Quantcast

Full Face Helmets

D

dylan s

Chimp
Jan 16, 2010
63
0
Well the time has come when my current TLD D3 has a few seasons under its belt and is pretty beat up. In the past it was pretty easy to choose a helmet as the D3 was far superior protection wise but also looked better than the competition. But now there are so many more viable options.

My main criteria for my new helmet is good protections as i don't want to end up with a helmet with less protection than my current D3. No goofy colour schemes or graphics so pretty much black on black is all i want. As for price i would want to be spending anymore than i would if i just went with another D3.

Options are: Bell Full 9, Fox Rampage, Giro Cipher or to just buy another D3.

Giro Cipher is the helmet i most want to know about as the price is about as good as it gets. Anyone actually had a look at a Cipher or even own one? Do they offer a similar amount of protection as the D3?

Half tempted to go another D3 as better the devil you know then the one you don't. But if i could save cash and end up with the same comfort and protection i would be a happy man.
 
boylagz

boylagz

Monkey
Jul 12, 2011
558
61
SF bay area
Ive worn the D3, Rampage Pro and Nema Player/OGK Kabuto IXA. I like em all. Each feels different. I still think the D3 is the most comfortable, but its heavy (of the 3 I own). Its in no way fatiguing but the Kabuto is insanely light (~950g for a M/L); but is the least padded. If you can't try on the ones in your list, imo stick with the D3...
 
gemini2k

gemini2k

Turbo Monkey
Jul 31, 2005
3,526
117
San Francisco
dylan s said:
Well the time has come when my current TLD D3 has a few seasons under its belt and is pretty beat up.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you should've replaced it long before this. But get a moto helmet. I think I saw ATV galaxy is clearing out old 661 fenix helmets. those things are pretty nice.
 
norbar

norbar

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause
Jun 7, 2007
11,369
1,605
Warsaw :/
Maybe if you want black on black just get a POC? Simple, good protection and the lower model has a very good price too.
 
supercow

supercow

Monkey
Feb 18, 2009
969
128
norbar said:
Maybe if you want black on black just get a POC? Simple, good protection and the lower model has a very good price too.
Click to expand...
Dislike these helmets a lot - and they don't feel as comfy as any of the others mentioned.

I'd opt for the Fox Rampage Pro carbon, D3 or the Specialized Dissident (IF it's a second generation, the first ones had the cheek pads annoyingly pop off) .
 
Last edited:
norbar

norbar

KESSLER PROBLEM. Just cause
Jun 7, 2007
11,369
1,605
Warsaw :/
supercow said:
Dislike these helmets a lot - and they don't feel as comfy as any of the others mentioned.

I'd opt for the Fox Rampage Pro carbon, D3 or the Specialized Dissident (IF it's a second generation, the first ones had the cheek pads annoyingly pop off) .
Click to expand...
Comfy is a matter of fit in 90% of cases. For me Dissent felt horrible.
 
supercow

supercow

Monkey
Feb 18, 2009
969
128
norbar said:
For me Dissent felt horrible.
Click to expand...
That's because you are Polish.
Polish have large block shaped heads - fact.

jonKranked said:
they're great helmets... but unfortunately their fit isn't good for a lot of people.
Click to expand...
Fit is very subjective indeed - there's definitely something about the POC that makes it "odd" for a lot of people (in the sample size of my group of friends anyways :p)
 
Last edited:
jonKranked

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,997
24,543
media blackout
supercow said:
Fit is very subjective indeed - there's definitely something about the POC that makes it "odd" for a lot of people (in the sample size of my group of friends anyways :p)
Click to expand...
in my experience the helmet it seemed like the helmet was a touch short front to back. personally it was noticeable but not bothersome. also, i got the largest size they had, and for a lot of people it still isn't big enough.

or maybe the swedes just have round charlie brown heads.
 
BigBoi

BigBoi

Monkey
Oct 31, 2011
310
50
Long Island, NY
I just retired my D3 cuz it was beat up...and I was tired of looking like every 16 year old kid on the mountain.

