I was wondering the other day if full face bike helmets where stronger I.e offer greater impact protection than than “normal” bike helmet given the impact is in the same place? I.e an area that is already protected by a normal helmet.

Or is just that a full face protects more of your head?

It’ll depend on the standard of each helmet, a top end MIPS open face will be better than a cheapo full face.

Not if you hit your chin it won’t be…

There are 2 sides to head injuries as is being discovered. There are the immediate effects and then the long term multiple hit stuff. A decent FF will provide more protection from stuff you hit if it’s in the right zones. But it we really don’t know about the longer term side of it.

Those new MIPS type helmet looks like the way to go, my Bell Super 2R has that feature. Definitely worth the extra few grams.

My american football helmet had the same kind of system (and is now becoming the norm), whereby everyone has realised that making a strong helmet is only half the story. Removing impact force on the helmet before it transfers through to your skull/brain is just as important.

My american football helmet had 5 separate inflatable bladders inside so you could get the exact right specific pressure on every part of your head, as well as the ability for the whole internal assembly to move slightly like MIPS does.

On top of that the section of the helmet above the top of your forehead was made of a thinner sprung plastic, so that it could flex without moving the rest of the helmet. Clever stuff!

Chinbars are not tested in the legal tests and usually have no EPS to absorb shock – they also tend to stick out a long way from your face. think of them as brushguards and you will be closer to the truth and there is also evidence that they make broken necks more likely

Very little research or decent data on them. Personally I wouldn’t wear one because of this but your view may vary.

should have added – maybe combined with a neck brace they offer more protection

Chinbars are not tested in the legal tests and usually have no EPS to absorb shock – they also tend to stick out a long way from your face. think of them as brushguards and you will be closer to the truth and there is also evidence that they make broken necks more likely

They do absorb shock, because they aren’t 100 percent rigid, they deflect. And furthermore, a massive facial trauma could require extensive maxillofacial surgery and result in permanent deformity or blindness. I’d rather be paralysed than have my orbits and eyes stoved in. Generally a chinbar should be as close to your face as possible though, to reduce it’s chance of acting as a lever on your neck. Last years Leatt DBX got the chinbar design right from a safety point of view, but it was moved out this year to improve vision and breathability – a common occurance with DH lids.

Also, chinbars are tested.

In regards to the original posters question, Dot and F1952 helmets will both offer more shell strength and impact absorption than a regular trail lid – and to make matters more complicated – there is even a variation in impact protection among helmets with those certificates – as they just have to pass a standard – but some would perform better than others if you tested and recorded the actual amount of G’s they imparted to someones head.

Some but not all full face helmets pass the additional ASTM-F1952 certification as well as the standard helmet tests.
As has been explained above 😆

Not to mention that mtb neck injuries are rarely hyperextension injuries, but compression injuries where riders have gone over the bars and put a force down through the top of their helmets….again…DH certificate standards might help in that scenario…the only half lid that I know of that meets a DH standard is the Giro Switchblade with the chinbar removed.

Interesting thanks. I reading something about how shell ff may be too strong. Seems like it is still a bit helmet by helmet.

not if you hit your chin it won’t be…

Ahhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Tom – you need the EPS to absorb forces. without it all you do is transfer the force somewhere else – sure you may lose a bit in deflection / deformation of the plastic shell but its the EPS that makes helmets work not the shell.

The bit about the neck injuries is anecdotal – the A&E surgeon at Vale of leven had IIRC 9 cervical spinal breaks in MTBers in one year and all had been using FF helmets without neck braces – this is when he raised the question.

Cycle helmet research is poor. On FF helmets just about non existant.

Be informed and make your choices

The bit about the neck injuries is anecdotal – the A&E surgeon at Vale of leven had IIRC 9 cervical spinal breaks in MTBers in one year and all had been using FF helmets without neck braces – this is when he raised the question.

If I remember correctly, Canadian data indicated that almost all the cervical insuries were caused by a force coming down through the top of the head in MTB injuries.

The shell around the head is not suspended far enough away for shell flex to be used to absorb force, and yes, as you say EPS is better. But deflection will also absorb force.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWH13HUz4mg[/video]

I shoudl imagine the S2R is actually better at slowing an impact to the chin than it is to the head, simply because of how much that chinbar can deflect before it contacts your face.

Also mountain bikers breaking their necks whilst wearing full faces with no braces is a bit of a self selecting sample, at bike parts I see about 1 in 20/30ish wearing neck braces. The rest will be wearing full faces, and it’s likely that the types of people wearing full faces are travelling at high paces in and around bike parks than those bumbling along trails with XC lids on.

But, neck braces seem like a good idea and there’s data to indicate that they’re also useful in preventing head injuries – something to do with rotaltional acceleration.

You make a good point though, I do think chinbars could be designed better, crumpling instead of deflecting and then rebounding the head backwards would of course be better. Perhaps it would be better to put a layer of EPS on the outside of the chinbar to act as a crumple zone in an impact.

Good quality FF motorcycle helmets have EPS in the chinbar and the chinbar is with a very small distance of your chin.

Yes, they also get hotter than Motocross helmets, have a lower field od vision and thus require visors as opposed to goggles. I should imagine that road helmets fog up easier at mountainbike and motocross speeds as a result.

I’m not sure that an inch and a bit of EPS right next the face would be much better at slowing down an impact than a chinbar with fourish inches of deflection either.

I am tom – thats how crash helmets work. Deforming the EPS absorbs the energy.

A chinbar that deforms and bulges outwards would slow down the initial impact, there’s lots of ways to do the same job – some are better than others of course – but EPS right up against your face is likely not appropriate for MTB. EPS with four inches of buffer zone would be better of course, as the material doesnt rebound.

Perhaps chinbars should be designed to break before neck breaking forces are imparted on the user.

Not to mention that a lot of them like the POC Coron and IXS Xult come with EPP/D30 type stuff in the chinbars now.

Oh, and yes – DH rated helmets definately do offer more impact protection for your head.

Leatt Enduro helmet

http://www.leatt.com/product_uploads/helmet_test_reports/2017/DBX%203.0%20Enduro%20CPSC.pdf

Vs

Leatt DH helmet

http://www.leatt.com/product_uploads/helmet_test_reports/dbx/CPSC/DBX%206.0%20CPSC.pdf

Both helmets far exceed the CPSC cert though, which is why I would go with Leatt – more manufacturers need to post their raw data. It says volumes about Leatt and the few others that do.