Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 80
  1. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    93108
    Posts
    2,568
    Quote Originally Posted by Boissal View Post
    Hear hear.

    It's likely that the FF will never come into play while riding the actual gnar but will save yo face when doing something dumb on a casual ride. Complacency is the issue and that tends to happen more when riding mellower stuff.

    I used to think people riding Crest with FF and body armor were tools, it's an easy trail, why bring battle armor? Now that I'm old and less of an arrogant twat I realize they just don't want to get hurt regardless of how hard they plan on sending. And I respect that. I find it hysterical when I ride by people with a FF and I hear them shit talk about it. As if the lack of desire to leave teeth behind was something to be sneered at.
    100% Agreed.

    Thanks for all the input.

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Treading Water
    Posts
    6,010
    Quote Originally Posted by summit View Post
    Ardor, Zeal, and Verve for emerging helmet technology .
    I appreciate your insights. Looking forward to the day that VA Tech and other impartial labs publish data that firms up some of the ideas out there so that people can by whatís proven efficacious versus what sounds great.

    Quote Originally Posted by californiagrown View Post
    pulled from my ass.
    Smartest comment in the whole thread. We should all qualify what we say with this caveat.

    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    2) Roughly zero helmet companies provide any unbiased data on their safety features to back up their claims.
    I know VA Tech is one place thatís working on it. But hard empirical research takes time, and then takes more time to publish, then takes more time for scientists to teach us how to interpret the results.

    The best MTB equipment research Iím aware of is the 10 year retrospective EMS Actionsport Study on neck braces. Found that not only do neck braces significantly reduce spinal cord injuries, they also reduce collar bone fractures and CONCUSSIONS. But I rarely see that study referenced in safety equipment debates. To this day people will fight me on this, insisting some or all of their body is more vulnerable with a neck brace.



    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
    Lots of Cream, Lots of Sugar

  3. #28
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    14,417
    All the leatt stuff seems to be high quality. I want a bunch of their stuff. Most recently the airflow sponge whole like gloves. Cool design.
    In the last wyn tv(i think or ews final vid) for burke i took notice of morgane charres leatt ff in comparison to Jesse's smith mainline and jacks tld d4. Obviouslg a bigger shell on the leatt. Id guess more foam density layers. I think leatt introduced rotational protection before mips came out. I was especially taken how the leatt was bigger volume than the tld. I have an a1 and a d3 carbon and the liners are super plush in comparison to any otger lid ive had. D3 looked as slender as the smith mainline in comparison to the leatt. Ive seen those fox pro frames with the huge vents get crached chin guards super ez. Mainline looks a bit more durable but ill stay away from any of those, especially proframe, and the tld and 100% versions. I have a fox speed frame too and its comfy but super thin liner and i cant see tge foam or shell taking too much of an impact. Id like to try on the leatt enduro 4.0 and their full dh lid. For a half shell my tld a1 has been super durable albeit a bit hot

    Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    12,078
    Quote Originally Posted by grinch View Post
    In the last wyn tv(i think or ews final vid) for burke i took notice of morgane charres leatt ff in comparison to Jesse's smith mainline and jacks tld d4. Obviouslg a bigger shell on the leatt.
    Was it one of leatt's mtb models, or was it a moto model? Lots of fast guys (and girls) are running moto helmets.

    The leatt FF I have (DBX 6.0) is comparable in size to my D3 and a few other FF's I have.

  5. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    20,399
    I agree on low profile helmets making me nervous... you need distance to decelerate.

    The Leatt MTB Gravity 8.0 is voluminous, even more than my POC Cortex DH was, but in no way awkward and it is not heavy, it is lighter than the POC despite the Leatt being composite, not carbon, which I think is good for reasons mentioned by others. The MTB 8.0 is the same shell size, foam, and pads as the Leatt Moto 8.5/9.5. The composite shell layup is slightly different between the 8.0 and the 8.5.