Went with the Full 9 (Aaron Gwin edition was discounted 40%) and am very pleased. Great ventilation and protection.
It does have a slightly larger profile but it's not drastic. I would highly recommend it.
 
supercow

supercow

Monkey
Feb 18, 2009
969
128
Not a fan of the Bell Full 9 - after I heard that it's the same shell size for all sizes.
Is that correct?

If so, that's a bit ****ty - means that large cranium riders like me have less padding on the inside :(
 
gemini2k

gemini2k

Turbo Monkey
Jul 31, 2005
3,526
117
San Francisco
jonKranked said:
so your advice is to replace one bad idea with another?
Click to expand...
I my limited, anecdotal-based experience, the only people I see getting real concussions while riding DH are people running MTB helmets. Those running moto helmets seem to have them with MUCH less frequency, if at all. The construction quality of moto helmets is almost ALWAYS better than flimsy-feeling DH full face helmets.

The "speeds" argument is retarded. Although the average speed on a moto is definitely higher, I regularly hit 30-40mph on my DH bike. I'm generally not riding more than 45mph on my moto, if I am, its in a very open, flat, obstacle free area (i.e. ~0% crash probability) like a lake bed or open field. Most of the moto stuff I ride, if it were pointed downhill, would be very similar, if not identical to a DH trail both in the nature, and speed of the trail, maybe slightly smoother than an average DH trails on average. I also notice that people rarely crash into rocks (hard impacts) on motos, but if I'm crashing on my DH bike, there are almost always rocks involved in some way.

Additionally, most people I see running full face helmets for extended periods of time (several years), and through multiple hits always seem to be running MTB helmets. I'm not sure what that suggests...(yes I am sure actually, that was sarcasm).
 
jonKranked

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,997
24,543
media blackout
gemini2k said:
I my limited, anecdotal-based experience, the only people I see getting real concussions while riding DH are people running MTB helmets. Those running moto helmets seem to have them with MUCH less frequency, if at all. The construction quality of moto helmets is almost ALWAYS better than flimsy-feeling DH full face helmets.

The "speeds" argument is retarded. Although the average speed on a moto is definitely higher, I regularly hit 30-40mph on my DH bike. I'm generally not riding more than 45mph on my moto, if I am, its in a very open, flat, obstacle free area (i.e. ~0% crash probability) like a lake bed or open field. Most of the moto stuff I ride, if it were pointed downhill, would be very similar, if not identical to a DH trail both in the nature, and speed of the trail, maybe slightly smoother than an average DH trails on average. I also notice that people rarely crash into rocks (hard impacts) on motos, but if I'm crashing on my DH bike, there are almost always rocks involved in some way.

Additionally, most people I see running full face helmets for extended periods of time (several years), and through multiple hits always seem to be running MTB helmets. I'm not sure what that suggests...(yes I am sure actually, that was sarcasm).
Click to expand...
did i invoke the speed argument?

Yes, i agree that a lot of MTB helmets are crap (now and historically). There is now more than 1 company making astm1952 lids, hopefully more with them in the works, so hopefully this becomes a thing of the past (but then again i saw someone advertising a cardboard helmet as "safe").

i've seen people get concussions in both moto lids and mtb full face lids. the difference here is that i've seen a couple of minor concussions from low speed impacts only in moto lids because the foam they use is too dense to minimize the impact transmissibility for low speed impacts (speed being the impact velocity, not the speed at which the rider was traveling).

the problem is that by and far, most people who ride DH won't benefit from a moto lid because not everyone is ripping DH trails at 30-40+ mph. yes, improved impact transmissibility for higher velocity impacts is needed for DH. but you're sacrificing the low end with a moto lid. astm 1952 was an attempt at filling that gap - giving more protection for high force impacts while maintaining protection for lower speed ones.

and moto lids are single use just like mtb lids; they're both made from EPS.
 
