Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    land of the free
    Posts
    8,805

    Uni-sport helmets

    My youngest kid has blown the shit shell off his bike lid.
    Twice.
    Yes, I yell at him not to drop it on cement,
    His POC ski lid seems so much more durable

    Why can’t you use a ski lid for bike or vice versa?

    Ideally, I would put the groms in a durable skateboard lid. No matter the sport.

    Secondary question, ski and bike lids seem like cheap crap. But climbing and skateboarding lids are bomber. Why?
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.”
    Hunter S. Thompson

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Vernon BC
    Posts
    1,769
    Some lids are designed for multiple impacts, while others are not.

    I may be wrong, but I think most POC lids are designed for multiple impacts. Like a climbing helmet.

    Most bike and ski lids are intended to be tossed after you smash them into concrete once.
    "Its not the arrow, its the Indian" - M.Pinto

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    land of the free
    Posts
    8,805
    To clarify, my kid treats his bike lid like shit.
    Scary how easily the outer skin detaches. So bike helmets are styrofoam make believe? Why bother?
    Yeah mips and shit. But really, if the skin pops off mid-crash, what do you have left?
    “Life has become immeasurably better since I have been forced to stop taking it seriously.”
    Hunter S. Thompson

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    North Vancouver
    Posts
    1,055
    i think the skin is mostly cosmetic. The helmet is that formed styrofoam crap that should deform/break on impact, thus dissipating the blow.

    i agree with you though. To me it's just a means to further load up our landfills while helmet makers can sell more lids. If a $5 styro fish cooler can float around for 4 decades at sea and still be in tact upon washing up on some lucky beach I am not ever replacing my styro lid unless it's been broken by an impact. "replace after 5 years from manufacture date". Please.

    And weight. Light weight always sells. Remember the old Pro-tec lids from the late 80's? The actually looked cool (to me anyway and would take a visor for BMX racing) and you could beat the shit out of them. They were way lighter than a motocross lid but then they were bypassed by the styro in mold lightness (and looks).

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Vernon BC
    Posts
    1,769
    for many (if not most) helmets, the shell is an integral aspect of the design. if you remove the shell, the exposed foamy guts will be less resilient against impact and less capable of distributing the impact load.

    in the scheme of action sports environmental impact, I would wager that consumable helmets are pretty low on the list... but hug what every tress make you fell good about your self.

    The manufactures shelf life is there largely because UV degrades the materials over time, making them less resilient , but if you dont believe that all the components of the helmet are integral to its design in the first place, then I guess you can disregard that fact.

    .... you may as well argue that the science for helmets is limited and that they are not really able to provide any realworld claims due to the challenges with such studies.... but if you are buying to the premise that helmets provided some level of protection, then you should buy into the entire program.

    what the OP needs...and really what most people should look for in a helmet design is a helmet designed for multiple impacts. These helmets are often more expensive, heavier and have less ventilation options ... pros and cons.
    "Its not the arrow, its the Indian" - M.Pinto

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    358
    Bike and snow helmet testing standards, which must be followed and passed to be able to legally say a helmet is certified for bike or snow, are very different. There are overlapping aspects of the standards, and consequently some helmets would be perfectly capable of protecting you from most (but not necessarily all) multi-sport impacts. It is a liability issue for the manufacturers. It is generally not worth it for them to design and test for both certifications as you would end up with a helmet that is overbuilt, overpriced, and not as well-suited for either sport than two separate helmets.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •