Poster: A snowHead
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
My head is worth £85, but it should have been £130...not sure if that is a compliment to myself or not!
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
Common, given the strength of the Canadian dollar CA$299+tax is peanuts.
If you can't afford it, give up food for a day or two.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Mon 24-10-11 20:33; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
My head is worth the price of a woollen beanie
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Zero-G, My head isn't even worth the hair it came with
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
£40 iirc, down from something like £70
|
|
|
|
|
|
stuarth, you could try the POC Receptor Bug. It's not quite as high spec as the Receptor Backcountry, but it's a decent helmet and should be a similar fit - and it's about half the price. I'm happy with mine
|
|
|
|
|
|
I wanted the thingy to stop my brain getting twisted
(I'm a marketeers joy!)
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Buying helmets is rather like buying 4 x 4 vehicles. People justify a vanity purchase by wittering about safety. I think it was established in another helmet thread that there is no evidence that expensive big name helmets protect your head better than cheap ugly ones.
If anyone had such evidence you could be sure it would be shouted from the rooftops.
|
|
|
|
|
|
My head has had several hundred thousand invested in stuffing it up. A flash helmet completely defeats my lifestyle objectives.
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
pam w wrote: |
Buying helmets is rather like buying 4 x 4 vehicles. People justify a vanity purchase by wittering about safety. I think it was established in another helmet thread that there is no evidence that expensive big name helmets protect your head better than cheap ugly ones.
If anyone had such evidence you could be sure it would be shouted from the rooftops. |
No it wasn't, it was established that you 'think' there is no difference.
I dare you to whack your head off a few underwater rocks in the cheap helmets. Not keen? Unless you've actually taken some hits, you don't really know what you're talking about tbh. As I said in that thread, instead of ABS shell and crap EPS foam like everyone else, Sweet use ABS shell + carbon fibre shell + EPP foam + unique shape to actually grip your head rather than just sit on it. That does make a difference. I've hit my head kayaking in cheap helmets, and I've hit it much harder with Sweet lids. I think the combination of the power and speed of a big steep whitewater rapid and sharp pointy rock is a pretty good testing ground. There is a clear difference in quality.
If you don't want to spend more money on a lid, fine, your choice, with your skiing maybe you don't need the higher impact protection. But please lose the smug tone as if your 'cannyness' has somehow outwitted the rest of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
pam w, without having the NCAP crash test results to hand, I think I can safely say that a Suzuki Vitara isn't as safe as a Hummer in the event of a collision. By the same token, until I see Julia Mancuso coming down a WC GS wearing a bogo Giro lid, I'll believe that higher end is safer.
Whether a recreational skier needs top-end protection is another matter entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
clarky999, I didn't say there was no difference, I said we'd seen no evidence, and that remains the case. Your experience is relevant, but still anecdotal - and I suspect that if there were scientific tests which could establish that some manufacturers helmets are better than other manufacturers helmets, they'd have been done. The Sweet website is very careful not to claim that their helmets are safer than those of any other manufacturer. They say that all their models comply with CE EN 1077 CLASS B. I don't know where you'd find a Class A helmet - maybe only those made for professional ski racers and the like?
the Sweet models are pretty, but they also look very hot - I wouldn't want to wear a helmet without good ventilation. My Giro is good in that respect.
My "smug" tone, if that's what it is, is a reaction to a good deal of smugness from people who make out that only reckless cheapskates would buy anything but the most expensive helmets. It's particularly irritating when that sort of advice is given to people who are clearly trying to equip themselves decently on a tight budget.
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Dr John, the vehicle safety crash tests are now pretty sophisticated and can distinguish difference between makes, and models, of car.
Of course, it goes without saying that none of those people wearing helmets costing hundreds of pounds would be driving round in anything other than the safest car on the block, would they?
