Which H****t

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Tony Raven, Jul 20, 2005.

  1. Tony Raven

    Tony Raven Guest

    Apparently there is a helmet review in Which. Has anyone seen a copy
    and is it half sensible or driven by the usual scare factors? FWIW the
    cheapest helmet tested, a Canyon Cruz costing £14 came out as best buy.

    --
    Tony

    "I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
    Anon
     
    Tags:


  2. davek

    davek Guest

    Tony Raven wrote:
    > Apparently there is a helmet review in Which. Has anyone seen a copy
    > and is it half sensible or driven by the usual scare factors? FWIW the
    > cheapest helmet tested, a Canyon Cruz costing £14 came out as best buy.


    I am able to access their reports online (a throwback from having once
    been an employee of the Consumers Association, though not actually
    Which) so I've just had a look...

    Here are some details from the "best buy" chart on how they conducted
    the tests:
    We picked some of the best-selling models from some leading brands and
    a few lesser-known manufacturers.

    Specification
    * Size range We show the range of head circumferences that each model
    of helmet claims to fit.
    * Sizes The number of size options for each helmet (see 'Fit').
    * Vents See 'Vents'.

    Performance
    * Shock absorption See 'Protection'.
    * Ventilation How effectively the helmet allows air to circulate and
    how well it regulates temperature.
    * Adapting size How easy it is to adjust the helmet to an individual
    fit.
    * Strap Ease of use and adjustment.

    Score
    * This ignores price and is based on: Safety tests: 50%; Ventilation
    and fit: 35%; Quality of finish: 5%; Instructions: 5%; Safety markings:
    5%

    If you click on where it says "see Protection" this is what you get:
    Protection
    All the helmets passed our rigorous shock-absorption tests, though the
    Canyon held up best.
    The tests involved dropping the helmets on kerb stones from a variety
    of angles. We conducted the tests at various temperatures, and even
    artificially aged the helmets with gallons of water to see whether they
    deteriorate over time.
    To measure the strength of the strap and how well it's fixed to the
    helmet, we attached a 10kg weight to the helmet and allowed it to drop.
    Only one helmet failed - the Trek Interval II.

    To test the vents, they used thermal imaging of people's heads while
    wearing the helmets rather than just going on number of vents.

    This is what it says in the introduction to the report:
    Wearing a bike helmet won't make you invincible, so you'll still need
    to ride with care. A helmet is designed to protect your head when you
    fall on to the ground but it won't always help if your head hits
    something else like a wall or a car.
    If you do have a fall and your helmet takes a knock, always replace
    it as it may have been damaged.
    Helmets sold in the UK are required to conform to certain safety
    standards. To get the most protection, you also need to wear your
    helmet correctly. Try it on before you buy, and make sure it fits
    closely without being pushed to the back of your head. If you put it on
    without the strap fastened, it shouldn't move about.
    To wear or not?
    Helmets aren't mandatory in the UK, and only around a quarter of
    cyclists wear them.
    A private member's bill that recommended compulsory bike helmets for
    under-16s stalled in Parliament, and a debate currently rages between
    pro-legislation groups (including the British Medical Association) and
    those that are more sceptical, such as the Cyclists' Touring Club.
    Opponents cite the example of Australia, where helmet legislation led
    to fewer children taking up cycling.
    One thing both sides agree on is that the health benefits of cycling
    - whether helmeted or not - far outweigh the dangers.


    So, seems reasonably balanced on the whole - quite fair considering it
    is a consumer guide rather than a debate on the pros and cons of
    helmets. They could have done with a bit more depth in the introduction
    section, but this is an editorial matter rather than a reflection of
    the quality of their testing methods.

