UKC

The ugliest most unphotogenic piece of climbing gear ever?

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 Stevie989 16 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

It does look a bit special.
In reply to Stevie989:

I'm sure it must be based on those things that nutters in padded cells are made to wear.

surely it must be a big wind up?

Like Grot from Reginald Perrin?
Post edited at 23:01
 jezb1 16 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

Kind of getting used to them now, see quite a few people wearing them.
 gethin_allen 16 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:
Haven't we had a few threads about how ridiculous these helmets look? but saying this, if they made one in a more subdued colour I'd go for one as for practicality/performance the technology and design are excellent.

Also, it weighs half of what my petzl elios does.
Post edited at 23:29
 Snot 16 Oct 2014
In reply to gethin_allen:

The looks of it were the biggest selling point for me. Each to their own I guess.
Wiley Coyote2 17 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

Can't say that a helmet is something I'd buy on looks. Effectiveness seems a tad more important
 Timmd 17 Oct 2014
In reply to Wiley Coyote:

That's what I was thinking, you wouldn't look at it once it was on, and you'd be glad of it if it took a hit and protected your head.
 James FR 17 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:
It's good enough for Chris Sharma (or maybe this just demonstrates some of the risks involved in sponsorship!):

http://youtu.be/CH8zKm5N048?t=2m48s

(go to 02:50 in that video)
Post edited at 08:06
 KellyKettle 17 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

I'd have one in a shot should I need a new helmet... I do hope they make the other citrus colours available though, I was always a fan of the Lemonheads.
 Marek 17 Oct 2014
In reply to Wiley Coyote:

> Can't say that a helmet is something I'd buy on looks. Effectiveness seems a tad more important

Me and my Petzl Ecrin never looked good, but like you say...
 climbwhenready 17 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

I think they said when it came out that due to technology limitations (at the moment!) they had to make it in orange. Which surprises me, but they may mean they can't make it in white/grey. They may be working on that, though.

It does look ridiculous
 lithos 17 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

yeah look silly but just ordered one for weight.

can you retro fit a cycling helmet cover in another colour - (ruin the ventilation and add a few grams)
In reply to The Pylon King:

They should have called it 'Photobomb'.
 Trangia 17 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

You've been looking at the Ann Summers site again haven't you?
cb294 17 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

Not as bad as my ancient Edelrid ultralight, the only helmet that can make everyone look like an extra from the coneheads..

CB
 top cat 17 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

The wife has just had her Ellios wreaked by stone fall from a mere 8m. I wonder how well these super light weights perform in real life?
 nniff 17 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

I used to have a red Ecrin Roc. Apparently i looked like a Swan Vesta in it


I have a greenish Goretex jacket. It's very good, except that it has a brighter yellowish panel over the hood and onto the peak. I look like a duck when the hood is up. Unfortunate purchase really (bloody sales - never mind the colour, look at the price) but it does work well.


The Ninja Black look I sport when winter climbing isn't so good for photos either
 GarethSL 17 Oct 2014
In reply to top cat:

I would consider it completely disposable. One hard knock and its essentially redundant probably.
1
J1234 17 Oct 2014
In reply to top cat:

> I wonder how well these super light weights perform in real life?

I suspect better than many may think. As I understand it. Ecrins multiple strikes, Elios like the ecrin but may smash if hit hard enough, Meteor types (hard skin over foam) I have always assumed they actually work by breaking a bit like the way a modern car crumples to absorb shock, but I am not really sure how the Sirocco actually works, maybe someone from Petzl could tell us. I have one and love it, and I see more and more.

 JR 17 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:
This is by far the best helmet I've owned. Super light (a few grams more), more reliable, fits far better (my head anyway) and looks good too.

http://blackdiamondequipment.com/en/climbing-helmets/vapor-helmet-BD620215B...
Post edited at 13:26
needvert 17 Oct 2014
In reply to top cat:

I wouldn't lump it in with most other light helmet designs which are quite fragile foam covered with a plastic shell. I've thrown out one helmet like that, that broke sitting in the top of the pack. I reckon a sirocco would have survived longer as the EPP foam seems more flexible.

1
 jezb1 17 Oct 2014
In reply to John Roberts (JR):

> This is by far the best helmet I've owned. Super light (a few grams more), more reliable, fits far better (my head anyway) and looks good too.


I really want one of these but struggling to justify the price...
In reply to The Pylon King:

You think the JB Super looked good!!!!!
 JR 17 Oct 2014
In reply to jezb1:

I figure you can't buy a new head and given I've even started wearing it cragging on the grit a bit ( I barely ever used to wear one except on ice/big mountain/choss), so for that alone it's probably worth it.
 KellyKettle 17 Oct 2014
In reply to needvert:

Compared to the Polystyrene normally used, EPP [Expanded Poly(Propene)] is beasty stuff, I have several Ski/Kayaking helmets using it which have survived years of monstrous abuse and saved my head dozens of times...
In reply to Graeme Alderson:


> You think the JB Super looked good!!!!!

