[Closed] ohhh looks what's in the shop...(Warning Full Face content)

Or Jerome Brabant from Tribe Sport.

Darren, the new Cortex DH has MIPS. The D3 does not.

Pretty major difference we feel. Safety and rider protection is really put to the fore on the POC.

We sell both btw so not biased.

How are the pads getting on for you?

[i]Oh dear... I just wanted to share that with people on here[/i]

You've been here long enough to know better surely 😉

Anyway, at least you've got the trails to need a FF :jealous:

I have done before on the forum. However its really rather dull now as its been done ad nauseum

A quick search didn't turn up anything of use. I would email, but I'm sure there are others on the forum who are interested to know your sources.

It strikes me as odd that if there is conclusive proof that full face helmets cause more damage than they prevent that everyone, from pros down to regular dudes like me, still wears them.

Perhaps the SDA should be changing their armour rules if open face helmets are safer?

That is not what I said at all. Try re reading my post.

Its not conclusive proof - that is very hard to come by with helmets. I didn't claim it was. They are not as good as they might be and have drawbacks - you are balancing their advantages against the drawbacks.

all this is proven fact.

Its not conclusive proof

So which is it going to be?

Sorry TJ but your science is horseshit.

1: Bigger brakes are more effective than smaller brakes.
2: FF helmets protect you more than normal helmets or no helmet.

Tell you what TJ, turn up at Inners this weekend and have a chat with the Commisaires, race organisers and most importantly riders, about riding the course without a helmet at all, or possibly, if you really think its a concession worth making, an XC helmet, as why does anyone need all that plastic?

No? Ah, I see, you'd rather waffle on and on and on about how it causes 'rotational injuries' on here. Oh well 🙄

FWIW, I've learned some new stuff on here tonight about POC helmets and leg armour - bugger, feel a spend coming on... 😥

beeep beep beep *TJ reversing slightly in the post above?* 😉

interestingly I saw my mate slam face first into a pointy rock on ben lomond with a full facer on - very funny indeed - however he didnt damage his face as the chin guard stopped the face rock interface, which is a shame as it may have bashed him pretty. strangely he didnt break his neck, back or indeed give him whiplash(his missus job).

on the other side though - they do sell a lot of the leat neck braces...

Juan, are the new Urge helmets available in the UK yet??

To be honest TJ: What you are saying is a bit like telling people to stop wearing safety belts because that drummer from Def Leppard once had an arm chopped off. What you appear to be talking about, and excuse me if I have gotten the wrong end of the stick, is a rare set of circumstances that you would have to be very unlucky to be subjected to.

I have seen some serious crashes involving people wearing full-facers, including a friend of mine in Whistler who ended up being carried off the mountain in an ambulance with a suspected broken back. All he could say afterward was "thank god I was wearing a full-face helmet".

This guy was fast and his crash occured at a very high speed and the practical evidence is there to see: Some of the crashes the pro's get into are horrific but they all continue to wear full-face helmets and the consequences if they didn't do not make for nice images.

One element where you may be correct is the increased weight, and this appears to have led to the introduction of these neck braces you can now buy that limit the amount of extreme movement to prevent neck damage.

In the end I think that what you are saying is actually irresponsible, by sowing the seeds of doubt into the safety of wearing helmets which may result in some people choosing not to wear them.

In the real world I think it is safe to say that you are safer wearing a full-face helmet than without.

loco_pollo - Member

Sorry TJ but your science is horseshit.

1: Bigger brakes are more effective than smaller brakes.
2: FF helmets protect you more than normal helmets or no helmet.

Try reading what I have written - that is not what I said in either case.

kenneththecurtain

Sloppy language from me.

The effects have been demonstrated / proven experimentally. The science is limited and how it translates into the real world is not proven. More research is needed

Gavin - again - not what I have said. rotational effects are well proven hence the POC designs. http://www.mipshelmet.se/how-it-works

As I predicted

tandemJeremy
Of course - as it goes against the orthodoxy I will be shouted down as a heretic.

Guys - read up the science on helmets - you will be surprised. Its often poor quality from either side, the testing standards are very low and very flawed, adverse effects are commonly seen.

I like evidence based practice - and here the evidence is poor, counterintuative, contradictory. All you can do is read the science and make your own mind up. Have any of you read the science?

These web pages give you references to follow to the science - from all sides of the debate. Don't worry about the editorials on the sites - follow the references to the real science and make your own minds up

http://www.whycycle.co.uk/safety_and_security/cycling_helmets/
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bicycle_helmet

Desperate stuff TJ

Bit like the AA canvassing against wearing seat belts.