gemini2k

gemini2k

Turbo Monkey
Jul 31, 2005
3,526
117
San Francisco
jonKranked said:
did i invoke the speed argument?
Click to expand...
No but...

jonKranked said:
the problem is that by and far, most people who ride DH won't benefit from a moto lid because not everyone is ripping DH trails at 30-40+ mph. yes, improved impact transmissibility for higher velocity impacts is needed for DH. but you're sacrificing the low end with a moto lid.
Click to expand...
You just did! :P It's the only semi-legitimate argument you can make. But the flaw with that argument is that you would expect everyone riding low speed moto events like endurocross to be wearing an MTB helmet then...and they're not. The argument also implies that you will basically always get a concussion in a moto helmet no matter what the impact, which is empirically not true. I will admit, at very low impact forces, the mtb helmets feel more comfortable, VERY VERY low. So there is some validity to that.

Fig. 1 Shows a stiff moto helmet, red, and a soft mtb helmet, black, modeled as springs that essentially bottom out at high impact speeds, where the impact force your head sees is plotted as a function of impact speed (its close enough, so BACK OFF!). The impact force goes up assymptotically at high speeds since the EPS foam is bottoming out. You're suggesting that the concussion threshold is somewhere at or below the green line. My hypothesis is that the threshold for concussion is the blue line, far beyond where moto helmets become better than MTB helmets (agree?). People suggesting that moto helmets are "good" for preventing concussions for high speed impacts always seem to introduce a contradiction in their arguments. That moto helmets will prevent concussions at high speeds, but not at low speeds. Which...is obviously impossible. And also suggests that moto helmet wearers will constantly be getting concussions, which is empirically false.

Fig. 1



QUOTE=jonKranked;3942088] astm 1952 was an attempt at filling that gap - giving more protection for high force impacts while maintaining protection for lower speed ones.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I wish they'd just make helmets generally burlier, a la Zink's custom D3. Throw both soft and stiff foam in there. I really don't give a damn if the helmet weighs 100g or 200g heavier.
 
jonKranked

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,997
24,543
media blackout
gemini2k said:
No but...


You just did! :P It's the only semi-legitimate argument you can make. But the flaw with that argument is that you would expect everyone riding low speed moto events like endurocross to be wearing an MTB helmet then...and they're not. The argument also implies that you will basically always get a concussion in a moto helmet no matter what the impact, which is empirically not true. I will admit, at very low impact forces, the mtb helmets feel more comfortable, VERY VERY low. So there is some validity to that.
Click to expand...
rider speed != impact speed. impact speed in this scenario refers the velocity at which a rider's head strikes the ground (or a tree, or whatever). rider speed is a factor in impact speed, but they are not one in the same.



gemini2k said:
Fig. 1 Shows a stiff moto helmet, red, and a soft mtb helmet, black, modeled as springs that essentially bottom out at high impact speeds, where the impact force your head sees is plotted as a function of impact speed (its close enough, so BACK OFF!). The impact force goes up assymptotically at high speeds since the EPS foam is bottoming out. You're suggesting that the concussion threshold is somewhere at or below the green line. My hypothesis is that the threshold for concussion is the blue line, far beyond where moto helmets become better than MTB helmets (agree?). People suggesting that moto helmets are "good" for preventing concussions for high speed impacts always seem to introduce a contradiction in their arguments. That moto helmets will prevent concussions at high speeds, but not at low speeds. Which...is obviously impossible. And also suggests that moto helmet wearers will constantly be getting concussions, which is empirically false.
Click to expand...
but EPS doesn't perform exactly like a spring - when it compresses it doesn't return to its original configuration, and they don't always necessarily compress under a load. the amount of force to cause a concussion (or the "threshold" as you refer to it) is the same regardless of the sport. your chart doesn't say much because it assumes a direct relation between "speed" (edit - i'm assuming you mean rider speed here) and impact force. but this isn't what you want to compare; you want to compare time (or impact velocity change) vs acceleration/peak impact force.

