Full face helmet
Unflux
Posts: 20
Does anyone have suggestions for a full face helmet around £100-150?
0
Comments
-
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=48295
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=48297
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=24914
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=39266
http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Models.aspx?ModelID=294530 -
try them on to make sure they fit though, it would be pointless buying one based purely on recommendation.0
-
Yeah obviously I'll be trying a few on down the local bike store, however I've been reading review and such and just wondered if anyone had any particular recommendations through use.
A couple of the ones posted by jay had already caught my eye, so I'll do some further research on those. (:0 -
the best helmet is one that fits best, that's pretty much all there is to it though.0
-
Exactly this.yeehaamcgee wrote:the best helmet is one that fits best, that's pretty much all there is to it though.
All helmets must meet a minimum safety standard, after this you (tend to) only pay more for more vents, different materials and aesthetics.
The helmet that fits best = the helmet that will protect you the best = the best helmet.
You may find the "best helmet" comes in cheaper than what you're looking at - it all depends on the size of your head.What We Achieve In Life, Echoes In Eternity0 -
Just remember to ride (and more importantly, crash) like you're not wearing a helmet at all.
If you can keep your bonce from hitting anything you'll save a fortune on replacement helmets and avoid all possibility of minor (concussion) or major (brain damage or death) injuries. If the helmet hits the ground at all there will be impact forces going through your brain - most of the time it'll be fine but it's not worth risking it in my book.
Of course, if you fail miserably at keeping you head off the ground, the helmet will stop the unsightly cuts, bruises and inconvenient concussions... they aren't designed to stop serious brain injury though so keep that in mind.
That said, I really like the look of the first, second and third links in Jay's post. Pretty!
0 -
Cheers for the help folks, appreciate it.
I've gone with the second option from the list Jay provided as the colour scheme matches my bike and I've read great reviews about the Evo series. Got my head measured in the bike shop so I should have the "ideal" fit.
Thanks again for the help. (:0 -
White and blue or black and grey?
All well and good being measured - did you actually put your head inside one to make sure there are no hot-spots where it presses against your bonce though?0 -
I went for a composite 661 Evolution, as it is quite light (lighter than some carbon lids) and vents alright when moving, The carbon one will be lighter and probably on budget, try one.-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Mongoose Teocali
Giant STP0
Why are MTB economics; spend twice as much as you intended, but only half as much as you wish you could afford? :roll:0 -
Based on my own preference, 3rd one as it matches my bike,
Based on previous Full Face Helmets, ive had 661 before so that one again,
Its important to get the best fitting most comfortable helmet any way ? surely thats a given.
i do know cost affects peoples choices but with 50% off a carbon lid and simlar reductions off composite ones there are some excellent choices around.
have you looked at GIRO Remedy ? they are well made and most importantly have vents and a reputable name in the business ?0 -
Are you serious? Do you honestly think that anybody with a helmet thinks...BigShot wrote:If you can keep your bonce from hitting anything you'll save a fortune on replacement helmets and avoid all possibility of minor (concussion) or major (brain damage or death) injuries. If the helmet hits the ground at all there will be impact forces going through your brain - most of the time it'll be fine but it's not worth risking it in my book.
"Hey, I've got a lid on, let's smash my head into the ground as hard as possible"?0 -
Of course I don't think that, or did I hint in any way that I thought anything like that.
1> Risk compensation.
2> Riders without a lid are generally more inclined to keep their head off the ground as a natural instinct.
The point is that it's a subtle, subconscious thing. When you have some sort of protection you're more likely to engage in riskier behaviour and less inclined to be extra careful while doing it. If you're aware of that and keep in mind to ride as if unhelmeted you're less likely to fall foul of that.
Or did you seriously think I was suggesting that riders with helmets actually smash their heads into the ground as hard as possible?
If so - just to be absolutely clear on this........
No. I don't think people think "let's hit my head as hard as possible" but I think a HUGE number think a helmet gives more protection than it does and change their behaviour accordingly. Not their general riding behaviour, but what they do during a crash.0 -
Banging your head on the floor is a decision nobody would make though helmet or not.
When it does hit the ground, hard, it is never by the decision of whoever's wearing the helmet.0 -
Again - I'm not talking about deciding to hit your head on the ground.
I'm talking about a much more subtle thing, the concerted effort to keep an unhelmeted head OFF the ground versus the lower effort when a helmet is involved. Adding protection in the form of a helmet reduces the natural instinct for self preservation due to a perceived increase in safety from the kit. It's entirely natural, yet avoidable.
People rely on their safety kit (airbags, helmets, parachutes, condoms). That's just how the species works.
