Upgrading from MTB to road aero helmet

andyeb

I've been road cycling for over a year now. Until now I've been riding with my MTB helmet (a Giro Indicator) which has one of those sun/rain visor thingies on the front.

I've heard repeatedly on the Cycling 360 Podcast (which is excellent btw) that an aero helmet is one of the most cost effective upgrades you can make to boost your speed on a bike.

But how much do you have to spend on a road helmet to get something significantly more aero than an MTB helmet?

Plus I've also read in The Rules you should never wear an MTB helmet on a road bike... :oops:

best regards,

Andrew

chaymck

They were talking about a full aero helmet- as per link

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/arti ... ets-34859/

I dont think you would want to use one of these everyday.................

andyeb

chaymck wrote:

They were talking about a full aero helmet- as per link

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/arti ... ets-34859/

I dont think you would want to use one of these everyday.................

Ah OK - thanks. Makes sense.

But if there isn't much in it between a normal MTB helmet and a road helmet, why do helmet manufacturers make specific models?

Or should I just rip the visor off my MTB helmet?!

peat

Most MTB visors are detachable/no? The one on my Bell certainly is. I take it off for the road to fit in....

I do fancy a spangly white Giro though. Ooooh, defo an extra 2mph.

simon_masterson

Please do not use a time trial hat for normal road cycling. I daresay you can cope with a hot head, but they are protective second and performance-enhancing first; they have been around for years and they were referred to as 'head fairings' before they were 'helmets'. If you actually do fall on your head, you risk some lovely neck-twisting action...

If you want a road helmet that has closed vents, Kask make one, but don't expect miracles. An aero helmet will make you faster like everything else that time trialists use; the gains are marginal, and ideally suited to clawing back every last second, as time triallists do. If you don't measure seconds don't pay for them, and if you're hoping to put it on and instantly go at 28 mph where you would normally go at 23, you're in for disappointment.

danowat

Simon Masterson wrote:

they have been around for years and they were referred to as 'head fairings' before they were 'helmets'.

Head fairings are VERY different from the aero helmets of today.

andyeb

Simon Masterson wrote:

Please do not use a time trial hat for normal road cycling. I daresay you can cope with a hot head, but they are protective second and performance-enhancing first; they have been around for years and they were referred to as 'head fairings' before they were 'helmets'. If you actually do fall on your head, you risk some lovely neck-twisting action...

If you want a road helmet that has closed vents, Kask make one, but don't expect miracles. An aero helmet will make you faster like everything else that time trialists use; the gains are marginal, and ideally suited to clawing back every last second, as time triallists do. If you don't measure seconds don't pay for them, and if you're hoping to put it on and instantly go at 28 mph where you would normally go at 23, you're in for disappointment.

Useful to know - thanks. I was more thinking being able to cruise at 22.5 mph rather than 22.0, but I don't know if an MTB vs. standard road helmet would make this kind of difference or not?

simon_masterson

andyeb wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

Please do not use a time trial hat for normal road cycling. I daresay you can cope with a hot head, but they are protective second and performance-enhancing first; they have been around for years and they were referred to as 'head fairings' before they were 'helmets'. If you actually do fall on your head, you risk some lovely neck-twisting action...

If you want a road helmet that has closed vents, Kask make one, but don't expect miracles. An aero helmet will make you faster like everything else that time trialists use; the gains are marginal, and ideally suited to clawing back every last second, as time triallists do. If you don't measure seconds don't pay for them, and if you're hoping to put it on and instantly go at 28 mph where you would normally go at 23, you're in for disappointment.

Useful to know - thanks. I was more thinking being able to cruise at 22.5 mph rather than 22.0, but I don't know if an MTB vs. standard road helmet would make this kind of difference or not?

I highly doubt it. They are very similar. I've done far more cycling without a helmet than with, and I've never noticed a difference; cap peak up, cap peak down, cap backwards...

andyeb

Just noticed that the Giro Indicator (the helmet I'm currently using) is listed as a "Road" helmet on the Giro website, but as an MTB helmet on Evans Cycles website. Admittedly it does look more like an MTB helmet, but it is leading me to believe that perhaps there isn't that much in it between helmets designed for road and off-road use?

danowat

Cruising at 22mph?.............

andyeb

danowat wrote:

Cruising at 22mph?.............

I ride a 60 mile round-trip commute 3x a week. I've learned the hard way I can't sustain race pace every day, hence my average speeds are a bit lower than a lot of people on here ride.

NewTTer

andyeb wrote:

danowat wrote:

Cruising at 22mph?.............

I ride a 60 mile round-trip commute 3x a week. I've learned the hard way I can't sustain race pace every day, hence my average speeds are a bit lower than a lot of people on here ride.

