Forum home Road cycling forum Road general

Helmet development - brave or stupid?

londoncommuterlondoncommuter Posts: 1,550
edited May 2018 in Road general
Whatever you think on the do or don't on helmets, it's nice to see someone trying to improve impact absorption rather than just scrape through the minimum safety standard and push the bits that sell aero/weight etc etc:

http://road.cc/content/tech-news/240781 ... ad-helmets

Looks to be the same stuff as used by Smiths though and it seemed nobody bought those.....

Posts

  • lakesludditelakesluddite Posts: 1,328
    I don't see it as either brave or stupid. I'm sure a company such as Endura would have done their market research, and if it doesn't sell, then it's not going to bankrupt them. All new product launches are a gamble, to some extent.
  • londoncommuterlondoncommuter Posts: 1,550
    I don't see it as either brave or stupid. I'm sure a company such as Endura would have done their market research, and if it doesn't sell, then it's not going to bankrupt them. All new product launches are a gamble, to some extent.

    Well I hope it takes off as it would be refreshing to see competition switch to "X% safer than last year's model and better than all other leading brands" etc.

    Odd that they don't compete on the one thing the product's actually suppose to be used for.
  • svettysvetty Posts: 1,904
    They are far too fugly to sell well....
    FFS! Harden up and grow a pair :D
  • simon_esimon_e Posts: 1,685
    svetty wrote:
    They are far too fugly to sell well....
    Oh I wouldn't be so sure, that hasn't stopped Poc, Specialized, Giro and others selling stupidly priced hats as the new best thing EVER simply because.... well, they're new. And the pro riders wear them, so they're the BEST. :wink:
    Aspire not to have more, but to be more.
  • mugensimugensi Posts: 558
    svetty wrote:
    They are far too fugly to sell well....
    Not as Ugly as the Poc Octal or Kask Valegro...which is a seriously ugly cheap looking helmet. I know its not cheap but that doesn't stop it looking cheap and nasty.
  • MoonbikerMoonbiker Posts: 1,706
    Meanwhile aldi selling helmets with built in LED for a around a tenner.
  • haydenmhaydenm Posts: 2,903
    "To get a CE certification bike helmets have to show to reduce risk of a skull fracture by 40%, and helmets with the Koroyd shell design found on the Pro SL claim to limit this to 5%"

    So it reduces the risk of skull fracture by 5%? I think I'll stick with the 40% ones...
  • darkhairedlorddarkhairedlord Posts: 6,478
    haydenm wrote:
    "To get a CE certification bike helmets have to show to reduce risk of a skull fracture by 40%, and helmets with the Koroyd shell design found on the Pro SL claim to limit this to 5%"

    So it reduces the risk of skull fracture by 5%? I think I'll stick with the 40% ones...
    No, the road.cc article is poorly researched and poorly written.
    The standard for CE is reducing to 40% chance of fracture while the new hat reduces to 5% chance of fracture.
    here's a graph:
    0B_LIE9oOtPB7d3BkWGktRklEQVk
    Essentially the new material is a way of using up all those drinlking straws we no longer want.
  • haydenmhaydenm Posts: 2,903
    haydenm wrote:
    "To get a CE certification bike helmets have to show to reduce risk of a skull fracture by 40%, and helmets with the Koroyd shell design found on the Pro SL claim to limit this to 5%"

    So it reduces the risk of skull fracture by 5%? I think I'll stick with the 40% ones...
    No, the road.cc article is poorly researched and poorly written.
    The standard for CE is reducing to 40% chance of fracture while the new hat reduces to 5% chance of fracture.
    here's a graph:
    0B_LIE9oOtPB7d3BkWGktRklEQVk
    Essentially the new material is a way of using up all those drinlking straws we no longer want.

    Thought so, the graph makes it much clearer
  • mamil314mamil314 Posts: 1,103
    The worst are those Catlike holey ones, they trip my.. tripophobia and outright make me squirm in discomfort.
    As for these Enduras, i welcome more nog safety.
  • kingstongrahamkingstongraham Posts: 13,910
    If there is a wearable helmet that can do that, then the standards should change. Think it looks OK.
  • simon_esimon_e Posts: 1,685
    The standard for CE is reducing to 40% chance of fracture while the new hat reduces to 5% chance of fracture.
    I'm confused. The new target is at a lower acceleration rate than either EN1078 or CPSC but with an impressive percentage. Is that just headline-grabbing? Which is actually more effective? I was under the impression that CPSC is a more stringent standard than EN1078.

    Edit: will try to make sense of the information at http://koroyd.com/koroyd-helmet-safety-initiative/ and http://www.boardsportsource.com/2016/07 ... nitiative/
    Aspire not to have more, but to be more.
  • Vino'sGhostVino'sGhost Posts: 4,129
    increases to 5000% at an impact equivalent to resting your head in your hands.

    Seriously whats the point.
  • darkhairedlorddarkhairedlord Posts: 6,478
    Some winter salt spray and a dose of uv over the summer will have that lot falling apart.
Sign In or Register to comment.