I don't understand this rant. There are more expensive helmets than this, and much cheaper helmets too. If you want a helmet you are not obliged to spend £200 or anywhere near it.
I don't understand this rant. There are more expensive helmets than this, and much cheaper helmets too. If you want a helmet you are not obliged to spend £200 or anywhere near it.
It's like saying "£100000 for a bloody Ferrari".
If you can get a (new) Ferrari for £100k I'd snap their hand off.
I don't understand this rant. There are more expensive helmets than this, and much cheaper helmets too. If you want a helmet you are not obliged to spend £200 or anywhere near it.
It's like saying "£100000 for a bloody Ferrari".
If you can get a (new) Ferrari for £100k I'd snap their hand off.
What is your head worth? if people believe that £195 will buy better protection than £100 what's the problem.
The fact that no matter how much you pay, any helmet you buy will almost certainly only offer the same pitiful level of 'protection' as something that costs twenty quid in Decathlon, and quite possibly less?
The whole purpose of a helmet is supposedly to offer protection, but you never see any manufacturer selling any of their products on the basis that they offer a greater level of protection than another helmet. The reason is that they are all built to pass the same very low test standards. Instead the marketing men all witter on about weight, looks ventilation and so forth, which to my mind would be like car companies selling sports cars on the basis of their looks and sound, but non of which can actually do more than 20 Mph!
Given that modern helmets with lots of ventilation holes very often simply break up in a real world impact, suffering from brittle fracture failures that absorbs next to no energy, if I were looking for a higher level of protection I would be tempted to look for a design that has a more continuous surface, such as one of the 'aero' designs
It might also be a good idea to look for a US market model that has passed the B95 SNELL certification tests, which are marginally more stringent than the EN 1078 ones. Good luck though, almost all currently available helmets are incapable of passing the B95 test standards, and independent tests have shown that many even fail to meet the very weak EN 1078 standards!
"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.
Kask have a deal on the £165 Verigo for trade in of any old lid and the price is reduced down to £100 so it's cheaper than the Mojito range which is below it in the range but currently at £125ish
Pain hurts much less if its topped off with beating your mates to top of a climb.
Blah blah I'm turning this into a helmets don't do any good thread blah blah blah
My admiration on your restraint in waiting a whole 11 posts before pointlessly trying to derail the discussion!
One, I never said that helmets don't do 'any good'. They are reasonably able to do what they are designed to do, that is pass some rather arbitrary tests that have dubious relevance to real-world impacts and which use a pretty low impact force. As such they might well prevent minor concussion and scalp lacerations in a simple fall where no more than about 90 joules of energy is generated.
Secondly, I was simply answering a previous poster who had made the classic mistake of thinking that an expensive helmet is likely to offer more protection.
Thirdly, surely a discussion of why a helmet costs £200 is justified in asking whether or not is offers more protection than a £20 one. After all, that is supposed to be their primary function!
"an original thinker… the intellectual heir of Galileo and Einstein… suspicious of orthodoxy - any orthodoxy… He relishes all forms of ontological argument": jane90.
A few years back one of the motorcycle magazines tested crash helmets and found a sandwich offered nearly as much protection. So, you might as well strap a couple of cheeses and pickle butties to your head if they are to be believed. Then you've got something to eat if you get peckish.
Personally I'll stick to my moderately expensive Kask Mojito because it doesn't leave crumbs in my barnet, it makes the wife happy I'm being careful, it's comfortable and not least I hope it will help if I bang my head.
If you want cheap protection by all means tape an egg mayo sarnie to your bonce.
I'm going for another beer.
Thirdly, surely a discussion of why a helmet costs £200 is justified in asking whether or not is offers more protection than a £20 one. After all, that is supposed to be their primary function!
My admiration for continuing to try to derail the thread
Since when did the price of anything HAVE to be related to their primary function? I'd argue that it's almost the exception. A silver teaspoon (in fact, pretty much anything that costs more than a plastic or pressed metal one), nearly all fashion clothes, many cars, houses, furniture, and so on. As for helmets, my experience is that the higher the original price, the lighter, the better ventilated, the more comfortable (possibly more aero), better looking and more maintainable (replacement pads, silver anti-smell etc) they are. Generally very little to do with the primary function but more pleasant to wear.
A few years back one of the motorcycle magazines tested crash helmets and found a sandwich offered nearly as much protection. So, you might as well strap a couple of cheeses and pickle butties to your head if they are to be believed. Then you've got something to eat if you get peckish.
Personally I'll stick to my moderately expensive Kask Mojito because it doesn't leave crumbs in my barnet, it makes the wife happy I'm being careful, it's comfortable and not least I hope it will help if I bang my head.
If you want cheap protection by all means tape an egg mayo sarnie to your bonce.
I'm going for another beer.
If I paint a detailed cross section of a Panini on my helmet, will it offer double the protection? (than your average bog standard cucumber on blotting paper, British equivalent)
There's another serious question about the wearing of helmets, responsibility. The public psyche is that we are irresponsible if we don't, some cyclists get shouted at if they don't (see recent thread of a cyclist experiencing this when being overtaken by another group of cyclists), none of which matters if you don't wear one.
However, my understanding is that it could affect our personal injury entitlements should we, heaven forbid, need to pursue one. I was typically more comfortable through the years wearing a cycling sweatband and no helmet for comfort when working hard. Now I feel that if I don't wear a helmet, eyewear and bright lights through tree-covered roads even on sunny days then I give someone else an excuse to say I was not acting responsibly.