I think the point was that 22mph is quite high for a cruising speed, and you have exapserated that futher by claiming to keep that up for 60 miles on your commute, so good going there, you would go well in racing, or your speedo is reading in Km/h

Back to your point just remove the detachable peak from your indicator and voila! its a road helmet. Hope this helps

andyeb

Ah I see. I did mean MPH, but of course I'm only "cruising" for parts of the ride. My average is normally between 16 and 18 MPH, which isn't unheard of surely? Still have some way to go before applying for a racing licence - on Strava I'm normally ranked between middle and top third on most segments. I digress... :oops:

NewTTer

So for clarity you are "peaking" at 22 mph, and "cruising" at 16-18 mph. Nevertheless its semantics, get that peak off your Indicator and your good to go, or leave it on as they are damn good at keeping the rain off in the winter, and treat yourself to a new Road Helmet in the new year

simon_masterson

danowat wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

they have been around for years and they were referred to as 'head fairings' before they were 'helmets'.

Head fairings are VERY different from the aero helmets of today.

Same basic shape - or rather, there existed head fairings that were similar, given the various trends in design. But fundamentally the same idea, and fundamentally not geared to safety. I'm not trying to argue that the head fairings of yesteryear are what the aero helmets of today are a repackaged version of; simply that they are two devices designed for the same purpose, sharing basic attributes.

danowat

Simon Masterson wrote:

danowat wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

they have been around for years and they were referred to as 'head fairings' before they were 'helmets'.

Head fairings are VERY different from the aero helmets of today.

Same basic shape - or rather, there existed head fairings that were similar, given the various trends in design. But fundamentally the same idea, and fundamentally not geared to safety. I'm not trying to argue that the head fairings of yesteryear are what the aero helmets of today are a repackaged version of; simply that they are two devices designed for the same purpose, sharing basic attributes.

Have you even compared a recent aero helmet with a fairing?, many of them have the same inner shell as a road helmet with an aerodynamic cover over it, where as a fairing is simply a thin piece of plastic with a couple of bits of foam in it.

The overall goal might by the same, but they couldn't be more different.

daxplusplus

Hi Andrew .. sounds like your in a similar positon to me. I ride an approx 50 mile round trip commute three times a week. I too am using an old MTB lid and looking to replace it with an aero one .. some time in the new year.

Ignore the speed fascists - I knew exactly what you meant and I'm guessing a lot of others did too. It wasn't like you were claiming to have done a stage of the TdF at 22 mph. I travel for miles at a time at 20mph+ and I'm just cruising along .. no effort, just turning the pedals .. but then I have fitted some aero bars, the road surface tends to be as smooth as and I know a lot of the time there's a very, very slight downward slant on those routes were this happens but that doesn't make my desire for aero benefits any less real.

Anyway there was a study published here on bike radar that showed that aero bars/position helped a rider to a large degree and that an aero helmet was the next best thing on the list that would improve a riders speed/time and that, I think, the effect of the lid was approx half off that offered by the aero bars/position.

Well my experience with clip on aero bars was pretty awesome so if I get half the effect with an aero lid again I'll be one happy bunny. The only problem is they are bl**dy expensive so hence my wait.

If you do go down the aero route please tell us how it goes - cos I, for one, love the idea of getting speed for free.

daxplusplus

.. oh and I'm a cynic so I didn't think the aero bars would have a very noticable effect.

I was wrong.

I'm not getting my hopes up too much about aero helmets (it just doesn't seem feasible that a helmet can have that much effect) but it's got to be worth a go if the figures from the study are to be believed.

simon_masterson

danowat wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

danowat wrote:

Simon Masterson wrote:

they have been around for years and they were referred to as 'head fairings' before they were 'helmets'.

Head fairings are VERY different from the aero helmets of today.

Same basic shape - or rather, there existed head fairings that were similar, given the various trends in design. But fundamentally the same idea, and fundamentally not geared to safety. I'm not trying to argue that the head fairings of yesteryear are what the aero helmets of today are a repackaged version of; simply that they are two devices designed for the same purpose, sharing basic attributes.

Have you even compared a recent aero helmet with a fairing?, many of them have the same inner shell as a road helmet with an aerodynamic cover over it, where as a fairing is simply a thin piece of plastic with a couple of bits of foam in it.

The overall goal might by the same, but they couldn't be more different.

And the fairing is what causes the problem...

NewTTer

DaxPlusPlus wrote:

Hi Andrew .. sounds like your in a similar positon to me. I ride an approx 50 mile round trip commute three times a week. I too am using an old MTB lid and looking to replace it with an aero one .. some time in the new year.

