Expensive helmets... What's the deal?

[Turkle]

Howdy, everyone. When I was a teenager in the '90s, shopping for my first "real" bike, the guy at the store told me to just get the cheapest helmet that fit. His logic was basically that all helmets protect your head exactly the same - it would be super awful if people without a lot of money would be denied adequate protection! So, with that in mind, I've always worn pretty cheap helmets. I'm pretty sure I've never paid more than $70 for one.

After a few of years of faithful service, it's definitely time to replace my current helmet, and I have no idea where to start. I'm looking around, and there are apparently helmets selling for over $300??? What?

So my question is, what on earth is the benefit of these ultra-expensive helmets? Is it just weight, or is there some other benefit I'm missing? For those of us that aren't competition racers, can I safely ignore these boutique items, or are there real benefits I should be taking advantage of? Your experiences and feedback welcomed.

[Upcountry]

You're paying for the weight, ventilation, and aerodynamics. Materials can be finished a bit better on the more expensive helmets, but not major differences.
As a starting point, I'd look for something with MIPS or similar rotational protections. These can be had starting at $50... From there up you're just paying for styling and the details.

[makoti]

With nothing to back this up, I'd think that in a less expensive helmet you're getting safety that's a few years old. It worked then, it works now. But it will lack the improvements of the last few years.
And yes, lack the styling, ventilation, lighter weight of a more pricey one.

The idea that you won't get less protected with a cheaper product isn't going to hold up very well if you look at it closely.
You get basic safety with a basic helmet.
There was an ad for Bell, I think, that had a kid sitting there with $100 (at the time) Jordans on and a $5 helmet. Priorities.

[El Chaba]

From a materials/manufacturing standpoint, there is no substantial difference between a bicycle helmet and a styrofoam cooler that Walmart sells for about 5 USD. There is some money spent on getting the design to pass safety tests and liability insurance. I see almost no reason for the most expensive helmet in a company’s range to cost any more than the cheapest helmet at retail. They spend a fair amount in marketing to differentiate the models and justify the cost difference. They could just as easily manufacture their best helmet and sell it at essentially the same cost as their cheapest model, but the differentiation model calls for them to withhold features from the cheaper models to justify the difference.

[prototoast]

More expensive helmets tend to have better retention systems that hold the helmet more securely while also being more comfortable.

More expensive helmets tend to have better ventilation, which can make the helmet more comfortable in the heat.

More expensive helmets tend to be lighter, which can make the helmet more comfortable on long days.

More expensive helmets tend to have a better aerodynamic profile, which can make you faster.

None of these things are absolute rules, and the most important thing is that the helmet fits you well. I personally have been very happy with helmets with an MSRP in the $150-200 range, often found on sale for $75-125. I prefer these to the truly "cheap" helmets, but there are surely diminishing returns the more money you spend (which is not to say that someone with the money could not find a $300 helmet worth it).

[AngryScientist]

Originally Posted by prototoast

I personally have been very happy with helmets with an MSRP in the $150-200 range, often found on sale for $75-125.

I agree with this approach. The mid range helmets are as good as anyone needs and can be had on sale as long as you dont want/need the latest color or model, etc. They do all fit a bit different though, so you may need to try on a few before finding the right one.

[tellyho]

I'm cheap. As far as I have experienced, the pricier helmets are more comfortable. Above $70, I'm not willing to buy any more comfort.

[Mikej]

10 years for a bicycle helmet? That seems well beyond the urban legend of 3 years or whatever. Generally I keep them 4-5 years. How long are you guys wearing helmets now days?

[DRietz]

Originally Posted by Mikej

10 years for a bicycle helmet? That seems well beyond the urban legend of 3 years or whatever. Generally I keep them 4-5 years. How long are you guys wearing helmets now days?

Most helmet manufacturers recommend replacement within 5 years.

[iwishiwasriding]

Originally Posted by DRietz

Most helmet manufacturers recommend replacement within 5 years.

So then I can't justify to my wife that I should be buying a new helmet every two years because it's a requirement for safety? :'(

[charliedid]

Originally Posted by Mark McM

The bicycle helmet industry relies on making a lot of insinuations, with few direct claims. For example, they will recommend that helmets be replaced on some time scale, without actually stating that there is an expiration date. Another example is the sales pitch, "you only need a $30 helmet if you have a $30 head" - this line implies that more expensive helmets will protect your head better, when in reality the data shows that there is no clear connection between helmet cost and safety.

