AS much as I appreicate all these reviews that say how light and airy a helmet is, but why dont they test the strengh?

I know that you pay more money for more vents and the same protection, and I know that helmets must pass a test...

But is hte extra weight because it's really strong? Does it protect your head well?

I don;t see why the testers dont break the damn things

Aren't they meant to give a bit on a big impact anyway - crumple zone stylee?

Yes

But at the same time some impacts are bigger than others...
I;d imagine that the perfectly groomed, unbumpy and technically tame world class XC competitions some helmets are designed for do not include the odd 40mp dash down a rocky, rainy chute on a 30lb trailbike.
Bearing this in mind, are the helmets designed for a high speed crash into a tree?

Probabyl, but I'd like a bit more confirmation before I test it in the field

A helmet may protect your head in a high speed collision with a tree but whether your neck remains intact is another thing..

I think that it would be very difficult for a magazine to subject each lid to a similar test, then examine the results. I don't know how many journos have engineering backgrounds and would be able to translate what they see into a helmet's effectiveness.

This is why helmets are subjected to the independant tests that you refer to. Maybe if these tests had a sliding scale (like the new car crash tests), the information may be useful?

Yes defintely, you've knocked my complaint on the head.

At the end of the day I won't spend more than 50 quid on a Helmet and my Giro Gila has been amazing. However, more strengh is more likely to sway me than weight or vents - but not over fit and style.

I cant help but feel that all those holes are leaving you exposed to spikey things aswell...

MTB journos/testers aren't engineers - of course. But they could make some effort, for example they could refer to the 'impact resistance simulation testing'
i.e
I whacked it with a 4lb lump hammer and it cracked like and eggshell
I whacked it with a 4lb lump hammer and a tiny crack appeared on the outer shell of the helmet.

Essentially helmets ARE SAFETY devices. They should be reviewed as such. Who cares how many vents your lid has when you hit the deck at 20mph!

And yes all helmets must meet minimum ANSI (or similar) standards, but are all helmets built equally - I think not.

Are Motorbike helmets reviewed on impact protection or is it taken as red that they will protect you?
:)

All bike helmets are tested for impact strength by organisations with far greater resources than ourselves, organisations who do nothing else but test helmets. They've put a lot of time, money and effort into developing tests and standards. Sure, we could go around dropping helmetted melons out of first floor windows and hitting them with lump hammers, but by doing that we'd effectively be saying, "Snell and ANSI and the BSI don't know shit, this is the right way to test a helmet". And that's just wrong.

All helmets on sale meet accepted standards. So yes, we take it as read that they provide adequate protection. That's the baseline. The things that set helmets apart are the things mentioned in reviews.

I also have a £50 Giro helmet on test. Review of that one later this week...

I think the best way to test helmet strength is for MTB journos to repeatedly crash into trees and see how dizzy they feel afterwards.

:P

Me and 'Mr Lumpy' would be more than happy to test out helmets, as long as they were on the heads of certain journos.

"I;d imagine that the perfectly groomed, unbumpy and technically tame world class XC competitions some helmets are designed for ..."

That old chestnut. Not all XC courses are flat fields. See also: XC racers are just roadies with no bike handling skills. Yeah right.

Anyway, back on course, helmets aren't designed specifically for some mythical XC racer and forced upon an unsuspecting public. They're designed for you and me. I do agree however, that some information on what the Snell and ANSI people get up to would be of interest.

The membership has spoken... We can do a helmet testing piece, no problem.

For the record my E2 survived me getting dumped on my head from about 10 feet up with just a crack propagating from the right temple, they seem fairly sturdy and yes I was quite dizzy.

Last time i cracked a helmet was when i had a 9 vent Giro jobby - i think that says how long ago it was! It cracked right up from the back to the top, and i was discovered by a passing truck driver wandering around looking dazed! I had a headache for 3 days, but i had landed head first before sliding 10 metres on my back on hardpack! So i think it did a good job :) I trust my exodus would too.

I think the biggest problem with helmets is that you don't get notice that you need a new one, and i don't like to ride without one. This means what you buy is largely dependant on what the LBS has in stock. That's why i ended up with an exodus with the weirdest paint job i've ever seen on a helmet! I did pay £70 when the rrp was £125 though :)

Yeah, i'd be interested to see exactly what the safety standards tests involve too.

Dave - How about replacing an old one before you break it? I'm using a Mrt5th Element now, but have my old Cratoni B95 on standby. Its not a comfy or fashionable, and has far few vents, but in the event that the Met is no longer available it will suffice till I get a new old......

yeah sounds sensible, but having had this one for years, it's hard to justify spending money on another if it could be a long time till i need it!

Mike - a helmet test article would be top!
So what is the deal with helmet replacement. My last two helmets lasted four years sand one week, both replaced due to crash damage. But I've seen stuff which tells you to replace the helmet after so long - something about damage from UV exposure weakening the structural integrity of your lid - so how is the average punter expected to know this? Should I replace my helmet more often as Colorado gets more than 300 sunny days a year - as opposed to many places in the UK which just don't :) ?
Mike - if you can dig up this sort of info it would be v. intersting for any article you may do!
:P

I'm on the case...

If Joe public read the instructions thatcame with his helmet, before jumping on his trusty steed and riding into the sunset (Warning: this could cause severe UV damage!), he would know that he has to replace his helmet after x-years.

Dougal.

Ah yes! But don't you think that there is something in it for the manufacturers if they tell you to replace your helmet every three years(which is what most them seem to). I had had my last helmet nearly five years when I went head first on to the road following an argument with a speed hump(don't ask!). It still did it's job brilliantly and saved me a trip in an ambulance. Mike, what do Snell and ANSI have to say about helmet life?