    Back when I was an employee I got to visit the research and testing
    centre in Milton Keynes, so I know that they are extremely rigorous in
    their testing procedures - eg they won't have just tried the thermal
    imaging on one or two volunteers but over a wide range of test cases.
    And their tests are usually conducted over a long period - I remember
    the chap that showed us round saying this was often a problem because
    it meant products tested were no longer on the market by the time the
    report was published. This was especially a problem with paint, IIRC,
    but I don't know how much of a problem it would be with bike helmets.

    d.
     
  3. davek

    davek Guest

    Tony Raven wrote:
    > FWIW the
    > cheapest helmet tested, a Canyon Cruz costing £14 came out as best buy.


    Not only the cheapest (by a significant margin), but at 229g also one
    of the lightest of those tested despite having fewer vents than any of
    the others, while also scoring highly for ventilation and shock
    absorption.

    d.
     
  4. davek wrote:
    > T
    > > cheapest helmet tested, a Canyon Cruz costing £14 came out as best buy.

    >
    > Not only the cheapest (by a significant margin), but at 229g also one
    > of the lightest of those tested despite having fewer vents than any of
    > the others, while also scoring highly for ventilation and shock
    > absorption.


    Yes. The Which report said that design and position of the vents was
    more important than the number. I suppose anyone buying on appearance
    might just go for the most vents thinkiing more equal better.
    I'm not a helmet wearer but if I was I would get the Cruz. Or
    possibly the one (I forget the model) with a mesh lining inside the
    vents to prevent insects getting in. After all the risk of insect
    stings must be in the same ballpark as bit of polystyrene making a
    significant difference to your safety.
    Iain
     
  5. Mark Blewett

    Mark Blewett Guest

    On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:01:38 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Apparently there is a helmet review in Which. Has anyone seen a copy
    >and is it half sensible or driven by the usual scare factors? FWIW the
    >cheapest helmet tested, a Canyon Cruz costing £14 came out as best buy.


    Does anyone have a Canyon Cruz? What do you think of it?

    It's my bday on Saturday and apparently it's being wrapped up as I
    write this.

    Regards
    Mark
     
  6. Simon Brooke

    Simon Brooke Guest

    in message <[email protected]>, Mark Blewett
    ('[email protected]') wrote:

    > On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:01:38 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Apparently there is a helmet review in Which. Has anyone seen a copy
    >>and is it half sensible or driven by the usual scare factors? FWIW the
    >>cheapest helmet tested, a Canyon Cruz costing £14 came out as best buy.

    >
    > Does anyone have a Canyon Cruz? What do you think of it?
    >
    > It's my bday on Saturday and apparently it's being wrapped up as I
    > write this.


    Post a review when you've tried it (tried it on, I mean and ridden in it;
    I hope you never manage to try using it for its designed purpose).

    --
    [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
    ;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
    ;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
    ;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
    ;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002
     
  7. Rich

    Rich Guest

    "Simon Brooke" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > in message <[email protected]>, Mark Blewett
    > ('[email protected]') wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 18:01:38 +0100, Tony Raven <[email protected]>
    >> wrote:

    >
    > Post a review when you've tried it (tried it on, I mean and ridden in it;
    > I hope you never manage to try using it for its designed purpose).


    without wishing to get into another h****t war, its design purpose would
    appear to be cosmetic. Why else would there be the disclaimer on the box?
    >
    > --
    > [email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
    > ;; Sending your money to someone just because they've erected
    > ;; a barrier of obscurity and secrets around the tools you
    > ;; need to use your data does not help the economy or spur
    > ;; innovation. - Waffle Iron Slashdot, June 16th, 2002
    >
     
  8. Peewiglet

    Peewiglet Guest

    On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:46:53 GMT, "Rich"
    <[email protected]> wrote:


    >> Post a review when you've tried it (tried it on, I mean and ridden in it;
    >> I hope you never manage to try using it for its designed purpose).

    >
    >without wishing to get into another h****t war, its design purpose would
    >appear to be cosmetic. Why else would there be the disclaimer on the box?


    What does the disclaimer say?