There's two things that go into evaluating the performance of a foam for use in a protective system - impact absorption and impact transmissibility. Transmissibility is the more important of the two since that's the force that gets transmitted into your cranium and has the potential to cause a concussion - so you want to minimize the peak transmitted impact force. And you can do this by increasing the duration of the impact (or reducing the rate of change in impact velocity - delta V - depending on how you want to look at it).

You can't directly control the transmissibility rates, but you can indirectly through modifications to the impact absorption of the EPS, so it's a matter of maximizing that. EPS absorbs impact force through physical deformation, and that can be adjusted by changing the thickness and material density (and surface area technically, but DH/moto helmets are largely devoid of vents so we can omit this variable. Road bike helmets on the other hand? LOL). EPS is roughly a single uniform density (within tolerances) material. For a given combination of thickness and density, there's an optimal range for which a given combination of thickness and density will perform (perform in the sense that it will minimize impact transmissibility); ie above and below a certain delta V you'll lose performance (the peak impact force transmitted will increase the farther you get outside of this range) - and the lower end of this boundary is always > 0 (depending on the density there may not be enough force to cause the material to compress, so 100% of the force will be transmitted to the cranium). for instance, increase the density for the same thickness, you'll shift the range to a higher delta V, but you'll also narrow it as well (essentially); this can be offset by a smaller increase in density combined with a increase in thickness as well.

so the challenge for companies that make helmets is to tinker with these variables to come up with a helmet that will protect the majority of the riders the majority of the times. The problem is that its EXTREMELY difficult to simulate all possible crash scenarios in a lab environment (and this kind of lab testing on human subjects is generally frowned upon).
 
Last edited:
gemini2k

gemini2k

Turbo Monkey
Jul 31, 2005
3,526
117
San Francisco
jonKranked said:
rider speed != impact speed. impact speed in this scenario refers the velocity at which a rider's head strikes the ground (or a tree, or whatever). rider speed is a factor in impact speed, but they are not one in the same.
Click to expand...
Yes I know. But the "usual" argument is that higher speeds of moto riding=higher impact speeds, which I disagree with. You in fact invoke this correlation to be true when you suggest that you need a stiffer moto helmet because you are riding at higher speeds!! Make up your mind man!

In fact, I suggest that the great propensity to impact rocks while riding MTB makes the speed argument invalid, since although DH may how lower speeds, the impact forces are just as high as higher speed moto riding since you are hitting harder material.

My graph uses the word "speed" loosely, I mean it to refer roughly to impact speed, which most people argue is proportional to speed of riding (I disagree as I have mentioned several times). But the concept is obvious.

jonKranked said:
but EPS doesn't perform exactly like a spring - when it compresses it doesn't return to its original configuration, and they don't always necessarily compress under a load. the amount of force to cause a concussion (or the "threshold" as you refer to it) is the same regardless of the sport. your chart doesn't say much because it assumes a direct relation between "speed" (edit - i'm assuming you mean rider speed here) and impact force. but this isn't what you want to compare; you want to compare time (or impact velocity change) vs acceleration/peak impact force.
Click to expand...
My understanding is the peak impact force is the primary driver of head injuries, and the principal concern in helmet design. I could be wrong there. My model doesn't assume the foam rebounds, not sure where I could've implied that? I imagine that we can assume the EPS foam follows a rough approximation of hookes law. I doubt it is significantly non-newtonian. Although I am nowhere near an expert on the material, so I could be wrong. I also don't suggest that threshold is different for different sports (???, where did you get that?), but it is simply a function of peak impact force.

jonKranked said:
Transmissibility is the more important of the two since that's the force that gets transmitted into your cranium and has the potential to cause a concussion - so you want to minimize the peak transmitted impact force. And you can do this by increasing the duration of the impact (or reducing the rate of change in impact velocity - delta V - depending on how you want to look at it).
Click to expand...
Yes, Energy=force*distance, or 1/2*k*(x^2). So you need to increase the distance x (thicker helmet), or alter the stiffness of the foam so that it absorbs the maximum amount of energy over that distance, without bottoming out and causing a spike, and higher peak force.
 