    What I don't get is why TLD doesn't do multiple foam densities in their D4 and D3. They only do it in their SE5 moto helmet. I mean they do have EPP in the chin but that's not the same thing. (I remember some other brand that made a marketing claim of multiple foam densities and they just meant one for the head, one for the chin).

    This is the quad density foram protection layup for the Leatt:
    Name:  image003.png
Views: 242
Size:  87.0 KB

    The lower density EPO inner then has varied thickness and density EPS for the frontal, top, and side/rear based on likely impact scenarios. It also has a 5th density counting the dozen or so low density viscoelsatic 360 turbine bumpers that handle shear forces and low speed impact, a 6th density in the chin piece, and the liner is super cushy too, cushiest of any helmet I've ever seen.

    FTR I had a Q&A with Leatt after my 8.0 (and DBX 3.5 neck brace) saved my noggin in my huge crash in Whistler this June. Replaced with same. Interesting thing: Leatt doesn't have a crash replacement program.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    14,417
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    Was it one of leatt's mtb models, or was it a moto model? Lots of fast guys (and girls) are running moto helmets.

    The leatt FF I have (DBX 6.0) is comparable in size to my D3 and a few other FF's I have.
    Im not sure. It sounds like it mightve been a moto model then. Noticeably larger. I thought it looked better for purpose because of the size. The others looked so thin on the sides. I hadnt really thought of it much untkl that vid/interviews. I think its tge same one bernard wears and probably the rest of them. They look right to me and ive been sold on tld helmets for a while

    Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app

  7. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    14,417
    Quote Originally Posted by summit View Post
    I agree on low profile helmets making me nervous... you need distance to decelerate.

    The Leatt MTB Gravity 8.0 is voluminous, even more than my POC Cortex DH was, but in no way awkward and it is not heavy, it is lighter than the POC despite the Leatt being composite, not carbon, which I think is good for reasons mentioned by others. The MTB 8.0 is the same shell size, foam, and pads as the Leatt Moto 8.5/9.5. The composite shell layup is slightly different between the 8.0 and the 8.5.

    What I don't get is why TLD doesn't do multiple foam densities in their D4 and D3. They only do it in their SE5 moto helmet. I mean they do have EPP in the chin but that's not the same thing. (I remember some other brand that made a marketing claim of multiple foam densities and they just meant one for the head, one for the chin).

    This is the quad density foram protection layup for the Leatt:
    Name:  image003.png
Views: 242
Size:  87.0 KB

    The lower density EPO inner then has varied thickness and density EPS for the frontal, top, and side/rear based on likely impact scenarios. It also has a 5th density counting the dozen or so low density viscoelsatic 360 turbine bumpers that handle shear forces and low speed impact, a 6th density in the chin piece, and the liner is super cushy too, cushiest of any helmet I've ever seen.

    FTR I had a Q&A with Leatt after my 8.0 (and DBX 3.5 neck brace) saved my noggin in my huge crash in Whistler this June. Replaced with same. Interesting thing: Leatt doesn't have a crash replacement program.
    Damn! Thats some tech. How does SE5 compare to the leatt moto lids? Does it have mips and multiple densities?
    I considered an SE5 after a whistler wreck left me concussed and w vertigo for a few months and destroyed my d2 carbon. Just before i bought one there was an article saying that moto helmets were too much for bike speeds. Never really made sense to me but i went and bought a d3 composite instead. Shattered that , concussed anfd vertigo again had me morwe curious about a moto lid

    Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app

  8. #33
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Shadynasty's Jazz Club
    Posts
    9,799
    Speaking of neck braces. I still use an OG Leatt from way back when it was the only available option. Have there been improvements since then that would warrant an upgrade?
    Remind me. We'll send him a red cap and a Speedo.