But at the end of the day....do you not think that new POC helmet looks buff? C'mon, admit it, you'd love to be seen in one? On your tandem?

follow the references to the real science and make your own minds up

This is the main problem I have with the issue. I am quite happy to read through the (in this case limited) evidence and come to my own conclusions. These would be just that: my own conclusions.

I would not then take those conclusions and impose them on others as 'proven fact'

I like evidence based practice

I completely agree - but only if the evidence is conclusive.

Best thread for 'lurkers' for a long time ! FWIW , i feel much safer in a full helmet.

Jesus H... TJ, why'd you do it to yourself everytime?

Well so far every helmet sold in the EU protect the same. There is no proof that some protect better than others (time for a new standard maybe).
POPO no official importers in the UK. If you give me your email I'll drop you a line about them (can't do it here as it's braking the rules but you can be tricky and find for yourself).

Can people stop with the helmet will kill you or not stuff. I wasted a whole afternoon arguing with TJ about that, shown him proper peer reviewed article to which he replied with peer reviewed article. I said mine where poo (still want to know on what basis ;)) and I said his were shite and old.

3 years ago i fractured my skull and punched a hole in my cheekbone at innerliethen wearing a giro fullface...it just wasnt tough enough for the impact...but if wearing an open face id proberly have been dead...it just scares me seeing folk with any type of open face doing narly stuff...i wouldnt wear a DH helmet again though if returning to DH...it would be a MX lid...sod the wieght,you see alot of riders wearing them, also notice the majority of pro BMXers wearing them too...

it just scares me seeing folk with any type of open face doing narly stuff

one man gnarly stuff (whatever the fick is that) is another man gravel path.

innerliethen red bull track in jump lids... 🙄

Yep, it makes sense to me, as i said in an earlier thread, if your spanking it, wear ff. It will help for the most part if you stack it face side down...i would and it's not something i've done much of at all tbh, but when kitted to the [i]max[/i] you go faster, that does'nt require any further logic really...so far, i could count one crash for sure that would have been far less painfull if i'd had body armour on for a start.

But then i will go mental around swinley and who knows, shorts, t shirt and hex might not be enough one day......you take the risk, you pay the price if said risk turns out to be sour....blah blah blah...I think, ultimately, that in the alps, knowing what i'm like, next time, for the more serious days...ff without question.

Hilldodger btw I don't need a helmet for my trails I have been happy witht out so far. It's just that you are more likely to get her going up to be honest than going down.
I am just lurking for one at the moment because I'd like to do an enduro, and they are compulsory.

I got mine from purebike.fr, 2 days delivery €10. It's nicley made, light and comfy, mint!

That green POC one matches our "corporate" colours. It's calling to me. Even though I don't need a new FF.

GavinB - Member

Desperate stuff TJ

Bit like the AA canvassing against wearing seat belts.

Not at all - I am not saying what anyone else should do - merely stating what I believe from reading the evidence - which 99% of people have not - and on seatbelts the evidence is pretty convincing - on helmets it is not. Have you read the research? I have and its pretty depressing reading how poor quality it is and how poor cycle helmets are at protecting from serious injury

But at the end of the day....do you not think that new POC helmet looks buff? C'mon, admit it, you'd love to be seen in one? On your tandem?

I would never wear a FF cycle helmet - wearing a motorcycle one if the risks are that high makes more sense.

The key points are that cycle helmets are not as effective as many folk seem to believe and they have drawbacks that do not exist in other types of helmet. I want folk to be able to make [i]informed [/i]decisions

No one who has argued against me has actually come up with any evidence to refute what I say

[b]What I also want is for people to lobby for better research into what types of helmets are effective for cycling and for the manufacturers to design better helmets-[/b] as POC have done.

Why do other sports helmets with similar risk have such differnet designs?

You are not getting the protection you think you are from cycle helmets because of flawed design and testing of them.

Having tried face plants with and without a FF helmet; when I consider the risk of a speedy dismount is high (the more extreme XC & DH) I'll be wearing a FF helmet thanks.
If I had been wearing a FF in one incident I reckon I'd not have the broken nose I do now.
Would I have given myself whiplash etc? maybe, maybe not - but I reckon I could guarantee that with a FF I wouldn't have smashed my face quite so convincingly into the ground.

Interesting case:
1) Bloke this weekend went over the bars wearing an xc lid, did a face plant in softish sandy forest.

