| Author | Message | ||
     Pcmodeler  |
All of my helmets in the past have been plastic but I've seen some fiberglass helmets. Are they any lighter? Are there any advantages to fiberglass. | ||
| Slaughter  |
Fiberglass IS going to absorb more energy without shattering - or is going to be lighter for the same impact performance. That being said, I race-crash-tested an ICON at about 120+ and though got a concussion, the helmet held up OK. I do know the interior design - padding, etc can influence performance as much as shell design. A buddy just got a SUOMY - and it is seriously LIGHT compared to my Arai. | ||
| Bomber  |
saw a CF helmet -- ounces! of course, it cost more than several of my first bikes combined! materials will buy you lightness, leaving the crashworthiness to the DOT and, better yet, Snell folks -- they know bunchesmore than we do | ||
| Reepicheep  |
My Schuberth Concept is (I believe) carbon fibre. Not the pretty stuff, but carbon fibre none the less. It is nice and light. | ||
| Newfie_buell  |
I don't think the outer shell provides that much crash protection. I think the magic to a helmet is the stryo foam liners that are inside. Thats why its always good to re-fresh your lid every 5-7 years. The foam has a tendency to dry out causing it to lose it impact energy absorbtion properties. My daughter did a Grade 7 science experiment last year where they took eggs and dropped them out of a third floor window. They had to make various containers and about the only ones to survive were the ones snugly packaged in stryo foam. | ||
| Whitetrashxb |
when buying my KBC i had the same question. The salesguy seemed pretty knowledgable on helmets. He sd the plastic helmets are cheaper but only DOT approved, not Snell. Fiberglass helmets are both DOT and Snell, and they absorb the impact better. I don't know for sure if that is true, but i wouldn't buy a helmet if it wasnt' approved by both. james | ||
| Gowindward  |
Snell has tougher testing requirements than DOT. | ||
| Newblaster  |
Plastic (polycarbonate) helmets can be Snell approved. For me, the biggest advantages to fiberglass vs. plastic are (# 1) weight, and (#2) shell size. I have a rather large melon on my shoulders (XL is very very tight until it's broken in, after that it's perfect), and the shell size makes the difference between looking like a motorcyclist and looking like an extra from Spaceballs. | ||
| Bigeasy |
LOL Newblaster! I don't know which is better. Just bought a snell approved Arai 3\4 face and I don't think I will ever wear anything else from now on. A hit to the pocket book for sure but hell I've only got one head. Will be saving for a full face soon. Art | ||
| Littlebuggles  |
Snell requires more coverage, your 3/4 lid probably has cheek guards that extend forward of most 3/4 lids. DOT coverage is pretty much just the top and back of your noggin, little side or face protection. One of the old MSF classroom manuals showed the difference. MAybe I can find one and scan it when I get home tonight if anyone wants to see it. All Snell rated helmets provide the same protection (as each other). All DOT rated helmets provide the same protection (as each other). As stated by others, material will result in weight and size differences, but to pass the ratings they must provide certain levels of protection. I shop for helmets that provide me with greater visibility, lower noise and good ventilation,low buffeting for riding in Utah. Hard to get venting and quiet lid in one package for less than an arm... Weight is kind of a trade off for me, most new lids are a lot lighter than older ones. -Mike | ||
| Thunderbox  |
You said "All Snell rated helmets provide the same protection (as each other). All DOT rated helmets provide the same protection (as each other). This is not really true. You would have better said all Snell helmets meet a specification. All DOT helmets meet a specification. They are however not equal. Don't get fooled into believing all helmets provide the same protection. Many helmets will fare exceed the Snell or DOT specification. I watched a documentary about helmets on Canadian TV called Marketplace and they showed the testing and results. They were certainly not equal. Don't just buy the cheapest Snell or DOT helmet thinking it will protect you the same as the pricey ones. On the other hand there is no real way of knowing if the more expensive one is better. I would suggest buying one that has Snell, DOT and TUV certification. TUV is a european rating that is quite good. Same thing in oils. All SL oils are not alike some are better than others but all meet the specification for SL. | ||
| Burnmyheartdown |
Thunderbox, I think though that Snell and DOT have minimum standards that a helmet must meet to gain that approval. This doesn't mean that they are all equal in meeting those standards, some helmets may barely pass them while others do much better. There is probably a difference, but with that seal you know that each helmet did meet those minimum requirements. | ||
