Buying Beautiful Brain Boxes

March 27, 2007 1:04 PM

I need a slim, attractive men's bicycle helmet.

So, yeah. For years I was that guy; yaknow, the one who said 'I don't need a helmet, I don't ride that hard, yadda yadda.' A few weeks ago though I was on a ride with a buddy, and to make a long story short he went from having a great day to having a pretty bad month in the space of one second. It could have been me, so, no more denial on my part.

The only problem is that my head is shaped roughly like a piece of candy corn, and every helmet I find just looks, well, ugly. I've tried the expensive brands as well as the cheap ones, and there doesn't seem to be much out there these days in terms of smaller, less overwhelmingly puffy helmets.

Any and all advice is appreciated! I don't mind ordering online or foreign models either.

Cheers

posted by Cycloptichorn to Sports, Hobbies, & Recreation (42 answers total)

Personally, I think all bike helmets are universally ugly, so if I was going to go ugly, I was going to go all out, so I ended up going with a Pro-tec Helmet... I also think they're one of the few $40 dollar helmets that allow for multiple impacts.
posted by drezdn at 1:11 PM on March 27, 2007

I'm pretty much w/drezdn on this. My ugly helmet of choice is a plain grey Bell Faction.
posted by cog_nate at 1:45 PM on March 27, 2007

You think you've got it bad? I have a giant head and have to wear the special giant helmet.

I'm sorry, but I'm another one going to say that one just has to get used to looking kind of stupid in them. I ride daily and hate wearing mine, but every time I go to put it on, I think about my spouse and how much I enjoy our time together. That's what a bike helmet is about, for me anyways.

FWIW, they kind of have to be "puffy" - the protection they provide derives not so much from a hard casing as from the energy-absorbing collapse of a thick layer of expanded polystyrene. A thin helmet wouldn't work as well.
posted by buxtonbluecat at 1:57 PM on March 27, 2007

Helmets are resoundingly terrible. The choice is just between whether you want to look like a road biking tool (with *RADICAL* graphics) or a BMX tool. BMX tool-hood was cheaper for me, so I went that route. Can't say that not have 15 million vents is missed that much. Especially for $10 per vent or some such nonsense.

But yeah, wear a helmet. And a jimmy hat.
posted by zpousman at 2:08 PM on March 27, 2007

Best answer: For the other end of the spectrum from the bulbous hockey-looking helmets, check out helmets from Limar, such as the Limar 907.
posted by exogenous at 2:08 PM on March 27, 2007

I also hate helmets, and also purchased a Pro-tec. It works.
posted by fake at 2:47 PM on March 27, 2007

I had a similar problem finding a decent helmet and I might be able to dig up some links, but I need to know (seriously) -- which way is the candy corn facing? Is the pointy end your chin? Your skull? Your nose? I'm having trouble getting a visual.
posted by The Bellman at 3:05 PM on March 27, 2007

Response by poster: Haha, sorry - pointy chin, wider cranium (for the enlarged frontal lobe, yaknow). Standing-up candy corn.

Thanks!
posted by Cycloptichorn at 3:14 PM on March 27, 2007

The "puffiness" is what makes the helmet work. They're not putting any more styrofoam in there than they need to for DOT certification (which is a pretty low bar, from what I understand).

Don't worry about the helmet making you look ugly. Everyone around you will A) think you look ugly anyhow B) think you should get off the road, regardless of what you look like, or C) be cool enough to see past the helmet.
posted by adamrice at 3:40 PM on March 27, 2007

All helmets look terrible from up close when you're off a bike. In use, they blend in. If your head is so abnormal that a helmet is horrifying, you'll probably scare small children and the elderly even without one.
posted by kcm at 3:50 PM on March 27, 2007

cycle helmets statistically make cycling which is a very very safe activity, far more dangerous :- Both in terms of your likelyhood to have an accident and how hurt you will be in any accident.

however your going to ingore the facts whatever I say, cos humans are idiots.

so i would go with lance armstrongs make of helmet.
Giro

either a Giro Pneumo if you can afford it
or a Giro Transfer if you can't
posted by complience at 4:29 PM on March 27, 2007

Two other things: big wraparound sunglasses (that may look bad with the helmet *off*) and a cycling cap underneath tend to blunt the nerdosity of a helmet. It's all about balancing the witch chin.
posted by kcm at 4:32 PM on March 27, 2007

Response by poster: Complience -

You could tell that to my mate who cracked his head on the concrete after getting his front wheel stuck in a recessed railroad track, but I doubt he'd be able to lift himself out of his fog long enough to understand what you were saying. I used to say the same sorts of things you did. But I won't ever again after watching him lift his head up and leave a couple of pints of blood behind. There's zero doubt in my mind that a $100 helmet would have saved him thousands in medical bills this year.

