Justinslow
Lovely jubbly
- Location
- Suffolk
Thinking something like "which" magazine?
Probably because no-one is willing to wear the helmet while it's having a hammer aimed at it.I suppose a good question would be - just what level of impact can a helmet withstand without it "cracking" or failing? Not what test it has passed, but what it actually can handle, independent tests, I'm surprised we have no information on this from a third party. Surely it would be fairly easy to buy a range of helmets and test them to destruction? Why has no organisation done this?
Which has done it. You'll have to buy it if you want the full story but the headline was that a Met helmet failed, as reported in http://road.cc/content/news/62272-which-stirs-helmet-debate-product-testThinking something like "which" magazine?
I suppose a good question would be - just what level of impact can a helmet withstand without it "cracking" or failing? Not what test it has passed, but what it actually can handle, independent tests, I'm surprised we have no information on this from a third party. Surely it would be fairly easy to buy a range of helmets and test them to destruction? Why has no organisation done this?
We do have one study that might be interesting. It is not independent as it was conducted by a researcher for Bell helmets. It is also getting on a bit now, being 2O years old, and it is about children's helmets.
No compression at all
Anyone who wants to believe that cycle helmets are a good thing, really ought to be concerned about this sort of thing.
Yes that's what i meant, crash test dummies with sensors everywhere - actually measuring stuff independently?Now that is a very good question. I suspect that it is, at least in part, because such testing is difficult, especially to get consistent results. I'd like to see a realistic protocol that simulates both the falling impact and the horizontal velocity component. That at least would produce both the desired shear and compression components.
What I do find surprising is that there seems to have been little, if any work done using the standard crash test dummy head. These are usually instrumented so that the accelerations experienced during testing are measured. That there seems to be an absence of any published data using such standard and accepted methods is, for me, a worrying omission.
Quite likely it is the bare minimum that the manufacturers can get away with, and as we know people don't generally question the standards anyway. Why would the manufacturers bother with improving standards when so many cyclists are happy in their ignorance and keep shelling out thanks to promises of lighter and more aero?Leading on from this, why are the tests that the helmets have to pass set at such a low standard? Whoever thought that was an acceptable standard?
Absolutely, but when you have cyclists so determined that any helmet is a good helmet and manufacturers comfortable in that knowledge, that would be no mean feat. A recent which helmet thread, and I suspect there are many others like it, asked for recommendations on a first helmet with the first consideration that it shouldn't be too sweaty, no mention of which one may offer the best impact resistance at all. Anything was going to be better, or, as I was told by my LBS when I last bought a helmet many years ago, they're all the same just some are lighter than others.In order to improve anything, should that be needed, is for helmet wearers to boycott helmets and demand higher standards.
...at which point they'll look at the helmet that might actually 'work' and say "I'm not wearing that on a bicycle!"In order to improve anything, should that be needed, is for helmet wearers to boycott helmets and demand higher standards.
Can't think why not;...at which point they'll look at the helmet that might actually 'work' and say "I'm not wearing that on a bicycle!"
That's basically happening, isn't it? Some Snell standards are slightly tougher than the Euro Norm but people buy the EN ones. Sadly, the reaction to deciding Snell-approved ones are unacceptable seems to be to decide that anything is better than nothing and buy the EN one....at which point they'll look at the helmet that might actually 'work' and say "I'm not wearing that on a bicycle!"
Aye.That's basically happening, isn't it? Some Snell standards are slightly tougher than the Euro Norm but people buy the EN ones. Sadly, the reaction to deciding Snell-approved ones are unacceptable seems to be to decide that anything is better than nothing and buy the EN one.
Because that's what is available. I decided to go for Snell, and I had go online to find out which are included. The helmet I chose, Specialized Echelon I think, is listed as Snell on the Snell site, but the box said "meets one or more of the following standards..." I literally couldn't find one in Evans that explicitly claimed Snell, even in the fine print.Some Snell standards are slightly tougher than the Euro Norm but people buy the EN ones
I tend to put my faith in this sort of thing...
...I've had it for years.