Do the cycling press live in this world?

[eileithyia]

whoa is this not turning into a helmet thread and should be moved accordingly..... rather than a comment on cycle journalism?

[TonyR]

There is IMO little relationship beteween the price of cycle helmets and their effectiveness.

Actually the word from the test houses AIUI is the cheap ones tend to perform better than the expensive ones.

[thirdcrank]

... Actually the word from the test houses AIUI is the cheap ones tend to perform better than the expensive ones.

I hesitate to ask how cheap are we talking about?

[Alex L]

I bought a helmet from Wilko's recently, and for only a few quid.

It fits at least as well as the Bell helmet it replaced.

The brake blocks and brake cables I've bought from Wilko's have kept me as safe as any others so I'm prepared to give the helmet a go.

I bought some cycling mitts from wilko's which lasted 4 days before I had to make a repair. A week later they went into the bin. Bought some for £5 more from my LBS which are still in perfect condition many months later. Proceed with caution.

[pete75]

As my Dad used to say, "if you've got a ten-bob head, wear a ten-bob hat". ...

A fool and his money are soon parted / You get what you pay for / why spoil the ship for a ha'porth of tar? are just a few examples of contradictory phrases which are quoted to prove something but mean little.

My Dad was a keen cyclist and motorcyclist. He was neither a fool or a spendthrift. He spent his hard earned cash on things he thought important to him, like his head, and always bought the best he could afford. His wise words, far from meaning little, meant a lot, to me at least.
You comments are totally uncalled for.
Kelly.

I can remember when the first Bell helmets for motorcyclists came into the country. Horrendously expensive and their adverts ran on the same lines as your cliché - if you've got a ten bob head etc. Only thing was they weren't good enough to pass the tests to get an ACU sticker i.e. approval for racing. British made helmets at less than half the price were.
I think TC was merely pointing out the silliness of using "old sayings" to try and prove a point - they always contradict each other as in the examples he gave.

[Phil_Lee]

Particularly when the "wise old saying" is actually a recycled advertising slogan.

And people doubt the value of advertising?

[Cunobelin]

I can remember when the first Bell helmets for motorcyclists came into the country. Horrendously expensive and their adverts ran on the same lines as your cliché - if you've got a ten bob head etc. Only thing was they weren't good enough to pass the tests to get an ACU sticker i.e. approval for racing. British made helmets at less than half the price were.
I think TC was merely pointing out the silliness of using "old sayings" to try and prove a point - they always contradict each other as in the examples he gave.

Whereas the mater is now reversed... you are not allowed to wear an EN1078 helmet for sporting activities in teh US as they feel the protection is inadequate. EN1078 is all that is required to be sold in the UK

The cost / value is a personal choice and difficult there are good helmets out there in the £20 - £30 range that pass the much more stringent Snell B90 test, which (theoretically) gives them the same performance in an accient as some of the top of the range helmets tested to the same standard.

You will find it heavier, and less ventilated, which is why you spend more money to get one that is lighter. If you are a commuter this may not be strictly necessary, but for a racer it may make a difference. However if a commuter wishes to buy a better spec helmet then there is no reason why they should not

Personally if asked I would only advise a helmet that fited, was comfortable (for what you need) and passes Snell B90

[pete75]

I was talking about helmets for motorcycle not cycle racing and the point I was making was the much more expensive helmet was of a lower standard. The price situation is the reverse with B90 and EN1078.
I don't wear a cycle helmet so really have little interest in what standard they're made to though from what I've heard manufacturers tend to certify their helmets to whatever standards apply in the market they're selling in. The same helmet may meet many different standards but it will be standard marked according to the country it's being sold in.

[J.Y.Kelly]

I think that rather than insulting the value of your dad's head, TC was pointing out that quality is not necessarily just measurable in monetary value. We had recent threads where very expensive items of bike wear were discussed - the maker's justification for the price seemed to be the number of vents and lack of weight of said items, yet the items themselves didn't seem to attain any safety standards over and above those at a fraction of the price, indeed, there were much cheaper ones that seemed to have more safety 'badges'. Thus, just because there is an age-old saying in existence, it does not mean that it is a reliable test of quality.

I assume thirdcrank can speak for him/herself. I find it irksome when someone tries to explain what someone else may or may not have meant.
He/she made a remark which was uncalled for and removed the post. If anything else needed saying, then it would have been said without someone else making uninvited comments.
Kelly.

[Si]

Kelly, this is a media where someone's meaning can easily be mus-interpreted. Thus in the interests of forum harmony, and it being my role to keep the aforesaid harmony in place, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with pointing out to someone who obviously feels ill-used, that the supposed perpetrator was not intending to insult, defame or otherwise upset. I hope that you can see this.

Also, this thread is not the property of anyone but the CTC and forum owner, thus anyone has the right to make their comments on it as they see fit as long as they do not contravene the forum rules. Thus, comments about others' well intentioned remarks being uninvited are equally, if not more, uninvited. If you read my post you will see nothing in it that is insulting or demeaning towards you or your dad, merely two points being made: namely that TC wasn't having a go and that he was perfectly correct stating that monetary value does not always equal quality. Nothing to get upset about there then.

[J.Y.Kelly]

Kelly, this is a media where someone's meaning can easily be mus-interpreted. Thus in the interests of forum harmony, and it being my role to keep the aforesaid harmony in place, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with pointing out to someone who obviously feels ill-used, that the supposed perpetrator was not intending to insult, defame or otherwise upset. I hope that you can see this.

Also, this thread is not the property of anyone but the CTC and forum owner, thus anyone has the right to make their comments on it as they see fit as long as they do not contravene the forum rules. Thus, comments about others' well intentioned remarks being uninvited are equally, if not more, uninvited. If you read my post you will see nothing in it that is insulting or demeaning towards you or your dad, merely two points being made: namely that TC wasn't having a go and that he was perfectly correct stating that monetary value does not always equal quality. Nothing to get upset about there then.

I stand by what I said. Thirdcrank can speak for his/herself. We'll have to agree to differ and move on.

[hubgearfreak]

I think what kelly is trying to say is.......

[Si]

I think that what you are trying to say is...." "