Re: Is there a multi impact helmet?
Posted: 19 Jan 2019, 10:40am
In a word, no.
Discussion boards hosted by Cycling UK
https://forum.cyclinguk.org/
pjclinch wrote:pete75 wrote:jack1992 wrote:I am looking for a multi impact helmet, i know helmets have came on leaps and bounds, so just wondering if there is anything out there which can take the crashes more then once- as i know it is recommended to replace once you've had a crash
How can any manufacturer claim their helmet can withstand multiple impacts when they have no knowledge of the severity of any impact that helmet sustains in use?
By having some Fine Print under the claim about what values of "Impact" they mean. My camera is "waterproof" and "shockproof", but if I look at the small print it turns out while they're happy to say if I do up the seals properly it will cope with immersion up to 2.5m they won't make that level of claim about dropping it.
My guess would be along the lines of an "impact" being the kind an EN1078 certification says will be dealt with without the helmet failing catastrophically.
Pete.
pwa wrote:I have been using a cycle helmet for most of my cycling since the late 1980s, which must mean many thousands of miles. I have taken a good few falls due to ice and other things. But not once have I bashed the helmet. That means two things. Firstly, I could have got away without using one, but that is another debate that is OT. Secondly, at no point have I consigned a helmet to the bin due to impact history. So for me it isn't important whether or not a helmet comes with assurances about fitness to use after an impact.
pete75 wrote:pjclinch wrote:pete75 wrote:
How can any manufacturer claim their helmet can withstand multiple impacts when they have no knowledge of the severity of any impact that helmet sustains in use?
By having some Fine Print under the claim about what values of "Impact" they mean. My camera is "waterproof" and "shockproof", but if I look at the small print it turns out while they're happy to say if I do up the seals properly it will cope with immersion up to 2.5m they won't make that level of claim about dropping it.
My guess would be along the lines of an "impact" being the kind an EN1078 certification says will be dealt with without the helmet failing catastrophically.
And of course everyone falling off their bikes knows exactly what that is...
Cyril Haearn wrote:pwa wrote:I have been using a cycle helmet for most of my cycling since the late 1980s, which must mean many thousands of miles. I have taken a good few falls due to ice and other things. But not once have I bashed the helmet. That means two things. Firstly, I could have got away without using one, but that is another debate that is OT. Secondly, at no point have I consigned a helmet to the bin due to impact history. So for me it isn't important whether or not a helmet comes with assurances about fitness to use after an impact.
Have you replaced your h***t/s in that time, how often?
Shoulders are the new helmets, I imagine your shoulders have saved your life many times
pjclinch wrote:pete75 wrote:pjclinch wrote:
By having some Fine Print under the claim about what values of "Impact" they mean. My camera is "waterproof" and "shockproof", but if I look at the small print it turns out while they're happy to say if I do up the seals properly it will cope with immersion up to 2.5m they won't make that level of claim about dropping it.
My guess would be along the lines of an "impact" being the kind an EN1078 certification says will be dealt with without the helmet failing catastrophically.
And of course everyone falling off their bikes knows exactly what that is...
People ought to know that a bike helmet is designed and specced to mitigate minor injuries in a low-energy fall (e.g., the difference between a Proper Headache and a bump on your head compared to "glad I was wearing my lid"). With the number of people claiming their lives are routinely saved or they'd have fractured their skull numerous times without one I suspect there's quite a lot of people don't know that...
Pete.
Brucey wrote:a 'polystyrene soup dish' not much different to a cycle helmet can meet all the primary impact tests required for a motorcycle helmet. The main exceptions are that the motorcycle helmet has to cover more of the head (esp at the back of head near the neck) and is also subjected to a 'spike' test which is the equivalent of falling head first from several feet onto an iron railing type spike. You need a hard shell (and/or a major rethink of some kind) to pass the spike test.
IIRC there have for many years been polystyrene helmets (meant for ice hockey?) which meet all the motorcycle requirements bar the spike test. They are (coverage and ventilation being the main differences) very similar to bicycle helmets.
The primary energy absorber inside a motorcycle helmet is (of course) usually polystyrene.
You can judge how big an impact was sustained by how compressed the polystyrene is. It is quite educational to take an old helmet and to hit it with a hammer, spreading the load on the inside with a curved piece of wood and on the outside with a flatter piece of wood. It takes a fairly mighty blow to crush the polystyrene noticeably. I certainly wouldn't want to have my head impacted that hard without something being in the way.
cheers
jack1992 wrote:I guess it is down to personal opinion, if you reckon once your helmet has had a bang/bump and you need to replace it. Also i guess if people done there research into this, i personally find it crazy how in a major crash yes the helmet will be destroyed but more importantly save your life!.
Brucey wrote:a 'polystyrene soup dish' not much different to a cycle helmet can meet all the primary impact tests required for a motorcycle helmet. The main exceptions are that the motorcycle helmet has to cover more of the head (esp at the back of head near the neck) and is also subjected to a 'spike' test which is the equivalent of falling head first from several feet onto an iron railing type spike. You need a hard shell (and/or a major rethink of some kind) to pass the spike test.
IIRC there have for many years been polystyrene helmets (meant for ice hockey?) which meet all the motorcycle requirements bar the spike test. They are (coverage and ventilation being the main differences) very similar to bicycle helmets.
The primary energy absorber inside a motorcycle helmet is (of course) usually polystyrene.
You can judge how big an impact was sustained by how compressed the polystyrene is. It is quite educational to take an old helmet and to hit it with a hammer, spreading the load on the inside with a curved piece of wood and on the outside with a flatter piece of wood. It takes a fairly mighty blow to crush the polystyrene noticeably. I certainly wouldn't want to have my head impacted that hard without something being in the way.
cheers
I tried, but it doesn't work when you say you don't wear one and then it then asks you that if you wore one, when would you wear it.jack1992 wrote:if you have time please fill this in https://www.surveymonkey.co.uk/r/8XXRN7S
geomannie wrote:Hi [XAP]Bob
I pretty much agree with your analysis. The best prevention is to be vigilant, though I have unfortunately had the opportunity to give helmets a serious test on 2 occasions.
Regarding the Headkayse (soft) helmet, I have many questions, including the longevity of the materials. That notwithstanding, I have been sufficiently intrigued to order one and will report back after I have used it for a short while.