Origin of Cooler Helmets?

[Ozark Bicycle]

The big-mouth, small-brain fish stretches it's ego:

John Forrest "fish brain" Tomlinson wrote:

> Let it go. If they're stupid enough to overpay, and the money matters
> to them, let them. Cheap helmets are readily available. Be happy
> you're so smart. Just let your anger go. You'll feel better
> eventually. Your insecurity about money and fashion can't be good for
> you. Let them go.
>
>

Just keep your mouth open, I'll use the pliers to pull the hook out. It
won't hurt, I promise.

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> The large-mouth, small-brain bass rises to the bait:
>
>
> John Forrest Tomlinson wrote:
> > On 26 Apr 2006 15:05:08 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >
> >
> > >
> > >All aimed, with great financial reward, at the stupid.
> >
> > It's funny to hear someone who takes pleasure in old junky cars
> > mocking people for buying stuff that's eye candy.
> >
> >
>
> Tell me about my junky old cars, buffoon.

It's obvious that "big-mouth, little-brain" isn't going to answer this
question. ;-)

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On 26 Apr 2006 19:13:17 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>
>[email protected] wrote:
>
><snipped>
>
>-on expensive styrofoam helmets-
>
>>
>> Is the Atmos worth $189? Well, economics says that a good is worth the
>> price a buyer and seller agree upon. By that metric, the Atmos is worth
>> it for the people who bought it. Does that make them P.T. Barnum's
>> suckers? Maybe, maybe not. Either way, you and I are free to buy less
>> expensive helmets.
>
>
>This brings us to an interesting chicken-and-egg question: which came
>first, the over-priced product or the fashionista suckers who will buy
>it?

Let it go. If they're stupid enough to overpay, and the money matters
to them, let them. Cheap helmets are readily available. Be happy
you're so smart. Just let your anger go. You'll feel better
eventually. Your insecurity about money and fashion can't be good for
you. Let them go.

JT


****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Bestest Handsander]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> Wow. A well reasoned, non-reactionary anti-establishment, business savvy
>> answer. What the hell is it doing on RBT?
>
> Is it in fact savvy and not reactionary?

Yes. Reactionary would be claiming that any helmet under any circumstances
should never cost more than $30 because you just don't FEEL it should. Now,
if you are privy to the R&D costs, line setup costs, labor, insurance,
litigation exposure, etc. that helmet makers incure, then please share.
>
> 1. Since helmets can obviously be produced and sold at a profit at
> $20-$30 retail,

Sure they're not lost leaders? Again, I'd love to see some industry data on
this. It is not at all unusual for a company to continue with a money losing
line because it supports it's overall positioning strategy. Often it's the
high end items economy buyers poo poo that provide the margin necessary for
the company to maintain an economy line. I'm not claiming this is the case
with helmet manufacturers. I don't have the data. Do you?

> are the arguments presented relevant and applicable
> $125 and $189 models? If the question was "Why does a freakin piece of
> styrafoam with a nylon chin strap cost $30???" then I would agree.
> 2. In spite of my agreement stated above, nevertheless, a styrafoam
> ice chest has about as much foam as a helmet (I am guessing, I admit).
> Shape is a bit simpler but requires a lid too... and sells for what,
> $2? $5? And which sells more, and therefore pays for the mold quicker,
> bike helmets or styrafoam ice chests?

To compare two products that share a raw material but are designed to serve
completely different functions (insulation vs. impact mitigation) is not
helpful. If you believe your statement then why don't you buy an ice chest,
velcro some straps to it, and wear it on your head? $7 tops. You wasted
$32. I could probably buy enough steel, aluminum, rubber, etc. required to
make a BMW for less than a $100, but that doesn't put me on the road.

> 3. The author is owner of a $100 Lance helmet. I use a $39 model
> myself. I like the looks of the more $$$ models but, not being a
> competitive racer, cannot justify the expense. Therefore I think that
> the author has a $60 vanity piece to protect and is reacting to defend
> that.