    Best wishes,
    --
    ,,
    (**)PeeWiglet~~
    / \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk
     
  9. Bob Downie

    Bob Downie Guest

    >* Size range We show the range of head circumferences that each model
    >of helmet claims to fit.
    >* Sizes The number of size options for each helmet (see 'Fit').


    Talking of size, can anyone recommend a helmet for those with a lager
    than average (61+cm) cranium? Most brands seem to top out at 61cm and
    when I try one on its like my head is in a vice.

    Any recommendations from other big-heads?

    Thanks
    --
    Bob Downie
    Downie GeoScience Ltd.
    please remove #n0spam# to reply directly
     
  10. > without wishing to get into another h****t war, its design purpose
    > would appear to be cosmetic. Why else would there be the disclaimer
    > on the box?


    Because although brilliant for what it was designed for, we (well, they I
    s'pose) insist on crediting it with magic powers of protection far above
    what it's designed to provide.

    Gentle questioning of people who aggresively ask why I don't wear a helmet
    reveals them to think it'll Save My Life(TM) when hit by a car. Further
    gentle questioning on what injuries a couple of inches of foam will save me
    from causes utter confusion as they realise they now want to say "mild
    concussion" and realise that's the least of my worries if hit by a car.
     
  11. On 2005-07-22 18:34 +0000, Peewiglet wrote:
    > What does the disclaimer say?


    Something like http://tinyurl.com/9cgtq or http://tinyurl.com/47fqh , one
    hopes. ISTR fom other posters that the disclaimers on cycle helmets
    pertain to them being ineffective in collisions with motor vehicles.
    It'd be good if someone could post the text of an actual disclaimer
    sticker, though.

    --
    Andrew Chadwick
     
  12. Bob Downie wrote:

    > Talking of size, can anyone recommend a helmet for those with a lager
    > than average (61+cm) cranium? Most brands seem to top out at 61cm and
    > when I try one on its like my head is in a vice.
    >
    > Any recommendations from other big-heads?


    As one with an outsize gulliver, I have got on OK with Giro and slightly
    better with Specialized.

    --
    Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
    Historians' Right To Work Campaign - We Demand A Continuing Supply Of
    History!
     
  13. Peewiglet wrote:

    > What does the disclaimer say?


    May cause heroin addiction, suicide bombing and paedophilia...

    --
    Dave Larrington - <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/>
    Historians' Right To Work Campaign - We Demand A Continuing Supply Of
    History!
     
  14. Bob Downie

    Bob Downie Guest

    >
    >As one with an outsize gulliver, I have got on OK with Giro and slightly
    >better with Specialized.
    >

    Ta very much.

    Off to cycle shop now to have a look.
    --
    Bob Downie
    Downie GeoScience Ltd.
    please remove #n0spam# to reply directly
     
  15. Bob Downie

    Bob Downie Guest

    >
    >As one with an outsize gulliver, I have got on OK with Giro and slightly
    >better with Specialized.
    >

    Ta very much.

    Off to cycle shop now to have a look.
    --
    Bob Downie
    Downie GeoScience Ltd.
    please remove #n0spam# to reply directly
     
  16. Peewiglet

    Peewiglet Guest

    On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:24:29 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Peewiglet wrote:
    >
    >> What does the disclaimer say?

    >
    >May cause heroin addiction, suicide bombing and paedophilia...


    Wow, no wonder they're unpopular round here!


    Best wishes,
    --
    ,,
    (**)PeeWiglet~~
    / \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk
     
  17. Peewiglet

    Peewiglet Guest

    On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:24:29 +0100, "Dave Larrington"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Peewiglet wrote:
    >
    >> What does the disclaimer say?

    >
    >May cause heroin addiction, suicide bombing and paedophilia...


    Wow, no wonder they're unpopular round here!


    Best wishes,
    --
    ,,
    (**)PeeWiglet~~
    / \ / \ pee AT [guessthisbit].co.uk
     
Loading...