Helmet safety vs price?

jt1984

After watching the 'should we wear helmets' thread, I can safely say that I always wear a helmet having been hit by a car when just popping down to the shops and equally, going over the handle bars on a trail.

However, does what you pay affect what you get? My example is that I bought a Giro Indicator which is cheap, very comfortable and light and has great reviews. However my mate wears a Giro Xen which is 3 times the price and heavier and he gets a hot head. (See the bike radar reviews if you want to know more on these helmets)

So, surely these helmets have to reach the same safety standards? Do they offer the same protection? And anyway, at some point you may need to replace it after a bad fall so if the cheaper one has done an equally good job of protecting your head, it is a bonus that it is cheaper to replace?

Sorry for the waffle and this is only one example so maybe my blatent ramblings may be just a load of rubbish. But am I thinking along the right lines or do I need to be corrected because there are so many other helmets on the market?

Down the Road

They have to achieve the same standard to pass the test. A better helmet will normally exceed the standard by quite a margin. It will take a more substantial knock before passing the shock to your head.

Usually the fit and ventilation on a more expensive one is better but the fit depends on the head and the ventilation will need velocity to make it work

jt1984

So is it like many things that it's about shopping around for what fits you the best cos we're all different shapes and sizes?

alfablue

Cheaper ones could potentially be safer (assuming proper fit) as fewer vents and greater weight means more material.

The safest ones are likely to be those that pass the Snell standard rather than the weaker EU standard. Specialized are the only generally available brand in the UK that pass the Snell standard http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf therefore, Specialized are likely to be safest.

Down the Road

alfablue wrote:

Cheaper ones could potentially be safer (assuming proper fit) as fewer vents and greater weight means more material.

The safest ones are likely to be those that pass the Snell standard rather than the weaker EU standard. Specialized are the only generally available brand in the UK that pass the Snell standard http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf therefore, Specialized are likely to be safest.

NOT TRUE.

Almost ALL helmets from the major brands exceed the SNell or the even tougher ANSI standard as it cost little more to get these and you need to pass these standards to sell in the USA or Australia

tarquin_foxglove

Down the Road wrote:

They have to achieve the same standard to pass the test. A better helmet will normally exceed the standard by quite a margin. It will take a more substantial knock before passing the shock to your head.

I'd love to believe that but I don't. Any helmet manufacturer building a helmet that exceeded safety standards would tell you, what a great piece of marketing "helmet A is twice as strong as helmet B". None do.

Of the major manufacturers only Specialized seem to get all their helmets tested by the Snell Memorial Foundation. The Snell test is considered to be more rigorous than the European one. Why aren't the other manufacturers submitting their strongest helmets to these tests?

Down the Road wrote:

Usually the fit and ventilation on a more expensive one is better but the fit depends on the head and the ventilation will need velocity to make it work

Agreed.

alfablue

Down the Road wrote:

alfablue wrote:

Cheaper ones could potentially be safer (assuming proper fit) as fewer vents and greater weight means more material.

The safest ones are likely to be those that pass the Snell standard rather than the weaker EU standard. Specialized are the only generally available brand in the UK that pass the Snell standard http://www.cyclehelmets.org/papers/c2023.pdf therefore, Specialized are likely to be safest.

NOT TRUE.

Almost ALL helmets from the major brands exceed the SNell or the even tougher ANSI standard as it cost little more to get these and you need to pass these standards to sell in the USA or Australia

Then why do the manufacturer's not state they pass the Snell standard? Specialized say they do, others don't, what are we to make of that?

alfablue

This gentleman may have some knowledge of the subject; he states:

In the early 1990s, market research suggested that in excess of 90% of the cycle helmets sold in the UK were certified to the Snell B-90 standard, at that time the most stringent cycle helmet standard in the world. In 1998, Head Protection Evaluations (HPE), my safety helmet laboratory, conducted a test programme for the Consumers Association (reported in Which? October 1998) to assess cycle helmets available in the UK. By that year all of the helmets were labelled to EN1078. The results showed that, with only one or two exceptions, the helmets tested were quite incapable of meeting the higher Snell B-90 standard, to which many of the models had been previously certified. Some helmets were even incapable of meeting the weak EN1078 standard.