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
pam w wrote: |
Dr John, the vehicle safety crash tests are now pretty sophisticated and can distinguish difference between makes, and models, of car. |
Correct. But I really don't see the point your trying to make. You made the generic statement about 4x4's, lumping them all into the same group, not me.
pam w wrote: |
Of course, it goes without saying that none of those people wearing helmets costing hundreds of pounds would be driving round in anything other than the safest car on the block, would they? |
Step away from the fatuous correlation, it's not helping.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
pam w,
Quote: |
I suspect that if there were scientific tests which could establish that some manufacturers helmets are better than other manufacturers helmets, they'd have been done. The Sweet website is very careful not to claim that their helmets are safer than those of any other manufacturer. They say that all their models comply with CE EN 1077 CLASS B.
|
In case you missed it on the other thread, this is worth a read: http://www.telemarktips.com/Helmets.html. To me, the scientific tests don't seem all that good tbh, although I appreciate it would be very hard to recreate every possible head impact in a lab. Only a small part of the top of the helmet is tested though, and at pretty low speeds. As to why they haven't done extra testing to 'prove' they're better, cost is likely a big issue, especially when there seems little demand for extra testing.
Quote: |
A quick look at the Foundation's Price List reveals that manufacturers seeking Snell certification are required to pay for initial certification for each model, as well as for the Foundation's "approved" labels. In addition the helmet maker must agree to reimburse Snell for the cost of the random testing program, including the expenses incurred in acquisition and testing of the helmets, up to 1% of of the total number of each model helmet produced. With more than 600,000 ski and snowboard helmets sold in the U.S. last year, a manufacturer with significant market share could find itself on the hook for considerably more than pocket change, and for a testing service that essentially duplicates its own necessary efforts. Without demand from individual recreational skiers and snowboarders, or the groups involved in promoting snowsports competition, it's unlikely that we will see Snell Memorial Foundation certification stickers on ski or snowboard helmets in the near future. |
Quote: |
My "smug" tone, if that's what it is, is a reaction to a good deal of smugness from people who make out that only reckless cheapskates would buy anything but the most expensive helmets. It's particularly irritating when that sort of advice is given to people who are clearly trying to equip themselves decently on a tight budget.
|
Which was precisely why I suggested a couple of cheaper helmets first (inc Giro). I only linked to Sweet as they have a massive sale on, 40ish% off the rrp is worth checking out. FWIW, I haven't noticed much temperature difference between my old vented Giro and my Sweet lids.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
clarky999 wrote: |
FWIW, I haven't noticed much temperature difference between my old vented Giro and my Sweet lids. |
Cosign, truesay, +1 and seconded. Had a Giro Fuse beforehand and there's been no real difference in temp. It does tend to be bloody cold when I go skiing though.
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Dr John wrote: |
pam w wrote: |
Of course, it goes without saying that none of those people wearing helmets costing hundreds of pounds would be driving round in anything other than the safest car on the block, would they? |
Step away from the fatuous correlation, it's not helping. |
She has got a point though. If someone justifies their nice looking, expensive lid on the grounds that it is anecdotaly safer then it would be fairly hypocritical to then drive, for example, an Audi Q7 instead of the cheaper, less flash (but ultimately identical) VW Touareg since it has been proved by Euro NCAP that the VW is a safer car.
However I also don't see any harm in buying the more expensive car and lid simply because it makes you feel good. Who wants to be seen in something from Aldi anyway!
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
pam w, no, but it was you who tried to draw a direct comparison between 4x4's and ski helmets (sheesh, this is difficult).
Why comparing buying a 4x4 car and a ski helmet is fatuous; helmets cost between £50 and £300. 4x4's cost between (roughly) £5,000 and £150,000. Ski helmets are bought for safety only, 4x4's are bought for any number of reasons (size, safety, off-road ability, on-road ability, fashion, one upmanship). Ski helmets are used for one thing only, 4x4's are used for a variety of jobs (off roading, the school run, shopping, posing down the Kings Road, taking sheep to the market etc).
And if I were in the market for a 4x4 (very little need for one in zone 2 London), I'd actually try out the different models instead making up my mind by "looking at one" in the showroom.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: |
the linked thread is interesting - but does it get us any further with this discussion, given that there aren't any ski helmet manufacturers 'officially' testing to those Snell Foundation standards!
|
Fixed it.
The CN tests have a very low standard, but as far as I'm aware there is no mechanism to recognise exceeding them, without paying for more expensive tests (and so making an expensive lid even more expensive).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dr John wrote: |
pam wSki helmets are bought for safety only, |
Err... They also keep your head warm and make you look nice.