Yea, and if his eyes are blue, then we know he's just a knee-jerk
reactionary! His statements stand for themselves. You claiming your $39
is just as good (light, aero, allows as much air through, whatever) as his
$100 helmet absent any empirical data, is just as unfounded as claiming the
limited edition lone star lance $225 model without evidence is better. It's
not your position per say that's the problem. It's that your position is
just as irrational as the one you're attacking. Facts, man! Facts.

 

[[email protected]]

Bestest Handsander wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >> Wow. A well reasoned, non-reactionary anti-establishment, business savvy
> >> answer. What the hell is it doing on RBT?
> >
> > Is it in fact savvy and not reactionary?
>
> Yes. Reactionary would be claiming that any helmet under any circumstances
> should never cost more than $30 because you just don't FEEL it should. Now,
> if you are privy to the R&D costs, line setup costs, labor, insurance,
> litigation exposure, etc. that helmet makers incure, then please share.
>
> > 1. Since helmets can obviously be produced and sold at a profit at
> > $20-$30 retail,
>
> Sure they're not lost leaders? Again, I'd love to see some industry data on

Hehehe -- I think you mean 'loss leaders'.

dkl

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:05:39 -0600, "Bestest Handsander"
<[email protected]> wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>> Wow. A well reasoned, non-reactionary anti-establishment, business savvy
>>> answer. What the hell is it doing on RBT?
>>
>> Is it in fact savvy and not reactionary?
>
>Yes. Reactionary would be claiming that any helmet under any circumstances
>should never cost more than $30 because you just don't FEEL it should. Now,
>if you are privy to the R&D costs, line setup costs, labor, insurance,
>litigation exposure, etc. that helmet makers incure, then please share.
>>
>> 1. Since helmets can obviously be produced and sold at a profit at
>> $20-$30 retail,
>
>Sure they're not lost leaders? Again, I'd love to see some industry data on
>this. It is not at all unusual for a company to continue with a money losing
>line because it supports it's overall positioning strategy. Often it's the
>high end items economy buyers poo poo that provide the margin necessary for
>the company to maintain an economy line. I'm not claiming this is the case
>with helmet manufacturers. I don't have the data. Do you?
>
>> are the arguments presented relevant and applicable
>> $125 and $189 models? If the question was "Why does a freakin piece of
>> styrafoam with a nylon chin strap cost $30???" then I would agree.
>> 2. In spite of my agreement stated above, nevertheless, a styrafoam
>> ice chest has about as much foam as a helmet (I am guessing, I admit).
>> Shape is a bit simpler but requires a lid too... and sells for what,
>> $2? $5? And which sells more, and therefore pays for the mold quicker,
>> bike helmets or styrafoam ice chests?
>
>To compare two products that share a raw material but are designed to serve
>completely different functions (insulation vs. impact mitigation) is not
>helpful. If you believe your statement then why don't you buy an ice chest,
>velcro some straps to it, and wear it on your head? $7 tops. You wasted
>$32. I could probably buy enough steel, aluminum, rubber, etc. required to
>make a BMW for less than a $100, but that doesn't put me on the road.
>
>> 3. The author is owner of a $100 Lance helmet. I use a $39 model
>> myself. I like the looks of the more $$$ models but, not being a
>> competitive racer, cannot justify the expense. Therefore I think that
>> the author has a $60 vanity piece to protect and is reacting to defend
>> that.
>
>Yea, and if his eyes are blue, then we know he's just a knee-jerk
>reactionary! His statements stand for themselves. You claiming your $39
>is just as good (light, aero, allows as much air through, whatever) as his
>$100 helmet absent any empirical data, is just as unfounded as claiming the
>limited edition lone star lance $225 model without evidence is better. It's
>not your position per say that's the problem. It's that your position is
>just as irrational as the one you're attacking. Facts, man! Facts.