That reliance can and does lead to risk compensation and different behaviour in the event of a crash.
That's all.
Not a "don't worry, I'll use my head to break my fall" decision. Not opting to nut a tree rather than use the brakes to slow down. Simply different behaviour in the event of a crash. Not a conscious decision, just a natural and demonstrable reaction to the addition of safety kit to an activity.0 -
I'm sorry, but I just do not believe that, at all. Not even one iota.BigShot wrote:Again - I'm not talking about deciding to hit your head on the ground.
I'm talking about a much more subtle thing, the concerted effort to keep an unhelmeted head OFF the ground versus the lower effort when a helmet is involved. Adding protection in the form of a helmet reduces the natural instinct for self preservation due to a perceived increase in safety from the kit. It's entirely natural, yet avoidable.
People rely on their safety kit (airbags, helmets, parachutes, condoms). That's just how the species works.
That reliance can and does lead to risk compensation and different behaviour in the event of a crash.0 -
That's OK.
There must be some OTHER reason helmeted kids are more likely to do stupid things than unhelemeted ones... why airbags, seatbelt laws, speed limits and even changing from left to right hand drive (Sweden) have had no net impact on road fatalities... why condoms have failed spectacularly to sort out the HIV problem and so on... and so on...
Seriously though. It's OK not to believe it. You don't even need a reason or to say what that other reason might be. It's fine.
No sarcasm, no pisstaking. It's OK.
EDIT
I'm not going to change it since it's been up for a wee bit and you've probably read it, but I realise "some OTHER reason" reads like it's really sarcastic in tone. It shouldn't. Please don't take it that way.0 -
Maybe people do "stupid" things with helmets, because they're safer with them than without?
If you do come a cropper, you're far better off with a helmet than without, and when riding stupid things you;re far more likely to fall off. QED.0 -
They do stupid things when helmeted because they FEEL safer with than without. Most people don't realise that helmets are not only not designed to prevent serious head injury, but the can actually make it more likely.
That's only one part of the puzzle though (and completely backs up my point about "risk compensation").
You're better off with a helmet if your criteria is "rates of bumps, bruises, cuts and concussions"... but not if your criteria is "rates of serious brain injury or death" which bicycle helmets aren't designed to prevent anyway.
I see what you're getting at, but it's only QED for my risk compensation point.
This is about to turn into one of those really boring helmet debates (if it's not already, and it might have) though, and that's not a good thing. Maybe we should just leave it now. :P0 -
ok, again then....
I'm sorry, but I just do not believe that, at all. Not even one iota.
I have had, and almost everyone I know who rides, has had a massive crash, which could well have been their last, had they not been wearing a helmet.
In all those cases, wearing a helmet was not the reason for crashing, either directly or indirectly.
(and I'd be REALLY interested to hear of how a helmet can make things worse :roll: )
Nothing you've said backs up your point. It is an opinion, that is all. And you are free to have your own opinions, of course.0 -
If its of any interest to any body !
I have actually worn a helmet "Full Face" Stylie and thought i aint doing that cos if i get it wrong i,ll scratch my lid on them rocks !
Sounds a bit unusual i know but thats how some other people think, i dont want to put a fly in the oitment but ive never thought wearing a lid would make a stack more likely !0 -
...and hear you shall...
A helmet is designed to protect from linear forces. That is, your head moving, hits the floor and decelerates rapidly (almost a dead stop), meanwhile your brain continues in a straight line and hits the inside of your skull. With a helmet, the foam should compress leading to a longer deceleration and so much lower forces being transmitted through your brain.
The standards to which all bicycle helmets are made are (in rough terms) for a linear impact at low speed on a flat surface. They offer limited protection on angular and hemispherical surfaces (roots and rocks, for example) but at much lower impact forces than on flat surfaces. They are not designed for high speed impacts (that is, above about 10 to 15mph) unless they exceed the safety standards.
Linear forces are responsible for minor injuries like bruising, lacerations and concussions.
Rotational forces, that is, the head rotating around an axis (often the neck) are outside the design parameters of almost all helmets (cycle, motorcycle or otherwise - exception made for the Philips Head Protection System seen on a handful of motorbike helmets that is designed precisely to mitigate this issue to some degree).
Rotational forces are responsible for injuries that cause death or serious brain disablement such as diffuse axonal injury and subdural haemotoma.
Helmets can take a linear impact and, through friction, initiate a turning moment upon contact with the ground convert those linear forces into rotational ones and thus has the potential to turn an impact that would have produced nothing worse than a concussion into one that has potential to be fatal.
By no means is it certain, but it is a very real risk when the helmet hits the ground other than perpendicular.
This is caused by the nature of the helmet (both size and construction) the shell of which does not move in relation to the foam beneath in any significant way.
The unhelmeted head is covered by a scalp which will slide over the surface of the skull and in doing so vastly reduce the rotational forces imparted to the skull/brain. When the helmeted head (again, exception made for the handful of PHPS motorcycle helmets) hits the ground the rotational moment generated is far greater and carries a far greater risk of serious injury or death.
"A helmet saved my life" is annecdotal and a completely unreliable basis of argument not bourne out by helmet design or the physics involved in a head impact. More than likely, if you didn't die WITH the helmet, you almost certainly would not have died WITHOUT it either.
Hospitalised with a fractured scull and a nasty concussion, perhaps, but not dead or seriously injured.
Since you've got me going on this... here's some backup.
Cyclists with helmets 7 times more likely to hit their head when they crash:
Wasserman RC, Waller JA, Monty MJ, Emery AB, Robinson DR. Bicyclists, helmets and head injuries: a rider-based study of helmet use and effectiveness. 1988. American Journal of Public Health: 1988 Sep;78(9):1220-1
Just for fun, have a look at Curnow WJ. The efficacy of bicycle helmets against brain injury. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 2003,35:287-292. for the rotational injury bit.
Or for a more graphic look at the effects of a (non-PHPS) helmet in converting linear to rotational impactshave a look at the video here...
http://www.phillipshelmets.com/ABOUT_PHPS.htm
The PHPS system seeks to imitate the natural protection the scalp gives in head impacts.
(If the video doesn't load, replace "About_PHPS.htm with images/Superskin.wmv and it should work)
It's still OK if you don't believe me though. I'm just a sucker for a debate.
Whatever you choose to believe or disbelieve, do watch the video, it's worth a look if nothing else. Just bear in mind that the "superskin" is an imitation of the work done by the scalp of an unhelmeted head. The smaller circumference (head vs helmet) of an unhelmeted head further reduces the rotational moment imparted.
Will Snow
"Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true."
Quite right, hopefully the links above will help.
Of course, the opposite is true, denying it over and over again doesn't falsify it either.
newclearbomb
Any motivation that keeps your head off the ground is a good thing.
So - wear one or not, up to you. I certainly do, especially when off-road (I tend not to bother on-road) but just be aware of what your helmet is designed to do or not, what it is capable of or not, what compromises you're taking on, or not, and have a bloody good time while you're at it.
Whether you accept the incredibly limited evidence either way or flatly reject it in favour of received wisdom... whether you think helmets are almighty inventions or a way to avoid cuts and bruises at best... keep your head off the ground by all means necessary.0 -
I feckin' well TOLD you this was turning into a boring helmet debate.
I really did!
Don't say you weren't warned. 0 -
newclearbomb wrote:If its of any interest to any body !
I have actually worn a helmet "Full Face" Stylie and thought i aint doing that cos if i get it wrong i,ll scratch my lid on them rocks !
Sounds a bit unusual i know but thats how some other people think, i dont want to put a fly in the oitment but ive never thought wearing a lid would make a stack more likely !
Yeah I understand that, I generally thing a new helmet is too expensive so it stops some of the more stupid stuff 8)-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
Mongoose Teocali
Giant STP0
Why are MTB economics; spend twice as much as you intended, but only half as much as you wish you could afford? :roll:0 -
Big shot. A couple of years ago I had a big off on the last table top at the bottom of UK bike park. Probably going between 30-40 mph, overjumped the landing and landed in a front wheel manual (for about a nanosecond ). Cue me going over the bars face first into the ground and skidding and rolling along on my head at full pelt. Ripped my visor off and left a couple of sizeable gashes in my helmet (661 Strike). Big bruise on my forehead and concussion for a couple of days.
I'm not going to bore you with photos of my helmet (still got it for old times sake), but I'm pretty sure if the impact was hard enough to take chunks out of my helmet it was hard enough to remove a fair sized chunk of my skull and brain. I walked away from that crash (after a few minutes), I'm pretty sure it would have been a different story if I wasn't wearing a full face lid.
A few weeks ago I was riding at Guisburn, uphill using SPDs. Cue a comedy slow speed unclip fail as my chain flew into my spokes whilst mashing uphill. Still landed on my head. Was fine, but helmet prevented me from getting a bit of a knock albeit at 0mph!
The point is, you don't choose when you crash and there is no doubt that helmets lessen the injury whether it is over a 30ft jump or gay little roll over.
Also, I do take more risks when I wear a helmet:
I am willing to ride over many things with one of my lids on. Without a lid on I won't even go out on my road bike. (Most cycling deaths are on roads anyway).
