Have seen a TLD crack like a egg after going face first into rocks the rider got jacked up missing teeth etc who gives a crap about comfort, saftey first. If i wear a moto helmet and live in texas with this dam heat you can handle it.l
Full Face Suggestions
- Thread starter Dangerous E
- Start date
i dont really know, im gona assume its because they used less material so they can keep the weight down, but thats really weird 'cause carbon fiber "done right" is very strong and light weight
how do you know that he didnt crash with his helmet prievously and didnt replace it after that? and even TLD's are not exempt from human error, the hemet could have been improperly constructed. I know for a fact that they are strong/safe enough to safe lives
At the higher end of the spectrum carbon fiber actually attenuates energy less effectively than fiberglass. Although it's not really relevant at the speeds/G's encountered on a bike or even a moto but ultimately it is a bit weaker (albiet lighter).
True no helmet is safe from misuse but to say that "I know for a fact they are strong enough to save lives" is not really saying much. Of course any helmet is better than no helmet. But the real question is, will a given helmet perform as well in a wide set of circumstances as another newer helmet that was designed specifically to a higher standard? In most situations the answer is, most likely not.
That's ridiculous. I had to look in my own owners manual to make sure that TLD would really do that. Sure enough, my cheaper composite helmet meets a newer standard than the "high end" carbon. I would have been pissed to spend the extra money only to find that out.
I can't know for certain without buying a carbon helmet and rigging it up to drop testers, but I speculate that the carbon chinbar doesn't meet the deflection standards of ASTM 1952.
They're the first company I've heard of where the carbon and fiberglass/composite helmets meet different standards. Specialized and Giro meet 1952 with all versions of their full face.
Of course you are entitled to your opinions! 
It may be your contention that DH and MX are very similar but it's the opinion of various field experts that they indeed are not. These people sit on committees that create safety standards based on factual data gathered from thousands of incidents all over the country (the world even) before putting their engineering degrees to work to create a proper and effective standard. This is how the new ASTM 1952 standard was realized. Of course in the future, as the sport evolves and we become more informed, a new standard will be developed that will better the current one. But until we have that we should run the best that we have at them moment, which currently is ASTM 1952 for extreme bicycle riding and SNELL M2005 for MX.
Many MX riders are suffering concussions in relatively low-speed crashes, this is one reason why SNELL is working on a new, more realistic standard. Ask yourself this, if the most renowned helmet safety institution in the world is relaxing it's standards for motorcycles because of this then why would you still hold the belief that a current standard moto helmet is not overkill for bicycle riding? Obviously if it's overkill for riding a moto in the average crash, then it too is overkill for bicycle riding in almost any conceivable situation.
Lastly, show me the evidence that a polycarbonate shell is less effective ounce-for-ounce than a fiberglass one? As long as a helmet meets or exceeds the proper standards it doesn't not matter what the shell is constructed from.
We can still agree to disagree and ultimately it's your head and you are free to protect it however YOU choose. The facts (not hearsay or gut instincts) speak very clearly for themselves and in light of this I choose to run a DH bicycle helmet for DH bicycle riding.
It may be your contention that DH and MX are very similar but it's the opinion of various field experts that they indeed are not. These people sit on committees that create safety standards based on factual data gathered from thousands of incidents all over the country (the world even) before putting their engineering degrees to work to create a proper and effective standard. This is how the new ASTM 1952 standard was realized. Of course in the future, as the sport evolves and we become more informed, a new standard will be developed that will better the current one. But until we have that we should run the best that we have at them moment, which currently is ASTM 1952 for extreme bicycle riding and SNELL M2005 for MX.
Many MX riders are suffering concussions in relatively low-speed crashes, this is one reason why SNELL is working on a new, more realistic standard. Ask yourself this, if the most renowned helmet safety institution in the world is relaxing it's standards for motorcycles because of this then why would you still hold the belief that a current standard moto helmet is not overkill for bicycle riding? Obviously if it's overkill for riding a moto in the average crash, then it too is overkill for bicycle riding in almost any conceivable situation.
Lastly, show me the evidence that a polycarbonate shell is less effective ounce-for-ounce than a fiberglass one? As long as a helmet meets or exceeds the proper standards it doesn't not matter what the shell is constructed from.
We can still agree to disagree and ultimately it's your head and you are free to protect it however YOU choose. The facts (not hearsay or gut instincts) speak very clearly for themselves and in light of this I choose to run a DH bicycle helmet for DH bicycle riding.
Honest, I'm going to let go of this and take an "agree to disagree" stance (); but I feel compelled to respond one more time.
