Full Face Hemets For Trials. Or Are We Too English For Them?

[iconic558]

Met a USAF forces guy, Sean from Ohio, this week whom works at the local airbase. I meet a few US forces guys through my job, always really friendly and interesting, great customers & a pleasure to deal with. I used to visit the US in my old job and owning lots of yank cars seems to break the ice quickly for both of us.

 

Sean has a Montesa 4RT & a Honda TLR twinshock, been riding over 20 years and competes as an A Class rider, so I'm guessing he's a far better rider than me & better qualified to comment on trials

 

He was all over my SWM TL320 (and gixsers) like a rash and we spoke twinshock trials and old bikes for a while over a cup of tea. He rode the SWM but never with the engine running, just jumped on her and did a track stand for about 5 mins while we spoke...which was a bit embarrasing for me, as its all I can do to do a track stand for 30 seconds.....without distraction of chatting

 

Back indoors Sean spotted my trials helmet, a run of the mill open face trials Wulfsport helmet and also my full face enduro helmet. He asked if I ever wear the open face helmet, assuming I used both for trials?

 

I was sort of confused a tad before Sean explained there are more than few guys in his club using full face helmets, as he put it..... "everyone has a buddy that's spent too much money on dental".

 

Sean uses a SixSixOne full face downhill helmet and now wouldn't consider riding without a full face helmet and no longer owns an open face.

 

I've only ever seen one guy around these parts (East Anglia) wearing a full face helmet and thinking about it, I believe its a down hill helmet due the design, lots of ventilation, low chinguard, big vision area.

 

Sean mentioned there are top US boys that are now full face wearer's and after a bit of googling, its not hard to find pics of US guys riding with full face helmets. I said I'm not good enough to be doing hard sections, I'm in actual fact a crap rider...his reply "an even bigger reason to wear a full face" which makes a bit of sense.

 

I asked if full face restrict vision and he grinned, said to try one, practice for a couple of hours, get over the initial "I won't be able to see anything" hurdle and then go back to the open face & then decide. He also tells me his riding on the hard jumps had improved as full face had improved his confidence.....you need to remember he is an A class rider so his idea of a jump is waaaaaaaay bigger than mine.

 

He genuinely seemed puzzled as to my comments, that seeing someone ride a trials bike with a full face is incredibly rare in my parts...obviously I told Sean we are a tough bunch over here, drink our beer warm & not a bunch of namby pambies (which took a little translating ) and twinshock riders are even harder.....but then I thought back to my riding partner going over the top of his TY-175 and looking like his lip and chin had done a round with Tyson Fury and thought uumm that could of been a lot much worse.

 

I think I may give it a go out in my woods this week and see how I get on.

 

PS: Sean, if ya reading this, hope the CRV is going well

 

 

Edited October 16, 2016 by iconic558

[turbohead]

Interesting thoughts. Returning to trials from decades of enduro riding with lots of (small and medium) injuries over the years, I must admit I'm feeling a bit naked without a proper full face helmet and full body protection. But do I really need all that doing 2 mph on a 35 year old twinshock bike? Can't make up my mind and getting more and more used to the slow stuff nowadays....

[stpauls]

You can wear a pink dress or have an air bag on your bike if you want to, as long as you don't try to make me do so as well.

Edited October 16, 2016 by stpauls

[iconic558]

I'm guessing this must be the helmet Sean has as it fits the colour scheme he described?

 

Weight appears to be decent at 910 grams, decent ventilation too.

 

Incredibly, to me anyhow, there is/are no requirements for any test certificate or a type approval for trials riding helmet, the standing regs only state:

 

"Trials competitors may use any appropriate helmet."

 

When I do a bike trackday my helmet gets more attention...and dont say oooer.

 

 

[iconic558]

You can wear a pink dress or have an air bag on your bike if you want to, as long as you don't try to make me do so as well.

 

erm OK

 

[gasserguy]

Most of the trials i ride are road based, Does this helmet have BSI or EU22.05 aprroval for road use?  If not it's no good....

[iconic558]

Most of the trials i ride are road based, Does this helmet have BSI or EU22.05 aprroval for road use?  If not it's no good....