I'm sure there are many others like me who've creamed in on their heads helmeted up and unfortunately there are some who didn't have a helmet on and I imagine they regret that decision now.0 -
Please read the first part (up to "the marks." and the last part of the post from "That said... those nose manual crashes..." for the more friendly and appropriate response to your crash story.
Rupert - I hit a drystone wall after getting highsided on an off camber, loose surfaced bend doing about 30 (fastest part of the descent and my mate's cycle computer had a max somewhere around there. I was on his wheel at the time). My feet had hit the floor first and there was a bit of a rolling/falling/tumbling/slowing arc into the wall, which I hit square on with my head, shoulder, forearm and thigh.
The left side of my souvenir helmet still bears the marks.
In no way does my "helmet saved my life" crash, or yours, or anyone else's mean the helmet did anything like as much as we tend to attribute to them.
Bicycle helmets are fragile. They fall apart without much reason to do so. For example, at the end of the same ride as above I drove off with the helmet on the roof of the car. Hitting the ground at fairly low speed (can't have been going more than 10 mph - well within the design limits of the lid) and no weight in there (it obviously didn't contain my head at the time) it lost chunks of foam and made a rather large hole in the shell.
It does not follow that the damage done to a helmet would have been done to the head if the helmet wasn't worn, nor that the damage done to the head would have been "serious".
Worst case scenario... if I hit that wall unhelmeted and at the same speed and without anything different in the actual crash, I expect I'd have had a fractured skull and a bad concussion. I'd still be alive, well, and having read what I've read, still making the same comments about the usefulness of helmets in preventing serious brain inury and their effect on riding behaviour and reaction to a crash.
I'm not suggesting anyone should choose when they crash. Clearly that's not going to happen. I'm suggesting that different behaviour during the crash will do far more to prevent injury than wearing a helmet will. That's not to say don't wear one, but to say relying on the helmet isn't a good move. Your uphill crash sounds like exactly the kind of thing I mean. I'd bet my bike that if you'd fallen unhelmeted you'd have done something differently in order to keep your head up... not consciously but as a subconscious and entirely natural act of self preservation. In fact, it's entirely possible that the only reason your head hit the ground at all is because of the increased size due to the helmet. Obviously the helmet didn't kill you and I'm not suggesting it could have done... not at that speed and not at that angle of impact.
I get the impression people think I'm saying something I'm not. If anyone can see the part where I suggested helmets are no good... or that they don't prevent cuts, bruises, chunks of missing skin, bone or concussions... (and clearly they don't always do even that - as your concussion shows) please do quote it.
All I've been saying is that wearing a lid brings added risks (increased likelihood of hitting your head, increased likelihood of serious brain injury by turning linear into rotational forces) and risk compensation. Risk compensation is great for mountain bikers as it usually pays off, but the serious injury risk thing is a bummer.
The point as to the protection that cycle helmets offer is this:
If you got a serious brain injury or died without a helmet, the chances are you would have ended up in exactly the same state with a helmet.
You mention road deaths...
...over 50% of fatalities would still have occurred if you eliminated all head injury.
...cycle helmets can not be shown to reduce serious head injury, are not even designed to do so and may make it more likely. We can go around on that point with me quoting the numbers, citing the studies, and you deciding that you don't agree if you like. I'd rather we didn't though. It's a dead end.
Most cyclist deaths due to head injuries on the road occur in ways that far exceed the design parameters of the helmet and some datasets suggest serious brain injuries may even be exacerbated by helmets.
That said... those nose manual crashes always make me chuckle and feel sick at the same time. It doesn't matter how quickly it happens, going over the bars like that always takes just long enough for you to realise how much pain you're about to feel. I chuckle because I've been there and know that "oh crap!" feeling all too well... I feel sick at the sight/story of those crashes for the exact same reason.
While I'll never claim a helmet saved my life with my story at the top of this post, I'll always claim a full face lid saved my perfect teeth and my boyish good looks. (At least one of those traits might not be entirely true. :P)
A mis-timed hop over a water bar above Chamonix had the bike vertical and a sickening THUNK as the stem smacked into the chin guard of the lid I was wearing. I crossed another bar or two trying to bring the bike to a halt (I'm still not sure how I stayed on) and had a sit down until my heart stopped trying to escape from my chest. One of the finest bits of recovering-a-near-crash riding I've ever done. Noone was around to see it, of course, not that needing a sit down after is much to brag about of course. :P0 -
Thing is, BigShot, like all conspiracy theories, your ideas are full of holes and problems.