First, it's my contention that DH is little or no different from motocross or enduro racing in its potential for the same kind of high-energy crash; so a moto helmet is perfectly suited to DH. Average speeds on a motocross track are in the 30-35mph range and a significant number of crashes occur in lower-speed situations (congested turns, etc.).
New DH-specific standards are an improvement but by no means the final word in the "ideal" DH helmet - - they are a compromise between protection and conventional consumer perceptions of what is 'acceptable' for weight and ventilation.
Secondly, I am not about to step out on a limb and defend any DOT-only helmet. DOT standards allow polycarbonate-only shells which, in my mind, are an abomination. When I referred to moto helmets, I meant Snell-approved ones.
Excellent info. Refer to my post about carbon fiber not attenuating energy as well as fiberglass ounce-for-ounce and there is your answer. The Giro Remedy CF strategically uses carbon fiber (bag-molded) to exceed ASTM 1952 standards. I believe the TLD D2 was designed to exceed the old CPSC bicycle standard and just so happens to also meet the new ASTM when made from composite but not when made from carbon.
I'm probably too late to offer anything useful to this thread, but that's never stopped me before.
I've been running the Bellistic for a while because it's the only helmet that fits my insanely egg-shaped head. I tried all variations of sizing and padding on the D2 and Remedy with no luck.
I saw the Rampage was ASTM certified, so I gave it a shot and it fits perfectly. It's nice and snug around the noggin' and especially the cheeks (which I like). It feels nice and light, and the silver doesn't bake your brain on a sunny day.
I've been running the Bellistic for a while because it's the only helmet that fits my insanely egg-shaped head. I tried all variations of sizing and padding on the D2 and Remedy with no luck.
I saw the Rampage was ASTM certified, so I gave it a shot and it fits perfectly. It's nice and snug around the noggin' and especially the cheeks (which I like). It feels nice and light, and the silver doesn't bake your brain on a sunny day.
I have not worn a full face in years for DH because i just hate the fit and heat(never owned a troy lee though)...Anyway i finally found that I really liked the fit and look of the 661 full bravo all around great helmet.
Of course you are entitled to your opinions!
It may be your contention that DH and MX are very similar but it's the opinion of various field experts that they indeed are not. These people sit on committees that create safety standards based on factual data gathered from thousands of incidents all over the country (the world even) before putting their engineering degrees to work to create a proper and effective standard. This is how the new ASTM 1952 standard was realized. Of course in the future, as the sport evolves and we become more informed, a new standard will be developed that will better the current one. But until we have that we should run the best that we have at them moment, which currently is ASTM 1952 for extreme bicycle riding and SNELL M2005 for MX.
I agree with most of what you are saying. However, please help me with a few items to clarify your arguement above.
1) Who is sitting on this commitee and what are their qualifications? What is there engineering background? What crash test experience do they have? What experience do they have with downhill bicycling or motocross?
2) Please describe the feedback loop on incident reports from real injuries.
We have at least one engineer who sits on the ASTM committee and we share any relevant data we've collected in our test lab or otherwise, many other manufacturers also do the same.ASTM.org said:
I hope that answers your question.
While it doesn't relate to the ASTM part of this thread, here's a link to some excellent info on the moto helmet standards side of life:
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/
Well worth the time to read!
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/
Well worth the time to read!
We have at least one engineer who sits on the ASTM committee and we share any relevant data we've collected in our test lab or otherwise, many other manufacturers also do the same.
I hope that answers your question.
Not really. You said that the people sitting on the commitee revised it to meet the needs of downhill. Have they ever seen people ride downhill? Yes, that's a serious question. What have they done to understand the mechanics of downhill crashes?
I guess I don't buy into because it is a standard meant for downhill that it must be better than snell M2005 for downhill. The old CPSC standard was meant for bikes but did not apply to DH. Please explain how this standard is better other than some people from some companies set the new standard.
I am not trying to be an a$$. I just want to understand how the standard was developed before I trust my head to it. Personally, I'll take a concussion over a cracked skull. Hopefully, the data that drove this standard can sell it to me. Can you post a copy?
ok, a little ot here. i was at the LBS looking for a full face and seems none fit. i need a xxl helmet (yea, huge head 
) my snowboard and auto helmet are all xxl. anybody have any good ideas? i tried on the new fox one, fit ok, would be a bit bigger, but the dont list a xxl on there site, only xl.
