Aldi - Helmets @ $69

[BigMuz]

Again, you have no proof at all of that being true.

[Billzilla]

Again, you have no proof at all of that being true.

That is what is called 'clinging to straws'.
To compare a top of the line F1 helmet to one you get from Aldi is not what you'd call a good argument.
The Aldi one may perform better in some crashes, but sure as shit not that one or many other typical F1 accidents.

[Blow]

You guys seem to be arguing about different things.

[Norminator]

It's not hard to understand.

Until such time as there is any evidence to say one helmet outperforms another in an accident it is ALL conjecture and they are ALL equal.

all equal? so you say. where is your evidence?

this thread is retarded.

[scooby36]

havnt read the thread, but massa's accident prompted the addition of the new carbon reinforcement strips to the top of the visors in F1:

[Rorz de Puniet]

Again, you have no proof at all of that being true.

You don't think this is proof?

If Lorenzo was wearing an Aldi helmet in that video, I'd consider buying one (although it would also have to be light weight, effectively vented, have a decent visor change system, readily availiable visors and spare parts, good padding and above all, good fit on the old scone). It seems to me that the bigger manufacturers are out there proving it every race weekend? What more can you do than get guys who regularly crash at speeds well north of 200km/h to wear your helmets every time they ride? If you have a failure, the whole world sees it. They just wouldn't do it unless they were confident they had an excellent product.

I think you'd probably struggle to get a Moto GP rider to wear an Aldi helmet regardless of sponsorship. Would you wear one on a Moto GP bike?

[Gassed250]

You don't think this is proof?

If Lorenzo was wearing an Aldi helmet in that video, I'd consider buying one (although it would also have to be light weight, effectively vented, have a decent visor change system, readily availiable visors and spare parts, good padding and above all, good fit on the old scone).

I think you'd probably struggle to get a Moto GP rider to wear an Aldi helmet regardless of sponsorship. Would you wear one on a Moto GP bike?

Aldi Helmet weighs 1.3kg which is pretty light, its very well vented, visor is easy to change and replacement visors come in a variety of colours, liner and cheek pads are made from hypo-allergenic and antimicrobial nylon, all of which are removable and washable, and you get a spare set of cheek pads and a spare anti-fog scratch resistant visor

and i find it to be a good fit and pretty comfy to wear, im not claiming its better than anything but it is better than nothing and it certainly isn't as bad as people may think

this is the helmet https://sites.google.com/site/maseih...l-face-helmets

[hrd]

hrd, that article seems to be your bible but you are ignoring it's glaring flaws. It references studies done on very small groups of riders and on the street only. They blatantly say that all the crashes are low speed and that high speed crashes are basically so rare that they are not concerned with them or that in a high speed crash, you will die from bodily injuries anyway so not a major concern. Well it is a concern for me. They also mention in the article that pretty much all crashes occur under 100MPH. What about Phillip Island? Half/most of the crashes would be in excess of 100MPH even at a club level, some would be much faster than that. Riders often hit their head hard on the bitumen at 250km/h+ and not only walk away but line up for the next race. Why don't they have suffer post-crash concussion from having their brain being shaken about in their "too hard" helmets? They also often walk away with out any bodily injuries. That is the first flaw.

shows a misunderstanding of the forces involved the forward vector of the rider's speed is not in the direction of the impact with the flat surface they're hitting - the ground. There is also an almost complete absence of roadside furniture at racetracks, not to mention a complete lack of vertical concrete gutters at the edge of the track, or stationary or even oncoming vehicles to collide with.
The second flaw in this argument is that if the rest of their body is getting away with those crashes scott-free, they're obviously not that big an impact, are they?