Interested in what others have to say.
Oh, and I usually pick a £30 Specialized model with an expectation of changing them every couple of years for hygiene as much as anything. They have vents, ratchet wheel and don't look much more stupid than anything else we wear to the public!
If I paint a detailed cross section of a Panini on my helmet, will it offer double the protection? (than your average bog standard cucumber on blotting paper, British equivalent)
It's a panino or some panini. And you would need real ones not painted ones.
I would also state that contrary to what the popular press seem to believe a crash helmet is not magic. They cannot protect you from all head injuries. Wearing a crash helmet certainly didn't help when I had my accident as it was on my head, not my hand.
pinno
Posts: 50,620
Posts
Find me on Strava
What you could do is get your old helmet, smash it up a bit and go somewhere that does discount on crash replacement.
where was this? A friend wanted a mojito and is an occasional Team Sky full kit W@nker so would suit him.
It's like saying "£100000 for a bloody Ferrari".
Find me on Strava
If you can get a (new) Ferrari for £100k I'd snap their hand off.
It's just a hill. Get over it.
Whatever
Wiliers: Cento Uno/Superleggera R and Zero 7. Bianchi Infinito CV and Oltre XR2
P.s. I quite like the colour.
No one forces you to buy it.
The fact that no matter how much you pay, any helmet you buy will almost certainly only offer the same pitiful level of 'protection' as something that costs twenty quid in Decathlon, and quite possibly less?
The whole purpose of a helmet is supposedly to offer protection, but you never see any manufacturer selling any of their products on the basis that they offer a greater level of protection than another helmet. The reason is that they are all built to pass the same very low test standards. Instead the marketing men all witter on about weight, looks ventilation and so forth, which to my mind would be like car companies selling sports cars on the basis of their looks and sound, but non of which can actually do more than 20 Mph!
Given that modern helmets with lots of ventilation holes very often simply break up in a real world impact, suffering from brittle fracture failures that absorbs next to no energy, if I were looking for a higher level of protection I would be tempted to look for a design that has a more continuous surface, such as one of the 'aero' designs
It might also be a good idea to look for a US market model that has passed the B95 SNELL certification tests, which are marginally more stringent than the EN 1078 ones. Good luck though, almost all currently available helmets are incapable of passing the B95 test standards, and independent tests have shown that many even fail to meet the very weak EN 1078 standards!
Because it is utterly not true.
But I don't want 12 helmets
My admiration on your restraint in waiting a whole 11 posts before pointlessly trying to derail the discussion!
One, I never said that helmets don't do 'any good'. They are reasonably able to do what they are designed to do, that is pass some rather arbitrary tests that have dubious relevance to real-world impacts and which use a pretty low impact force. As such they might well prevent minor concussion and scalp lacerations in a simple fall where no more than about 90 joules of energy is generated.
Secondly, I was simply answering a previous poster who had made the classic mistake of thinking that an expensive helmet is likely to offer more protection.
Thirdly, surely a discussion of why a helmet costs £200 is justified in asking whether or not is offers more protection than a £20 one. After all, that is supposed to be their primary function!
Personally I'll stick to my moderately expensive Kask Mojito because it doesn't leave crumbs in my barnet, it makes the wife happy I'm being careful, it's comfortable and not least I hope it will help if I bang my head.
If you want cheap protection by all means tape an egg mayo sarnie to your bonce.
I'm going for another beer.
Marin Nail Trail
Cotic Solaris
MTB - 2012 Canyon Nerve XC 7
Summer Road - 2012 Cannondale Supersix 105 Liquigas Colours
My admiration for continuing to try to derail the thread
Since when did the price of anything HAVE to be related to their primary function? I'd argue that it's almost the exception. A silver teaspoon (in fact, pretty much anything that costs more than a plastic or pressed metal one), nearly all fashion clothes, many cars, houses, furniture, and so on. As for helmets, my experience is that the higher the original price, the lighter, the better ventilated, the more comfortable (possibly more aero), better looking and more maintainable (replacement pads, silver anti-smell etc) they are. Generally very little to do with the primary function but more pleasant to wear.
You are VTech and I claim my £5.
I actually ride a bike. :roll:
If I paint a detailed cross section of a Panini on my helmet, will it offer double the protection? (than your average bog standard cucumber on blotting paper, British equivalent)
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved
Too much information. However, Stevo wants to know if it is cheap.
However, my understanding is that it could affect our personal injury entitlements should we, heaven forbid, need to pursue one. I was typically more comfortable through the years wearing a cycling sweatband and no helmet for comfort when working hard. Now I feel that if I don't wear a helmet, eyewear and bright lights through tree-covered roads even on sunny days then I give someone else an excuse to say I was not acting responsibly.
Interested in what others have to say.
Oh, and I usually pick a £30 Specialized model with an expectation of changing them every couple of years for hygiene as much as anything. They have vents, ratchet wheel and don't look much more stupid than anything else we wear to the public!
I would also state that contrary to what the popular press seem to believe a crash helmet is not magic. They cannot protect you from all head injuries. Wearing a crash helmet certainly didn't help when I had my accident as it was on my head, not my hand.
Marin Nail Trail
Cotic Solaris
Colnago
Cervelo
Campagnolo