Thanks for the Giro advice; I tried both of those on and didn't like either one.
posted by Cycloptichorn at 4:35 PM on March 27, 2007

Complience: care to back up your "facts"?

I hardly think helmets are a panacea, but I also have a hard time believing they increase the likelihood or severity of an accident. If you're going to toss around controversial assertions like that, back them up.

Clearly, though, if you're going to recommend a helmet despite your obvious contempt for them, you should recommend a famous cyclist's helmet. Because he chose that helmet after carefully considering the options. Not, you know, because he was paid to.
posted by adamrice at 4:45 PM on March 27, 2007

adamrice: "Complience: care to back up your "facts"?

I hardly think helmets are a panacea, but I also have a hard time believing they increase the likelihood or severity of an accident. If you're going to toss around controversial assertions like that, back them up.

Clearly, though, if you're going to recommend a helmet despite your obvious contempt for them, you should recommend a famous cyclist's helmet. Because he chose that helmet after carefully considering the options. Not, you know, because he was paid to."

here you go.

But thanks for the self-righteousness. It's not like the high-end helmets are going to be better-fitting or better-ventilated, or anything justifying the price/endorsements.
posted by kcm at 4:47 PM on March 27, 2007

"cycle helmets statistically make cycling which is a very very safe activity, far more dangerous :- Both in terms of your likelyhood to have an accident and how hurt you will be in any accident."

I beg to differ-- I am an avid cyclist and helmets have twice saved my life.

I can't believe you'd post something so wildly untrue AND dangerous without backing it up. Care to offer a link where one could see some data that back up your claim?
posted by hollisimo at 4:51 PM on March 27, 2007

I have a large head, and I just go for comfort. I figure no matter how stupid I look in a helmet it is less stupid than I would look in a hospital bed. I have broken two helmets in my life, and one broke on an impact milliseconds before my collarbone shattered. I have absolutely no doubt that it made a huge difference in my continued higher brain function.

For me, what worked was trying on about every helmet I could find in a day of shopping. I ended up in a Giro, but I don't recall which model. I hate shopping and prefer to buy things online, but needed to try helmets to get the fit right.
posted by procrastination at 4:58 PM on March 27, 2007

For the OP: from a stylistic point of view, I find that helmets with more holes look better, or at least less strange. Since you can see more of a person's head underneath you get a better sense of head+helmet and not just weird hat.

For the skeptical, this page has a good break-down of what the study really discovered (that, for instance, a biker's position on the road had far more effect on passing distance than head gear) along with some other useful, related info (a NYC study found that, between 1996 and 2005, 97% of bicyclists who died in bike accidents were not wearing helmets).
posted by wemayfreeze at 5:00 PM on March 27, 2007

Last thing, I promise: higher-end helmets also tend to have S M L XL as disparate sizes rather than ill-fitting XS/S, M/L, L/XL combinations. I fine that to be a big advantage to spending the cash when it comes to fit and looks.
posted by kcm at 5:00 PM on March 27, 2007

If you dont want to spend a fortune Nashbar offers the CAT-1 helmet, which looks like a high end racing helmet but is about 1/3 the price. You're going to look mildly goofy, but you'll get over it relatively quickly. Also, pay no mind to compliance's claim or that idiotic article. Drivers are going to hit you or they're not, helmet or no helmet.
posted by fidgets at 6:09 PM on March 27, 2007

Helmets all look ridiculous the first few times you wear them. You'll get used to it.

I used this foam weatherstrip to cover a few spots where the helmet was rubbing, and the supplied pads didn't reach.
posted by jjj606 at 6:24 PM on March 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

There is nothing stopping you from riding motorcycle helmets, you know. They do the same job, and they generally have better sizing and fit. Bicycle helmets generally just have more porous designs, to allow more cooling air around the bicycle rider's head, for cooling (40% of body heat comes off the human head). But in cool weather, the better fit and improved face protection of a first line brain bucket like the Shoei Hayabusa is hard to beat. And it's legal to own more than one helmet, for different conditions, in all 50 states. :-)
posted by paulsc at 7:17 PM on March 27, 2007

jjj606, you just made my day.

