Why spend thousands of Zars on a helmet?

[Long Wheel Base]

Froome wears a KASK (protone) so that makes it cool.

When it comes to helmuts, Buy the most expensive one you can afford. Even if you have to go one model lower on something else.

Anyone ever see that article from SPEZ about the real evade versus a fake? Scary.

[Patchelicious]

Which is a ridiculous argument if the helmet has been tested and conforms to safety standards. Just because it's 10 times more expensive doesn't mean it's 10 times better (in terms of safety).

Conforms vs exceeds....

 

You buy the car that can just make the highway codes maximum brake distance, I'll buy the one that does it half the distance. Both conform.

 

You employ the dude who JUST passed matric, I'll employ the guys who got distinctions. Both passed.

 

Just good enough in not always good enough.

[Spoke101]

Dude, get some lessons.

 

*kidding*

Hahaha. When you spend 15 hours a week on a bike and have to keep the Pro's honest, chances are you going to get friendly with the ground.

[Long Wheel Base]

Hahaha. When you spend 15 hours a week on a bike and have to keep the Pro's honest, chances are you going to get friendly with the ground.

Would love your training program. Only 15 hours and as fast as you are.

Although I did catch you before the hospital at the argus this year............

[Shebeen]

R500 = conforms to safety standards

R1500 = exceeds safety standards

You (and many others) have lapped up the marketing BS all the way to the cliff. Says who.... The guy on commission selling it to you?! Because the lab results sure aren't on the box.

 

This is not a cheap/light/strong argument (think about the heavier one having more stuff to put between your head and the tarmac). Most of the R&D spend on the top helmets is working out which looks the coolest at the tour so the lemmings we buy a new one (OK I made that one up, but this is definitely the most BS marketing bike item out there).

 

If this still doesn't make sense, have a look at what these scientists learnt from some hyperama vs fancy pants helmet testing http://www.helmets.org/testbycost.htm

[bertusras]

You (and many others) have lapped up the marketing BS all the way to the cliff. Says who.... The guy on commission selling it to you?! Because the lab results sure aren't on the box.

 

This is not a cheap/light/strong argument (think about the heavier one having more stuff to put between your head and the tarmac). Most of the R&D spend on the top helmets is working out which looks the coolest at the tour so the lemmings we buy a new one (OK I made that one up, but this is definitely the most BS marketing bike item out there).

 

If this still doesn't make sense, have a look at what these scientists learnt from some hyperama vs fancy pants helmet testing http://www.helmets.org/testbycost.htm

 

Thank you! 

[Veebee]

Thank you! 

 

so do you spend 50 or 100k on a snazzy looking bike then put on a cr@p looking makro special helmet ?

 

Are you happy spending R150 on a helmet to go spend 6 hours in the saddle on a hot summers day and have your kop overheat to the point that your body shuts down ?

 

there's a reason for spending the extra moolla on quality products.

[Patchelicious]

You (and many others) have lapped up the marketing BS all the way to the cliff. Says who.... The guy on commission selling it to you?! Because the lab results sure aren't on the box.

 

This is not a cheap/light/strong argument (think about the heavier one having more stuff to put between your head and the tarmac). Most of the R&D spend on the top helmets is working out which looks the coolest at the tour so the lemmings we buy a new one (OK I made that one up, but this is definitely the most BS marketing bike item out there).

 

If this still doesn't make sense, have a look at what these scientists learnt from some hyperama vs fancy pants helmet testing http://www.helmets.org/testbycost.htm

You certainly have a point about R&D going to aspects like weight and looks.... I agree.

 

On a relevant yet more general point, I would just like to mention, that not ALL "scientific" testing should be taken as gospel. The credentials of the people who conduct these test are about as important as the results.

 

"A well-known, reputable US test lab agreed to test...."

"The test lab donated their testing, and we agreed not to use their name or the exact helmet models to avoid possible complications that could be time-consuming for them."

 

Hmmmmm, far too often we see this "trust me, scientific scientists did some science tests" thing.

 

The fact that the people who did THIS test in your link are not named, does make one question the credibilty of that specific test.