Dear BH,

For what it's worth (an apt phrase) . . .

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=3946731

This helmet is priced at $9.88.

It "complies with U.S. CPSC safety standards for bicycle
helmets."

It comes with vents, adjustable straps, strong polystyrene
inner shell and a durable, high-gloss PVC outer shell.

Best of all, it's decorated with the dinosaurs popular with
its 2-5 year-old target market.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Bestest Handsander]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Bestest Handsander wrote:
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >> Wow. A well reasoned, non-reactionary anti-establishment, business
>> >> savvy
>> >> answer. What the hell is it doing on RBT?
>> >
>> > Is it in fact savvy and not reactionary?
>>
>> Yes. Reactionary would be claiming that any helmet under any
>> circumstances
>> should never cost more than $30 because you just don't FEEL it should.
>> Now,
>> if you are privy to the R&D costs, line setup costs, labor, insurance,
>> litigation exposure, etc. that helmet makers incure, then please share.
>>
>> > 1. Since helmets can obviously be produced and sold at a profit at
>> > $20-$30 retail,
>>
>> Sure they're not lost leaders? Again, I'd love to see some industry data
>> on
>
> Hehehe -- I think you mean 'loss leaders'.

Sorry, I guess I'm typing faster than you can read.

 

[Bestest Handsander]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Dear BH,
>
> For what it's worth (an apt phrase) . . .
>
> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=3946731
>
> This helmet is priced at $9.88.
>
> It "complies with U.S. CPSC safety standards for bicycle
> helmets."
>
> It comes with vents, adjustable straps, strong polystyrene
> inner shell and a durable, high-gloss PVC outer shell.
>
> Best of all, it's decorated with the dinosaurs popular with
> its 2-5 year-old target market.
>
> Cheers,

Dang! They're out of stock! I'll have to add it to my wish list!

 

[[email protected]]

Why does it bother you so much that there a lot of people who consider
the price difference chump change? Sounds like you're just jealous that
there are folks with


Ozark Bicycle <[email protected]> wrote:

> This brings us to an interesting chicken-and-egg question: which came
> first, the over-priced product or the fashionista suckers who will buy
> it?

 

[Bestest Handsander]

"Bestest Handsander" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> Dear BH,
>>
>> For what it's worth (an apt phrase) . . .
>>
>> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=3946731
>>
>> This helmet is priced at $9.88.
>>
>> It "complies with U.S. CPSC safety standards for bicycle
>> helmets."
>>
>> It comes with vents, adjustable straps, strong polystyrene
>> inner shell and a durable, high-gloss PVC outer shell.
>>
>> Best of all, it's decorated with the dinosaurs popular with
>> its 2-5 year-old target market.
>>
>> Cheers,
>
> Dang! They're out of stock! I'll have to add it to my wish list!

But seriously, you're not suggesting that an item found at Walmart can be
used to demonstrate that an entire industry can be profitable at their price
point, are you? And even enlarged I'm not seeing six vents!

 

[Chalo]

[email protected] wrote:
>
> That's not to say that all helmets are reasonably priced. I've found
> that a $100 Giro ($75 on sale) has about 98% of the functionality of a
> $189 Giro. My only point is that one should not confuse incremental
> cost with total cost.

If your argument about tooling costs and development held water, I
think we'd see substantially fewer than the excessive number of
different helmet styles available. I mean, why barely break even on
the tooling for a dozen different helmet styles when you could make
them better, amortize your capital outlay quicker, and realize more
profit if you only made two or three styles?

To me, the fact that there are helmet styles in massive proliferation
is proof that just the increased revenue of having a few more price
points to choose from outweighs the non-recurring tooling, engineering,
and certification costs you mention. Between Bell and Giro, I count at
least 37 different mold geometries, not including whatever different
sizes they are made in.