Forgot this one earlier, but another helmet in the "BMX tool" category is the Giro Makai.
posted by cog_nate at 8:53 PM on March 27, 2007 [1 favorite]

I have never seen one in person, and I have no idea if it would be suitable for bike riding, but this is the coolest thing I've seen all month - the Ribcap is a fabric cap with an adaptable rubber core that hardens on impact to turn into a helmet.
posted by Caviar at 9:02 PM on March 27, 2007

I use a Bell Ghisallo.

I guess I should probably mention I'm a neurologist; brains are precious to me, my own doubly so.
posted by ikkyu2 at 10:43 PM on March 27, 2007

The Pro-Tec looks cool, I might get it or another flat casing helmet in the future.

Some asshole stole my old helmet a few weeks ago, so I got a Giro Havoc. Most other Giro helmets above basic consumer grade look good to me as well.

My head is big, so the universal size helmets don't fit me. Since your head is also big, don't buy those, buy the helmets that have sizes.

paulsc: I also have a motorcycle helmet, and it's definitely overkill for biking. For one thing, it's way too hot. For another, it screws up your hearing way more than necessary. (Not that my ipod doesn't...)

Finally, don't worry about appearances. Those who would judge you based on them, can judge all they want after you blow past them on the trail.
posted by azazello at 11:25 PM on March 27, 2007

cycle helmets statistically make cycling which is a very very safe activity, far more dangerous :- Both in terms of your likelyhood to have an accident and how hurt you will be in any accident.

however your going to ingore the facts whatever I say, cos humans are idiots.

Thanks for the laugh btw.
posted by azazello at 11:34 PM on March 27, 2007

Re the article, the justification for riding without helmets being safer mentioned the average distance was 8cm. Honestly, in a situation where 8cm would matter, I'd prefer the helmet every time.

Go for a Giro or Bell, you'll look normal. Unless you're on/near a campus; then you'll look like a grad student.
posted by devilsbrigade at 1:08 AM on March 28, 2007

If the number of people who claimed that 'a helmet saved my life' were correct in their beliefs, then the death rate of non-helmet wearing cyclists would be astonishing.

If you want to follow all the research into the effectiveness of helmets, then read cyclehelmets.org, which even if you don't agree with their conclusions has a pretty complete set of references to the corpus of published research.

Back on topic: the problem is that 'smaller' helmets (which are more acceptable to the buying public) are simply not as effective at absorbing impact forces — there isn't enough depth of polystyrene to do an effective job. This is precisely why the helmet manufacturers lobbied for (and got) a helmet standard which was less effective than the original Snell standard was, so that they could design helmets that met an 'international standard' but would be more acceptable to the buying public because they could be made thinner and lighter (and as a result less effective).

The standard demands that a helmet can reduce the acceleration on the skull to a level below that at which brain damage is expected to result for impact speeds roughly equivalent to the rider falling from standing height to the ground, or about 12mph. Note that energy goes as the square of velocity, so a helmet that will protect you from a 12mph impact will make very little difference (about 15% reduction) in the energy of a 30mph impact. (The previous, tougher standard corresponds to an impact speed of about 15mph IIRC).

IOW: any effective helmet will make you look like you've got a mushroom on your head. Wear one if you're likely to come off a lot in low speed impacts; they'll give you effective protection from bumps and scrapes. They make very little difference at traffic speeds, so wear one if you like, but don't think that it will save your life if a vehicle hits you because it almost certainly won't. Spend the money on some decent cycle training instead — you'll get a far better return on your investment in terms of being a safer rider.
posted by pharm at 5:55 AM on March 28, 2007

so a helmet that will protect you from a 12mph impact will make very little difference (about 15% reduction) in the energy of a 30mph impact.

I don't really enjoy wearing a helmet, and I don't tell others what to do, but I don't understand arguments like this. In the event of a 30mph impact, isn't a 15% reduction better than a 0% reduction? What if I crash at 25mph but don't hit my head first thing? It might only be going 20mph by the time it impacts, increasing the percentage.