Yes, proper!

 JayK 17 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

http://www.aussievault.com.au/vault/entry/13280

Talking of fruit based lids, these helmets could start a new trend down the cricket.
 flaneur 17 Oct 2014
In reply to John Roberts (JR):
The Black Diamond Vapour is CE but not UIAA certified. The Petzl Sirocco is CE and UIAA certified. UIAA is the more stringent standard, meaning the Sirocco is the stronger helmet. The Sirocco is lighter and cheaper. Fit is a personal matter but the Sirocco works fine on my head. I can't see how the Vapour is better than the Sirocco in any way other than looking less dorky.
Post edited at 16:51
In reply to GrendeI:

I'm not so sure about that. EPE and EPP foams are remarkably resilient, which is why they're widely used for packaging.

I've been using salvaged EPE foam for making all sorts of things for years, and it takes quite a battering.

Obviously, you'd need to check what Petzal have to say, but most helmet instructions say 'discard after major hit'...
In reply to captain paranoia:

> Obviously, you'd need to check what Petzal have to say, but most helmet instructions say 'discard after major hit'...

I bought it for many reasons, but the ability to take multiple hits was up there. When you feel the BD Vapour it seems very fragile, like a small knock would crack it (and from what I've heard this is the case). I once walked forehead first into a sharp fencepost and the Sirocco just bounced off the wood without a scratch. It's nice to know if I was on a long alpine route or stuck on a sea cliff etc that my helmet could most likely take a hit and still protect me whilst I get down.

Also Ueli Steck wears one: http://www.markus-zimmermann.com/go/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/H2A6465.jpg

 Bulls Crack 17 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

Better looking than a smashed head though
 FactorXXX 17 Oct 2014
In reply to Bulls Crack:

Better looking than a smashed head though

You haven't seen his head pre-smashed!
 3leggeddog 17 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

Is it available in purple?
 dsh 17 Oct 2014
In reply to flaneur:

The standard is still just for taking a hit from an object on the top. Would rather have something more durable for that.

For the type of climbing that most people do where people want an ultra light helmet that can only take one big hit it would make more sense to design a helmet that can take impacts from the side too. But the current regulations mean this would make the helmets too heavy.
 Doghouse 17 Oct 2014
In reply to dsh:
> (In reply to flaneur)
>
> The standard is still just for taking a hit from an object on the top. Would rather have something more durable for that.
>
> For the type of climbing that most people do where people want an ultra light helmet that can only take one big hit it would make more sense to design a helmet that can take impacts from the side too. But the current regulations mean this would make the helmets too heavy.

Have you actually watched the vid in the link in the OP? Looks like it can take impacts on the side to me!
 dsh 17 Oct 2014
In reply to Doghouse:
> Have you actually watched the vid in the link in the OP? Looks like it can take impacts on the side to me!

All I saw was a slow squeeze from the side, hardly the same as a big hit from a swing into the rock. Only the test from the top was realistic.

The danger in climbing is concussion or other injuries from a side impact, not having your head slowly squeezed (squozen?)
Post edited at 19:39
 Snot 17 Oct 2014
In reply to dsh:

Tested it fairly well in a side-on impact last time I fell off. Two months on and I don't feel any stupider at least.
 dsh 17 Oct 2014
In reply to Snot:

That's good to know. But does it protect the sides any more than any other foam helmet?

I was actually going to buy one cos it looked really good but it didn't fit my head.

In fact the only helmets that fit me remotely are the large Elios and large Half Dome but they're still not that good. This does look like it provides better overall protection at the cost of durability but unfortunately it's too small.
 Snot 17 Oct 2014
In reply to dsh:

I haven't used any other foam helmets but I feel fairly well covered in it. You say at the cost of durability but it's still in one piece after a few small rocks one big fall and a punch from my brother.
 spenser 18 Oct 2014
In reply to dsh:

At a guess I'd say they are both likely to soak up a similar amount of energy in a side on impact, however the EPP foam will be able to take a second impact. I've linked an interesting report at the bottom of this post which seems to suggest that an EPS compound capable of taking multiple hits is in fact superior to EPP in this respect. I've whacked my head on roofs and stuff fairly hard while using the Scirocco and it's still in one piece. This thread quite firmly demonstrates the need for some serious research into how much protection the various types of helmet offer, both in side on impacts and top down impacts. Unfortunately when I contacted several of the big manufacturers about doing this research for my dissertation none of them were willing to supply me with any helmets for testing, although I guess a detailed and well researched piece of work characterising the performance of a range of pieces of climbing gear may stop people stating uninformed opinions about which are adequate.
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/222544462_Characterization_of_polym...
 Goucho 18 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

I've never fully understood the need for average climbers to require the need to save a few grammes of weight on their helmets? In terms of increased performance, it's the equivalent of someone wanting the lightest track shoes available so they can cut their time in the 100 metres from 14 seconds to 13.999999 seconds?