The next flaw is that some of the studies they reference are so far out of date it's not funny. How similar do you really think a 30 year old Arai is to a brand new Quantum? 30 years ago they were basically an icecream contrainer lined with foam and some padding. You wouldn't let crash test info from a Kingswood influence how you felt about the safety of a VE commodore, why are you doing it here? Do you not think it possible that in the last 30 years, Arai have made some considerable technological advancements that put their helmets beyond the realm of some fly by night, made in China lid that hasn't had nearly the same kind of R & D put into it?

you completely miss the point. They didn't test any 30yr old helmets. They used the most relevant studies available when discussing the nature of crashes and the impact forces to the helmets involved in those crashes. Do you think the nature of falling off a bike has changed in the past 30yrs?

The third flaw is the amount of weight put into DOT, AS and similar standards. For me, a standard which gives the seal of approval to the most basic cannonball, open face $60 helmet with the same foamyour dvd player comes packed in means very little when you're talking about top of the line sportbike and motorsport helmets.

that's nothing other than an assumption that flies in the face of the empirical testing. Look at the test results.

The forth flaw is that all of the testing done by AS, DOT or even Snell is done with machines which try to replicate different crash scenarios. This won't take into consideration things like the fit of the helmet, the way it maintains the shell's position in relation to an actual skull in an actual high speed crash or the weight of the helmet which will can put considerably more strain on the neck and back. In addition to feedback from Snell testing, top level companies like Arai, Shoei, Nolan, Xlite, Shark etc also modify their helmet designs through feedback from people like Dr Costa who is a physician at every Moto GP event so has records dating back a long time on all the injuries sustained by riders, the damage done to the helmet (the manufacturers take the damaged helmets back to the lab for analysis and supply the rider with a new one) and the type of crash that caused the injury. I think that is far more beneficial than any standard testing.

if you place more value on anecdotal evidence and non-repeatable tests in uncontrolled environments, that's fine. But if you're trying to compare a bunch of helmets, its not much use is it?

As I've said again and again, just look at a quality helmet and a cheapie side by side. Try them both on. Hell, cut them up with a grinder and examine both the materials and the construction of each.You'll quickly see it's not just a label on the side, it's everything. The materials aren't even the same. It's like saying a regular car seat belt will protect you just as well as a top of the line race harness because our brief testing of 200 accidents on the street says most accidents happen at low speed and of the 200 we surveyed, a seat belt would have protected you good.

looing at the different materials used inthe helmet's construction will tell me alot less about their energy absorbing performance than testing I reckon. Unless by quality you mean the use better looking stuff. Testing > assumptions on their performance based on looks.

The logic is just retarded. Do you honestly think companies which spend massive money on R&D into how their helmets perform in crashes would ignore conclusive results saying their helmets aren'toffering the same protection as the cheapest helmets on the market? You're kidding yourself. The reason they give no fark for that article and ones like it, is that they are doing their own testing which is far more comprehensive than a small study on road accidents. The majority of the accidents in that data is probably plonkers on cruisers falling off at low speed and not at all similar to the accidents their target market are capable of/likely to have.

I'm sure the Snell standard helmets survive the Snell standard tests very well, and perform to their design specification very well. But I think the concerns raised about their permitted G force to the headform is valid. they certainly appear to give a fark about those articles if their responses were anythng to go by.

Nobody ever hits their head extremely hard at high speed without receiving fatal bodily injuries:

nor did they suggest anything of the sort.

[hrd]

That is what is called 'clinging to straws'.
To compare a top of the line F1 helmet to one you get from Aldi is not what you'd call a good argument.
The Aldi one may perform better in some crashes, but sure as shit not that one or many other typical F1 accidents.

that's OK, I'm not likely to have a typical F1 crash. nor is anyone else here.

[Billzilla]

that's OK, I'm not likely to have a typical F1 crash. nor is anyone else here.

... missing the extremely obvious point, yet again.

[hrd]

no, making my own point. that the aldi ones may perform better in the "some crashes' we're more likely to have.

[Billzilla]

no, making my own point. that the aldi ones may perform better in the "some crashes' we're more likely to have.

Congratulations on simply repeating what I wrote.