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Without trying to be over-simplistic, surely you get the best you can and get a deal, and likeclarky999 suggests above go for a bargain Sweet (or similar) if you can find one. My wife wears a Sweet Carbon which we bought for 60% off RRP out of season in Austria, and whilst its a no-go at full price you'd be hard pushed to find a quality lightweight helmet like that for similar money at that discount IMO, its very sleek compared with my more bulky POC, I have to say its a case of "you pays your money and takes your chance" in my view, same reason why I wear an Arai bike helmet and when I came off it did the business.
I have been hit on my head (with my own skis that pinged off in powder BTW) and I am glad I had a good lid, rather a few dents that than a more severe outcome.
If people want to buy cheapo buzz-lightyear supermarket helmets and believe they've got a great bargain thats their choice, just not for me - even if all the test results are similar, I'd much rather have a quality lid and know I've done the best I can to protect the only head I've got.
Last edited by You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net. on Tue 25-10-11 13:14; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also FWIW when it comes to cars, I'm rocking a pair of skate shoes
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Flet©h, so do cars...
clarky999, groovy. I use an Oyster card, an outstretched arm waved at a cab, or the train. I have no idea how their safety records compare to a 4x4.
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
I'm with pam w, I'm not saying there is no performance difference but it is hard to divorce objective performance increase from marketing spin in the more expensive brands. Let's not forget pros wear helmets that they are paid to wear and POC are particularly good at targeting them. I think the kit is good but I've no way of telling whether its that much better than cheaper kit satisfying the same independent standards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
fatbob, Fair comment - but I dont think Bode Miller is the type of guy to be wearing something just because someone told him to, if those guys werent happy with the product they'd be soon shouting I think.
If its good enough for him and Ted the Shred, throwing themselved doewn the Hahnenkamm its man enough for my requirements.
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
Sorry Bode and Steve Nyman, not Ted!!
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
pam w, Trentino...........obscure? Never been but looks good, its on my list.
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
stuarth, ...The POC is outrageously expensive – or is it?
I’ve previously posted about rotational brain injury
See
http://www.phillipshelmets.com/ROTATIONAL_HEAD_INJURY.htm
and note increase in rotational injury caused by some helmets:
http://cyclehelmets.org/1039.html
and
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000145750200012X
This dispute highlights the problem that angular/oblique impacts (rather than direct ‘frontal’ impacts – emulated in tests through anvil dropping) have the tendency to create rotational injury. Anvil-type impacts (ie non-rotational) are the most likely scenario when climbing, since you get rockfall – whizz…..bang – hence my enormous Petzl Ecrin helmet) and less likely when skiing. In skiing, hitting the deck and getting rotational injury to the brain is likely, when the head hits, the helmet ‘grabs’ through deformation, and the brain rotates inside the skull – brain tissue resists in compression, but is severely damaged with shear forces (imagine a pack of cards banged directly end-down on the table – stays as a pack; then imagine banging it down at a angle- pack splits up). The thin smooth plastic covering on a ski helmet has a very specific purpose – to stop grabbing and allow the helmet to slide. This has long been recognised in motorbike helmets, when the smooth fibreglass helmet is specifically designed to slide – in skiing we can’t afford the weight of this.
Any helmet which protects more against rotational injury is a good idea. Why do I think this? I’ve read the research VERY thoroughly and discussed it in the climbing and MTB world – why? I have very expensive helmets, I’ve worn them for years – and 12 years ago I had rotational brain injury after a fall mountain biking. It hurts, it’s nasty and it pays to avoid it. If the POC genuinely reduces the chance of helmets ‘grabbing’ when you fall and inducing rotational injury, then it is worth every penny.
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
clarky999 wrote: |
pam w wrote: |
Buying helmets is rather like buying 4 x 4 vehicles. People justify a vanity purchase by wittering about safety. I think it was established in another helmet thread that there is no evidence that expensive big name helmets protect your head better than cheap ugly ones.
If anyone had such evidence you could be sure it would be shouted from the rooftops. |
No it wasn't, it was established that you 'think' there is no difference.