Remember, Bell and Giro are the *same manufacturer*. All the styles of
all the helmets from both those brands are the products of one company.
It doesn't seem like they are too concerned about the additional
non-recurring costs of each additional size and style. They simply see
consumers as tools who can be chumped into buying more, and more
expensively, if there is a proliferation of choices available to them
of a thing they have been persuaded is a necessity. Looks like you
proved them correct.

Helmet manufacturers are ripoff artists through and through. What more
would you expect from a business that sponsors bogus research on the
efficacy of its product, then pushes for laws to require people to buy
it?

Chalo Colina

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:41:52 -0600, "Bestest Handsander"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"Bestest Handsander" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>> Dear BH,
>>>
>>> For what it's worth (an apt phrase) . . .
>>>
>>> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=3946731
>>>
>>> This helmet is priced at $9.88.
>>>
>>> It "complies with U.S. CPSC safety standards for bicycle
>>> helmets."
>>>
>>> It comes with vents, adjustable straps, strong polystyrene
>>> inner shell and a durable, high-gloss PVC outer shell.
>>>
>>> Best of all, it's decorated with the dinosaurs popular with
>>> its 2-5 year-old target market.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>
>> Dang! They're out of stock! I'll have to add it to my wish list!
>
>But seriously, you're not suggesting that an item found at Walmart can be
>used to demonstrate that an entire industry can be profitable at their price
>point, are you? And even enlarged I'm not seeing six vents!

Dear BH,

To a first approximation there is no practical difference
between the helmet sold for $10 for toddlers 2-5 years old
and any other bicycling helmets mentioned here, which sell
for up to twenty times as much.

Bicycles and bicycle clothing are primarily fashion-driven
recreational items in the United States.

Performance currently offers 50 different helmets, from $15
to $190. Most of these helmets cannot be distinguished by
the rider once they are actually strapped on.

The chief distinctions tend to be the names created by
marketing--I see Atmos, Rocket, Pneumo, Sweep, Xen, Ceron,
Monza, Animas, Chrono, Eclipse, Hex, Ghisallo, Plus, Skurya,
Havoc, Furio, Ferox, Alchera, X-Ray--

That's a truly bad name for something sold to prevent head
injuries.

--Slant, Delirium, Kaena, Fierenza, Talos, Argus, Tension,
Tora, Indicator, Skyla, Pod, Citi, Transfer, Torrent, ARC,
Pyovra, Venus, and Old School.

No sign of Bashful, Doc, Dopey, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, or
Sneezy, much less Sleazy, Sneaky, Donner, Blitzen, Lust,
Gluttony, Avarice, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride, Luxuria,
Gula, Avaritia, Acedia, Ira, Invidia, or Superbia.

I've always thought that Medusa would be a good name for a
lady's helmet.

Neither the aerodynamics nor the "extra" vents created by
adding a rib across an existing hole are likely to be
noticeable in blind helmet testing.

That is, the rider couldn't tell which helmet he was wearing
if he closed his eyes while someone else buckled the strap
under his chin.

Indeed, it's not likely that the rider could tell the
slightly lighter models from the slightly heavier models.

The trend toward more and more vents makes it harder and
harder to believe that helmets are being sold as
impact-absorbing devices.

That said, I strongly prefer a yellow helmet and think that
my new one's straps work a bit better.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[Bestest Handsander]

"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> That's not to say that all helmets are reasonably priced. I've found
>> that a $100 Giro ($75 on sale) has about 98% of the functionality of a
>> $189 Giro. My only point is that one should not confuse incremental
>> cost with total cost.
>
> If your argument about tooling costs and development held water, I
> think we'd see substantially fewer than the excessive number of
> different helmet styles available. I mean, why barely break even on
> the tooling for a dozen different helmet styles when you could make
> them better, amortize your capital outlay quicker, and realize more
> profit if you only made two or three styles?
>
> To me, the fact that there are helmet styles in massive proliferation
> is proof that just the increased revenue of having a few more price
> points to choose from outweighs the non-recurring tooling, engineering,
> and certification costs you mention. Between Bell and Giro, I count at
> least 37 different mold geometries, not including whatever different
> sizes they are made in.

