Urge Archie-Enduro

ddraver

Hi Guys

Anyone got any experience of this helmet - http://www.chainreactioncycles.com/Mode ... elID=69334 - particularly with the size as it seems quite small for an L/XL!

Truth time - I'm mostly buying it to go Skiing with but given that I'd like to have a crack at a (low level) enduro sometime in the future when I move somewhere much lass flat and given that I only go skiing once a year I'm, looking for a cheap FF to do both in as in reality it will hardly get used! I'm pretty decent at skiing and do a lorra lot of off piste stuff so i think I can just about pull it off there

I know there's the bloke on ?pinkbike who had an epic with one but I'm not looking to do anything that extreme, it would essentially be an XC helmet that followed the enduro FF rules (whatever they turn out to be)

Thanks
DaveK

.blitz

http://forums.mtbr.com/utah/crash-repor ... 95542.html

ddraver

Yes I deal with that in the post....

Anyone else?

EH_Rob

My view is that helmets are designed for a specific purpose. To try and combine purposes into a single helmet isn't a good idea, as you will compromise somewhere, so it won't be as effective.

It's the same with bikes, but the difference is they don't protect your head.

It doesn't really matter how often you're going to use it. If you want the best protection, get the right gear for the job. If you want to compromise, don't expect it to work as well. It might be fine, it might not be.

That doesn't mean to say I don't like this particular helmet, I've never tried it. It might be alright, although the fella in the link blitz left probably doesn't like it very much. However, this marketing blurb sounds astonishingly stupid:

"The Archi Enduro offers the same protection as our DH helmet, the Down O matic. But the Archi also offers an optimal level of comfort thanks to its reduced weight, high breathability and shorter back, allowing the rider to comfortably wear a backpack"

In that case why not stop making the DH helmet? It's clearly a waste of time as its heavier and less breatheable whilst offering no benefits whatsoever. BOLLOCKS.

ddraver

Fair points Rob, I did a bit of research and found that a lot of the ski full face bike helmets looked awfully similar to the bike ones ( ). Giro don't even bother to change the name, just give it a different colour scheme! I was also somewhat concerned by what the tests for Ski Helmets were, they re not what I'd call extensive given that I wear mine in case I ever get caught in an avalanche, not because I might bang my noggin on the nursery slope...

Much as i'd like to pretend I would, I'd never use it for full on DH so I don't need that much protection...

peter413

Because the Down o Matic offers more coverage.

I really don't see what people have against helmets that cover a wider range of uses. The MET Parachute gets a lot of stick on this forum because "it's not a proper full face". It wasn't designed to be, it's just a normal XC lid with a chin guard on it that offers some protection for your face, no one is saying it will offer as much protection as a proper full face but it offers more protection than having nothing there at all.

Like wise, the Archi Enduro is a good idea. I personally wouldn't use one because if I'm wearing a full face I'm not going up so my THE is breathable enough but some people want to have a little more protection than a helmet that just covers the top of your head.

That article above, if it's the one I'm thinking it is because I can't be bothered reading it again, the rider seems to be using an incorrectly fitted helmet. He says it acts as a scoop and ends up down on his chest yet a stick gets stuck in the chin bar at his mouth, eh? Plus, a helmet should never end up down there if it fits properly.

Like I said, I personally wouldn't use either the Parachute or Archi Enduro or any other similar helmet because I'm either wearing an open face or a proper full face but that doesn't mean you should put people down for wearing them.

EH_Rob

If people want to that's up to them, I didn't mean to sound as though I was putting anyone down. I think what annoyed me was the marketing rubbish it came with. It doesn't offer the same protection in the slightest, to say it does is really really stupid, because at some point someone will come along and think they can use it for DH. Or skiing .

To be fair I know nothing about skiing so it might be fine. I'd suggest a skiing specific helmet may be better, but don't know.

peter413

How do you know it doesn't offer the same protection? Protection and coverage are two different things. Just like I got a Bell Variant to replace my Fox Flux and although it doesn't offer as much coverage, I believe it will offer me more protection due to the fact it fits better.

And why can can't someone use it for DH? I technically do DH in a open face all the time. I ride on DH tracks all the time while I'm riding XC, now is that DH or XC? I class it as XC since I'm riding up to get there but what if I was pushing up, would that be DH or XC?

EH_Rob

peter413 wrote:

How do you know it doesn't offer the same protection?

Because one covers a different area of your head, so how can it? No coverage = no protection, coverage = protection. There may or may not be other differences. I suspect there will be as its a helmet for a different purpose.

peter413 wrote:

Protection and coverage are two different things.

I don't agree. For me, coverage is one factor out of many which contribute to the overall protection a helmet can offer. There are many others, such as helmet thickness/construction/material, presence/location of vents, strap type and fit. And many more. This is made more complicated by the fact a bad fit or design can actually induce injuries, like our friend in the article blitz linked.

peter413 wrote:

Just like I got a Bell Variant to replace my Fox Flux and although it doesn't offer as much coverage, I believe it will offer me more protection due to the fact it fits better.

Maybe. What if the impact is in an area that previously had protection and now doesn't? Then maybe not.

peter413 wrote:

And why can can't someone use it for DH? I technically do DH in a open face all the time. I ride on DH tracks all the time while I'm riding XC, now is that DH or XC? I class it as XC since I'm riding up to get there but what if I was pushing up, would that be DH or XC?

I'm not saying you can't use it for DH, people can and will do what they like. All I'm saying is its not a DH helmet. The helmet you decide to use is chosen based on your perception of the risks involved. If you're riding on a DH track whilst doing "XC", you're probably riding something pretty steep and with pretty severe obstacles, but I guess you're not riding a DH bike if you rode it up, and that you're probably not racing. Therefore you aren't doing the speeds you'd often associate with DH, so you may feel that you don't need the greater protection offered by a DH helmet. What you want to label it as isn't really important, its what you think the risks are that determines what you wear.

Other people may feel that they're on a DH track so they'll wear a DH helmet regardless of whether they're on a DH bike or not. Neither person is wrong, do what you feel comfortable doing.

Personally when it comes to protective equipment I feel more comfortable purchasing the correct equipment for the job, which is why I said what I said.