 

So not saying you are wrong at all, just that that test doesnt cut it. I am sure there are more that will support your stance though, just as there are others that will support the other side of the coin.

[bertusras]

so do you spend 50 or 100k on a snazzy looking bike then put on a cr@p looking makro special helmet ?

 

Are you happy spending R150 on a helmet to go spend 6 hours in the saddle on a hot summers day and have your kop overheat to the point that your body shuts down ?

 

there's a reason for spending the extra moolla on quality products.

 

http://i.imgur.com/6vZjQrB.jpg

[Halfdoesyn]

so do you spend 50 or 100k on a snazzy looking bike then put on a cr@p looking makro special helmet ?

 

Are you happy spending R150 on a helmet to go spend 6 hours in the saddle on a hot summers day and have your kop overheat to the point that your body shuts down ?

 

there's a reason for spending the extra moolla on quality products.

By what reasoning do you come to the conclusion that someone who buys a R50k-R100k bike is someone who will buy a R150 helmet?

 

It is far more likely someone with an affordable bike that will buy an affordable helmet.

 

Btw, Makro's cheapest adult helmet is R299.

[eddy]

 

 

"A well-known, reputable US test lab agreed to test...."

"The test lab donated their testing, and we agreed not to use their name or the exact helmet models to avoid possible complications that could be time-consuming for them."

 

Hmmmmm, far too often we see this "trust me, scientific scientists did some science tests" thing.

 

 

 

 

Scientific research implies inter alia that both a hypothesis is published and the research method is disclosed before embarking on the research.

 

Then, all data needs to be published to ensure that other scientists can attempt to replicate the findings.

 

Without that, there is no science involved. just marketing.

[Shebeen]

You certainly have a point about R&D going to aspects like weight and looks.... I agree.

 

On a relevant yet more general point, I would just like to mention, that not ALL "scientific" testing should be taken as gospel. The credentials of the people who conduct these test are about as important as the results.

 

"A well-known, reputable US test lab agreed to test...."

"The test lab donated their testing, and we agreed not to use their name or the exact helmet models to avoid possible complications that could be time-consuming for them."

 

Hmmmmm, far too often we see this "trust me, scientific scientists did some science tests" thing.

 

The fact that the people who did THIS test in your link are not named, does make one question the credibilty of that specific test.

 

So not saying you are wrong at all, just that that test doesn't cut it. I am sure there are more that will support your stance though, just as there are others that will support the other side of the coin.

I agree - but it's the only test I could find that shows any study between helmet cost and degree of safety, helmet.org seemed like a swanky url too! Most of the research into helmets is to do with behavioral wear, campaigns to promote use and (multiple) binary studies on injuries from  helmet/no helmet in crashes. 

 

https://scholar.google.co.za/scholar?q=bicycle+helmet+cost&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5

 

I would conclude that since there is no evidence (that I can find) that shows that higher cost helmets will give greater protection it is safe to say that a budget helmet that has passed the regulation is no better/worse in an accident than a top of the range one. If this was not the case, then I would expect the expensive models to use it in their marketing pitch (with research to back it up). That's what Volvo did when they took the angle that their cars would be safe.

[The expat cyclist]

You (and many others) have lapped up the marketing BS all the way to the cliff. Says who.... The guy on commission selling it to you?! Because the lab results sure aren't on the box.

This is not a cheap/light/strong argument (think about the heavier one having more stuff to put between your head and the tarmac). Most of the R&D spend on the top helmets is working out which looks the coolest at the tour so the lemmings we buy a new one (OK I made that one up, but this is definitely the most BS marketing bike item out there).

If this still doesn't make sense, have a look at what these scientists learnt from some hyperama vs fancy pants helmet testing http://www.helmets.org/testbycost.htm

Two things:

1. It is harder to find a cheap helmet that fits right. And a poor fit can abvisously cost you dearly.

2. Which company's reputation do you think means more to them? The one that appears in a grand tour or the Makro special? Yes, the tests may proof one thing, but I sleep easier at night knowing that the name one my helmet is a reputable name and not some fly by night.