 

Don't know. Checked my NZI & it has no approval. Checked my Wulfsport and its ECE R22.05 so road legal, I'd never wear it again when riding on the road though, tried that on my TTR-250 and it wasn't too comfy, I felt very vulnerable too.

 

Maybe it's an age thing, having had too many injuries to remember in the past & with war wounds catching up, makes me a....

 

 

[dadof2]

When I started motorcycle riding full face helmets were far from universally worn, my first road bike helmet was open face with full length visor. Many MXers were still wearing open face and there were no bar pads so as someone posted earlier plenty of work for the dentist. On trials without road work you could still ride without a helmet and many did on hot days. I can't remember the make but my first trials helmet was one of those that only protected the upper parts of the head, same as worn by Martin Lampkin etc. I am completely comfortable in a full face helmet on a road bike or one with a chin piece on MX, but when it comes to slow work on a trials bike or enduro I find the chin piece distracting and claustrophobic.

In theory a chin piece should increase safety but that does not always follow. In MX the top edge of a chin piece (if goggles are removed due to loss of vision) can defect pebbles and dirt that would have struct the lower face, up into the eyes. In trials where no eye protection is worn the same goes for a handlebar end or lever, the chin piece could deflect it up into the eye area.

I remember a work colleague many years ago removing the circlip that held in a fork seal. He had the slider in a vice and was pulling upwards hard with both hands on the circlip pliers. The pliers slipped and he broke several front teeth with the plier handles. I have never seen such serious mouth injuries at a trial.

[lineaway]

All full face helmets that meet USA requirements are way to heavy.

Any AMA- or FIM-approved helmet is required to be worn whenever operating a motorcycle at a Trials site.

 Bicycle helmets do not work, They will explode if a bike lands on one hard.

[billyt]

This is an interesting post. I live in Arizona and my friend and I have been thinking about full face helmets.  

 

We took it upon ourselves to get educated by reading and speaking to people in the helmet business.

 

There is a lot a bunk and miss information out there in the trials world around this subject.

 

The only difference between a USA DOT certified full face helmet and the downhill certified helmet is the venting specs.  

 

The usage of  a full face helmet in the US nationals is  a controversial one. While it is true that a full face helmet made for motocross and carries a DOT sticker on it is way to heavy for trials.  

 

That is why some of the US national riders are using downhill bicycle certified full face helmets.  No they do NOT explode on impact.  

 

Trials riders see slower impacts speeds that motocross riders and therefore need a helmet that is geared towards that slower type of impact. 

 

Just because a helmet is full faced does NOT mean it is  a "Downhill Certified Helmet".  There are many full face bicycle helmets  around that would NOT be allowed in a sanctioned downhill bicycle race.

 

Some trials clubs are experimenting with the usage of full faced bicycle helmet ONLY if it has the Downhill Bicycle Certification on it.  

 

My Airoh open faced Trials helmet is NOT DOT approved and it is sold for trials, go figure..........

 

Ask for the claustrophobia concern of a  full face helmet.  

 

A full face motorcycle helmet designed for motocross is not the same shape as full faced helmet designed for down hill bicycle racers.

 

A motocrosser generally has lots of shoulder padding on and therefore the pads can push the helmet up at the back which will push down at the front especially coming off large landings.  

 

A downhill bicycle racer does not usually wear lots of shoulder padding so less chance of the helmet getting struck at the back and being forced down at the front.  

 

That is why a good designed down hill helmet is already sloped down at the front as there is little chance of it getting knocked down further by shoulder pads etc.  This means better visibility out of a Downhill racing full faced helmet than a motocross full faced helmet.

 

Look at the picture of the full faced SSO helmet you posted above, see how it slopes down at the front???  

  

 

If your friend Sean is wearing  a Six Six One then that is also a downhill bicycle helmet as Six Six One is  company that makes protection gear for the radical bicycle  guys. 

 

I have purchased a Leatt Carbon Kevlar full faced downhill sanctioned helmet.  It is lighter that my Airoh trials helmet.    

 

Check the facts on what I am saying I know we have................

 

The Leatt DBX Carbon helmet is the latest, lightest innovation that has been added to the Leatt bicycle helmet range. It is extremely lightweight and features innovative 360 ̊ Turbine Technology integrated with Armourgel® cushioning material.