| Littlebuggles |
Well said Dave and Dan, I have heard the European standard is very high, but don't know the coverage/impact protection requirements. Given the choices and funds, I much prefer having a Snell approved lid than just DOT. Occasionally the mags do a helmet comparo, I try to hang onto those editions. Haven't seen one in a year or two... | ||
| Thunderbox |
That is true burny I couldn't agree with you more on that. Snell is a much better certification than DOT but yes they both must meet a minimum to be certified. | ||
| Thunderbox |
I used to have a TUV rated helmet it was a ROMER. Had an air bag that you blew up with a small little pump that came with it. It filled a bag in the area behind your head and neck with air and god was it comfortable and quiet and cool. Unfortunately it an I were involved in a head on collision and after that the helmet was not reuseable. No damage to my head and I landed right on the pavement head first. Boy was I glad I had a helmet on. | ||
| Rr_eater  |
I am a FIRM BELIEVER in you get what you pay for. I was hit broadside by a full size pickup making an immediate lane change right into me at over 35 mph. My head impacted the tail light, tail gate, bumper and eventually the asphault as I completed a somersault/endo maneuver. The helmat made contact in as many as 3 different areas, all of which had my head ringing. I immediately jumped up, verified traffic, bike still sliding to the side of the road, composed myself, turned around and found the truck had not even stopped. To make a long story a bit shorter, upon removal of my helmet, it had 3 different areas of scratching/impact, but helmet was still in one piece. The shell could actually be felt FLEXXING when I removed it, as I noticed how easy it was to remove. To say it was toast, was an understatement. After I returned home with a crashed ride, police report, and a seriously bruised shoulder (yes thats all) I began to take a closer look at the composite shelled melon saver. As a composite repair technician in the navy, I am extremely familiar with composites, and attribute the saving of my jaw and skull to its construction completely. This was the first time I had EVER purchased a top of the line helmet, and my pocket book was bent. But the fact that I had NO lasting injuries from a 35mph accident, a toasted helmet, and intact pride, I would say they are worth their weight in gold. Plastic, I know, would NOT have held up to this impact as the composite shell did, as I had seen my MX helmet (plastic) crack just from being droped off my tailgate. Helmet that saved most of my face and melon, Shoei X-11. I will never own a different helmet most likely, till something more safe and advanced comes available at a price tag an enlisted sailor can afford. Best money I ever spent, PERIOD. When everything has you confused and wondering which way to go, remember, you cant see the graphics (if you are wearing the helmet properly), and EXACTLY WHAT IS YOUR BRAIN AND SKULL WORTH TO YOU?? Just my 2 cents Bruce | ||
| Djkaplan  |
I'm not sure that fiberglass helmet shells are engineered to stand up to impacts better than plastic shells are. I was always under the impression that modern helmets were engineered to actually crack at a certain threshold and help absorb energy. I think the real advantage to fiberglass and other composites for helmet shells is that designers can take advantage of the weave pattern to direct energy where you want it to go, kind of like the Chobham armor in modern tanks. I can tell you from personal experience that expensive fiberglass shell helmets can crack very easily - I have a nice collection of old Bell and new Shoei helmets with cracks. I also have my ancient plastic helmet from my dirt bike days (pre-Snell) that's crack free, but I've had my bell rung pretty good with it on. | ||
| Blake |
Not "crack", more like "crush". I bet fiberglass and/or carbon fiber or hybrids of the two provide a lot better protection against puncture/projectile impacts. Cracks in the gel-coat do not necessarily indicate cracks/fractures in the fiberglass itself. The hard shell of a helmet is only to hold the protective foam in place and to protect against abrasion and puncture/projectile. The foam provides the impact protection. | ||
| Aesquire  |
Some years back the Bicycle folk caught on to that. I think Giro was first, but could be wrong. The original Giro had a foam body, webbing for straps & a pull over cloth cover, to resist abrasion. Now the use of a stiff, but not really hard plastic shell to protect the foam is the norm. ( I still have a few pull over covers, though the helmet has long since been tossed. My favorite looks like brains. ) |