[Rorz de Puniet]

shows a misunderstanding of the forces involved the forward vector of the rider's speed is not in the direction of the impact with the flat surface they're hitting - the ground. There is also an almost complete absence of roadside furniture at racetracks, not to mention a complete lack of vertical concrete gutters at the edge of the track, or stationary or even oncoming vehicles to collide with.
The second flaw in this argument is that if the rest of their body is getting away with those crashes scott-free, they're obviously not that big an impact, are they?

There is plenty of "furniture" to hit at race tracks. It's quite possible to hit walls at many tracks in Australia not to mention other bikes etc. I saw a guy hit a concrete wall at Winton a couple weeks back.

You think the the crashes in those videos aren't big impacts? Are you on crack? Have you ever fallen 2-3 metres and landed on your head on bitumen while traveling at 200km/h+? Give it a try one day and let me know if you still think it "obviously isn't a big impact". Snell testing involves drops from heights to replicate that kind of thing. Companies like Xlite go above and beyond this however because as you see in that video, sometimes it's not just the helmet that gets dropped from 10 feet, occasionaly a 70kg rider is pile driving the helmet into the ground from 10 feet.

you completely miss the point. They didn't test any 30yr old helmets. They used the most relevant studies available when discussing the nature of crashes and the impact forces to the helmets involved in those crashes. Do you think the nature of falling off a bike has changed in the past 30yrs?
that's nothing other than an assumption that flies in the face of the empirical testing. Look at the test results.

Mate, they are using information they collected during that study which was on a small number of road based accidents 30 years ago. The conclusions they draw are heavily based on the injuries the riders received WEARING 30 YEAR OLD HELMETS.

Has the nature of falling of a bike changed in the last 30 years? Of course it has! Modern sportbikes are faster than the GP bikes of that era, tyres alone mean club racers are capable of things that professionals could only dream of 30 years ago.

if you place more value on anecdotal evidence and non-repeatable tests in uncontrolled environments, that's fine. But if you're trying to compare a bunch of helmets, its not much use is it?


looing at the different materials used inthe helmet's construction will tell me alot less about their energy absorbing performance than testing I reckon. Unless by quality you mean the use better looking stuff. Testing > assumptions on their performance based on looks.


I'm sure the Snell standard helmets survive the Snell standard tests very well, and perform to their design specification very well. But I think the concerns raised about their permitted G force to the headform is valid. they certainly appear to give a fark about those articles if their responses were anythng to go by.


nor did they suggest anything of the sort.

Heavy crashes are uncontrolled and non-repeatable. It's the nature of the beast. I'd rather a helmet that has been designed to protect Moto GP riders (and proven it's capable of doing so) than one that is designed to pass the minimum possible standard.

The studies that the article and G-force theory are based on are way too small both in number of accidents investigated and types of accidents investigated. The results are also hardly conclusive.



You're obviously never going to agree which I don't really care about to be honest. If you want to wear an Aldi helmet, go right ahead. Just don't try to convince an entire forum that a $70 helmet offers the same protection as an Arai by sprouting your delusional dribble with no facts to back it up other than an article which references some dangerously under resourced, out of date studies which have nothing to do with the race track which is what most people in this thread plan to use their helmets for. Give it up.

[hrd]

"sprouting delusional drivel". The article I linked contains empirical testing of various helmets that actually show the softer DOT helmets transfer less G to the head in the same tests. Your counter argument is based on you-tube clips and...

"But I'm a racer," we hear you rationalizing. "I go really fast. I go so fast, in fact, that I need a very special, high-energy helmet to protect my wonderful manliness and fastness."

[Gassed250]

BTW that X-lite X-802 that Lorenzo is wearing is not Snell certified or even DOT certified for that matter, so fuck me he's lucky he survived that crash eh

actually hardly any of the top GP helmets are Snell certified, Snell certified helmets tend to be heavier im guessing due to the extra reinforcing


and for what its worth the $70 aldi helmet usually retails between $160 and $300