Best Functional Helmet

[Badger]

Not if your playing hockey

[FredHiltz]

SeaLawyer wrote:
bottom line -- can anyone explain to me scientifically why a hockey helmet will not protect you better than a biking helmet in a biking accident?? ... I found this site searching for proof that hockey helmets weren't superior.  I haven't found it yet.

I doubt you will, Vaughn. Who is going to underwrite a study to provide that answer for a product that almost no one would use?

Cyclesafe wrote:
Do you think I'll overheat wearing a hockey helmet?

I know you will. After a member died from hitting his head on a curbstone, our cycling club mandated helmets. This was the early 1960s when all we could get was hockey helmets. They were hot! We abandoned them gratefully for the MSR "lemon-heads" and then for the Bell Biker, the first with enough ventilation to actually be used 100%, even on long climbs.

And that, friends, is the crux of the matter. The strongest helmet in the world does no good when hooked over your handlebar. Those old helmets rode that way up a lot of mountain roads, I can now admit (the statute of politically correct limitations has expired).

Fred

[SeaLawyer]

Modern day hockey helmets are VERY different from what they were 40 years ago.  They do have ventilation.  It's a common misconception, but it get's very hot on the ice, or more accurately, the hockey player gets very hot including his head.  The latest helmets are designed to provide the best in both comfort and protection.  Given the design of vents on hockey helmets, it's plausible they might slightly increase drag due to airflow, but I doubt that's a significant concern for the adventure cyclist as opposed to the road racer.  

[cyclesafe]

Then, very definitely its worthwhile to try a high grade hockey helmet while touring, especially when it is not too hot.  The materials of construction of a hockey helmet seem far more robust than that of a bicycle helmet and the tinted faceshields obviate the need for bicycle sunglasses.

Yes, if I get whacked by a car, the helmet, regardless of type, may not save me.  But I see no reason to restrict my choice of head protection to those helmets that the (racing) bicycle industry choses to test to meet standards that they lobbbied the CPSC for in the first place.

As we are all aware, the needs of bicycle touring are not always best met by the alternatives offered by the far larger road and mountain bike segments of the bicycle industry.  Tourers are improvisors by nature.  Why shouldn't this tendency be extended to choice of helmets?

[wanderingwheel]

Take a look at the regulations for bike helmets and hockey helmets and you will see that they are designed for very different purposes.  Hockey helmets are designed to prevent concussions from multiple moderate impacts.  In order to e certified, hockey helmets must pass multiple drop tests at 1 and 1.5 meters.  Bicycle helmets are designed to prevent severe injury in a single extreme impact.  The test for bicycle helmets is a single drop at 2 meters.  

The foam used in bicycle helmets, EPS, does not work well in low and moderate energy impacts because it is too stiff and requires more force before it starts to compress.  Hockey helmets have a softer foam, EPP, that reacts well to low and moderate energy impacts, but is not capable of absorbing as much total energy as the bicycle foam.  A company called W Helmets has been promoting a new line of bike helmets with foam that can pass the bike test, but still reacts to small impacts and can be used multiple times.

Sean

[DaveB]

Wanderingwheel negated your argument that hockey helmets are designed as one-shot deals like bike helmets so that's done.

Climbing helmets aren't designed to save you in a fall, they are designed to keep falling rocks and other debris from beaning you.  They are more like industrial hardhats than crash helmets.

[SeaLawyer]

Sorry, but I've been off-grid for a while.  

Sean, you make some good points.  Thanks for the insight on the foam differences.  I don't think that answers the ultimate question though for a couple of reasons.

First, looking at the foams only is an incomplete picture of helmet design, especially in a hockey helmet.  Most bike helmets that I've seen are primarily foam, with some sort of THIN shell designed primarily to protect the foam from breaking down.  Hockey helmets, on the other hand, have a very thick plastic shell designed to work in conjunction with the foam to distribute trauma.  Think of it this way -- bike helmets are like NASCAR cars -- the strength of the structure comes entirely from the FRAME, while the sheet metal surface is strictly for looks; compare that to an airplane which derives much of its strength from the skin.  Point is, that the softer foam of a hockey helmet is designed to work in conjuction with the hard shell to distribute force, including blunt, singular force, not just repeated light blows.

Second, certification testing obviously has it's limitations.  As evidence of the design for hockey helmets, I offer this common sense proposition -- if hockey helmets weren't designed to ALSO absorb single extreme impacts, the hockey helmet industry would have been shut down years ago from law suits for head injuries.  If you don't think that head impacts with the ice or boards occur in hockey at speeds that far exceed most cycling accidents, then you've never played ice hockey.  

I think the question of suitability goes back to weight/drag/ventilation -- definitely even 15 years ago, hockey helmet designs ignored these elements.  Not today.

Vaughn

[bkrbll]

No need for overkill.  I ride bikes and motorcycles and if you get hit by a car on either one, depending on rate of impact, the helmet will not help much.  If you hit a patch of gravel in a turn or any slick spot or wreck avoiding a car or truck then the helmet may very well save your life.  There have been cases of cyclist(both bike and MC) that have died as a result of head injuries from falling at speeds of 5mph. Little or no damage to the bike.

Ask my stepson.  Always advised him to wear a helmet. He said he had fallen many times and never hit his head so he didn't see the point.  Leaving work one day he had just started to pedal and hit a wet spot on a metal plate in the lot and went down. Got a concussion.  He now wears a helmet.  Took a fall dodging a car one day cracked the helmet but left no bumps on the head and no injury.  
They may look flimsey but they do the job of absorbing the impact. Yes they crack and break but you head dosen't.
Actually using an MC helmet on a bike may be more dangerous.  They are designed to take much greater inpacts than incured from falling off a bike.  They may bounce instead of absorbing the impact therefore giving you a good whiplash.

[BicycleCharley]

Recently I posted a request on the subject of bicycle helmets. I haven't got any responces back as of yet. My question was concerning Bicycle Helmet Laws, is there any states that require a helmet by Law?
  Myself, I wear a Stetson while riding. It keeps the sun/UV rays off-a my ears. And works fine fer me. As helmets go, I haven't seen one I would wear unless governed by Law. I have had a few head ons with auto's and wound up summersalting over the vehical landing up-right. If I wound up with a head injury in the future, I just hope the sucker kills me!

Strangers are Friends
I haven't met yet,
Friends are Strangers
I haven't left yet!