I wonder how many of their helmets are a proprietary design and require
custom molds vs. how many are outsourced from a common manufacturer.
Obviously all the higher end stuff is exclusive, but could a number of the
cheaper models be from a factory in China that makes helmets that sell under
a bunch of different names?

Are any of the manufacturers a public company that must disclose some
financial data?

Signed, TooLazytoLookonForhimself

 

[Bestest Handsander]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> Neither the aerodynamics nor the "extra" vents created by
> adding a rib across an existing hole are likely to be
> noticeable in blind helmet testing.
>
> That is, the rider couldn't tell which helmet he was wearing
> if he closed his eyes while someone else buckled the strap
> under his chin.
>
> Indeed, it's not likely that the rider could tell the
> slightly lighter models from the slightly heavier models.

> Carl Fogel

Source? I mean this opinion of yours is based upon some data... not just
your assumptions, correct?

 

[Jay Beattie]

Bestest Handsander wrote:

<big snip>

> Yea, and if his eyes are blue, then we know he's just a knee-jerk
> reactionary! His statements stand for themselves. You claiming your $39
> is just as good (light, aero, allows as much air through, whatever) as his
> $100 helmet absent any empirical data, is just as unfounded as claiming the
> limited edition lone star lance $225 model without evidence is better. It's
> not your position per say that's the problem. It's that your position is
> just as irrational as the one you're attacking. Facts, man! Facts.

What possibly justifies a $200+ price tag for any foam helmet with a
microshell? I think the answer is fashion and market elasticity. --
Jay Beattie.

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote:

> What more
> would you expect from a business that sponsors bogus research on the
> efficacy of its product, then pushes for laws to require people to buy
> it?

I would expect them to tell me they respect me, and call
me on the telephone.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:41:52 -0600, "Bestest Handsander"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Bestest Handsander" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> news:[email protected]...
> >>>
> >>> Dear BH,
> >>>
> >>> For what it's worth (an apt phrase) . . .
> >>>
> >>> http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?product_id=3946731
> >>>
> >>> This helmet is priced at $9.88.
> >>>
> >>> It "complies with U.S. CPSC safety standards for bicycle
> >>> helmets."
> >>>
> >>> It comes with vents, adjustable straps, strong polystyrene
> >>> inner shell and a durable, high-gloss PVC outer shell.
> >>>
> >>> Best of all, it's decorated with the dinosaurs popular with
> >>> its 2-5 year-old target market.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Dang! They're out of stock! I'll have to add it to my wish list!
> >
> >But seriously, you're not suggesting that an item found at Walmart can be
> >used to demonstrate that an entire industry can be profitable at their price
> >point, are you? And even enlarged I'm not seeing six vents!
>
> Dear BH,
>
> To a first approximation there is no practical difference
> between the helmet sold for $10 for toddlers 2-5 years old
> and any other bicycling helmets mentioned here, which sell
> for up to twenty times as much.
>
> Bicycles and bicycle clothing are primarily fashion-driven
> recreational items in the United States.
>
> Performance currently offers 50 different helmets, from $15
> to $190. Most of these helmets cannot be distinguished by
> the rider once they are actually strapped on.
>
> The chief distinctions tend to be the names created by
> marketing--I see Atmos, Rocket, Pneumo, Sweep, Xen, Ceron,
> Monza, Animas, Chrono, Eclipse, Hex, Ghisallo, Plus, Skurya,
> Havoc, Furio, Ferox, Alchera, X-Ray--
>
> That's a truly bad name for something sold to prevent head
> injuries.
>
> --Slant, Delirium, Kaena, Fierenza, Talos, Argus, Tension,
> Tora, Indicator, Skyla, Pod, Citi, Transfer, Torrent, ARC,
> Pyovra, Venus, and Old School.
>
> No sign of Bashful, Doc, Dopey, Grumpy, Happy, Sleepy, or
> Sneezy, much less Sleazy, Sneaky, Donner, Blitzen, Lust,
> Gluttony, Avarice, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride, Luxuria,
> Gula, Avaritia, Acedia, Ira, Invidia, or Superbia.