  9. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    12,078
    Quote Originally Posted by bagtagley View Post
    Speaking of neck braces. I still use an OG Leatt from way back when it was the only available option. Have there been improvements since then that would warrant an upgrade?
    The 2nd generation was reshaped a bit to minimize collar bone breakage. After that I think they were mostly just tweaked to make them a bit smaller and lighter.

  10. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Shadynasty's Jazz Club
    Posts
    9,799
    I like the sound of collar bone breakage minimization.
    Remind me. We'll send him a red cap and a Speedo.

  11. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    12,078
    Quote Originally Posted by bagtagley View Post
    I like the sound of collar bone breakage minimization.
    It's a nice feature. Here's the OG design on the right and a newer one on the left. New one just has a smaller chest plate that sits a smidge lower. As an aside, I never wear those things anymore, so if anyone's interested in them, I'd be happy to sell for a reasonable price.


  12. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,688
    Quote Originally Posted by toast2266 View Post
    It's a nice feature. Here's the OG design on the right and a newer one on the left. New one just has a smaller chest plate that sits a smidge lower. As an aside, I never wear those things anymore, so if anyone's interested in them, I'd be happy to sell for a reasonable price.
    Yo, Iíd be into that. PM sent

  13. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Shadynasty's Jazz Club
    Posts
    9,799
    toast, why donít you wear them anymore?
    Remind me. We'll send him a red cap and a Speedo.

  14. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    12,078
    Quote Originally Posted by bagtagley View Post
    toast, why donít you wear them anymore?
    No particularly good reason. I just find them to be kinda clunky and uncomfortable. Same reason I don't wear upper body armor.

  15. #40
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Shadynasty's Jazz Club
    Posts
    9,799

    Full Face Helmets - What Say You

    Yeah, I get that. I skip the body armor, but after putting the Leatt to use at Whistler years ago, I canít bring myself to DH without it. Iím the dork at Snowshoe with nothing but some old Kyle Straits and an ancient Leatt brace (and sometimes a pair of Sidis).
    Remind me. We'll send him a red cap and a Speedo.

  16. #41
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    7,577
    Quote Originally Posted by summit View Post
    I agree on low profile helmets making me nervous... you need distance to decelerate.
    This is the 800 lb gorilla, everything else is window dressing. "High-tech" as a way to go thinner is suspect. The distance in question (what determines worst-case deceleration) is measured from the outer shell's initial thickness to its final, deformed thickness after it bounces back (immediately after, in the case of viscoelastics, not 1 second+ later).

    So it's possible to have a thicker helmet that doesn't provide more distance, either because it bounces back too much (prolonging the spike and transferring more energy, reducing the effect of your natural protection) or is too stiff/strong and doesn't compress enough to begin with. But for the most part failure to compress enough just means it would have done "better" in a harder crash--IOW, it was designed for a higher max impact, which is a probability issue. How hard do you plan to crash and at what point do you want the helmet to fail because anything harder was going to kill/debilitate you anyway? Thicker helmets can help push that question out a bit.

    All of that to say: test data that considers the more probable impacts without ignoring the less probable ones would be a lot more valuable than speculation, but if you plan to hit your head don't use a thin helmet to protect it. If you don't plan to hit your head it's a slightly different discussion--how thick before you start hitting things unexpectedly? Which may justify a quiver.

  17. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    20,399
    Quote Originally Posted by jono View Post
    This is the 800 lb gorilla, everything else is window dressing. "High-tech" as a way to go thinner is suspect. The distance in question (what determines worst-case deceleration) is measured from the outer shell's initial thickness to its final, deformed thickness after it bounces back (immediately after, in the case of viscoelastics, not 1 second+ later).

    So it's possible to have a thicker helmet that doesn't provide more distance, either because it bounces back too much (prolonging the spike and transferring more energy, reducing the effect of your natural protection) or is too stiff/strong and doesn't compress enough to begin with. But for the most part failure to compress enough just means it would have done "better" in a harder crash--IOW, it was designed for a higher max impact, which is a probability issue. How hard do you plan to crash and at what point do you want the helmet to fail because anything harder was going to kill/debilitate you anyway? Thicker helmets can help push that question out a bit.