(Brian Walker, Head Protection Evaluations Farnham, UK, March 2004)

cooldad

alfablue wrote:

This gentleman may have some knowledge of the subject; he states:

In the early 1990s, market research suggested that in excess of 90% of the cycle helmets sold in the UK were certified to the Snell B-90 standard, at that time the most stringent cycle helmet standard in the world. In 1998, Head Protection Evaluations (HPE), my safety helmet laboratory, conducted a test programme for the Consumers Association (reported in Which? October 1998) to assess cycle helmets available in the UK. By that year all of the helmets were labelled to EN1078. The results showed that, with only one or two exceptions, the helmets tested were quite incapable of meeting the higher Snell B-90 standard, to which many of the models had been previously certified. Some helmets were even incapable of meeting the weak EN1078 standard.

(Brian Walker, Head Protection Evaluations Farnham, UK, March 2004)

From his website:
Whilst cyclehelmets.org strives to be objective in its selection of information for presentation, there is more helmet-sceptic material on this web site than that supportive of helmets. This is in part a matter of copyright (we provide references to journals but cannot generally give direct access), but largely because there is a far wider range of arguments and sources that cast doubt upon one or more aspects of helmet efficacy.

Maybe his info contains a little bias?

alfablue

cooldad wrote:

alfablue wrote:

This gentleman may have some knowledge of the subject; he states:

In the early 1990s, market research suggested that in excess of 90% of the cycle helmets sold in the UK were certified to the Snell B-90 standard, at that time the most stringent cycle helmet standard in the world. In 1998, Head Protection Evaluations (HPE), my safety helmet laboratory, conducted a test programme for the Consumers Association (reported in Which? October 1998) to assess cycle helmets available in the UK. By that year all of the helmets were labelled to EN1078. The results showed that, with only one or two exceptions, the helmets tested were quite incapable of meeting the higher Snell B-90 standard, to which many of the models had been previously certified. Some helmets were even incapable of meeting the weak EN1078 standard.

From his website:
Whilst cyclehelmets.org strives to be objective in its selection of information for presentation, there is more helmet-sceptic material on this web site than that supportive of helmets. This is in part a matter of copyright (we provide references to journals but cannot generally give direct access), but largely because there is a far wider range of arguments and sources that cast doubt upon one or more aspects of helmet efficacy.

Maybe his info contains a little bias?

(Brian Walker, Head Protection Evaluations Farnham, UK, March 2004)

I believe the website upon which Brian Walker is quoted has an anti-helmet agenda, Brian Walker has apperared as an expert witness, presumably with his own interpretatioins and biases. If anything his stance is not so much that all helmets are useless, more that the current standards are. However the main point of the quote is that a [i[]Consumers Association[/i] survey found the performance of these helmets to be below Snell standards, that I presume is in the public domain (though one could of course, argue that the CA rigged their data if one wishes).

P-Jay

Arguements about test standards aside all helmets sold in the UK should be good enough for normal use (I.E. 40ft hucks and DH needs a good quality FF helmet etc).

Extra money generally goes towards greater performance, be it lower weight, more venting, aero etc you're paying for R&D rather than extra material or a machine to cut holes in it so more vents doesn't really mean it's less strong (but a big vent could mean a rock or something could hit you where the vent is.

You can pay for more protection like the highly debated chin guards on Met Parachutes or the more coverage of say a Fox Flux.

You can also pay for a 'name' Fox and Troy Lee for instance are in the media more than others in the forms of sponsorship etc and all that needs paying for.

Chunkers1980

Go cheap, change often.

jt1984

P-Jay wrote:

Extra money generally goes towards greater performance, be it lower weight, more venting, aero etc you're paying for R&D rather than extra material or a machine to cut holes in it so more vents doesn't really mean it's less strong (but a big vent could mean a rock or something could hit you where the vent is.

This was my opening point about the lower weight and better venting. The £30 Indicator wins on these 2 points over the much more expensive Zen. But is the Zen going to provide better protection IF both helmets are conforming to the same safety standard anyway?

jt1984

Chunkers1980 wrote:

Go cheap, change often.

Buy cheap, buy twice?

Chunkers1980

Not so with helmets really.

From day 1 onwards they will never be as strong as they first were.

Northwind

Lower weight and bulk can be safety considerations, just not ones that are tested for... Also how good the straps are- it seems like it's just a comfort/convenience thing but a helmet that moves is less effective than one that doesn't, just like with fit. If you take 2 helmets that test identically under Snell or EN1078, but one is smaller, lighter, and straps on better, that helmet is the safer of the 2.

Also the smaller helmet will make you look less like a baddie from Mario.

P-Jay

JT1984 wrote:

This was my opening point about the lower weight and better venting. The £30 Indicator wins on these 2 points over the much more expensive Zen. But is the Zen going to provide better protection IF both helmets are conforming to the same safety standard anyway?

