I can buy an approved Tri helmet for £30 or £150 so what's the difference, and what's important ?
I guess the main issues are safety, adjustment, weight and ventilation.
I've got a £30 helmet from Tescos (honestly !) and it's approved and been good up until now, but am I missing something.
I know that there are 'name' helmets out there (eg Mets, Atos etc), but how much of it is fashion and how much of the price is justified by the name/style ?
If the £150 helmet is safer than the £30 one then I've got to look at this seriously.
Comments
All helmets with a kite mark will meet the required standard. If you pay more you'll get a lighter helmet with better ventilation and more protection than the basic level. They also tend to look better as they put the materials together in clever ways to give the required protection, rather than sticking a large lump of polystyrene on your head and painting in a pretty colour.
I dont think a £150 is any safer than the £30.
May be lighter or more ventilated, but thats about it.
Always go for comfort with helmets.
i suppose its the old boxers vs y fronts argument all over again
yellow y fronts?
There's a debate to be had over the relative merits of boxers and y-fronts? Are you quite mad, Smiffy?
Y-fronts, like Australians, have contributed nothing to modern society. Fact.
.....except maybe the Rotary Washing line.
And I suppose they have that in common.
The rotary washing line was invented by a pair of y-fronts?
I've never managed to find a pair of boxers that met the Snell standard for impact protection, more's the pity.
My housemate wrote off a Volvo with his head using a ~£30 helmet (Met I think) & he's back at uni now, so I reckon they must be some use!
Try on a few if you can 'cos they will be slightly different shapes & sizes & adjustments, but after that you may as well pick the one that matches your bike. Mine was £30 & is comfy enough to have been no problems for an IM. It is worth looking for one where you can take out the padding & wash it though, 'cos it gets smelly. Really cheap helmets won't have much in the way of holes - will still be OK if they are kitemarked, & might actually be quite good for riding to work to not get your head wet.
I started with a £30 helmet and I still use it in the winter for mtb'ing but feel it lacks style.
I've now gone for the £80 Giro Atmos for general cycling and the difference in comfort is unquestionable (but you do have to try them all on) and it looks a lot better?
But if you want speed a aero is about the £80 as well (depending on make) which is uncomfortable, hurts your ears and you look a bit of a Kn*b but vanity is secondary to speed.
Jj no need to worry about my pecker, I keep it well protected
I agree with Pebble, wouldn't want to disagree with the lad, have you seen his guns!!
wickett y fronts are the unsung hero of male undergarments, much maligned and the victim of many a trendy hate campaign.
But it remains true that they are far superior to boxers in every way unless you are gay or have a problem with heamorroids. or both
vote Barlos
in y fronts!
Helmets: Wear one, don't be one.
Peckers: Wear one, be one
If there were any aids that gave free time just for cash and making you look a twat I would have them already!
lol smiffy!
y fronts are funny. Funny haha, not funny strange, as the song didn't go.
boxers are the where it's at. Nice manly loose ones, or shexhy clingy ones if the butt is worthy of being showcased in such a manner. briefs are like speedos - they require a particular degree of buttly tautness and...well, a lady doesn't look at the front.
boxers are for men who need a bit of cooling round their nads to try and improve the testosterone production
y fronts are for those who need it kept in check
Boxer Shorts? I thought that was a late eighties gay fetish?
What next? Vests?