Last edited:
T

thad

Monkey
Sep 28, 2004
388
21
http://www.westcoastweasels.com/archives/PDF/Blowing_the_Lid_Off.pdf
Very informative article on DOT vs. Snell vs. ANSI standards.

I have had a couplefew concussions, and did a lot of research on my last helmet purchase. I initially was going to get a moto helmet, but after reading up more on Snell standards, they actually seem much worse for preventing concussions than flexier mtb helmets. I ended up with a D3, even though I am not a fan of Troy Lee's flashy image. The dual density padding, with the EPS foam in peaks and valleys, for crush zones, capped with the medium density foam (similar to what hockey/whitewater/skate helmets use), seems like a good idea.

I am curious about the MIPS system as well.

Several of my riding buddies have gotten serious concussions with moto helmets.
 
jonKranked

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,997
24,543
media blackout
gemini2k said:
Yes I know. But the "usual" argument is that higher speeds of moto riding=higher impact speeds, which I disagree with. You in fact invoke this correlation to be true when you suggest that you need a stiffer moto helmet because you are riding at higher speeds!! Make up your mind man!
Click to expand...
in general that argument is a both right and wrong, higher rider speeds increase the probability of higher impact velocity; there's no direct correlation though.

also, this isn't the "usual" argument. this is a "custom" argument ;)

gemini2k said:
In fact, I suggest that the great propensity to impact rocks while riding MTB makes the speed argument invalid, since although DH may how lower speeds, the impact forces are just as high as higher speed moto riding since you are hitting harder material.
Click to expand...
in some scenarios yes, but based on your argument it really depends on where you ride. socal sand, steep PNW DH tracks, motocross tracks, or east coast rox.

gemini2k said:
My graph uses the word "speed" loosely, I mean it to refer roughly to impact speed, which most people argue is proportional to speed of riding (I disagree as I have mentioned several times). But the concept is obvious.
Click to expand...
that's why i was clarifying.


gemini2k said:
My understanding is the peak impact force is the primary driver of head injuries, and the principal concern in helmet design. I could be wrong there.
Click to expand...
this is correct. but there's growing evidence that repetitive non-concussive amounts of force can lead to long term mental injury (see the NFL). so it's also important to consider successive impacts as well (more on this below)


gemini2k said:
My model doesn't assume the foam rebounds, not sure where I could've implied that?
Click to expand...
you said you were modeling them as "springs"

successive impacts are also important to evaluate because after the initial impact your brain is already sloshing around inside your cerebrolspinal fluid and can be more sensitive to lower impact forces (i read this in a neurological journal a while back, can't remember which one for the life of me). rebound will affect this, and the rebound properties are important because EPS, unlike a traditional spring, is easy to permanently physically deform. (this is why some companies are starting to tinker with using EPP, it's much less prone to permanent physical deformation than EPS).


gemini2k said:
I imagine that we can assume the EPS foam follows a rough approximation of hookes law. I doubt it is significantly non-newtonian.
Click to expand...
in general, it holds true for static compression (and low speed impacts). it's rebound model is different due to the potential for permanent physical deformation.

gemini2k said:
I also don't suggest that threshold is different for different sports (???, where did you get that?), but it is simply a function of peak impact force.
Click to expand...
your chart had 2 "thresholds" listed?


gemini2k said:
Yes, Energy=force*distance, or 1/2*k*(x^2). So you need to increase the distance x (thicker helmet), or alter the stiffness of the foam so that it absorbs the maximum amount of energy over that distance, without bottoming out and causing a spike, and higher peak force.
Click to expand...
for static deflection sure. for the kind of dynamic compression that occurs in a matter of milliseconds there are other factors that need to be accounted for. ideally, you wouldn't want a helmet to "bottom out" - ie reaching it's maximum deflection point without failure. this can be designed around, determined by your design criteria. design criteria for an MTB lid is different than the design criteria for a DH lid is different than the design criteria for a moto lid.
 
frorider

frorider

Monkey
Jul 21, 2004
971
20
cali
MIPS type of research is more important to me than colorwayz.