For a start, we're referring to Full Face helmets, (see thread title). I have never seen a full face that has the outer AND the interior are fully, completely attatched.
Secondly, not all helmets are created equal with regards to impact absorption. There are minimum requirements, but that in no way signifies the ONLY level of protection they offer.
Thirdly, Most cycle impactcs will be with a slid surface, and will result in minimal rotation (neck snapping) forces. This makes the impact absorption of a helmet very much more useful than a human head.
Fourthly, on mountain bikes the terrain is most often of loose rocks, and dirt/gravel, meaning the helmet will far more likely slide over the ground than dig in and twist. (this may also be true on asphalt, but we're in the MTB section here)
Fifth - not all helmets are designed for tha same purpose. There are significant differences between, for example, a rallying helmet, and a motorcycle helmet, because the expected causes of injury are massively varied. What you are doing (as well as all other anti-helmet conspiracy theorists) is taking the single worst case scenario, or the minimum requirements for a helmet, and assuming that is the be-all and end-all. Helmet manufacturers aren't just idiots who just injection mould any shape. They know far more about the subject than you or I do, and design them accordingly. Put in plain English - they're not just thrown together.0 -
Oh, and FYI, I will not take a video, or ideas of a researcher seriously, if he's paid by a specific helmet company.
In cases like that, it's in his best interest to sell his employer's designs.0 -
BigShot wrote:I'd bet my bike that if you'd fallen unhelmeted you'd have done something differently in order to keep your head up... not consciously but as a subconscious and entirely natural act of self preservation.
So you are saying your subconscious brain can act in the split second you have before a crash, work out if you are wearing a helmet (a very artificial device) or not and adjust the fall accordingly? Can you dodge bullets as well?? loli ride a hardtail0 -
Will - I'm saying what I've said. Not anything else.
I'm certainly not saying that the brain figures out if you're wearing a helmet in the split second before a crash. I'm saying that helmeted riders are SEVEN TIMES more likely to hit their head in a crash than a non-helmeted rider. That's partly due to increased size and partly due to the effort exerted an unhelmeted rider to keep their head off the ground.... not in the split second immediately before impact, but in that split second and the several leading up to that moment where arms, legs, shoulders and other body parts and movements come into play to keep the head off the ground. Riding with a lid can, and does change behaviour, both risk taking and behaviour during a crash.
That's a far more reasonable and defensible comment than the words you're putting into my mouth (/keyboard).
Yeehaamacgee - I'm not fussed in the slightest with what he has to say. I posted that video specifically to demonstrate that a helmet can turn relatively benign linear motions into potentially fatal rotational ones. He's not paid by a specific company to tout their design... it is his design, one he came up with in response to the ineffectiveness of helmets in preventing rotationally induced injuries like subdural haematoma and diffuse axonal injury and which was, much later, licenced by Lazer. That helemts can cause that kind of injury was talked about long before that system was designed.
If you've read anything I've written and come to the conclusion that I'm an "anti helmet conspiracy theorist" there's something very seriously wrong with you.
Let me spell it out for you by repeating just one thing I've said...
I
WEAR
HELMETS
WHEN
I
RIDE
OFF
ROAD
I won't even confuse matters by repeating what I've said in favour of helmets... is that clear enough?
I'm not anti-helmet, I just dislike the almost completely unfounded faith most people put in cycle helmets.
Most helmets do not come into this discussion. Rallying, MX, [road] motorbike and so on - all have wildly different design parameters... particularly in the areas of ventilation and weight.
I've never thought or suggested that all helmets are equal. The main thrust of my comments has been that cycle helmets can turn relatively benign impacts into much more serious ones. It doesn't matter if we're talking about a £5 Tesco special or a £250 wonder-lid... the same statement is true.
I've said quite clearly here and elsewhere that some cycle helmets exceed the required standards.
For the life of me I can't understand how you've come to the conclusions you've reached about my views or my arguments... unless my comments on your screen are completely different to the same comments on my screen.
I could talk about how what you've said about sliding is unfounded, somewhat falsified and about how the soft surfaces in off road riding are more likely to induce a spin than asphalt... but you've already misunderstood or misrepresented (choose whichever is appropriate) my comments so far so I'm not going to waste my time.
Your comments about design are all completely valid, but they are all complete strawmen too as I've never suggested they are thrown together, designed by idiots, all the same or all fully bonded. I'm not even going to go into the response of the helmet companies to the lowering of the testing criteria with the introduction of the EN standards as a character witness as it'd be backing up an argument I didn't make in the first place.
I could reiterate what I actually said... but you missed it the first time, and the time after that, so I can see there's really no point trying again.0