In alphabetical order:
ARC Acedia Alchera Animas Argus Atmos Avarice Avaritia
Bashful Blitzen Ceron Chrono Citi Delirium Doc Donner
Dopey Eclipse Envy Ferox Fierenza Furio Ghisallo
Gluttony Grumpy Gula Happy Havoc Hex Indicator Invidia
Ira Kaena Lust Luxuria Monza Old School Plus Pneumo Pod
Pride Pyovra Rocket Skurya Skyla Slant Sleazy Sleepy
Sloth Sneaky Sneezy Superbia Sweep Talos Tension Tora
Torrent Transfer Venus Wrath X-Ray Xen


>
> I've always thought that Medusa would be a good name for a
> lady's helmet.
>
> Neither the aerodynamics nor the "extra" vents created by
> adding a rib across an existing hole are likely to be
> noticeable in blind helmet testing.
>
> That is, the rider couldn't tell which helmet he was wearing
> if he closed his eyes while someone else buckled the strap
> under his chin.
>
> Indeed, it's not likely that the rider could tell the
> slightly lighter models from the slightly heavier models.
>
> The trend toward more and more vents makes it harder and
> harder to believe that helmets are being sold as
> impact-absorbing devices.
>
> That said, I strongly prefer a yellow helmet and think that
> my new one's straps work a bit better.

Red is faster.

--
Michael Press

 

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 23:42:35 -0600, "Bestest Handsander"
<[email protected]> wrote:

><[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>
>> Neither the aerodynamics nor the "extra" vents created by
>> adding a rib across an existing hole are likely to be
>> noticeable in blind helmet testing.
>>
>> That is, the rider couldn't tell which helmet he was wearing
>> if he closed his eyes while someone else buckled the strap
>> under his chin.
>>
>> Indeed, it's not likely that the rider could tell the
>> slightly lighter models from the slightly heavier models.
>
>> Carl Fogel
>
>Source? I mean this opinion of yours is based upon some data... not just
>your assumptions, correct?
>

Dear BH,

Go to a local bike shop and enlist the aid of a puzzled
employee.

With his help, pick out ten helmets and adjust their straps.
Turn your back, have him buckle one on your head, go for a
ride, and close your eyes when you come back and take it
off.

Repeat, making sure that your helper occasionally gives you
the same helmet again.

Let us know if you could tell how many vents were on each
helmet, how heavy it was, and what its aerodynamics were.

Or even when he gave you the same one again.

I predict that you won't enjoy much success.

We distinguish bicycle helmets by sight. Once they're in
place, we can't see the colors, logos, number of vents that
aren't touching our heads, or much of anything else.

You might be able to notice a wildly different time trial
helmet with a duck's-butt back or an "old-school" helmet
that looks more like a hockey helmet.

But the rest of them are pretty much the same as socks of
roughly the same thickness. Even the vents are typically so
similar that buyers count them by hand and feel satisfied
when they reach a higher number of holes created by slapping
a rib across an existing hole.

I may seem cynical, but it turns out that I'm not cynical
enough. I just saw a post nearby from Chalo that mentions
that Bell and Giro are actually the same company--fooled me!

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 06:24:02 GMT, Michael Press
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] wrote:

[snip]

>> That said, I strongly prefer a yellow helmet and think that
>> my new one's straps work a bit better.
>
>Red is faster.

Dear Michael,

Ah, you foolish young folks who sacrifice safety for the
sake of speed!

