Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Spiritual_Jaguar4685 t1_j9ofou1 wrote

Dumb reason # 1- bike helmets don't keep your head and ears warm. Ski helmets should not be worn with a hat, so they have built in "hat" materials to keep your head warm. Biking helmets are usually designed with the opposite intent, to provide airflow and keep your head cool.

More Sciencey Reason - If you look at how a person falls and their head hits things on a bike vs. sking you'll see different patterns. Bonking your noggin' doesn't equal bonking your noggin in all cases. Specifically, snow sports usually involve sideways hits and biking involves front on hits. So the whole design is slightly different.

458

Mental_Cut8290 t1_j9og3vi wrote

I hadn't considered the heat, but was going to say the second part.

Different helmets for different falls.

BMX / skateboard helmets are also very different from road-bike helmets.

124

didhestealtheraisins t1_j9okwdj wrote

And then mountain biking also has different helmets.

30

buildyourown t1_j9or3l4 wrote

That really is a style thing. I'm guilty of it. Road is aero. Dirt gets a visor. The visor does almost nothing but you look pretty silly without one.

25

BRXF1 t1_j9p1l2v wrote

The visor deals with branches before they smack you in the mask/eyes.

37

thespiderghosts t1_j9ozbwh wrote

Most mountain bike helmets have greater rear coverage. Also variants with removable full-face components, etc.

15

LikesTheTunaHere t1_j9stwam wrote

Removable fullface unless its changed in the past few years is a gimmick and should be avoided unless your doing it for looks or JUST tree branch strikes.

1

silas0069 t1_j9r6l28 wrote

I've retrieved a small live fly from inside my eye socket after a scooter drive. Get a visor or glasses.

3

LikesTheTunaHere t1_j9stuf7 wrote

Not just a style thing.

The visor for dirt does a FUCKTON if you are doing downhill, you can cover it with dirt or with tree branch hits.

Also, downhill helmets are full faced and extra beefy for a reason since going ass over tea kettle or into a tree\rock at 20mph on the slow side is a bit painful.

1

coinpile t1_j9qvhof wrote

And climbing also has different helmets.

4

krovek42 t1_j9p541k wrote

Plus ski helmets with airflow vents usually have a way to close them with a little sliding switch, so you can get more airflow on a warm day but cut it off on a colder day.

15

Vakulum t1_j9omhyn wrote

Second that. Always get the urge to roll my eyes a little when parents buy kids skateboard helmets for use on a bike because they "look cooler".

It's 100% better than no helmet but it is not designed for optional protection in most bike accident patterns

13

brownlawn t1_j9ovt7f wrote

With kids it’s almost always about look. Helmet with a Mohawk is better than fighting the kids for an hour to wear an aero roadbike helmet. Both protect their heads.

21

Santasbodyguar t1_j9qrjgz wrote

The Mohawk might provide a lot of cushion actually ( if they land upside down that is )

3

eeeeemil t1_j9t6xc3 wrote

Certification requirments are the same. Looks and ventilation is only difference.

0

pneurotic t1_j9qunuc wrote

BMX racing and downhill MTB helmets are full face and DOT/SNELL approved

1

Renaissance_Slacker t1_j9q22kj wrote

Fluffy snow vs. asphalt/trail

−1

Boagster t1_j9qi2pm wrote

If you think your only concern when skiing (or snowboarding) is fluffy snow, you either never skied or only skied high-end western US, European alpine, or some sort of 'exotic' mountain, all during prime conditions. Ice is a mainstay of pretty much any high-traffic mountain that isn't wide-open (such as all mountains in the eastern US, where you are almost exclusively regulated to established trails). Trees, rocks, and ski lift structures are also significant concerns on many mountains, as well. Some mountains even have condos right alongside some trails, meaning if you lose control, you could end up hitting a building or someone's vehicle.

3

LikesTheTunaHere t1_j9su6rr wrote

Not a skier but Ive down downhill mtb.

Do they not do ski helmets the way they do mtb bike helmets and different ones have different levels of protection? Or is it fairly minimal in terms of different levels, I know different brands will differ but I mean is there a "high speed\high impact" style compared to a groomed trail style?

I know there isn't face guards like downhill mtb helmets but maybe more rear protection or less venting and more surface area for padding?

maybe Multi impact helmets like skateboarding helmets vs one time use like bike helmets?

1

Boagster t1_ja4dp4s wrote

AFAIK, your choices, as far as "general impact resistance", are either in-mold or injected foam - basically, one-time-hit that doesn't do much for small hits but takes a hard hit well versus meant to the small hits regularly but doesn't do as well in a hard hit.

You toss both after a good hit, but the former is lighter and meant for those riding in ways that don't expect a fall but want protection in case of the worst, while the other is for skiers expecting to fall, like air or pipe skiers/snowboarders.

