent example of modern product creation and
marketing.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

[Jeremy Parker]

"Chris Malcolm" > wrote

[snip]

> I'm very impressed that what isn't much more than the kind of
> styrofoam packing you get for free when you buy a bit of electronic
> kit costing twice as much a bike helmet costs as much a bike
> helmet. It's an excellent example of modern product creation and
> marketing.

[snip]

If you buy a bike helmet, what sort of box does it come in? I do
hope they carefully pack them in styrofoam.

Jeremy Parker