Ignore the speed fascists - I knew exactly what you meant and I'm guessing a lot of others did too. It wasn't like you were claiming to have done a stage of the TdF at 22 mph. I travel for miles at a time at 20mph+ and I'm just cruising along .. no effort, just turning the pedals .. but then I have fitted some aero bars, the road surface tends to be as smooth as and I know a lot of the time there's a very, very slight downward slant on those routes were this happens but that doesn't make my desire for aero benefits any less real.

Anyway there was a study published here on bike radar that showed that aero bars/position helped a rider to a large degree and that an aero helmet was the next best thing on the list that would improve a riders speed/time and that, I think, the effect of the lid was approx half off that offered by the aero bars/position.

Well my experience with clip on aero bars was pretty awesome so if I get half the effect with an aero lid again I'll be one happy bunny. The only problem is they are bl**dy expensive so hence my wait.

If you do go down the aero route please tell us how it goes - cos I, for one, love the idea of getting speed for free.

This nonsense really doesnt warrant a response however in the name of common sense, here is a brief reply.
How many commuters have you seen decked out in skinsuits and aero helmets riding TT bike to work?
The aero gains you are alluding to in the study you read, which was about gains per £, are aimed at competing time triallists who may benefit on a competitive front from saving a few seconds over a 25 mile time trial.

simon_masterson

NewTTer wrote:

DaxPlusPlus wrote:

Hi Andrew .. sounds like your in a similar positon to me. I ride an approx 50 mile round trip commute three times a week. I too am using an old MTB lid and looking to replace it with an aero one .. some time in the new year.

Ignore the speed fascists - I knew exactly what you meant and I'm guessing a lot of others did too. It wasn't like you were claiming to have done a stage of the TdF at 22 mph. I travel for miles at a time at 20mph+ and I'm just cruising along .. no effort, just turning the pedals .. but then I have fitted some aero bars, the road surface tends to be as smooth as and I know a lot of the time there's a very, very slight downward slant on those routes were this happens but that doesn't make my desire for aero benefits any less real.

Anyway there was a study published here on bike radar that showed that aero bars/position helped a rider to a large degree and that an aero helmet was the next best thing on the list that would improve a riders speed/time and that, I think, the effect of the lid was approx half off that offered by the aero bars/position.

Well my experience with clip on aero bars was pretty awesome so if I get half the effect with an aero lid again I'll be one happy bunny. The only problem is they are bl**dy expensive so hence my wait.

If you do go down the aero route please tell us how it goes - cos I, for one, love the idea of getting speed for free.

This nonsense really doesnt warrant a response however in the name of common sense, here is a brief reply.
How many commuters have you seen decked out in skinsuits and aero helmets riding TT bike to work?
The aero gains you are alluding to in the study you read, it was about gains per £, are aimed at competing tine trialists who may benefit on a competitive front from saving a few seconds over a 25 mile time trial.

Bingo! Thank you.

andyeb

Yes there is a need to keep aerodynamics in perspective.

But on longer commutes, it is worthwhile paying attention to how easily you slice through the air; for example I can easily feel the extra effort required to ride with a waterproof jacket on (vs. riding in a slim fitting cycling jersey), even though it isn't one that flaps around in the wind. It's not a subjective difference either - if I'm dressed in full waterproof kit, my heart rate monitor clocks the number of calories burned as 10% higher than if I'm riding in normal cycling kit.

daxplusplus

The report is here http://www.bikeradar.com/road/gear/article/how-aero-is-aero-19273/.

That text from the report that interested me is:

The difference between the Specialized road helmet and the TT2 was 8.6W or 9.4W, depending on which set of protocols we chose.

[cut]

Finally, the difference between a road frame and one with a set of clip-ons on it was a whopping 29.4 watts. This difference is due to rider position (in the drops vs. in the aero bars).

Which tends to point out that the power savings for the full on aero helmet is approx 1/3 rd of that from the clip on aero bars.

My experience of clip on aero bars was that they gave me a large increase in speed for no extra effort. I am quite willing to investigate the use of an aero helmet if I get anything like a 1/3 again improvement over the aero bars.

daxplusplus

I love the way that some people that don't know me, don't know the road surfaces I ride, don't know my local prevailing wind conditions, the route profiles, my fitness levels, the kit I use, my cycling goals or indeed just about anything else about me .. can somehow know more about my experiences of riding than me :roll:

NewTTer

DaxPlusPlus wrote:

I love the way that some people that don't know me, don't know the road surfaces I ride, don't know my local prevailing wind conditions, the route profiles, my fitness levels, the kit I use, my cycling goals or indeed just about anything else about me .. can somehow know more about my experiences of riding than me :roll:

Oh Dear a time trialling commuter whatever next

LegendLust

DaxPlusPlus wrote:

Hi Andrew .. sounds like your in a similar positon to me. I ride an approx 50 mile round trip commute three times a week. I too am using an old MTB lid and looking to replace it with an aero one .. some time in the new year.