1

Renaissance_Slacker t1_j9tiwta wrote

You’re 100% correct, there’s plenty of hard unmoving objects that necessitate ski helmets. When I was in my 20’s I hit an ice patch while skiing and went into a tree sideways, hitting so hard I almost severed my quadriceps without breaking the skin. A ski patrol saw the incident and assumed my leg was broken, they were dumbfounded when I stood up, waved them off and skiied away. It wasn’t until the next day when I got out of bed and face-planted that I realized how bad it was. Was on crutches for over a year. Helmets, kids.

1

LTVOLT t1_j9prwzh wrote

this is sort of a dumb question to be honest. "why do people were a different helmet for a motorcycle versus playing hockey?" or any other random helmets

−7

scavengercat t1_j9pzbj0 wrote

No genuine question is ever dumb. If someone legitimately doesn't understand something and is trying to learn, then we can help them learn. We don't chastise people because they weren't exposed to information we've already learned.

25

Pescodar189 t1_j9q42ae wrote

I know some of this, but not the whole answer.

One really important thing for helmets, carseats, etc is whether the material is multi-use or one-use.

One-use materials are generally far lighter for the same level of protection (protection itself a multi-faceted concept but I’m sticking with simplicity here).

Hockey helmets are generally lined with vinyl nitrile or polypropylene foam. Vinyl nitrile is the same stuff thats in HVAC gaskets, yoga mats, and all sorts of seals. It returns to its previous shape when you are done squishing it.

The inner foam of a motorcycle helmet is typically expanded polystyrene. It is designed to collapse and absorb force in an impact. Polystyrene foam is what many foam cups are made of (though obviously very different in structure in a helmet than a cheap cup). That foam has a bit of bounce and flex, but it is designed to permanently crush/collapse when it gets hit.

Both helmets have an outer shell that is designed to spread an impact over a large area.

But overall: multi-use vs one-use. Skateboard and hockey and snowboard helmets are multi-use (and weigh more for the same level of protection). You replace them when you take a massive hit that cracks the shell or sometimes after you use them a ton over time. Bike and motorcycle helmets and car-seats have to be replaced once they do their job - that foam does not work twice, but it’s much lighter for the same level of protection and used in applications where you don’t ever plan to actually need it.

11

Mental_Cut8290 t1_j9q4vcn wrote

Honestly a fair question since all helmets are designed for hits to the head.

They all protect for a specific type of hit to the head. Simplifying your example to a bicycle helmet vs. hockey helmet: A bike helmet is likely to be hit directly from the front, it is lightweight for ease of riding, and it will sacrifice itself to absorb as much impact as possible, making it single use only. Hockey helmets are designed for multiple hits, and protection from a projectile. H hockey puck might punch a hole through a bike helmet.

3

augustuen t1_j9qg6y0 wrote

Motorcycle helmets are relatively big. Any worth buying will cover your entire head, including your face and eyes. The good ones will even extend down and squeeze your neck to create a good seal. This is good when riding a motorcycle because it makes for a quieter helmet. But for sports this means that your head is trapped in this almost air-tight hot box. Of course this affects motorcycle racers as well, but they've got the benefit of > 100 km/h winds entering the air channels and cooling them. Hockey players don't.

Motorcycle helmets are also considered one-and-done deals. (although this is heavily debated within the community) They've got a great, thick layer of impact absorbing material, but once that material has been hit, it loses its effectiveness.

TLDR: motorcycle helmets are bulky, heavy, and are designed to cover the user in a way that's detrimental to playing hockey. Playing a physical sport in one would be horrible. And their materials may not be suited for the use.

1

whiskeyriver0987 t1_j9pn1e5 wrote

Ski helmets are also generally meant to take a lot of smaller hits, bike helmets take 1 big one and are meant to be replaced.

12

surmatt t1_j9p4dk0 wrote

Also... airflow and aerodynamic drag is a priority in helmet design for amateur and competitive road cyclists.

6

Broomstick73 t1_j9pvr6x wrote

I wish I had a free award to give you for the phrase “bonking your noggin”

1

Adversement t1_j9pl3sw wrote

Any source for actual difference in offered protection design? (There are helmets approved for both, given that the actual test requirements for the head protection are nearly identical. To project with the impact from about head-height to the solid ground below. That is, a fall.)

The cooling of the head, or keeping it warm, is the obvious difference in design. Most bike helmets are perforated nearly to oblivion resulting in very lightweight helmets. The helmets that suit both for both are too warm for sportive cycling, work decently for leisurely commuting with an upright bicycle, and excel as a winter helmet for such cycling.

0

Whydun t1_j9qtow6 wrote

The proof is in looking at the thing. Bike helmets offer a much reduced rear of head coverage. Test requirements such as what you mention just cover testing the materials for impact durability, not the impact locations.

2