Wear one if you're likely to come off a lot in low speed impacts; they'll give you effective protection from bumps and scrapes. They make very little difference at traffic speeds...

Even if I'm cruising along at 25/30mph most of the time, I am going slower at the start of my trip, at the end, and at any point in between when I have to stop for a red light or slow for any other traffic condition.

Plus, I like the fact that the slick coating might help my neck not break by sliding my head along the pavement. Again, I don't really care if it only lessens the strain on my neck 10%, as 10% > 0.

To actually help with the question, this thread over at bikeforums talks about helmets that don't look like "mushrooms" and has many recommendations and pics.
posted by mikepop at 6:47 AM on March 28, 2007

Also, and this might apply more to urban/suburban cyclists, a helmet will protect you if someone throws something out the window and hits your head (which I'll grant is a rare case).
posted by mikepop at 6:49 AM on March 28, 2007

This is now wildly off-topic for the original question, perhaps we should make a straight metafilter topic? Anyway...

I don't really enjoy wearing a helmet, and I don't tell others what to do, but I don't understand arguments like this. In the event of a 30mph impact, isn't a 15% reduction better than a 0% reduction? What if I crash at 25mph but don't hit my head first thing? It might only be going 20mph by the time it impacts, increasing the percentage.

Your brain doesn't have a linear response to impact forces in terms of damage done. If you can reduce the forces below the threshold where serious damage occurs; congratulations: you win. Otherwise, not so much...

Even if I'm cruising along at 25/30mph most of the time, I am going slower at the start of my trip, at the end, and at any point in between when I have to stop for a red light or slow for any other traffic condition.

The speed of the traffic that hits you matters just as much as the speed you are travelling at!

Plus, I like the fact that the slick coating might help my neck not break by sliding my head along the pavement. Again, I don't really care if it only lessens the strain on my neck 10%, as 10% > 0.

The skin over your skull is already designed to do this. Indeed, a recent motorcycle helmet design is explicitly modelled on the skull/skin interface.

Anyway, lets not divert any further. Metafiter topic?
posted by pharm at 7:06 AM on March 28, 2007

lso, and this might apply more to urban/suburban cyclists, a helmet will protect you if someone throws something out the window and hits your head (which I'll grant is a rare case).

My helmet is covered with scrapes, but most of them are from tree branches from riding trails...
posted by drezdn at 7:37 AM on March 28, 2007

The speed of the traffic that hits you matters just as much as the speed you are travelling at!

Of course! And often the traffic is slowing down if you are.

The skin over your skull is already designed to do this.

Good to know, but I don't mind sparing my skin this job.

I'll stop diverting now, but don't think this makes a good post for the blue either. Maybe later I'll work it up as a question for the green.
posted by mikepop at 8:04 AM on March 28, 2007

Response by poster: Okay, thanks for the help and great advice everyone!

The winner for best answer is Exogenous, whose helmet suggestion looks like exactly what I wanted.

In case someone dredges this up later... don't kid yourself. A helmet would have saved my friends' cognitive abilities.
posted by Cycloptichorn at 8:11 AM on March 28, 2007

I've had my life and the lives of my friends saved by helmets far too many times to count. They're not magic, and they won't help a clueless rider not get hit by a car, but it's a damn sight better than hoping you land on a really fluffy patch of concrete. c.f. Bicycle Deaths By Helmet Use -- Eighty-six percent of bicyclists killed in 2005 reportedly weren't wearing helmets.

Cyclehelmets.org appears to be trying to make the case that helmet usage is the independent variable in the difference between European and American casualty rates for cycling. This is absurd on its face, and ignores the vast amount of city planning literature on the subject. You might as well make the case that the legalization of marijuana or the adoption of the Euro would reduce cycling fatalities. Does the US need better alternative transportation policies? Yes. Will not wearing a helmet affect that? No. Moving on.

Helmets are goofy looking. And fit is a very personal thing. I think Giro helmets look awesome, but they rattle around on my head like a loose shoebox. So every five years or so, I go and plunk down an unseemly amount of money on a Bell. Your best bet is to go to a well-equipped local bicycle store and try on a whole grip of them. Buy for fit, not for looks -- ain't no pretty bicycle helmets, only riders.
posted by Coda at 9:36 AM on March 28, 2007

Whatever helmet you end up getting, you should cap it off with one of these.

