#1 2010-05-26 13:00:23

chavela
Member
Registered: 2008-06-03
Posts: 55

Non-aerodynamic helmets better?

I need a new helmet, and I noticed a remark recently about how the aerodynamic ones with the built-out back will twist your neck as your head falls on that back part.  I can see how that would easily happen, and it wouldn't be desirable.


So what about the army-helmet looking ones that have a smooth, single shell?  I wonder how well they protect, and are they hotter than Hades, since they generally have no vents? 

What have people tried and liked?

Thanks,

Elizabeth

Offline

#2 2010-05-26 17:41:19

rich00
Member
Registered: 2010-01-18
Posts: 166

Re: Non-aerodynamic helmets better?

When I crashed with my 'road racing' helmet on (in a race), and hit the back of my head on the group, I had no problems. The helmet worked great, I didn't get hurt but the helmet cracked. There are cheap bmx style helmets that are more round, heavy and hotter.

Offline

#3 2010-05-27 11:43:03

CharlesDuffy
Member
Registered: 2009-07-03
Posts: 56

Re: Non-aerodynamic helmets better?

My wife uses a BMX-style helmet from Nutcase and has no complaints. (It didn't hurt that they had one with a color scheme that matches her bike). That said, she mostly tries to avoid riding mid-day in the summers regardless, so that lack of feedback may not reflect that the helmet has no problems with venting.

My big concern with that style of helmet? It's less obvious how to mount accessories. I ride with a helmet-mounted mirror, headlight, and have a video camera on my wishlist; it's not clear how I'd mount all that on the BMX-style helmets.

(Actually -- the mirror and to a lesser extent the headlight are the whole reason I wear a helmet at all; I'm not at all convinced by the accident statistics, which tend to suggest that while helmets *do* make head injuries less severe if they happen, they also make head injuries more common -- in part on account of drivers being more cavalier near a cyclist who appears experienced and well-equipped, in part by cyclists behaving less cautiously when geared up, and in largest part by decreasing the number of other cyclists on the road by spreading a false impression that cycling is inherently dangerous; the studies I've read suggest that every time the number of cyclists doubles the accident rate for each individual goes down by about 30%, and that mandatory helmet laws cause the number of cyclists to drop immediately by about 50%. Note how in many European communities where utility cycling is the norm, wearing helmets for getting about town is unheard of).

Offline

#4 2010-05-29 17:01:59

chavela
Member
Registered: 2008-06-03
Posts: 55

Re: Non-aerodynamic helmets better?

I also use a helmet-mounted mirror, and I hate riding without it.  Many times I've been tempted to leave my helmet behind, but I just don't want to  ride without the mirror.  And I agree about Europe, too.  My one data point was spending several days in Lyon, France, where they have the Bike2Go program (or similar).  I don't recall seeing any commuters with helmets--but I did see racers out on the roads that had them.

Offline

#5 2010-05-30 11:26:38

trentsky
Member
Registered: 2009-12-18
Posts: 7

Re: Non-aerodynamic helmets better?

Getting a little OT here, but I had a wreck this week commuting in to work and slammed my (aerodynamic) helmeted head on the concrete hard enough to briefly lose consciousness. If I hadn't been wearing the helmet, which I've often considered, I don't believe for a minute that I would have ridden away with nothing more than the broken thumb I ended up with.

Just sayin...

Offline

Registered users online in this topic: 0, guests: 1
[Bot] claudebot

Board footer

[ Generated in 0.013 seconds, 7 queries executed - Memory usage: 535 KiB (Peak: 535.63 KiB) ]