Shane
) my snowboard and auto helmet are all xxl. anybody have any good ideas? i tried on the new fox one, fit ok, would be a bit bigger, but the dont list a xxl on there site, only xl.Shane
If the largest MTB helmets do not fit you well then you very well might be best off in a motorcycle helmet since they are available in many more sizes than most MTB helmets. It might not be perfect but a good fit is very important to safety and I'd rather run an overkill helmet that fit well than an ill-fitting DH helmet.ok, a little ot here. i was at the LBS looking for a full face and seems none fit. i need a xxl helmet (yea, huge head
Shane
Just a quick update to my questions above, Punkassean PM'd me about the standard. I'll try to get to reading it over the next week to see if it sells me.
The key for me will be the drop height or energy input with resulting peak G load as it compares to the Snell M2005 test. Where the Snell M2005 test compes short is the multiple impacts require a stiffer shell resulting in a higher peak G load.
Thank you for all the post Punkassean.
The key for me will be the drop height or energy input with resulting peak G load as it compares to the Snell M2005 test. Where the Snell M2005 test compes short is the multiple impacts require a stiffer shell resulting in a higher peak G load.
Thank you for all the post Punkassean.
The 661 pro bravo carbon helmet is awesome, i've been running it for about 9 months now with no problems. Had a giro mad max 2 before, but the pro bravo is significantly lighter and fits me better. It is similar in weight to the TLD carbon helmets but it's price isn't rediculously jacked up like TLD's. It is on sale right now on the 661 website for 10% off making it around $197. The XL fits heads 60-62cm heads. If you need an XXL, six six one has moto helmets in that size, but it's gonna be hard to keep the price down.
punkassean:
Let me see if I have this right: ASTM (out of the ashes of ANSI) is a group of inside-industry engineers certifying their own product, right? You and other helmet makers have members who sit on the committees. That smacks to me a little of the fox guarding the henhouse, no?
Some quotes from the Bicycycle Helmet Safety Institute about ASTM certification illuminate my point:
"ASTM replaced the Snell standard as the most widely used bike helmet standard in the mid-1990's. Manufacturers who made the switch felt that Snell was charging them too much for certification." (emphasis mine)
"It is self-certifying, so a manufacturer can put a sticker in their helmets stating that they meet the ASTM standard without independent certification."
"ASTM: Permits 'self-certification.' Recommends that manufacturer have an independent lab test each model and size at least annually." (again, emphasis mine)
"Snell...For initial certification, Snell lab testing and staff visit to factory. Follow up testing of random samples purchased from consumer outlets."
I think for now I'd still rather trust testing to an independendent third-party who has been in existence since 1957 solely for the purpose of testing helmets (unlike the ASTM which only got into the helmet game in 1995).
Let me see if I have this right: ASTM (out of the ashes of ANSI) is a group of inside-industry engineers certifying their own product, right? You and other helmet makers have members who sit on the committees. That smacks to me a little of the fox guarding the henhouse, no?
Some quotes from the Bicycycle Helmet Safety Institute about ASTM certification illuminate my point:
"ASTM replaced the Snell standard as the most widely used bike helmet standard in the mid-1990's. Manufacturers who made the switch felt that Snell was charging them too much for certification." (emphasis mine)
"It is self-certifying, so a manufacturer can put a sticker in their helmets stating that they meet the ASTM standard without independent certification."
"ASTM: Permits 'self-certification.' Recommends that manufacturer have an independent lab test each model and size at least annually." (again, emphasis mine)
"Snell...For initial certification, Snell lab testing and staff visit to factory. Follow up testing of random samples purchased from consumer outlets."
I think for now I'd still rather trust testing to an independendent third-party who has been in existence since 1957 solely for the purpose of testing helmets (unlike the ASTM which only got into the helmet game in 1995).
I hate to think that any helmet company would truly put profit before safety. Yes, there are ways to get by with minimum certification, but most of the industry leaders make sure to go above and beyond the minimum certification. We ride with our helmets too and we want a long, healthy life just as much as you do.
That said, ASTM and CPSC do both allow for self certification. And since CPSC is the only certification you legally need to sell helmets within the US, there's nothing stopping any bicycle helmet manufacturer from self-certifying and calling it done. There are third party CPSC certifiers though and some companies, like Specialized, will use them in addition to self-certifying. As well, the CPSC organization will step in and verify a helmet's certification if there are any complaints or suspicions of a particular helmet.
With regards to SNELL though, Specialized is the only bicycle company to still use SNELL certification. And like you said, SNELL the only standard that requires follow up testing beyond the initial certification. SNELL and CPSC have nearly identical testing requirements. The benefit of a SNELL helmet is that you have the unbiased third party looking out for you as well. If a helmet is not SNELL certified then it is solely up to the company to do their own follow up testing during production runs. Fortunately most companies will do this; on several occasions, other helmet companies have decided to recall helmet lines based on internal testing.
