[duncan]

You 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.

Thanks Wil, so some intransigence from manufacturers too. UIAA need to take a lead. So which helmet(s) didn't meet the spirit of the standard, by PM/email if necessary!

[Pebblespanker]

Only once, and it was my own stupidity. Fell off a problem backwards in Glen Clova whilst heel hooking, bounced off the mat and on my way back down cracked the back of my head on an sharp angled boulder, split scalp and mild concussion was the result, if I had landed a foot further out before bouncing it would have been very different... normally I have a spotter and the spare mat over the nasty little boulder but the other half was using it for sunbathing and I had no spotter ... lesson well and truly learned

[danm]

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?

I'll stick to the OP, but I think there are some misconceptions regarding the latter 

Just like when route climbing, there may be occasions when a helmet might be worth having. The idea that boulderers don't wear helmets, period, to me seems a bit dumb and ruled by convention, concern about image etc. Some highballs, bad landings or times when you go out without a spotter might all make wearing a lid worthwhile. I do know at least one friend who almost always wears a lid when bouldering, interestingly he is both a bit of a maniac and very strong willed. He gives no fucks whatsoever that the convention is that boulderers don't wear lids. More power to him, I reckon.

[slackline]

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 original post was even more specific and was about helmets for bouldering.

This is inextricably linked to the design of the helmet so I see no reason to give an Admin an unnecessary task of splitting the thread.

[lagerstarfish]

the other half was using it for sunbathing and I had no spotter ... lesson well and truly learned

heck yeah

the risks related to sun cream on a pad are too scary to contemplate

[duncan]

I'll stick to the OP, but I think there are some misconceptions regarding the latter 

Such as? 

[slackline]

the risks related to sun cream on a pad are too scary to contemplate

Indeed if you fell in sun cream on your pad it could disrupt sperm cell function.

[danm]

I'll stick to the OP, but I think there are some misconceptions regarding the latter 

Such as? 

The assertion that the standard is 40 years out of date, and that there has been no innovation.

About the standards (UIAA & CEN): UIAA have more flexibility, but CEN standards take between 5 and 10 years to update. Despite this, the last major helmet update brought in off-centre impact testing. There have been strong arguments, like yours, to make this more rigorous, but equally strong ones not to. We could use the innovative 360^o helmet from Wild Country as a case study for this. For the first time, a manufacturer designed and marketed a helmet based on improving off-centre  impact protection to be equal to that at the crown (the standard only requires off-centre impact protection to be 1/4 that needed for crown impacts). A great idea, but it didn't sell. Climbers preferred lighter, better ventilated offerings. And there's the rub. The counter argument to better protection is that it comes at a cost, which is less people wearing such helmets.

One of the problems when writing standards is that if you are too prescriptive, you stifle innovation, but I agree that there currently are some issues. For me, the biggest one is that because the test locations are fixed, you can add a great big hole in the shell elsewhere to reduce weight and increase ventilation. That's been fed into the discussion for the next review, and I also think a good compromise for off-centre impacts would be to up the requirement from 1/4 to 1/2 the crown requirement. Bear in mind that the crown requirement is pretty high - twice the protection compared to a cycling helmet for example.

The advice given in current BMC publications can be summarised as - the best helmet is one that you'll wear because it fits and is comfy, and if you want maximum protection for rock climbing where impacts may occur from any angle, choose a helmet with good head coverage which maintains good foam thickness towards the rim.

Regarding innovation, as well as the 360^o Wild Country made a stab at a modular helmet, the Alpine Shield. Again, not that popular. Others have made helmets for multiple activities, kids and those specific for women.  Take the piss about holes for pony tails but if that increases wearability for a major user group then for me that's as important as upping the impact specs. Finally there is the hideously orange Scirocco, which addresses some of the issues around foam helmets by using a new material which is more tolerant to crushing in transit, and has some multiple impact resilience.

All that said, I'm very interested in peoples views on any perceived shortcomings on equipment standards or the advice we give - with the boatloads of experience on this forum I'd be an idiot not to listen 

[duncan]

Dan, thank you for taking the time to reply.

The 40 year comment was a bit provocative, however I maintain that the spirit of the 70s lives on: the test is far more demanding for blows to the top of the skull. It would be good if the next set of standards took into account both the most likely direction(s) of impact and different vulnerabilities associated with different directions of impact. From this perspective I’m guessing the back of the head should be the most protected for a rock-climbing helmet.

Interesting thoughts about the 360. I wasn’t in the market for a lid when it came out so wasn’t paying attention but I didn’t register it was that much better in side-impact protection. The advertising suggested to me ‘entry level’ hybrid like the elios. Was the problem with the marketing as much as the design?  The old HB dyneema had a following because it was the best thing to be wearing if you were hit on the (top) of the head by the proverbial falling microwave, so safety can sell.