Result - very sore face, cut nose lips and toungue. [b]and bad whiplash[/b] and broke his scaphoid (in wrist).

2) Another bloke (me) went over the bars in a gnarly rockgarden because the bottom of my forks made contact with a rock , wearing a fullface and body armour stormtrooper outfit. Hit rocks with head.

Result - head fine, rest of body fine although I did break my scaphoid too..

Bloke with xc lid is off to buy a FF, I'm buying wrist guards.

I've had tons of wipeouts wearing my ff, always been pleased with the results.

Science -
Papers that you can draw your own conclusions from:
[url= http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a713712706&db=all ]FF and neck injuries[/url]
[url=

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/INJURY/pedbimot/motorcycle/Motorcycle_HTML/appb.html ] helmet effectiveness[/url]
[url= http://joeclark.org/design/fullface.html ]joe clark[/url]
[url= http://eng.upm.edu.my/webrsrc/cervical.pdf ]cervical injuries[/url]
[url= http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WB0-4TFW5KW-D0&_user=10&_coverDate=10%2F31%2F2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2cb4b10896b57d820b446180fc191a51 ]the best one but you will have to pay for it unless you are a medline or science direct subscriber like me.[/url]

There is one study that finds a small neck injury risk from FF but its been widely discredited as the guy who wrote it couldn't do his maths and was sponsored by the US anti helmet lobby.

Every time I go over the bars my head hits the ground sideways anyway so the visor chin bar remains unscathed..

My conclusion is that FF offer better protection, any perceived risk of neck injury is more than offset by the benefit of not having your face caved in.

 

you can get the urge by clicking on my name. will send you to my lbs. from there send them an e-mail or give them a phone call they are very helpfull

Why do other sports helmets with similar risk have such differnet designs?

stevomcd - Member
That green POC one matches our "corporate" colours. It's calling to me. Even though I don't need a new FF.

🙂

Yup, it is a clean match for my new 224 too. Bugger!

I do not need a new full-face, I do not need a new full-face, I do not need a new full-face, I do not need a new full-face, I do not need a new full-face, I do not need a new full-face

No one who has argued against me has actually come up with any evidence to refute what I say

As a self-proclaimed advocate of science, you will of course agree that that is not how science works.

If you come up with a theory, it's up to you to prove it is valid. Advocates of the established theory do not have to waste time trying to prove your theory wrong, that's not how it works.

them POC pisspots look lush, can i have the bottom left one please?

I am going to rush to TJ's side on this issue (just so long as he doesn't start spouting his lefty union rubbish 😉 )

His point is important and actually the annecodotal evidence of riders in the real world is that many more DH racers are now wearing neck braces, which shows that the issue of rotational spinal injuries is real.

The answer is not to not wear FF helmets. It's to add a neck brace to augment the added protection that a FF helmet affords.

I predict in five years or so we will regard the use of neck braces as obligatory in the same way we do FF helmets now.

Kenneth - have you looked at any of the links? I am not making this stuff up.

The cycle helmets.org site has a series of bits of research about rotational impoacts and is rather interesting. Now the cyclehelmets.org site needs a pinch of salt with its own conclusions - but the research from such people as the TRL raises questions.

Rotational injury is not all about neck injury - its also about what is known as a diffuse axon injury.

Overall, it was concluded that for the majority of cases considered, the helmet can provide life saving protection during typical linear impacts and, in addition, the typical level of rotational acceleration observed using a helmeted headform would generally be no more injurious than expected for a bare human head. [b]However, in both low speed linear impacts and the most severe oblique cases, linear and rotational accelerations may increase to levels corresponding to injury severities as high as AIS 2 or 3, at which a marginal increase (up to 1 AIS interval) in injury outcome may be expected for a helmeted head.[/b]

The true response of the bare human head to oblique, glancing blows is not known and these observations could not be concluded with certainty, but may be indicative of possible trends. A greater understanding is therefore needed to allow an accurate assessment of injury tolerance in oblique impacts. Linear impact performance, head inertia and helmet fit were identified as important contributory factors to the level of induced rotational motion and injury potential. The design of helmets to include a broad range of sizes was also concluded to be detrimental to helmet safety, in terms of both reduced linear and rotational impact performance.[b] The introduction into EN1078 of an oblique impact test could ensure that helmets do not provide an excessive risk of rotational head injury. [/b]

Assessment of current bicycle helmets for the potential to cause rotational injury

V J M St Clair, B P Chinn. TRL Project Report PPR213, 2007, ISBN: 978-1-84608-846-9

Other research has clearly established a link between rotational accelerations on the head and diffuse axon injury. It is also clearly shown that cycle helmets perform worse in oblique impacts that other types of helmets.