Full disclosure at this point: I work for Specialized as a design engineer for Specialized's Equipment (including helmets) team. I've tried, and will continue to try, to be relatively unbiased in this thread though, as Punkasssean is doing a good job of that as well. Like I said, the most important thing is the safety of your head and I think this thread has a lot of good info in that regards.
Oh, before anyone calls me out and gets the wrong idea: I'm stuck wearing a TLD full face only because the Specialized Deviant is just a bit too small for my oversized head. Downside of joining the company too late to have input on the sizing.
That said, ASTM and CPSC do both allow for self certification. And since CPSC is the only certification you legally need to sell helmets within the US, there's nothing stopping any bicycle helmet manufacturer from self-certifying and calling it done. There are third party CPSC certifiers though and some companies, like Specialized, will use them in addition to self-certifying. As well, the CPSC organization will step in and verify a helmet's certification if there are any complaints or suspicions of a particular helmet.
With regards to SNELL though, Specialized is the only bicycle company to still use SNELL certification. And like you said, SNELL the only standard that requires follow up testing beyond the initial certification. SNELL and CPSC have nearly identical testing requirements. The benefit of a SNELL helmet is that you have the unbiased third party looking out for you as well. If a helmet is not SNELL certified then it is solely up to the company to do their own follow up testing during production runs. Fortunately most companies will do this; on several occasions, other helmet companies have decided to recall helmet lines based on internal testing.
Full disclosure at this point: I work for Specialized as a design engineer for Specialized's Equipment (including helmets) team. I've tried, and will continue to try, to be relatively unbiased in this thread though, as Punkasssean is doing a good job of that as well. Like I said, the most important thing is the safety of your head and I think this thread has a lot of good info in that regards.
Oh, before anyone calls me out and gets the wrong idea: I'm stuck wearing a TLD full face only because the Specialized Deviant is just a bit too small for my oversized head. Downside of joining the company too late to have input on the sizing.
It's not at all in our best interest to create and sell sub-par helmets. A safe helmet costs no more to produce than an unsafe one and would reflect very poorly on us in the event of an injury or death that could be attributed to our product. Give me one reason why a helmet manufacturer would want to help create an unsafe or sub-par safety standard?...On the other hand, I can think of a ton of reasons why we'd want to contribute all the invaluable data we've gathered over the years (53 years now!). Just because we're affiliated loosely with ASTM (have one or two employees who contribute information) doesn't not make this a conspiracy in the least.
SNELL does charge a good bit of money for a sticker on every helmet, but that's not the reason why ASTM exists. It's always good to have more than one entity define what it believes is needed to make a helmet safe enough for most foreseeable situations one can encounter while participating in a given activity. The whole concept of the ASTM is that a collective of various field experts can hopefully achieve a more refined certification standard based on their combined knowledge. It is in no way a cost saving measure or a means to produce and sell poor quality helmets. As I said before, it would be in no helmet manufacturers interest to do so.
In addition to that, we test all our helmets against all pertinent safety standards. For example the Faction, our BMX/Skate helmet conforms to both the CPSC Bicycle Safety Standard AND the ASTM 1492 Skate Certification. The reason this thread is focused on the ASTM 1952 standard is because we're discussing downhill mtb helmets and it just so happens that ASTM 1952 is the criteria that best applies to the topic at hand.
Rest assured we're doing our best to keep you all safe out there! That is our main goal and always has been!
good info
i don't think the rockgardn blacklite helmet meets astm 1952 standards...its DOT and ECE approved but not astm. ASTM 1952 popular helmets are fox rampage, giro remedy, specialized deviant. However i am deciding between the rampage and the blacklite. Im leaning towards the rampage cause its a slimmed down moto x helmet for bikes, and from reviews at mtbr.com it seems safe in collisions!
hey all....just wanted to give a little update seeing as a few years have gone by since this thread was originally formed. SNELL has a new motorcycle standard (SNELL 2010) that I feel is a lot more appropriate for off-road moto as well as DH than the previous SNELL (SNELL 2005) standard. I still think ASTM 1952 is probably most appropriate but seeing as more and more DH riders are using neck braces these days, which are designed around moto helmets and may bot work exactly as designed with many DH helmets, I think that the combo of a neck brace and SNELL 2010 MX helmet is arguably the best all-around package. Anyone else have thoughts on the matter?...
Now he tells us - - just ordered my Evolution Carbon yesterday . . . .
I'm hoping, though, that its profile will mesh well with my Leatt. Anyone using that combo right now?
I'm hoping, though, that its profile will mesh well with my Leatt. Anyone using that combo right now?