helmet test
rich_pcp
Posts: 113
Did anyone read the 6 page comprehensive helmet test inthis months mag?
Very useful. It ends up by saying under "the verdict"
"...we cannot differentiate between the helmets......we don't have the time or finances.....no doubt some of the helmets protect better than others but we have no way of measuring this........"
Well that's helped immensely!!!
It comes down to colour and how much of a dork you look in it!!
Very useful. It ends up by saying under "the verdict"
"...we cannot differentiate between the helmets......we don't have the time or finances.....no doubt some of the helmets protect better than others but we have no way of measuring this........"
Well that's helped immensely!!!
It comes down to colour and how much of a dork you look in it!!
0
Comments
-
rich pcp wrote:Did anyone read the 6 page comprehensive helmet test inthis months mag?
Very useful. It ends up by saying under "the verdict"
"...we cannot differentiate between the helmets......we don't have the time or finances.....no doubt some of the helmets protect better than others but we have no way of measuring this........"
Well that's helped immensely!!!
It comes down to colour and how much of a dork you look in it!!
yeah ... the testing in C+ is often pathetic. the other one i enjoyed was the cosmic ultimate wheels ... weighed with tyres and cassette !!! haha!!! imagine dropping £1500 on a pair of hoops based on that lousy test ... so why bother?
they could have done more with the helmets ... even just worn the damn things for more miles to see how they held up ... changed between helmets on a hot day (abroad) to compare venting etc. etc.
i only subscribe because i like the pictures and i'm lazy0 -
Agreed.
Giro Ionos with RRP of £129 scored 10/10.
Met Strad with RRP of £149 scored 8/10 with a remark that it was only marked down because of the price.
In reality, the Strad can actually be bought cheaper than the Ionos if you have a quick look online.0 -
So what do you expect them to do? Chuck em off a tall building with a melon in them? Helmet companies spend thousands getting proper certification for their lids. I doubt if a bike magazine has the time or resources to challenge that.0
-
So why test them if you base judgements on non-criticl factors? Am I being cynical or is advertising part of the gme here?0
-
No point paying for the lids to be tested to the standards, thats what BSI, SNELL certification is for and to do a reasonable test beyodn theri standards (ie testing to see which lid is the best in an impact) would require the destruction of quite a lot of lids and your very unlikely to get more than 1 or 2 for testing purposes from the manufacturer.
When it comes to what I put on my head, as long as it has the certification for safety standards, the most important things are how well it fits on my head, weight and cooling.Do Nellyphants count?
Commuter: FCN 9
Cheapo Roadie: FCN 5
Off Road: FCN 11
+1 when I don't get round to shaving for x days0 -
Well what is the meaning of bike test then? Assuming you're going to buy one with the minimum safety certificate (which is a lower standard than in the past) it comes down to personal preference which can only be judged by the person actually trying it on!0
-
Sickbed wrote:So what do you expect them to do? Chuck em off a tall building with a melon in them? Helmet companies spend thousands getting proper certification for their lids. I doubt if a bike magazine has the time or resources to challenge that.
I've given one idea above on how, for example, venting could be testing a bit more scientifically0 -
As we explained - and as sickbed and nwallace rightly note - testing a helmet to see how it stands up in a crash costs a huge amount of money. We haven't got it - simple. Actually we did consider the melon off the building test, but for that kind of test to be anything other than a bit of fun we'd have to chuck several of the same helmet off of the roof and the companies aren't likely to give us 20plus lids to wreck! Helmets have to be built to a standard, which, let's assume, is a standard that has some sound reasoning behind it, so let's assume that they do the job they're designed to do. And as our publisher discovered when he skidded head first into a kerb they do. We were honest, we can't differentiate between the helmets for crash protection - for the reasons stated above and in the magazine - but come on have you ever bought a helmet because you think it'll offer more protection than another? If so, then surely you'd all be riding around in lids that look like something out of Tron. Or full-face motorbike hats. I buy them on comfort, weight and, because I don't like looking like a mushroom, how aesthetically pleasing they are. That's how we tested them. We put them on lots of heads to find out how comfortable they were, we rode in them, and we looked in the mirror.Editor, Cycling Plus.
Stop me and buy one at www.myfavouritemagazines.co.uk0 -
-
[Giro Ionos with RRP of £129 scored 10/10.
Met Strad with RRP of £149 scored 8/10 with a remark that it was only marked down because of the price.
In reality, the Strad can actually be bought cheaper than the Ionos if you have a quick look online.]
Agreed. I bought a new Strad 2 weeks ago for £89.99.[/quote]0 -
The problem with the pricing issue is that the RRP is the only definitive piece of data on pricing that magazines and websites have.
If we rate something according to the best available price at the time of writing and that price is no longer available by the time the review is on the streets, or when you read it on BikeRadar some months later, we're not doing you any favours. We therefore don't have much choice but to go with RRP.
I have always believed people are smart enough to make up their own minds about value for money and we should stick to rating gear on its material merits, with comments in the review about value if something's unusual one way or the other. But how each mag deals with that is the editor's call not mine.John Stevenson0 -
rich pcp wrote:Did anyone read the 6 page comprehensive helmet test inthis months mag?
Very useful. It ends up by saying under "the verdict"
"...we cannot differentiate between the helmets......we don't have the time or finances.....no doubt some of the helmets protect better than others but we have no way of measuring this........"
Well that's helped immensely!!!
It comes down to colour and how much of a dork you look in it!!
We can only rely on the manufacturers results and if published, those who certify them.
However,
I have “tested” 2 helmets. Both MET. The Ippogriffo and the Inferno £76 on Wiggle. The Ippogriffo (now the Estro) had 2 crashes and held in one piece for both before I realised that it was cracked. The Inferno cracked after I narrowly missed quarry lorry at 20mph a month ago and found the section cracked yesterday. Both did their job.http://twitter.com/mgalex
www.ogmorevalleywheelers.co.uk
10TT 24:36 25TT: 57:59 50TT: 2:08:11, 100TT: 4:30:05 12hr 204.... unfinished business0 -
Sickbed wrote:So what do you expect them to do? Chuck em off a tall building with a melon in them? Helmet companies spend thousands getting proper certification for their lids. I doubt if a bike magazine has the time or resources to challenge that.
... and then get it wrong still!
Trek had two helmets recalled (Anthem and Anthem Elite) in the States after independent tests revealed that the helmets actually met none of the required performance parameters!
Yes we should be looking at the tests, and magazines should be querying the standards and their relevance.
EN1078 is one of the weakest tests around - and has a number of deficiencies and problems.
Why should we accept something so basic?
Ranking the tests would give us a measure of the protection offered ( and also to question why manafacturers are avoiding the more stringent ones)
For instance if Helmet A is only EN 1078 rated and Helmet B is CPSC or Snell rated - then the latter is a better choice.........<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
Mark Alexander wrote:rich pcp wrote:Did anyone read the 6 page comprehensive helmet test inthis months mag?
Very useful. It ends up by saying under "the verdict"
"...we cannot differentiate between the helmets......we don't have the time or finances.....no doubt some of the helmets protect better than others but we have no way of measuring this........"
Well that's helped immensely!!!
It comes down to colour and how much of a dork you look in it!!
We can only rely on the manufacturers results and if published, those who certify them.
However,
I have “tested” 2 helmets. Both MET. The Ippogriffo and the Inferno £76 on Wiggle. The Ippogriffo (now the Estro) had 2 crashes and held in one piece for both before I realised that it was cracked. The Inferno cracked after I narrowly missed quarry lorry at 20mph a month ago and found the section cracked yesterday. Both did their job.
I had a chocolate bar in my back pocket and when I crashed found it had cracked in two. By your logic it saved my ass.
Also if you subscrible to the helmet mantra aren't you supposed to ditch a helmet after a crash. To say that the Ippogriffo worked twice is to go against your own arguments for wearing easiliy cracking polystyrene on your head.It's a little like wrestling a gorilla. You don't quit when you're tired. You quit when the gorilla is tired.0 -
Absolutely correct......
A helmet functions by absorbing impact......
1. If it has deformed then it cannot repeat the process and is technically unable to protect - just how much it is compromised you will not know.
2. If your helmet has cracked then again it has not functioned. The function is to compress absorbing energy. A cracked helmet has not functioned properly. Possibly due to age or previous damage?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
the Ippogriffo cracked on the 2nd crash, not the first. It cracked but kept it's shape. The Inferno cracked on it's first accident and had a dent in the plastic. Surely the crack shows how hard the impact was.
I also slid across a loose gravel and rock serface. My face would have the consistency of tenderized meat had I not been wearing it. I'd rather spend £76 and keep my rugged, model-like, good looks
8) than nothing.
By the way, it may seem that I come off a lot. I don't http://twitter.com/mgalex
www.ogmorevalleywheelers.co.uk
10TT 24:36 25TT: 57:59 50TT: 2:08:11, 100TT: 4:30:05 12hr 204.... unfinished business0 -
No Selev helmets in the review either
I would have prefered to see more manufacturers of similarly priced helmets reviewed rather than a more than one helmet of a few manufacturers.Every winner has scars.0 -
Mark Alexander wrote:the Ippogriffo cracked on the 2nd crash, not the first. It cracked but kept it's shape. The Inferno cracked on it's first accident and had a dent in the plastic. Surely the crack shows how hard the impact was.
I also slid across a loose gravel and rock serface. My face would have the consistency of tenderized meat had I not been wearing it. I'd rather spend £76 and keep my rugged, model-like, good looks 8) than nothing.
By the way, it may seem that I come off a lot. I don't
Of course you now wear a full face helmet?<b><i>He that buys land buys many stones.
He that buys flesh buys many bones.
He that buys eggs buys many shells,
But he that buys good beer buys nothing else.</b></i>
(Unattributed Trad.)0 -
"Mark wrote:I have “tested” 2 helmets. Both MET. The Ippogriffo and the Inferno £76 on Wiggle. The Ippogriffo (now the Estro) had 2 crashes and held in one piece for both before I realised that it was cracked. The Inferno cracked after I narrowly missed quarry lorry at 20mph a month ago and found the section cracked yesterday. Both did their job.
I've also subjected a MET Ippogriffo to a "test" by slamming into a drystone wall at 20-something mph a couple of years ago. No obvious damage, but the folks at Fisher Outdoor recommended I replace it anyway as a just-in-case. Trouble was, the Ippogriffo was discontinued by then, so paid the price difference (about 35 quid) and got a Strad direct from Fisher for a knock-down price as the under-warranty replacement!
David"It is not enough merely to win; others must lose." - Gore Vidal0 -
While acknowledging the impossibility of conducting proper tests on helmets for a magazine review, I too was disappointed by the almost complete lack of any information in this article about the relative levels of protection offered by each helmet, at least as judged by the standards they are certified to. Surely it would have been possible to at least list all of the standards (from all countries) that each helmet met, and explain how these differed from each other? Isn't the whole point of having standards to make it unnecessary for consumers (and magazine reviewers) to conduct their own tests??
Or did the reviewers face the same problem that I am having, i.e. that this information is almost impossible to find, and many/most manufacturers do not provide any information on their websites about the standards that their helmets meet?
I find it pretty frightening that I can go to the Giro website and find absolutely no information about the standards that their helmets meet, although I am bombarded with marketing BS about "technology" that I am supposed to take it on trust does what it claims to do. What is the point in having a whole collection of different standards if the consumer can't find out what ones a given helmet conforms to before buying? (not to mention information on the standards themselves).
That doesn't follow. Just because the level of protection a helmet offers influences my decision to buy it instead of another one doesn't mean that safety is the only consideration I have. It's one factor I would like to be able to take into account along with all the others (aesthetics, ventilation, comfort, weight). But if there is an industry-wide conspiracy to conceal this information and pretend that all helmets offer the same level of protection, I am prevented from doing this.but come on have you ever bought a helmet because you think it'll offer more protection than another? If so, then surely you'd all be riding around in lids that look like something out of Tron.0 -
Cunobelin wrote:Of course you now wear a full face helmet?
I was going to say, no helmet will save your face! coming from a bmx background I've had my fair share of faceplants! 0 -
Mark Alexander wrote:The Ippogriffo and the Inferno £76 on Wiggle.
Just chipping in with an off-topic bargain alert: Infernos currently £39.99 incl. postage at JEJames. Bought 2 last week.0