So wearing a helmet which won't increase your performance one iota, but might leave you with a fractured skull/dead with the wrong/more than one impact, seems to defeat the whole point of a helmet IMHO.
 BnB 18 Oct 2014
In reply to Goucho:

If they are like me, then they aren't shedding weight to improve performance, it's to be more comfortable. Have you tried wearing a super lightweight helmet? It's not just the weight, it's temperature regulation as well.

Obviously it's all a compromise and everyone has a different sweet spot.
 alasdair19 18 Oct 2014
In reply to BnB:

I bought my first really light helmet after decking at Bamford flat on my side with head 3 inch from rock. I had a helmet and had taken it off cause too hot.

close to Darwin level of stupidity. wore a meteor,3 or 4 years very heavy use. tried a scirocco fits not quite as good but match my trousers
needvert 18 Oct 2014
In reply to Goucho:

Sometimes things are both lighter and safer. There's many examples of improvements in design, materials and technology that have achieved just that. The Sirocco may well be one such case.

Why save grams? Well if you apply it to everything you're carrying, you do make significant weight savings, and ergo performance gains.

 TobyA 18 Oct 2014
In reply to Goucho:

> So wearing a helmet which won't increase your performance one iota, but might leave you with a fractured skull/dead with the wrong/more than one impact, seems to defeat the whole point of a helmet IMHO.

I'm not totally sure what you mean by this but it sounds like you think that older design cradle or hybrid helmets would offer more protection but there's not much evidence to support that. When I wrote this http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=4905 a couple of years ago, I came to the conclusion that for the majority UK climbers foam helmets are probably the safest choice because they offer more protection in swinging falls or falls to the ground where you hit your head (like the chap just above wrote about at Bamford). If you want a hybrid style helmet the Wild Country 360 strikes me as the best one to go for because Wild Country, very much to their credit, have tried to design into it side and back impact protection which is minimal in most plastic hybrid helmets. http://www.wildcountry.com/products/helmets/360-helmet/ Amazingly, it's also rather cheap for a helmet too.
In reply to Goucho:

I dont care how well it performs, i just care that it will ruin my photographs!!
 wbo 18 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:
But you have a beard already!
 Goucho 18 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

> I dont care how well it performs, i just care that it will ruin my photographs!!

Not wearing one is the best photogenic approach - long flaxen locks blowing in the breeze as you casually shake out on an overhanging wall
 Goucho 18 Oct 2014
In reply to BnB:

I only wear a helmet for Alpine/Winter climbing, or if I think there could be loose rock about, and currently have a Petzl Elios, but I'm glad I was wearing a good old fashioned Joe Brown bone dome whilst scurrying across the second icefield of the Eiger NF
 TobyA 18 Oct 2014
In reply to Goucho:
> I only wear a helmet for Alpine/Winter climbing, or if I think there could be loose rock about,

Surely then _any_ light helmet would offer you a big step up in protection if you wore it rock climbing? Fair enough, wearing a Petzl Ecrin if you're doing the Eiger NF might be a great idea, but not many of us are doing that. For most British cragging the Petzl orange-thingy is probably the better helmet as you're more likely to smack the side of your head in swinging fall or even potentially worse, hit it on the ground after loosing balance in a ground fall, than need protection from more than one strike in rockfall.
Post edited at 13:45
 nufkin 18 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

> I dont care how well it performs, i just care that it will ruin my photographs!!

Quite the opposite, in fact; since, as mentioned further up, the Sirocco is the chapeau de jour among top-flight climbers at the mo, wearing one in photos can only enhance your reputation as a hardcore alpinist
In reply to nufkin:
> Quite the opposite, in fact; since, as mentioned further up, the Sirocco is the chapeau de jour among top-flight climbers at the mo, wearing one in photos can only enhance your reputation as a hardcore alpinist

http://www.danmarproducts.com/my_images/9820SOrange.and%20Hunters.Orange.20...
Post edited at 22:18
 Fruit 19 Oct 2014
In reply to Graeme Alderson:

> You think the JB Super looked good!!!!!