I get your comments about wearability but I’m not sure I buy your argument about standards being too prescriptive or that innovation is proceeding at pace. I think you are being generous to manufacturers here. The Sirocco is interesting from a materials perspective certainly but, as far as I can see, no advance in protection. I’m hoping Petzl or someone else are going to use polyproplyene in a rather more protective lid. A nudge from the standards setters will help. Currently innovation is about making helmets more wearable and lighter, both admirable but not the only story. Had standards on side impact been more stringent the 360 would have been identifiably more protective and the punter would have a more informed choice.

I’m exercised by all this as I once worked in a head injuries unit, a very sobering experience.

[T_B]

Weirdly I didn't think to take helmets to Font this Easter for my 3 and 5 yr old. They're very agile and 'experienced' at indoor climbing, so not so prone to falling off out of control, but there's no way they're aware of the dangers of bouldering outside and spotting two of them (the youngest being somewhat prone to questing) is tricky at best. We already have kids Elios so no big deal. Centres tend to have kids in helmets, so presumably there is a market for kids helmets with better side protection/protection from falling? The BD Vapour feels the most protective that I've tried in terms of side/rear protection.

[Johnny Brown]

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.

Well as not many know, the Petzl Meteor used to be also dual-certified to the cycling standard EN1078. The latest Meteor 4 is not; I don't know why. However this always seemed a very sensible approach to me as EN12942 primarily deals with rockfall protection, EN1078 with head hits rock/tarmac. So you could try to source a Meteor 3+ (the shape is similar) or just hope that the reason the Meteor 4 is not dual-certified is bureaucratic and not performance related...

[Obi-Wan is lost...]

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-scarab

Could be something as silly as Petzl not wanting to be seen to be selling a cycling helmet, sticking to their core markets etc.

[petejh]

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

[slackline]

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

Call me cynical but if it were a boulderer sponsored by over-caffeinated sugary drink company then you'd likely end up with something similar to this...

[sidewinder]

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-scarab

Could be something as silly as Petzl not wanting to be seen to be selling a cycling helmet, sticking to their core markets etc.

I think it would likely still pass the cycling test, however I believe that have to pay to have it tested, maybe they decided the dual (or more) certification wasn't leading to a sufficient increase in sales to justify the cost of gaining the certification.

[danm]

Certifying for multiple standards is expensive, more popular for kid's helmets as the rationale there is they're more likely to do a range of things and buying a lid for each thing is prohibitively expensive when they grow out of them so quickly.

The cycling helmet standard is quite a bit weaker in many ways than the climbing one - I'd expect climbing helmets to pass the cycling one fairly easily in most cases.

[Will Hunt]

When I bought my helmet I specifically got one which seemed to offer more in the way of side impact protection (think its a third generation meteor). It's whatever I'm wearing in this badass picture


This one was certainly rated as a cycling helmet and at the time I was led to believe that this was a sure sign that it would offer good side protection.
A couple of weeks ago I picked up a partner's lid, who has the latest meteor and I was shocked at how little there was to it. Very very light and lots and lots of ventilation. I immediately considered buying one.
I've been idly following this topic and when somebody mentioned this latest incarnation didn't have the cycling rating I thought "Huh, that must be because they've stripped it back so much, I won't be buying that one then". So it would be interesting to know just how well this will perform for side impacts.

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.

[T_B]

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 

[Will Hunt]

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 

And you get the added excitement of wondering whether it's one of the ones made of fine bone china that slipped through quality control.

[Coops_13]

I always used to dislike the petzl meteor expanded foam type climbing helmets as a big danger to climbers is falling rock which I thought is what the hard shell in a lot of helmets is designed for. I've got a Grivel Salamander which is one of those hybrid helmets with a solid shell for falling rocks and expanded foam for impact. I have just though though that the expanded foam is just for the top of the head, with no impact protection from the side 

Also, a mate once left their meteor next to a radiator overnight and came in the morning to find part of it had melted into a divot, rendering the thing useless! 

[Obi-Wan is lost...]

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. One of the problems with using super-light helmets for climbing/bouldering is not when you're wearing one, but when your not wearing one. 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.

[slackline]

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.

I know little about helmet technology (I wear them when cycling and ~95% of the time when roped climbing) but isn't this what you'd expect of cycle helmets because in doing so the energy carried by the impact is absorbed by the helmet rather than being transferred to the head i.e. its the helmet rather than the skull that fractures?

[Coops_13]

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.

That's probably the main reason I'll never get one of those type of helmets (and the melting mentioned above). I'd rather something saving my life isn't broken by me accidentally treading on it...

[dave]

I always used to dislike the petzl meteor expanded foam type climbing helmets as a big danger to climbers is falling rock

Depends what you're doing. Risk of falling rock on grit, and probably the majority of established single pitch crags,  is almost zero.

[Paul B]

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.

On sport routes? I'll give you Malham (or low angle sport)  due to the nature and angle of the climbing but in general I'd say there's a lot less chance simply due to angle.

With regards to 'pony tail cutouts', DanM has a valid point. Nat used to struggle for her helmet not to tilt forward or when wearing a headband, tilting any other which way. Her new girly-specific lid has fixed this (same model).