Quote from: duncan on April 02, 2016, 01:06:24 pmYou can't blame the manufacturers. You can partly blame them - standard safety tests come about via manufacturers as well as other sources. If they devised (collectively or individually) a new test on side and rear impacts there's nothing stopping them submitting it to be a recognised standard. I spoke at some length to a manufacturer about this, when they brought out some very good looking new helmets. The excuses given were cost, the fact that getting it recognised in different countries wasn't straightforward and that the current tests are tricky to reproduce consistently already (with examples of some helmets on the market which meet the standard, but not really the spirit of the standard). I felt like the real fear was they'd create a standard which their current range didn't meet.
You can't blame the manufacturers.
Seem to be two discussions here, the OP and then one about the relevance of the current helmet standard for rock climbing as opposed to mountaineering. Split thread maybe?
the other half was using it for sunbathing and I had no spotter ... lesson well and truly learned
I'll stick to the OP, but I think there are some misconceptions regarding the latter
the risks related to sun cream on a pad are too scary to contemplate
Quote from: danm on April 05, 2016, 02:03:59 pmI'll stick to the OP, but I think there are some misconceptions regarding the latter Such as?
There has been no safety innovation since the Metor: helmets have got lighter, more colorful, and have magnetic buckles which don't work when they get grit in them. I'd pay £200 for something that was as light and comfortable as the Meteor and offered a demonstrable significant increase in side and rear blow protection. Currently, buying a skater's helmet looks the best option.
I haven't read the thread but it strikes me (...) as a no-brainer (...) that the market for bouldering is virtually untapped at present. An enterprising company could do very well by paying hard cash to a few top boulderers, say Nalle, Jimmy Webb, Pooch, Shauna to be seen wearing an innovative superlight helmet such as petzl's scirroco or similar. It'd be interesting to see the resulting change in norms.Marketing something good for health, unlike over-caffeinated sugary drink company
Not sure why Petzl can't still do two standards when Kong can do four...http://www.kong.it/en/2-products/items/c2-sport/f3-helmets/p371-scarabCould be something as silly as Petzl not wanting to be seen to be selling a cycling helmet, sticking to their core markets etc.
As I mentioned about the BD Vapour feels much more protective than the Petzl helmets IMO. It feels more like a bike lid. If I did enough climbing to justify getting one I would
When I get around to retiring old bike helmets its quite fun to see how tough they are. Not very is usually the case! Impressively failing with less than body weight on the top or side.
Being shoved into the bottom of a sack, rolling about in the back of the car, being sat one/stepped one etc are more likely to render one unsafe than using one for it's purpose.
I always used to dislike the petzl meteor expanded foam type climbing helmets as a big danger to climbers is falling rock
I'm one of those punters that you see wearing a helmet at Malham. With the potential that there is for inverting on sport routes, I find it astonishing that more people don't opt to do the same. I can only think that people are either less risk averse or helmets still have an image problem.