People definitely notice you, and that's what you want.
posted by subajestad at 12:12 PM on March 28, 2007

I've had my life and the lives of my friends saved by helmets far too many times to count. They're not magic, and they won't help a clueless rider not get hit by a car, but it's a damn sight better than hoping you land on a really fluffy patch of concrete. c.f. Bicycle Deaths By Helmet Use.


Like I said before, if the number of people who say "a helmet saved my life" were actually correct, the death rate amongst non-helmet wearing cyclists would be terrifying. It isn't, so I suggest to you that most people who think that 'a helmet saved their life' are probably wrong.

nb. Just to let you know, that web page quotes the famous '85%' protection figure; anybody who uses that number is demonstrating that they are just cargo-culting statistics: The research paper from which that figure is drawn is hopelessly flawed and is an embarrassment to medical statistics frankly. (The data set used in the paper also shows that wearing a helmet makes you white and protects you against leg injuries. Bonus! Hopefully you can see the problem here...)

IOW, if someone says 'helmets reduce head injury risk by 85%' then they don't know what they're talking about and they haven't read the literature. No other paper ever published has made claims for a protective effect as high as that particular paper, yet it is the figure you see quoted most often, because people want to believe that helmets will protect them.
posted by pharm at 12:29 PM on March 28, 2007

pharm: Oh, so you mean the sharp, pointed rock I pulled out of my helmet wouldn't have gone right through my skull? It wouldn't have penetrated into my brain an inch or so? And my friend, whose full-face downhilling helmet was shattered into four pieces -- his skull obviously would have withstood the impact of hitting the ground at 30mph. Sure it turned his elbow into a mess of splinters, but skulls are different, right? And my other friend, the one who fell 100ft down a cliff? His skull definitely wouldn't have compressed down all paper-thin where it hit the boulder. I mean, yeah he had to be helicoptered out, and yeah he broke his spine, but his brain would have been OK. And my other friend, the one who didn't like helmets and took a spill coasting down a singletrack; surely a helmet wouldn't have prevented the brain hemmorage he suffered, especially since he wasn't doing more than 10mph. FFS.

Now, it's funny that you should mention fatality rates among cyclists without helmets -- the single piece of information I quoted from the IIHS page was that, of the cyclists who died in 2006, 86% of them weren't wearing helmets. I'll agree that this isn't causal, and that the confounding variables are many, but if helmets are really just styrofoam hats for assholes -- why so many dead people without them?

Frankly, I think the fatality rate for non-helmeted cyclists is terrifying, which is why I wear protective gear. I'd suggest you do the same. Combined with safety training, defensive cycling techniques, and a healthy respect for the consequences of inattention, helmets go a fair ways in mitigating the risks of cycling.
posted by Coda at 6:43 PM on March 28, 2007

Coda: in answer to your hypothetical questions: nobody knows. To re-use a famous quote, anecdotal evidence isn't.

http://cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1174">This page contians a critique of the FARS data. You can make your own mind up.

As an aside, note that a helmet which 'cracks' has failed. Helmets absorb impact by crushing; if they crack instead of crush then they haven't worked at all. A helmet can crush at the impact site and crack elsewhere, so you'd have to look at a particular helmet post-impact to find out whether it had failed or not.
posted by pharm at 1:00 AM on March 29, 2007

Coda: in answer to your hypothetical questions: nobody knows. To re-use a famous quote: Anecdotal evidence isn't.

http://cyclehelmets.org/mf.html?1174">This page contians a critique of the FARS data. You can make your own mind up.

As a side issue to all this, note that a helmet which 'cracks' has failed. Helmets absorb impact by crushing; if they crack instead of crush then they haven't worked at all. A helmet can crush at the impact site and crack elsewhere, so you'd have to look at a particular helmet post-impact to find out whether it had failed or not.
posted by pharm at 1:01 AM on March 29, 2007

Bother: lets try again with that FARS data critique.

nb. Just to be clear, I think helmets are a pretty good idea in some situations. Downhill is one of them!

But I wear them to protect against bumps, scrapes and nasty scalp wounds when doing that kind of cycling. I believe that their ability to protect against life-threatening impacts is vastly overrated. They may even be a net negative overall, but the jury is out on that one.
posted by pharm at 1:11 AM on March 29, 2007