Face Protection

[trailmeisterjoe]

On 2/24/2023 at 7:29 AM, faussy said:

Check out the arai penta pro, this was specifically added for trials. Bou and cabestany rode in the pentas  for years before the rock guard addition. kuroyama is probably the highest level arai wearer yet doesnt wear this version, despite a few japanese lower level riders wearing them. Downhill mtb helmets have a much lower mouthguard since they arent specifically added for roost which require mx guards to be higher. Theres much greater fov in a downhill helmet 

Have been looking at and considering MTB helmets with mouthguards myself.

Joe

[bikerpet]

I believe FIM rules outlaw the Arai chinguard - I remember reading something in there about "no removable chinguards" - I could well be wrong, I often am, but that's what I recall.
Possibly Japan National comps run to their own somewhat modified rules, as many countries do, and this permits the removable Arai guard.
This could explain why you don't see Arai chinguards on the top level Japanese riders who also want to ride FIM events?

Personally I find the idea of an MTB DH helmet style chinguard very appealing. If you've ever put one on you'll be fully aware that the "vision" argument is a total non-starter!
My main motivation is to avoid potential dental work - it doesn't take much of an impact to snap a tooth which becomes expensive and potentially a long term problem.
I've often considered wearing an MTB helmet. I'm sure their protection is adequate for the sort of impacts I'm likely to experience. In fact I rather suspect that with MIPS they may well provide better protection in some crashes than most or even all MC helmets in the same situation. Certainly I think the bicycle standard is designed more around the speed and type of impacts we're likely to experience than the standard MC standards that are predominantly designed around high speed impacts onto hard surfaces.
The issue that stops me is that I frequently travel on public land and I really don't need to add another potential reason for Mr Plod to decide to ping me with a fine rather than have a friendly chat. Also the MTB helmet wouldn't be legal for comps and I'd prefer to ride in the same lid in practice as I'll use at an event.

I find it most amusing how some people get all of a fluster when there's even the vaguest possibility that their "individual rights" might be limited in some way. Yet as has been mentioned, when various limitations to their freedom to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering is actually imposed most people fairly quickly accept and even embrace it.
Oh if only we could all still drive 1950's era cars with no seat belts, airbags, collapsible steering columns, crush zones, soft interior impact surfaces, stability control, ABS. Oh and of course I'd like them to have the modern levels of performance without all that unnecessary, legislated reduction on my individual rights. ROFL.

[faussy]

2 hours ago, bikerpet said:

I believe FIM rules outlaw the Arai chinguard - I remember reading something in there about "no removable chinguards" - I could well be wrong, I often am, but that's what I recall.
Possibly Japan National comps run to their own somewhat modified rules, as many countries do, and this permits the removable Arai guard.
This could explain why you don't see Arai chinguards on the top level Japanese riders who also want to ride FIM events?

Personally I find the idea of an MTB DH helmet style chinguard very appealing. If you've ever put one on you'll be fully aware that the "vision" argument is a total non-starter!
My main motivation is to avoid potential dental work - it doesn't take much of an impact to snap a tooth which becomes expensive and potentially a long term problem.
I've often considered wearing an MTB helmet. I'm sure their protection is adequate for the sort of impacts I'm likely to experience. In fact I rather suspect that with MIPS they may well provide better protection in some crashes than most or even all MC helmets in the same situation. Certainly I think the bicycle standard is designed more around the speed and type of impacts we're likely to experience than the standard MC standards that are predominantly designed around high speed impacts onto hard surfaces.
The issue that stops me is that I frequently travel on public land and I really don't need to add another potential reason for Mr Plod to decide to ping me with a fine rather than have a friendly chat. Also the MTB helmet wouldn't be legal for comps and I'd prefer to ride in the same lid in practice as I'll use at an event.

I find it most amusing how some people get all of a fluster when there's even the vaguest possibility that their "individual rights" might be limited in some way. Yet as has been mentioned, when various limitations to their freedom to inflict unnecessary pain and suffering is actually imposed most people fairly quickly accept and even embrace it.
Oh if only we could all still drive 1950's era cars with no seat belts, airbags, collapsible steering columns, crush zones, soft interior impact surfaces, stability control, ABS. Oh and of course I'd like them to have the modern levels of performance without all that unnecessary, legislated reduction on my individual rights. ROFL.

Totally agree. Heres the quote i once seen before but its in the description of the helmet. Cant actually find anything official from the FIM regarding this however. The FIM dont allow removable guards in MX, not sure if theyve mentioned this regarding trials

Due to its clever design, this chin bar minimizes obstruction of the line of sight. It is made of very strong, durable polycarbonate, adding protection against impacts that may be caused for instance by the handlebars. The FIM strongly recommends additional chin protection for trial riders, and made it compulsory by 2018 for Junior riders up to 16 years. The FIM also ruled that guards from other brands or third parties like accessory brands are not allowed.

Edited February 27, 2023 by faussy

[bikerpet]

27 minutes ago, faussy said:

Totally agree. Heres the quote i once seen before but its in the description of the helmet. Cant actually find anything official from the FIM regarding this however

Due to its clever design, this chin bar minimizes obstruction of the line of sight. It is made of very strong, durable polycarbonate, adding protection against impacts that may be caused for instance by the handlebars. The FIM strongly recommends additional chin protection for trial riders, and made it compulsory by 2018 for Junior riders up to 16 years. The FIM also ruled that guards from other brands or third parties like accessory brands are not allowed.

Just read the FIM rules again - that's it, only chin guards made by the manufacturer of the helmet in question may be used.
So if the Euro ECE std. is acceptable (it is in Australia) then the Arai with chin bar is legal in trials.
Tempting, but the minimal venting and additional weight over the Airoh put me off a bit.

[F5Dave]

With my first Trials bike I used a full face helmet.  Bit of a gap riding other bikes and I've bought a 1/2 face helmet for Trials.   Its weird,  but I swear I can breathe easier in it. Maybe as your stale breathe doesn't get recirculated?   Maybe I should get more fit and become younger?  

[cascao]

MTB helmets are evoluting in almost daily bases....trial helmets are the same over the years....maybe is time to change....

[b40rt]

4 hours ago, cascao said:

MTB helmets are evoluting in almost daily bases....trial helmets are the same over the years....maybe is time to change....

Anything cycling is driven by gimmick, so constant change doesn't indicate constant improvement .....

[bikerpet]

4 hours ago, b40rt said:

Anything cycling is driven by gimmick, so constant change doesn't indicate constant improvement .....

Ah the cynicism.

Ride a good MTB from just a few years ago then hop on a current model and you'll find there's more than gimmickry involved.

Yes, almost every company selling something resorts to gimmickry, trials is no exception. But that doesn't preclude real technical development.