Oooooooh yes, I had one of these beauties lol!
 Clarence 19 Oct 2014
In reply to Fruit:

I had a red bog standard JB and a yellow super. The red one was a magnet for Edam and Babybel stickers and the yellow one got a set of Emmental "hole" stickers courtesy of my Dutch climbing chums.
 Timmd 19 Oct 2014
In reply to Bulls Crack:

> Better looking than a smashed head though

My dad knew of somebody in his climbing club who had a personality change after hitting their head while falling off, he started to act a bit strangely, and started going for walks in the rain by himself and not letting people know what he was doing, which wasn't something he'd previously done.
 JR 19 Oct 2014
In reply to flaneur:

The sirocco has an awful fit on me, and as I said, I'm more inclined to wear the vapour, so it's at least better than no helmet. Is there enough evidence out there to suggest the 2kn difference (and that the test mimics real life scenario enough) in the CE/UIAA standards has a marked impact on injury sustained?

Found this link quite useful and tend to agree with a lot of it - http://www.climbing.com/news/no-brainer-helmet/
In reply to Timmd:

> started going for walks in the rain by himself and not letting people know what he was doing, which wasn't something he'd previously done.

Not necessarily a bad thing.
 Timmd 20 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

Not in themselves, no, but obviously, you'd need to have known the person in question to see things in context.
 Iain Peters 21 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

There was a wonderful photo many years back in a kids' comic of no less than Sir Christian himself wearing one......back to front!!
 Bwox 21 Oct 2014
In reply to John Roberts (JR):

> Is there enough evidence out there to suggest the 2kn difference (and that the test mimics real life scenario enough) in the CE/UIAA standards has a marked impact on injury sustained?

It's 2kg isn't it, rather than 2kN? If so, that could have quite a significant difference, I'd have thought.
 JR 21 Oct 2014
In reply to Bwox:

No it's 2kn. The standard is the max force transferred to the neck with a 5kg, 50mm radius blunt mass dropped from 2m - http://www.climbing.com/gear/about-uiaa-and-ce-helmet-certification/

Interestingly though I did do a bit of googling to see what studies had been done on neck impact injuries http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3465029/ which relates to axial compression of the neck ie a force on the top of your head causing neck trauma. It's not an exact simulation it does suggest that significant injury occurs well before 8kn and as low as 1.7kn.
 Ander 21 Oct 2014
In reply to The Pylon King:

I thought this was going to be a thread on Ron Hill tracksters!
In reply to John Roberts (JR):

> It's not an exact simulation it does suggest that significant injury occurs well before 8kn and as low as 1.7kn.

Which is why compliant helmets that decelerate the object over a longer period of time are probably better than uncompliant (hard) helmets that decelerate over a shorter period of time. Ft=mv and all that...
 JR 21 Oct 2014
In reply to captain paranoia:

Sure, but this isn't really my point if you read through my comments. A helmet you wear is better than a helmet you don't, and arguably, if the results of the study above are transferrable, the standard might not really be of much use. There's 2 main scenarios to protect one's head from; a falling object, or a knock when falling off.

Everyone I've known to have had a big hit on the head from a falling rock has had a significant and lifelong injury or terminally worse. Hence linking to the post above, the standard of 8kn is largely irrelevant if your neck breaks at as low as 1.7kn. A marginally compliant soft (EPP) helmet and a marginally non-compliant harder (EPS) helmet (the vapor must be between 8kn and 10kn) are both as much as useless in this scenario, in fact most helmets potentially are at forces approaching the UIAA standard. Looking at the link above one might reasonably conclude that all helmets will more or less protect from the smaller chunks of ice and rock to the point one's neck breaks as well as each other, if you have something coming towards you bigger, you're probably doomed anyway and therefore the standard doesn't really make much difference. I'm "comfortable" with that. I'd prefer it if my climbing partner didn't hack bits of ice down on my head, but I know the helmet I have protects me from that, but if a 10kg chunk comes at me from 25m up, then the helmet is probably not going to help.

Personally, I'm most interested in the second scenario, where I fall off and bash my head as the rope catches me or I clatter something on the way down (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQXgjTcM-tc). I rarely used to use a helmet outside of ice/mountains/gogarth, because frankly most of the helmets were clunky and/or uncomfortable (including the sirocco). As an example I couldn't actually do The Promise with a helmet (petzl elios) on, so took it off for the lead, and have since gotten out the habit using one at all. This scenario is most likely on something like the grit where hopefully 8kn worth of rock won't fall on my head but where there's a good chance I might fall off. The forces generated here are generally lower, and scenarios more difficult to mimc in testing and are very design specific, and any protection here is better than none.

Black Diamond went out to design a helmet that people actually wear, and they've achieved that. I'd prefer to use a sirocco, not because of the marginal difference in strength but because it's cheaper, however it doesn't fit, and therefore I wouldn't wear it as frequently, which for the reasons above is a stronger argument to not buy it for me.

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...