The new MIPS technology mimics one of the safety systems which already exist in the human head. When the head is subjected to an oblique impact, the brain can slide along a membrane on the inner surface of the skull, which reduces the forces transmitted to the brain. This protective feature has, with the MIPS technology, been incorporated into the helmet. In a helmet equipped with MIPS technology, the shell and the liner are separated by a low friction layer. When subjected to an oblique impact, the low friction layer allows a small rotation of the shell relative to the liner. Experimental tests shows a significant reduction of the forces to the brain. Find more information about the tests at www.mipshelmet.com

Accident statistics show that the most common accident occurs in an oblique impact to the head, resulting in a 
rotation of the head and brain.

The brain is more sensitive to oblique impacts than radial impacts. However, according to the helmet test regulations, the helmets are dropped vertically onto the impact surface, resulting in a radial force to the head. This is why helmets today have good protective properties for vertical impacts while the protection is not optimized for oblique impacts. MIPS AB has therefore developed MIPS technology to provide substantially increased protection against oblique impacts.
Click to expand...
 
jonKranked

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,997
24,543
media blackout
thad said:
http://www.westcoastweasels.com/archives/PDF/Blowing_the_Lid_Off.pdf
Very informative article on DOT vs. Snell vs. ANSI standards.

I have had a couplefew concussions, and did a lot of research on my last helmet purchase. I initially was going to get a moto helmet, but after reading up more on Snell standards, they actually seem much worse for preventing concussions than flexier mtb helmets. I ended up with a D3, even though I am not a fan of Troy Lee's flashy image. The dual density padding, with the EPS foam in peaks and valleys, for crush zones, capped with the medium density foam (similar to what hockey/whitewater/skate helmets use), seems like a good idea.

I am curious about the MIPS system as well.

Several of my riding buddies have gotten serious concussions with moto helmets.
Click to expand...
the dual density layers that TLD used on the D3 are a huge improvement over mono density materials. allows them design for a larger range of protection forces.

they way the MIPS design works is that basically its two layers of foam with thin layer of a smoother material in between them that acts as a slip sheet allowing the two foam layers a certain degree of movement against one another. their theory is that it momentarily increases the surface contact of the impact objects to reduce the peak impact force. the testing they have published on their website seems to back it up.
 
jonKranked

jonKranked

Detective Dookie
Nov 10, 2005
85,997
24,543
media blackout
kidwoo said:
Aight, all y'all need to knock that shlt off now.

gemini had a pink mohawk glued to the outside of his helmet last time I saw him.


Therefore john is right.
Click to expand...
he's also like 7 feet tall. so he'd experience a larger impact force to his head than most of us if he fell over standing still
 
Bikael Molton

Bikael Molton

goofy for life
Jun 9, 2003
4,028
1,164
El Lay
My Fox V3R is the lightest and comfiest helmet I've ever had. It fits like a dream

No experience with the others, except to say that the Rampage (maybe the old model?) was straight up shortbus looking. Not my jam.

I think the V3R is gone, so my next helmet will probably be a Shoei.
 
Last edited:
gemini2k

gemini2k

Turbo Monkey
Jul 31, 2005
3,526
117
San Francisco
thad said:
http://www.westcoastweasels.com/archives/PDF/Blowing_the_Lid_Off.pdf
Very informative article on DOT vs. Snell vs. ANSI standards.
Click to expand...
Awesome article. Backs up what I've been doing for years, buying cheap DOT helmets and replacing after even the most minor impacts.

It brings up what I've wondered about, how helmet/head size affects impacts. I assume that helmets have the same EPS thickness regardless of head size? I've never checked though. If so it would suggest that bigger guys need stiffer helmets.

Lots of question though. Thicker, heavier helmets would solve a lot of problems. They are already so ridiculously light these days. It seems like a vented, thicker than normal DOT helmet would be ideal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom