Does anyone know why helmets vary in price so much?

[Revolution]

Does anyone know why helmets vary in price so much?
I've had my helmet for a number of years and am thinking that I should probably replace it.
Looking in the LBS they vary from £30 - £160
I can't imagine that the production costs can be that much more, are the expensive ones safer?
If anyone can point me to any info on this I'd be grateful.

[AdamS]

Helmets are cheap to make. All are required to meet the same EU standard and I am not aware of more expensive helmets claiming higher impact protection. More expensive ones generally have better fit adjustment. They are often lighter and have better cooling whilst still meeting the required standards. Some manufacturers' (Specialised?) helmets might meet the tougher Snell standard. Some manufacturers' (Giro?) have a technology called MIPS designed to reduce the rotational brain injury helmets can cause. But a big part of the price difference is branding and aesthetics. Some people expect to pay top dollar for their cycling kit and the manufacturers provide top dollar cycling kit

[[XAP]Bob]

Fashion, weight, cooling.

Very few variations in safety (Snell rather than just EU, but even that doesn't make much difference to the pricetag)

[bikepacker]

A couple of years ago I was told the bottom line manufacturing cost of a helmet was less than £1. And there was little variation in the manufacturing cost between so called higher quality helmets and the cheap ones.

[Dave W]

Same with bibshorts £9.99 in Aldi, £150 for a pair of Assos in LBS.

[foxyrider]

To the OP - if you have had the helmet for 'some years' it is well past needing replacement if you actually want any protection from the bit of polystyrene on your head. They should be replaced at @ 3 years old - the material breaks down. Look inside the helmet - it will have a manufactured date.



I have 200 pound helmets lying about time expired, I also have 30 year old helmets - the main differences are weight, airflow, adjustment, fit - the standards haven't changed. If you are going to wear one make sure it fits and is comfortable. Badly fitted is just wasting your money, may as well shave your head and paint it green.

[De Sisti]

They should be replaced at @ 3 years old - the material breaks down. .

There have never been any referenced research to prove that claim. It's the helmet manufacturers
scaring cyclists into parting with their money.

[Lance Dopestrong]

Specialized claim five.

[gaz]

They wear ... clear glasses ( what is that about !!!) ...

Keeping all manner of rubbish out of their eyes, at least that's why I wear mine. I've run out of 50p Swiss-One boot fair specials and have moved on to Bollé at about £6-£7.

[mercalia]

on the matter of cycle gear, I was in sainsburys this after noon and saw a lady cyclist ( I think it was a lady ) she was wearing a bright yellow helmit and bright yellow water/wind proof closely fitting jacket, large dark glasses, tightish black cycling trousers. A quite intimidating figure as she was quite tall also and had a severe look on her face the type you see on speed cyclists who dont motion a hello as they pass you on the other side, she presented an army type of figure. Happened I was finishing at the check out as her, and followed her out side, I was expecting some super duper go-fast racing bike but lo behold she got on a lowly Brompton and pedaled off

[old_windbag]

and have moved on to Bollé at about £6-£7

I've been using bolle vipers for many years, the hinge on one arm only now starting to show wear after about 10yrs, all for £5 when bought. They are clear( other tints available ) and I could not fathom the original exclamation in the quote for having clear eye protection. I started cycling without eye protection but after several errant bumblebees/flys and the occasional stone chip from passing vehicles hitting me I thought my eyes should be protected.

[Cunobelin]

"Safer" is an issue

There are a number of different testing standards, and the basic one for the UK (EN1078) is one of the weakest and most inadequate. The Snell rating is tougher to pass, and with higher impacts, and different tests implies that it would take more damage and be more protective


However you can get a Snell tested helmet for £30 so spice is not an indicator.

[pwa]

Top of the range helmets, like top of the range anything, are a rip-off. The cheapest are a bit naff but will still provide the same sort of protection as dearer ones if you can get them to fit. I'd say it is worth paying a bit more for good venting, a good fitting system, and a protective shell that wraps around and covers all the soft stuff. Beyond that it is just what looks good to you.

[foxyrider]

They should be replaced at @ 3 years old - the material breaks down. .

There have never been any referenced research to prove that claim. It's the helmet manufacturers
scaring cyclists into parting with their money.

I have seen it in action - they might look sound but they go like sawdust inside. Why do specific helmet research when there's already a body of materials research?

[pjclinch]

Does anyone know why helmets vary in price so much?

I'm not a keen student of economics but I strongly suspect that anyone in a business situation selecting a price will aim to choose one that between profit per item and units shifted gives them the best bottom line. Note how Bolle are happy to sell you very similar glasses for workwear safety for about £7, or for fashion for about £70. If you're a keen roadie willing to get whatever Peter Sagan or whoever is given to wear you'll be paying a premium, simply because the manufacturer can get away with charging one. Lidl and Aldi can't get away with premium prices, so they aim to shift a lot at low prices. And so on.

I can't imagine that the production costs can be that much more, are the expensive ones safer?
If anyone can point me to any info on this I'd be grateful.

As has been noted, safety standards can be checked by looking at the standard on the item itself. EN1078 is the basic, Snell is rather better, neither are designed to save lives which is why the manufacturers themselves make no such claims: they'd be sued to hell and back. What you tend to get in a more expensive helmet, aside from a target audience of people willing to spend more, is lighter and better ventilated at the same strength. Why not make them safer? Because what organisations demand is it meets "a current standard", and delivering safety above that means heavier and less ventilated at any given cost, and those aren't beneficial for cycling.

Also note that to meet the standard it's built to a helmet should be correctly fitted. Modern ones have reasonably adjustable cradles but you'll get the most effective system with a snug fit, so for both comfort and effectiveness a size/shape close to your particular head is a Good Thing. Try a few on and see how you find the fit.



Pete.