If they both comform to the same standard and that's the only info you have, you have to assume they offer the same protection (they wont, but the makers don't usually publish all the test findings).

As users we kind of have to trust in the people who set the safety standards that their test represent good real-world tests.

One thing that strikes me is their is no seperate test (that I know of) for off-road and on-road riding. I fancy road riding means higher speed are possible, plus of course cars hitting you, but off-road can mean sharper things hiting your dome.

Anonymous

Only thing really to factor is what you are using the helmet for and comfort. i.e. what kind of riding are you protecting against and how good a fit it is, or if the weight of the helmet is important.

You should spend more to get a full face if you're doing suicidal Downhill stuff, but there's really no need for XC, just get a cheap XC lid. The rest is down to style, or in the case of a full-face, maybe carbon for a lightweight helmet.

The only one I'm dubious about in terms of safety are those ones advertised as full face but are just XC helmets with a chin guard on it that just looks like a pointless bit of plastic that will snap off and probably embed itself into your face. Really can't see what that protects at all.

getonyourbike

P-Jay- tbf I think the things that can hit you are pretty even with road and mtbing, though the point about sharp things and mtbing is fair; both can hit the ground with force, both can hit other objects with force, road, lampost/car, mtbing, rock/tree. But on teh road, you don't hit sharp, pointy rocks with force but you sure as hell do when mtbing.

GHill

JT1984 wrote:

However, does what you pay affect what you get? My example is that I bought a Giro Indicator which is cheap, very comfortable and light and has great reviews. However my mate wears a Giro Xen which is 3 times the price and heavier and he gets a hot head. (See the bike radar reviews if you want to know more on these helmets)

Does the Xen not cover more of the head (on back and sides)? Comparing the Xen with a Hex from a couple of years ago, the Xen definitely has a better strap system (which adds up to better retention IMO) and better pads. Xen seems better vented too.

Whether an "All Mountain" helmet like the Xen truly offers more protection than the more "XC" Indicator is hard to tell without test data. Within the AM range, the Xen is a nicer helmet than the Hex, but the Hex is probably good enough for most purposes.

theshrew

Well after my crash the other week i was thinking about this.

My first thought was because my helmet was a cheapo Bell one from Halfrauds that would be the reason why it cracked. If id bought a better quality helmet then that wouln't of split. From reading the thread other people have had there higher end helmets break after a crash so it seems this isnt the case.

I have to say my £20 ish pound Bell jobbie cracked but i tell you what it did a fantastic job of saving my head. I cant really see how if i had a more higher end helmet how that would of done anything more than the one i had on. Would i buy another ? Dam right i would !

I

Stu T

More expensive Helmets can sometimes have a Laminate finish, with less of the polystyrene on display, which can help prevent transit damage.

Otherwise if the company removes the peak and calls it a road helmet they can charge an extra £50

GHill

theshrew wrote:

I have to say my £20 ish pound Bell jobbie cracked but i tell you what it did a fantastic job of saving my head. I cant really see how if i had a more higher end helmet how that would have done anything more than the one i had on. Would i buy another ? Dam right i would !

After a decent impact it should crack. Worth checking if the manufacturer offers a crash replacement policy.

cooldad

GHill wrote:

theshrew wrote:

I have to say my £20 ish pound Bell jobbie cracked but i tell you what it did a fantastic job of saving my head. I cant really see how if i had a more higher end helmet how that would have done anything more than the one i had on. Would i buy another ? Dam right i would !

After a decent impact it should crack. Worth checking if the manufacturer offers a crash replacement policy.

They do - check the Bell website. But I figured I'd had good use out of mine, looked after my head, so was happy to buy a new one. Was also £20 ish when I bought it, found a guy selling them for £17 on Ebay. Bargain of the year.

ps even if it's not obviously cracked, best to replace after a serious whack.

theshrew

cooldad wrote:

GHill wrote:

theshrew wrote:

I have to say my £20 ish pound Bell jobbie cracked but i tell you what it did a fantastic job of saving my head. I cant really see how if i had a more higher end helmet how that would have done anything more than the one i had on. Would i buy another ? Dam right i would !

After a decent impact it should crack. Worth checking if the manufacturer offers a crash replacement policy.

They do - check the Bell website. But I figured I'd had good use out of mine, looked after my head, so was happy to buy a new one. Was also £20 ish when I bought it, found a guy selling them for £17 on Ebay. Bargain of the year.

ps even if it's not obviously cracked, best to replace after a serious whack.

Oh right nice one cheers will have a look at that then.

Its a huge crack if it had hair round it ................. lol