Ignore the speed fascists - I knew exactly what you meant and I'm guessing a lot of others did too. It wasn't like you were claiming to have done a stage of the TdF at 22 mph. I travel for miles at a time at 20mph+ and I'm just cruising along .. no effort, just turning the pedals .. but then I have fitted some aero bars, the road surface tends to be as smooth as and I know a lot of the time there's a very, very slight downward slant on those routes were this happens but that doesn't make my desire for aero benefits any less real.

Anyway there was a study published here on bike radar that showed that aero bars/position helped a rider to a large degree and that an aero helmet was the next best thing on the list that would improve a riders speed/time and that, I think, the effect of the lid was approx half off that offered by the aero bars/position.

Well my experience with clip on aero bars was pretty awesome so if I get half the effect with an aero lid again I'll be one happy bunny. The only problem is they are bl**dy expensive so hence my wait.

If you do go down the aero route please tell us how it goes - cos I, for one, love the idea of getting speed for free.

Bloody hell. If I were you I'd give Dave Brailsford a ring.

daxplusplus

LegendLust wrote:

Bloody hell. If I were you I'd give Dave Brailsford a ring.

You know that bit where I said that you know nothing about me or my cycling?

Well look up the geology of the Cotswolds Enscarpment.

Then realise that my shortist return journey home is 23 miles of mostly slowly descending roads with hardly any hills. In a lot of places the road surface is old and worn so has much reduced rolling resistance. So cruising at 18 mph for 50% of my journey is the norm and nothing to write home about .. and with aero bars that speed ups to 20 mph.

I've cycled these particular roads maybe 300 times on the same bike .. so I reckon I have a pretty good feel for their characteristics and understand very clealy why I'm going at those speeds (they are false flats and very slowly descending).

The fact that the profile of the route is helping me reach these speeds is irrelevant to whether or not I acquire any benefits from being more aero.

LegendLust

DaxPlusPlus wrote:

LegendLust wrote:

Bloody hell. If I were you I'd give Dave Brailsford a ring.

You know that bit where I said that you know nothing about me or my cycling?

Well look up the geology of the Cotswolds Enscarpment.

Then realise that my shortist return journey home is 23 miles of mostly slowly descending roads with hardly any hills. In a lot of places the road surface is old and worn so has much reduced rolling resistance. So cruising at 18 mph for 50% of my journey is the norm and nothing to write home about .. and with aero bars that speed ups to 20 mph.

I've cycled these particular roads maybe 300 times on the same bike .. so I reckon I have a pretty good feel for their characteristics and understand very clealy why I'm going at those speeds (they are false flats and very slowly descending).

The fact that the profile of the route is helping me reach these speeds is irrelevant to whether or not I acquire any benefits from being more aero.

I better get some of these aerobars if they add on 2mph

simon_masterson

andyeb wrote:

Yes there is a need to keep aerodynamics in perspective.

But on longer commutes, it is worthwhile paying attention to how easily you slice through the air; for example I can easily feel the extra effort required to ride with a waterproof jacket on (vs. riding in a slim fitting cycling jersey), even though it isn't one that flaps around in the wind. It's not a subjective difference either - if I'm dressed in full waterproof kit, my heart rate monitor clocks the number of calories burned as 10% higher than if I'm riding in normal cycling kit.

What's a 'longer commute'? I'd class nothing under 25 miles each way to qualify, unless you live amongst the sort of mountains that we don't have in Britain.

But all this is reliant on your commute: is it a competition? If not, put in the extra effort and get (negligibly) fitter. Saving effort is of great importance in a competitive event, but not in a ride to work. Do you also have a support vehicle with additional bikes and a plethora of spares, to equip you for the cols that you aren't going to climb?

Another problem with all of these wattage measurements of course is that most amateurs will not put out power consistently enough for the savings to be consequential, let alone useful. However, the main issue I have with 'time trial commuters' is that I do not want to be in traffic with people who think it is a good idea to be using aero bars.

cyco2

It looks like Cavendish has his helmet covered in cling film. If it works for him then you ought to try it too.

diy

First thing the "rules" are what gives cycling its nerdy reputation, if you want to ride in your baggies, MTB lid and hydration pack then do it. However the difference is quite noticeable at high speeds, between MTB lids and road lids.

I have a giro hex as my MTB lid and the vents are forward facing for max air intake. At faster speeds e.g 30mph it's like a parachute on the head compared to my road lid. I also find it harder to see in the drops. I bought a Specialized Echelon, fairly cheap and it made a big difference.

I do find it funny that roadies assume mtbers are less capable of sustaining higher cruising speeds. I guess it's because they pass us so easily usually due to more bike mass and much larger contact area. For me a challenging hill is 30% over tree roots and flint and fast is 50mph on dirt or grass.