 

Ten turbines made of 3D molded Armourgel® are set inside the helmet. Flexible in their natural state, these turbines stiffen upon impact and deform to absorb both vertical and rotational impact forces. This means that the faster or harder you fall, the better it works. This technology reduces up to 30% of head impact at concussion level as well as up to 40% of rotational acceleration to the head and brain.

 

The Carbon helmet also has a smaller shell, which means that up to 20% less rotational forces are transmitted to your neck, head and brain. Engineered with comfort in mind, the 6.0 is extremely ventilated, has low friction cheek pads, is neck brace compatible and has a Fidlock® magnetic buckle that offers easy custom fitting. Another key feature is the breakaway visor that provides you with world-class protection.

 

Edited October 17, 2016 by billyt

[billyt]

Some Down Hill Sanctioned Full Faced Helmets.  Notice how they slope down at the front........

[billyt]

Moto VS DH - Which Helmet is Safer for Cycling?

Among many gravity riders, there is a common assumption that Motocross helmets are safer than full-face bicycle helmets. On the surface, that seems like a sensible notion: Motocross helmets are larger and heavier than mountain bike lids, and having more material between your head and the ground in a crash is a good thing, right?

Downhill helmets and Motocross helmets may look similar, but there is a key difference between them.

Unfortunately, it may not be that simple. There is an ongoing debate in the motorcycle industry about how stiff a helmet should be to offer maximum protection. A number of critics have suggested that many motorcycle helmets, particularly those made to meet the demanding SNELL certification standard, are engineered to be so rigid that they actually offer less protection in the most common types of crashes. What does this mean to you as a mountain biker? If you choose to wear a Motocross helmet instead of a bicycle helmet when you ride downhill, it could mean a lot.

Which Test is Best?

To understand why the motorcycle helmet debate matters to bicycle riders, you have to understand the testing demands that these helmets are engineered to meet. Common testing procedures for motorcycle helmets seek to simulate the crashes that a rider could encounter on the road. The tests at helmet labs routinely drop helmets onto differently shaped objects from considerable heights. These intense impacts make sense considering the energy levels involved when a motorcyclist's head strikes the ground (or another vehicle) at highway speeds.  

The testing used by the SNELL Memorial Foundation, a non-profit group that has certified motorcycle helmets for decades, involves even greater stresses than the standard Department of Transportation (DOT) testing that a helmet must pass to be sold in the U.S. The latest SNELL certification standard (M2010) requires that a helmet transmit less than 275 g-forces to the headform inside of the helmet in any part of the testing - a process that involves some very severe impacts.

Helmet testing at Moelfre Hall. Aaron Hilton violates the keep-the-rubber-side-down rule - hugely so. Turnip Towers photo

According to critics, trouble arises from the substantial stiffness that motorcycle helmets must employ to manage these very severe impacts in the SNELL testing. In a sense, the energy absorbing EPS foam inside a helmet works the same way as the suspension on a mountain bike. Just as the suspension on your bike absorbs the energy and slows the impacts from bumps and drops, a helmet is made to absorb the energy that your head encounters in a crash. 

In most crashes, the helmet's primary job is to slow your head down so it doesn't take the full force of the impact. It's the EPS foam inside of the helmet, rather than the helmet's outer shell, that handles most of this task. The foam is designed to compress upon impact, slowing your head as it does so. But if the foam fails to slow your head sufficiently, your brain will smack into the inside of your skull, causing a concussion. And if the helmet really fails at this task, the consequences are usually grim. The problem with a very stiff helmet liner - one engineered to withstand the brutal impacts a motorcyclist on the street could encounter - is the same problem you'd find with a downhill bike that's been set up specifically to withstand ten-foot drops to flat. The helmet with its super-stiff liner won't be compliant enough to cushion smaller impacts, just as the downhill bike with super-stiff suspension won't effectively cushion small and medium-sized hits.