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

 

[[email protected]]

[email protected] wrote:
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
> > Werehatrack wrote:
> > > On 26 Apr 2006 11:25:54 -0700, "Ozark Bicycle"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Donald Gillies wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> You mean retail for $125. They sure don't cost that much!
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Just move that decimal one place to the left.
> > >
> > > And then slice it another 50 to 80%, I suspect. 10:1 is typical for
> > > manufacturing/retail ratios, but the disparity goes way up for fashion
> > > items. I don't think there's much chance that a $225-retail Giro
> > > helmet really costs ten times as much to make as a $20 Bell.
> >
> > Yep, I would guess the cost of manufacture of a ~$190 (retail price)
> > helmet to be in the $4-6 range (i.e., buying one is a confirmation that
> > Barnum was correct!).
>
> Well, yes and no. While the *incremental* cost of a high-end helmet is
> certainly within this range, the molds to make the helmets are not
> cheap. When I worked as a reporter for a bicycle trade magazine,
> someone at Giro once told me that a typical helmet mold (CNC'd from
> aluminum) cost on the order of $100,000.*
>
> Since a separate mold is needed for each size, a set of three molds
> (S,M,L) is around $300K. The FEA software required to simulate impacts
> (e.g., LSDyna) is not cheap either at ~$20K per seat. So there are
> significant investments to be amortized over the helmet's lifetime.
>
> Giro's top-end helmet used to be the Pneumo. Then they introduced the
> Atmos. They've kept the Pneumo around because once they've paid off the
> helmet molds, Giro's margins go through the roof--there's no reason to
> retire a perfectly good $100K mold. But the huge costs to be amortized
> should not be ignored just because the post-amortization margins are so
> good. At $300,000 for molds, Giro has to sell about 3,000 helmets ($189
> retail, $99 dealer cost) before they break even. They've certainly
> broken even on the Atmos.
>
> Also, while a cheap helmet might only require two molds (two shell
> sizes, with a third produced via thick pads), a higher-end helmet will
> have three or maybe four molds. Since the cheaper helmets cost less to
> produce initially and require much less R&D time and are made in vastly
> higher numbers, the economies of scale are amazing. Cheap helmets
> spread lower costs over more helmets. Expensive helmets spread higher
> costs over fewer helmets, which helps explain the amazing price deltas.
>
> That's not to say that all helmets are reasonably priced. I've found
> that a $100 Giro ($75 on sale) has about 98% of the functionality of a
> $189 Giro. My only point is that one should not confuse incremental
> cost with total cost.
>
> Jason
>
> * That was about a decade ago. Helmet mold costs may have come down due
> to better, cheaper rapid prototyping technologies and 5-axis CNC
> machines. Even so, helmet molds are expensive.

The following is speculation; I am not knowledgable on these subjects:

$100,000 sounds steep to me. Maybe that includes design costs and/or is
for the cost of enough molds for high capacity production. I recently
investigated getting molds for cranks made in China. A production mold
(4 pieces, enough for L and R cranks) cost $12,000.

Just look at the number of different models. That would mean millions
in model-specific tooling. Perhaps, but I'll bet tooling costs are a
lot less than 300.000!

But you are of course correct, there is a difference between total cost
and incremental cost.

I know someone who works at a shipping company. They told me about a
shipment of helmets destined for a chain of discount stores. The
declared value was under EUR 2. These were nice helmets too. I bough a
couple once they hit the stores. Bug-mesh in the front vents, a quality
turn-wheel thingee to adjust the size, nice straps with chin padding,
etc. Not exactly the world's coolest design, but well made and
certainly as much to produce as any Giro or Bell. Yet somebody is
making money selling them for 2 Euros! (They retailed for about 15
including taxes) Obviosly they don't have marketing costs, as it is a
no-name. As for volume, who knows, but I'll bet Bell and Giro sure sell
a lot more helmets.

Joseph