Interesting:
Different head positions “tested”, 8km test … Open road?
MET Drone best, LG p09 numbers looks a bit odd, POC cerebel whistling …
Thoughts?
http://www.220triathlon.com/gear/gear-guides/10-of-the-best-tt-bike-helmets/9031.html
Humm,
Just got back from testing with 6 people where we had 4 or 5 of those helmets to test. While not everyone tested every helmet I noticed some trends and they don’t jive with this review. Again you have to test to determine your fastest helmet. With that said the MET Drone does draw my attention.
Need a better test to tease out the differences in head position. Velodrome or tunnel.
Even in a better testing venue, helmets are largely individual. You have to test or you’re shooting in the dark.
This is pretty much all BS … There are a number of highly technical aero testers on here who’ve tested helmets in the wind tunnel and on the track and it’s been found that the best helmet for most riders in their testing was the LG P-09
I don’t see any graphs or any description of their testing protocol. The P09 section refers to wind tunnel tests, but that’s the only reference I see to a wind tunnel. There are a few references to road tests, differences are given in seconds, and there’s a reference to “power controlled” testing, whatever that is. That doesn’t sound like VE testing to me. If they did timed tests on the road with a power meter, that would be idiotic. At least with VE testing you can see if your laps line up and if you’re getting good data.
Pretty easy to screw up wind tunnel testing as well, there was the test a while back, think it was Velonews, where they taped the straps in a sloppy and inconsistent way. Not putting much faith in this article.
I’d like to slap these guys around a little. Where is your test protocol? How many repeats? How big are your error bars? At least the GCN guys always tell you what they did to get their (bogus) numbers.
Poor testing is much worse than none at all. Not only does it mislead, **it discourages people from doing real testing. **That’s the part that pisses me off. Why bother going to the considerable work and expensive of doing a viable controlled test, when 99% of customers won’t know the difference between your data and something they just pulled out of their butts?
Can you point us to results from any ‘real’ testing? Or provide some advice on differentiating between helmet choices when personal testing is not an option?
It’s time to replace my 5yr old Lazer Tardiz and I’m not really sure how to approach the search.
The MET was Frodeno’s helmet of choice last year. After much testing. He raced in an unlabeled one in Frankfurt, but had stickers on in Kona. My understanding is that he found it to be fastest for him, and then did a deal with them since he had already chosen the helmet.
Can you point us to results from any ‘real’ testing? Or provide some advice on differentiating between helmet choices when personal testing is not an option?
No good tests have been done AFAIK. It would take a large sample size of riders, and precise testing (WT or field) with many repeats, and ideally some CFD and analysis of what factors lead to a particular helmet being favored on a particular rider. In other words a research paper.
Baring that, we have anecdotes from people who have done wind tunnel testing. And guys like Jim@ERO who have measured hundreds or thousands of anecdotes, and has an informed opinion on the subject… and has been nice enough to tell us what his opinion is. Basically everyone who is an experienced WT operator should have a good idea about this, but they don’t tend to be free with the information. Unless you go to be tested I guess.
As I recall Jim said the P09, Specialized, and Giro A2 were usually good, but that doesn’t mean they are good for you. Some fast riders who do a lot of testing like the Selector or Bell. Some even favor the Bambino. Kraig Willet mentioned something along the lines of a good head position (low) making helmet choice less significant, which makes sense. I didn’t like the A2 (too wide), haven’t tried the P09 or McClaren but I’d probably like them since they are narrow. I need to modify every helmet I have (melt the foam) to make it fit, so I don’t like to spend a lot. I just got a used Selector that I like. Fits my shoulders and back well, and doesn’t stick up above my back in any head position I normally use in a race.
If you are doing Tri then heat and length of event are factors along with ease of taking it on and off.
Hmmm. It’s wide in the front, but then tapers to a normal size at the rear. I think there’d have to be some strange aero voodoo. Another weird feature is how far it sticks out from his forehead.
Visor aero mustache is worth the price of admission, regardless of aerodynamics.
The magazine article claims that it directs air away from the shoulders. I have no idea whether that is true, but it sounds plausible. After all, the shoulders are a major drag spot.
I wonder if that might have been one of the qualities that led to the rather large Spiuk Chronos testing well. Or that gawd-awful POC.
Does anyone know whether the Drone is CPSC certified?
I’d be curious to see their protocol.
I totally agree. 
People believe what they want to believe… and I just bought a drone.
Interesting:
Different head positions “tested”, 8km test … Open road?
MET Drone best, LG p09 numbers looks a bit odd, POC cerebel whistling …
Thoughts?
http://www.220triathlon.com/...ke-helmets/9031.html
If there is no test protocol with numbers and setup explained, it is sponsored article. If somebody would relay take time to set this up properly, they would die to explain how they did it, at list in some extra paragraph at the bottom of the article and have some chart with numbers. This is new creative crappy journalism, collecting bits of pieces from all over then “recommending” sponsored product as “best”.
Interesting:
Different head positions “tested”, 8km test … Open road?
MET Drone best, LG p09 numbers looks a bit odd, POC cerebel whistling …
Thoughts?
http://www.220triathlon.com/...ke-helmets/9031.html
If there is no test protocol with numbers and setup explained, it is sponsored article. If somebody would relay take time to set this up properly, they would die to explain how they did it, at list in some extra paragraph at the bottom of the article and have some chart with numbers. This is new creative crappy journalism, collecting bits of pieces from all over then “recommending” sponsored product as “best”.
I work in a different sports field and I can tell you that Magazines in my industry sell their reviews. So funny, you get a call from a Magazine Editor saying they want to write a glowing review of your product. The next day the Ad guy calls you wanting to know how much you want to spend. If you reject the ads your glowing write-up never happens.
Hmmm. It’s wide in the front, but then tapers to a normal size at the rear. I think there’d have to be some strange aero voodoo. Another weird feature is how far it sticks out from his forehead.
The new Giro (still not for sale?) also sticks out at the forehead. At a guess, they’re both trying to change the front of the helmet to the leading edge of an NACA profile, rather than the leading edge of a ball. At least, they’re doing that for the horizontal plane. It’d be nice to see an overhead shot.
The helmet looks massive, though. I wonder if they don’t lose some gains simply by having a massive frontal area.
This is pretty much all BS … There are a number of highly technical aero testers on here who’ve tested helmets in the wind tunnel and on the track and it’s been found that the best helmet for most riders in their testing was the LG P-09
Haha, that is a SUPER sweeping generalization.