Kali's Prana Downhill helmet passes the US DOT and the European ECE 22.05 helmet standards, but does not pass the SNELL standards. Recent information indicates that this may be a good thing. Ian Hylands photo

When it comes to brain trauma, small and medium-sized hits matter. Neurologists have learned many new things about the effects of concussions in recent years, and the news usually isn't good for those who've suffered them. Repeated blows to the head have been correlated with chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), a brain condition linked to the deaths of some retired NFL players. All of this has led researchers to suspect that concussions may be much more dangerous than previously imagined. 

Critics also point to the fact that it doesn't take multiple concussions to change a person's life. Even a single concussion can cause problems with cognition and memory that can last indefinitely. James Newman, a former director of the SNELL Foundation, has estimated that impacts of 200 g's or more - 75 g's less than the figures required for Snell M2010 certification - typically correspond to severe brain injuries or worse. 

Alex Mancini Supermans into a rock garden at Contermanskloof, South Africa - probably happy that his helmet is certified to withstand a sharp impacts. Steven Morrow photo

Experts square off

So are the motorcycle helmets being made to SNELL standards too stiff? According to a 2005 article by Motorcyclist magazine, DOT helmets outperformed their SNELL counterparts in independent tests that were designed to simulate slow- to medium-speed crashes. This wasn't especially surprising, though, since DOT helmets aren't typically engineered to be stout enough to meet SNELL standards, which means they theoretically should be more compliant in small crashes. 

What was surprising was that the DOT helmets also transmitted fewer g's than the SNELL-certified helmets in the highest-energy impacts as well, raising the question of whether SNELL testing had truly become too rigorous for its own good. Ironically, the best performer in the 32-helmet Motorcyclist test was a $79.95 DOT-certified helmet, which transmitted as much as 67 g's less in violent impacts than a $400 SNELL lid. 

After publication of the article, SNELL issued a rebuttal that questioned Motorcyclist's testing methods (although since then, SNELL has moved toward requiring more compliant liners in its testing -- one of the chief points of the Motorcyclist article). But the rebuttal didn't stop the controversy from growing. The debate reached a boiling point in 2009 when Dexter Ford, the author of the 2005 Motorcyclist article, wrote a story on the issue for the New York Times. Shortly after that article ran, Motorcyclist fired Ford, a veteran of three decades with the magazine, allegedly due to boycott threats from helmet manufacturers. The 2005 story no longer appears on the Motorcyclist website.

Kali Protectives Founder Brad Waldron at work with one of his full-face DH helmets. Ian Hylands photo

Talking Helmets With Kali's Brad Waldron
Brad Waldron, a long-time helmet designer and a product-testing fanatic, agrees that a more compliant shell offers more protection for lower-speed impacts typically seen in DH and Park riding. We asked Brad to comment on the differences between Moto and Downhill helmets, and the possible benefits of less-rigid shell construction. -RC

Yes, on average DH helmets are more flexible. One of the biggest reasons for this is that the DOT test for MX helmets requires a penetration test that forces the use of a stiffer shell. The test basically drives a pointed anvil directly through the shell.

SNELL believes that having a more rigid shell saves lives at the highest end of the crash spectrum, while sacrificing concussions on the lower end. I just had this discussion at the Indy motorcycle show with SNELL. I think there are arguments to this as well, but arguing the benefits of SNELL is not where I am looking to go in this discussion.

Rigid shells are worse at low-speed impacts. I believe that you want the shell to deform as soon as reasonably possible. Remember, a body in motion stays in motion until acted upon by a force. If your head hits a hard shell, your brain will continue in motion until it hits the other side of your skull. If on the other hand, the shell starts to break down and the foam is soft enough, then the dissipation of energy is starting quicker and your brain moves slower. Slowing down your brain moving inside your head is a good thing.

Our technology is to in-mold the foam with full-shell helmets, we found that when we in-molded, but did not change the stiffness of the shell, that we saw little benefits. When we made the shell much less stiff, we lowered g-forces 20-percent and more. So I am a big fan of less-stiff shells. There are limits though. You have to balance and tune the shell's stiffness to make sure it is not too soft. This kind of testing takes much time and energy. Not everyone is willing to put in an effort of such magnitude. 