    All of that to say: test data that considers the more probable impacts without ignoring the less probable ones would be a lot more valuable than speculation, but if you plan to hit your head don't use a thin helmet to protect it. If you don't plan to hit your head it's a slightly different discussion--how thick before you start hitting things unexpectedly? Which may justify a quiver.
    You've nailed the reason to have multiple layers of foam to manage different impact speed with lower max accelerations.... and to have standards that test helmets at multiple and very different speeds which is what the new ECE 22.06 standard does. Remember when the wisdom was "don't mtb with a moto helmet, they are too hard"? Well that is NOT true anymore with the new ECE standard. You can make a helmet that has good performance across a variety of speeds. The question is then how do you test it and what standards do you conform to? I think the Virginia Tech data shows how helmets can pass a standard (low standards) and perform wildly differently. How about higher standards?

    Compare some standards for speed impacts (for reference 1m/s 2.2mph and 5m/s is 11.2mph) and acceleration limits (Gs, you want this number low as possible, 300g is awful).

    CPSC normal bike helmet
    Linear impacts at 4.8m/s 300g limit.

    ASTM F1952 DH MTB Helmet:
    4 Linear impact testing at 5.6m/s and 6.2m/s depending on impact anvil shape (lower speed for a more penetrating anvil). 300g max

    ECE 22.05 Old moto standard fairly which tested at a higher speed than DOT:
    6 linear impacts at 7.5m/s 275g max <-could make a helmet that was harder than optimal for bikes

    ECE 22.06: New last year
    18 linear impact test locations on the helmet at 6m/s (180g max), 7.5m/s (275g max), and 8.2m/s (275g max)
    +
    New 5 rotational impact tests 8m/s 45deg impact on a sandpaper covered anvil to test rotational forces! (Huge game changer that there is testing)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ece 2206.jpg 
Views:	46 
Size:	153.9 KB 
ID:	424165

    Obviously tests have additional components like chin guard, retention straps, and deformation limits. The post crack deformation limits in 22.06 is the only reason that the composite shell layup is changed between a Leatt moto 8.5 and the mtb 8.0 (probably because your head isn't going to get run over by a truck after a mtb accident but it might in a moto wreck).

    ECE 22.06 standard with multiples speeds and lower acceleration limits plus rotational tests blows all the other moto and mtb standards out of the water and it has much more tests than the Virgina Tech testing... just we don't get to see the data to compare.
    Last edited by summit; 08-19-2022 at 11:01 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  18. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Carbondale
    Posts
    11,788
    I had assumed the multi density was layered on top of each other. I should have done my research...
    www.dpsskis.com
    www.point6.com
    formerly an ambassador for a few others, but the ski industry is... interesting.
    Fukt: a very small amount of snow.

  19. #44
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    20,399
    Quote Originally Posted by grskier View Post
    I had assumed the multi density was layered on top of each other. I should have done my research...
    If you mean the Leatt's 4 densities, yea I kinda made that assumption that there were 4 layers, but I also thought about how hard that would be to manufacture. It is why I brought it up with Leatt to better understand.

    In the end there still really are many densities over the head:

    Leatt 8.0/8.5:
    Composite Shell
    High density (aspect optimized) EPS foam
    Medium density EP0 foam (note that EP0 is like EPP in that it is somewhat multi-impact)
    Low density viscoelastic shear bumpers (360 Turbine)
    Thick padded liner

    old Poc Cortex DH:
    Carbon shell with kevlar sublayer
    High density EPS foam
    Second shell to protect vents and allow ball-in-socket MIPS movement between the layers after MIPS pin shear
    Medium density EPP foam
    Thin liner

    Leatt D4:
    Shell (carbon or composite)
    EPS foam
    MIPS layer and liner
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  20. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Hell Track
    Posts
    12,078
    Quote Originally Posted by grskier View Post
    I had assumed the multi density was layered on top of each other. I should have done my research...
    Most of them are. Some companies have tweaked that basic type of construction in various ways.