All the various links to the research here
http://www.cyclehelmets.org/1182.html

Even teh TRL - which is a body well know for its evangelical approach towards protective kit states that in some circumstances rotational injuries can be made worse by helmets and that further research is needed as well as a recommendation that rotational impacts are tested for in cycle helmets

TJ see the post above this one.

I saw it GeeTee - my conclusion is that the design of the helmet needs to be adjusted - other styles of helmet perform better in these oblique impact situations.

I want a slippy outside shell - like the POC or the helmet with the sliding layer discussed recently, less sticky out bits, chinbar containing poly and close to the face like roadracing motorcycle helmets.

I am not arguing against wearing helmets - I am trying to show the limitations and am arguing for better helmets tested to higher standards and to include rotational impacts.

As you say anecdotally there is a lot of evidence about both diffuse axon injury and neck breaks.

Anything we can do to reduce this must be a good idea.

However on here I am seen as a heretic so am shouted down and rubbished by folk who have not looked at the data.

FFS - I got suck into this [i]again[/i]

Can I make a suggestion, that a sticky is added called the 'Helmet thread', as this comes up about every week, or at least TJ drags theads in this direction about every other week.

Juan started this thread to talk about a nice looking Urge helmet, and some others have then added a link to talk about some very nice looking POC ones.

Is it just me, or are there others getting increasingly bored with the predictable way that any thread on here talking about new safety kit (helmets, armour, Leatt braces etc) always ends up with a game of 'internet table tennis'?

btw - I'm perfectly happy for TJ and others to carry on debating this until the cows come home (and probably a long time after that), but it just seems that potentially interesting threads are getting hijacked time and again by the same old arguments.

TJ
Even teh TRL - which is a body well know for its evangelical approach towards protective kit states that in some circumstances rotational injuries can be made worse by helmets and that further research is needed as well as a recommendation that rotational impacts are tested for in cycle helmets

Hmm despite your advocacy of science your conclusions are not scientific, you have committed a bit of a logical fallacy here - just because the TRl have said we need an oblique standard does not mean that ff lids do cause neck injuries, they just recognise that the current standard does not take account of it.

That quote also makes no mention of ff vs not ff they just talk about helmets, they point they are making there is that [b]any[/b] helmeted head at a very oblique angle (ie scraping along the ground) will rotate, but only gives a marginal increase in risk.

I think TJ needs to chill out (and consider that mtb is a different sport than skiing/horse riding and motorcycling therefore helmet needs to tick different boxes) and I think we need to get bock to the original topic.
Urge helmet are nice factomnudo.

Geetee - you are absolutely right and I do apologise. I got called for stuff I have never said before I had even posted and tried to set the record straight. Foolish of me. 4 times was what I say quoted wrongly before I posted

Toys - you need to read all the research as I have done. The TRL stuff is a part of it. The larger the diameter of the helmet the greater the risk of rotational injury. "sticky out bits" also increase the risk. the form of the chinbar on most cycle helmets does both these things.

Go on - do yourself a favour. Follow the reference I have provided back to the research and read it. You will be suprised.

Some research puts this increased risk in the 50% range. Thats significant.

EDit - Juan - that may be true but in testing cycle helmets perform worse than other types of helmet - that surely means cycle helmets could be better?
I won't answer anymore.

Urge helmet are nice factomnudo.

Mmmm, think I'm preferring the look of the POC, and also like the fact that it doesn't look like a graffiti artists masterpiece which most of the TLD ones do.

TJ, having just crashed I read all your links overnight with interest. I came to a very different conclusion than you.

Juan, I think they look sexy too, if I hadn't got a cheap and lightweight 661 evolution helmet (which TJ will be glad to note, is light and not bulky so its increase in diameter is smaller) which has proven to save my bonce in a few decent crashes I think I'd go for one too.

POC, as Alpine tested by Mark. He did look buff in it.

[IMG] [/IMG]

I was initially trained as a scientist and my reading of the research is that while there is a potential, but as yet unproven, risk that the helmet could make injuries worse in a very small percentage of accident situations, but that in the majority of accident situations it's [b]proven[/b] to have a positive impact. Many of the same arguments were trotted out by groups like MAG in their anti motorcycle helmet days.

Using that research to justify an anti-helmet crusade would appear irresponsible. Using that research to justify additional work on making helmets even more beneficial in accident situations is however reasonable.