Or to sum it up: Marketeers have learned to play on human emotions, and since the strongest human emotion is fear, much advertising relies on fear mongering.

Well thanks Mark.

FYI I have been in and it out of the bike industry for 30 years. Nobody is fear mongering. Helmets are a tough one though when it comes
To safety. Sorry.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by charliedid

Well thanks Mark.

FYI I have been in and it out of the bike industry for 30 years. Nobody is fear mongering. Helmets are a tough one though when it comes
To safety. Sorry.

The use of fear shouldn't be dismissed so easily. Fear is one of the primary motivators of human behavior. Not only fear of death an injury, but other fears as well - fear of not being liked or being alone, fear of loss, fear of others, etc. We even have a new acronym - FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out). Politicians, marketers, religious leaders and others know about this, and have learned to use people's innate fears to influence them. Helmet makers are no different. They may work with a more concrete fear (fear of head injury), but they have learned to play that out and make exaggerations for their own benefit.

[RoosterCogset]

The applicable acronym being searched for is FUD

[carlucci1106]

Originally Posted by charliedid

Well thanks Mark.

FYI I have been in and it out of the bike industry for 30 years. Nobody is fear mongering. Helmets are a tough one though when it comes
To safety. Sorry.

Also a bicycle professional for some 25 years, no disrespect for your opinion.

You can't be faulted for trusting and supporting this notion, as it is so prevalent- and sometimes needed- to sell products.

Edit/Add: One advantage that comes from captivating the customer with science, and selling them a helmet, is you may have no idea if the helmet they have at home fits properly, is damaged, etc.- or the one they plan to go buy on Amazon/Target after leaving your store will fit or be of high quality. The means to the end are somewhat justified, whether or not flawed.

The claim that UV light degrades EPS foam, may in fact be true- albeit a very slow process. But, it's true in the same sense that hiding your cables completely from the wind drag saves watts. It's so insignificant, as to have an actual effect.


I have to agree with Mark, here. There is not a consensus, because there is no demonstrable scientific data to suggest a measurable decrease in effectiveness of the helmet when kept in good condition. Perhaps the data from the study of new helmets sheds light on one fact: some helmets can be better than others.

But they must all pass a baseline standard before approval to bring to market. Is there going to be a measurable difference between the protective quality in a crash of different helmets? As the studies point out, there are several different angles/speeds at which the (object/ground) can strike the head, like a glancing blow vs. a direct 90deg angle with the ground. This means the types of impacts, speeds, and angles will affect which helmets come out on top. So the answer to this is a complicated affair: it depends should be the answer the industry gives to how their helmet will protect you in a crash, new or old. If anything, they could say, "give yourself any advantage available to you to have a better outcome."

You do not need to fabricate or conflate scientific data to sell bike stuff. Get more people riding bikes, and you sell more helmets. This is a result of that not happening, I am certain.

I do believe the data I'm reading on MIPS and WaveCel from Bontrager and similar tech, that suggests that new technologies are improving helmets for certain types of impacts. Get a new helmet for these advancements, sure! But as others have said, fitting properly is of SO MUCH more importance. Where's the PSA on that from the industry?

There are also a lot of consumers out there who are so cheap, they may have dropped their helmet several times, left it in hot cars, and have damage to the outer shell, or missing foam- I do agree these folks need to be reminded that a helmet is not forever, even if the foam looks intact a century later.

To bring back to the OP topic, we've shown through studies that a cheap, mid-priced, and expensive model can all perform quite well in doing their primary job; protecting your head. Getting a more expensive helmet is about features like ventilation, aerodynamics, and style. You just want protection, you can buy a cheap helmet from the likes of Giro, Spesh, Lazer, Met, and others that perform better than some costing much more.

[carlucci1106]

In the Va Tech study , seems we have some results that speak to identical helmets with MIPS performing better on test (these protocols: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstr...=1&isAllowed=y

Other testing protocols could provide different results, of course.

Results: https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicyc...t-ratings.html

Edit: missed in the snip that also the Prevail moved up with MIPS.
Edit 2: fixed link to protocol whitepaper