  21. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    14,417
    What are ghe gop manufacturers that have adopted the ECE standard? And or models? I hadnt heard of ece

    Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app

  22. #47
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    9,300ft
    Posts
    20,399
    I believe everyone has to in EU by June 2023 if they want to keep selling their moto lids legally. I just know that Leatt did for their moto helmets and it fed directly to their MTB 8.0 helmet because of the shared design.
    Quote Originally Posted by blurred
    skiing is hiking all day so that you can ski on shitty gear for 5 minutes.

  23. #48
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    in the trench
    Posts
    14,417
    Cool! Been talking up leatt for a yr or 2. Might be time to buy some

    Sent from my SM-A536W using TGR Forums mobile app

  24. #49
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    7,577
    Quote Originally Posted by summit View Post
    You've nailed the reason to have multiple layers of foam to manage different impact speed with lower max accelerations.... and to have standards that test helmets at multiple and very different speeds which is what the new ECE 22.06 standard does. Remember when the wisdom was "don't mtb with a moto helmet, they are too hard"? Well that is NOT true anymore with the new ECE standard. You can make a helmet that has good performance across a variety of speeds. The question is then how do you test it and what standards do you conform to? I think the Virginia Tech data shows how helmets can pass a standard (low standards) and perform wildly differently. How about higher standards?

    Compare some standards for speed impacts (for reference 1m/s 2.2mph and 5m/s is 11.2mph) and acceleration limits (Gs, you want this number low as possible, 300g is awful).

    CPSC normal bike helmet
    Linear impacts at 4.8m/s 300g limit.

    ASTM F1952 DH MTB Helmet:
    4 Linear impact testing at 5.6m/s and 6.2m/s depending on impact anvil shape (lower speed for a more penetrating anvil). 300g max

    ECE 22.05 Old moto standard fairly which tested at a higher speed than DOT:
    6 linear impacts at 7.5m/s 275g max <-could make a helmet that was harder than optimal for bikes

    ECE 22.06: New last year
    18 linear impact test locations on the helmet at 6m/s (180g max), 7.5m/s (275g max), and 8.2m/s (275g max)
    +
    New 5 rotational impact tests 8m/s 45deg impact on a sandpaper covered anvil to test rotational forces! (Huge game changer that there is testing)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	ece 2206.jpg 
Views:	46 
Size:	153.9 KB 
ID:	424165

    Obviously tests have additional components like chin guard, retention straps, and deformation limits. The post crack deformation limits in 22.06 is the only reason that the composite shell layup is changed between a Leatt moto 8.5 and the mtb 8.0 (probably because your head isn't going to get run over by a truck after a mtb accident but it might in a moto wreck).

    ECE 22.06 standard with multiples speeds and lower acceleration limits plus rotational tests blows all the other moto and mtb standards out of the water and it has much more tests than the Virgina Tech testing... just we don't get to see the data to compare.
    Looking at those HIC values (I'm seeing 250 is most likely a concussion) makes those g-values seem slightly more realistic in a way: they're looking at several versions of worst case scenarios. The helmet should be clearly destroyed in those impacts.

    Does the 22.06 standard include impacts with lower HIC values, too, or is that the job for VT? As you implied, there's plenty of reason to care about the less deadly/still dangerous and possibly more likely kinds of hits, too.

  25. #50
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    93108
    Posts
    2,568
    I ended up with the Bell Super DH. I was never able to try on any of the Leatts refenced in this thread, they were all sold out of my size. The Bell fits great and feels considerably light for a down hill certified helmet.

    Thanks for all the insight.

Posting Permissions

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