Making the choice

All of these facts raise a number of concerns for mountain bikers who choose motocross lids. If it's true that some top-of-the-line motorcycle helmets may be too stiff for even highway motorcycle use, what does that mean to riders who use them for downhill, where the speeds are typically much slower? Are downhill riders better off choosing helmets that were engineered for the crashes they'll likely face on a downhill course, rather than those engineered for 75-mph trips into car barriers?

While that choice remains up to you as a rider, it's clear that there are some good reasons to think twice before opting for a motocross helmet over one engineered for bicycles. This is particularly true since ASTM F1952 - a downhill-specific helmet safety certification - now appears on many bicycle helmets, giving gravity riders a discipline-specific standard of their own. Regardless of where the controversy over helmets ends, choosing the right helmet for your type of riding deserves your attention - at least to the extent you value your head.

 

[jj65]

If you want full face protection for trials, Arai do one. I think it's only available in Japan at the moment, but most riders who buy the arai trials helmet, take it off.

[beta_blocker]

When you read the article that billyt posted and look at what the helmet manufactures are now developing and advertising, this focusing on lower impact g force brain survival is the way their helmet development is going.

The manufacturers are realizing that putting a cannonball in a helmet and dropping it 6 or 8 feet may not shatter the helmet but what are the real world damage results to that head (and brain) that would normally be inside there?

There are several manufactures that are now advertising helmets with new shock absorbing features (like in the article) rotational impact compensation and more compliant foams that deform at lower impacts to reduce the concusive impact to the brain.

I started talking with Billy earlier this year about this subject of full face helmets when I began becoming more concerned about what might become of my expensive reparative dental work if I would crash and mash my face against a rock or log and also talking with other riders that had suffered through facial reconstructive surgery from their crashes.

I've caught myself in a few crashes over time that ended with my face very close to impact with some hard object and while I use a full coverage Moto helmet when I ride my enduro bike I have resisted in trials as I didn't like having my view blocked right in front of my wheel and tried my Moto helmet for trials and found I didn't like the whole feel of this.

This is when Billy and I started looking in to bike helmets as they have larger face port openings and a lot of cooling vents. They are also generally lighter and a smaller overall shell. Many of them are even carbon fiber. But we were also interested in quality and protection.

When you start looking, as Billy said at the downhill certified bike helmets you see a world of difference between the foam and plastic head buckets typically sold in bike shops and the well designed and engineered competition certified capable full coverage helmets offered. They even have real "D" ring closures for the chin straps instead of plastic clip closures and I found out yesterday that Billy's Leatte helmet even has titanium "D" rings!

I purchased a Bell Transfer 9 helmet which I felt was a reasonably priced downhill helmet for my testing and from the first time riding with it have never looked back. The larger lower opening allows full vision forward and the added cooling vents make the helmet feel cooler when wearing.

The only drawback Ive found is if you want to take a drink from a bottle you have to remove the helmet or use a straw or something like a camelback hydration system with a hose which we already use most times riding here in AZ.

If you are required to have a road certified helmet to compete with your club this may not be an option at this time but I think clubs and sanctioning organizations should be looking into this option.

I think in trials with our generally lower impact speeds and more and more challenging sections (especially for expert and pro riders) riders should look into these high quality certified full face helmet options.

[2stroke4stroke]

I'd hate to see this develop in to the thin end of a wedge that saw full face helmets becoming compulsory.

Protection from injury by use of a helmet is a complex subject that used to get an airing in the days when the motorcycle press carried intelligent articles rather than encouraging people to get the knee down on the public highway. I recall Scandinavian research using a helmet (deliberately open face) with a shell having a low coefficient of friction in order to reduce rotation of the helmet.

This would be my concern if using a full face in trials (but the choice is down to the individual) and was the reason why the ACU used to forbid the wearing of full face helmets by children in motocross. My assessment is that the chance of hitting my face is less than that of catching the chin bar on something and wrenching my neck. I might reassess my needs if I was riding World sections.

Being a mountain bike rider as well, I have seen these full face helmets worn and the thing that struck me was that not only did the extension of the chin bar lower down increase the likelihood of leverage but it left a gap plenty big enough not to offer protection if landing face first on the typical trials rock.

Last time I looked the ACU required a trials helmet to comply with the same standards as for road use.

Edited October 17, 2016 by 2stroke4stroke