I dare you to whack your head off a few underwater rocks in the cheap helmets. Not keen? Unless you've actually taken some hits, you don't really know what you're talking about tbh. As I said in that thread, instead of ABS shell and crap EPS foam like everyone else, Sweet use ABS shell + carbon fibre shell + EPP foam + unique shape to actually grip your head rather than just sit on it. That does make a difference. I've hit my head kayaking in cheap helmets, and I've hit it much harder with Sweet lids. I think the combination of the power and speed of a big steep whitewater rapid and sharp pointy rock is a pretty good testing ground. There is a clear difference in quality.
If you don't want to spend more money on a lid, fine, your choice, with your skiing maybe you don't need the higher impact protection. But please lose the smug tone as if your 'cannyness' has somehow outwitted the rest of us. |
Is there a difference between a cheap hand bag and an expensive one when you hold it up in front of you and go oooooooooooowwwwww ala Vic and Bob on shooting stars ?
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
why do threads regarding helmet use cause such strong reaction?
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
jirac18, nutters
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
jirac18 wrote: |
why do threads regarding helmet use cause such strong reaction? |
Because there are extreme views on both side of the debate. See, Chuck, there's three kinds of people in this debate: dicks, pussies, and assholes. Pussies think everyone can wear a helmet if they like, and dicks just want everyone to wear one all the time without thinking it through. But then you got your assholes, Chuck. And all the assholes want to do is to shite all over dicks' helmets!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most people who take an interest in these matters have had one too many knocks on the noggin and so tend to get hot-headed
|
|
|
|
|
|
red 27 wrote: |
Most people who take an interest in these matters have had one too many knocks on the noggin and so tend to get hot-headed |
The only actual knock on the head I've had was when standing in the street with OH talking to my ski instructor. Someone came round the corner with skis over their shoulder and turned their whole body round to speak to their companion, clouting me round the head with their skis while they did so. Fortunately I still had my helmet on!
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Dr John wrote: |
Ski helmets are bought for safety only, 4x4's are bought for any number of reasons (size, safety, off-road ability, on-road ability, fashion, one upmanship). |
I reckon a fair few ski helmets are bought for fashion, one upmanship
Two years ago I spent three days of the Birmingham Ski Show trying on helmets. The *only* one that fitted was a Smith helmet, which actually was one of the cheaper models at only £60. I've tried to buy more expensive helmets, but if they don't fit they are no use whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Markymark29, I'm sure Trentino, like lots of other less well known ski areas, is very nice. But the ad was still rubbish.
clarky999, I've learnt a lot from the article you linked to and I think my original quote was accurate. It says:
Quote: |
The Snell RS-98 standard is the most stringent ski helmet standard in the world, it is also ignored. For various reasons addressed later in this report, there are currently no ski and snowboard helmet manufacturers participating in the Snell certification program. |
Your amendment implied that some manufacturers are unofficially involved. That's interesting - what does that imply?
Motor sport apparently requires competitors to use the higher-spec protection, snow sports don't, it seems, and as consumers demand lighter and less bulky helmets than the Snell certification would require, it's not in the manufacturers' commercial interest to pay for Snell certification and to manufacture to that standard because the result would probably be too bulky and heavy to be acceptable as a "fashion" item by skiers.
Some POC helmets comply with the more rigorous "A" certification on the EU system, but others (e.g. the Skull Light) only to the same lower certification as the great mass of helmets. Their site makes no mention of Snell, either.
So it seems that some of the highest cost helmets (e.g. the POC Skull Comp and Skull X) are indeed safer than the bulk of helmets, but that doesn't seem to be true of all (none of the Sweet helmets claim to meet the higher standard, for example). there's certainly no evidence (that we've seen to date) to suggest any linear relationship between price and safety.
So can we logically conclude that the the safest helmets are indeed expensive but that many expensive helmets, though jolly pretty, are not proven to be any safer than the bog standard ones?
You're probably right that my type of skiing doesn't justify a £300 helmet so in the meantime I shall continue to look for comfort and fit, first and foremost, with a top sound system coming a close second.
|
|
|
|
|
|