UKC

Below is a summary of the Latest Product News added to UKClimbing's Gear section in the last week:

	Petzl METEOR® III: Ultralight helmet 31-May-07
	A lightweight helmet with good ventilation and adjustable. Polycarbonate shell with an expanded polystyrene layer. You won't notice that you are wearing it. CE - UIAA. read more...

The UKC Gear pages also have independent reviews from registered users - send us your review.

In reply to UKC Gear:

Not one for the alps, or anywhere that stonefall is likely. A friend may have died wearing one of those when a stone about 2cm diameter hit his helmet resulting in a fractured skull. with this helmet it may have gone right through the skull into the brain.
Looks ok for grit or cycling or canoeing.

In reply to sutty:


It passes the UIAA top impact test like other helmets on the market, whilst its not designed or tested for either cycling or canoeing. You're may be a very experienced climber Sutty, but I think I'll take the UIAA over what you think it "looks ok" for.

In reply to sutty:

Sutty, try to avoid ill-informed speculation.

In reply to Mick Ryan - UKClimbing.com:

I look at the picture, see the holes and think it is crap for alpine climbing, just my opinion though.

Toby, UIAA seem to have it wrong in my opinion IF they say it is suitable for alpine use.

I bet not many people buy them for winter climbing either.

As I said, suitable for cragging.

I do hope this website is not going down the road of the mags, not wanting to upset manufacturers due to advertising.

Come on Petzl, your right to comeback and put me right.

In reply to TobyA: They look great bits of Kit.

even better like this though: http://www.urbanrock.com/products_detail.php?CatId=334&PId=2266

In reply to sutty:

they are for ventilation.


Andy Nesbeit does.


Its not, it poniting out that your wrong, especially since you said it would be good for canoeing.

In reply to sutty:

I'm sure I've seen pictures of Guides wearing Meteor IIs (pretty similar design, no?) in the Alps. I'm sure that people who use them in that sort of capacity would have weighed up the risks...?

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:

I said it could be ok for canoeing, not good. Not the same thing at all. To be really good it would need different holes in it.

In reply to sutty:
or cragging.

No it isn't. But we appreciate informed comments by people who have actually used the products....or at least tried them on!

Do you remember Sutty, this website is funded by advertising. Gear manufacturers are not charlatans, but they do want informed comment backed up by experience. Rather than someone looking at something and saying that won't work.

Look at the specifications of this helmet. Even better give this helmet a try on an alpine route.

Lots of people use lightweight helmets for alpine climbing.

In reply to UKC Gear:
I have one of these and one of the best features is comfort and weight.
Sutty, I appreciate it doesnt look much and I cant vouch for strength from personal experience as it has yet to take any force. Its worth remembering though that this helmet, unlike those of old, takes most of its strength from a highly researched and intensively designed structure and not just from being heavy duty. It will take one impact but must be replaced after due to possible internal fractures in the material which decreases strength. If UIAA have tested it and passed it then thats good enough for me. As far as I know Petzl will also have extensively tested it and dropped rocks on it. I presume they wouldnt lie about strength and put a crap product on the market as they most likely dont want to kill their customers.

In reply to Will Hunt: aww i landed on my noggin does that mean i need a new helmut?

In reply to UKC Gear: In defence of Sutty and because it looks like a pnocy space cadet toy: There is nothing speculative about observing the fact that it 'HAS HOLES IN THE TOP' which would let a 2cm (as described above)stone, penetrate to the skull within.

Come on, Sutty has a good point. These lightweight helmets ARE considered a compromise in alpine/winter climbing terms. Yes, they may well protect from one impact but possibly not multiple impacts when committed to a long route. And, yes, many people (including very experienced guides) consider that is an OK risk when compared to the weight saving etc. But it is a personal decision and you need to be aware of the pros and cons. Another similar decision would be whether to take a standard thickness single rope for alpine use or a half or skinny rope which will do the job in "most" circumstances. All about being knowledgeable enough to weigh up the pros and cons.

Isn't this what makes climbing great? Where else in life can you make your own decisions about how you are going to live or die?

In reply to UKC Gear:

i agree with sutty, theres no way I'd wear this helmet in the alps. One small stone and you'd be knackered with this helmet!

In reply to JonC:

I just wanted to point out the bad things as well as the good in it, and I did say it was my own point of view that others can discard if they wish. As you say, it is a compromise between lightness and durability and breathability, if anyone saw 'Hazard', the coal board film promoting head protection in the 60s they would have seen worse headgear being used, only useful for stopping bangs on heads and useless for falling stones.

I am sure the helmet is good for some things, just not for ALL things. I will stick with my Ultimate helmet for winter stuff if I ever get on it again.

Now, is that meteor going to improve my leg movements?

In reply to sutty: the BMC did a load of helmet testing some time ago, have a look here http://www.thebmc.co.uk/safety/tech/tech_a0.htm

In reply to ray:

I know the previous versions of the meteor had weaknesses, ie the helmet coudl get ripped of your head in a fall. So in fact the thing it was best at was stonefall, and petzl did state that it wasn't designed for "falling" as such. The previous versions were pretty weak bits of kit in terms of durability I think, the new ones look much better, but still have tio be treated much more carefully that a "hard" helmet I'm sure. Good bits of kit though, great in hot and cold weather.

In reply to UKC Gear: Here is the link to the safety tests performed to pass the UIAA (and now EU)standards

http://www.uiaa.ch/web.test/visual/Safety/SafComPictorials/PictUIAA106-EN12...

Whilst the test give a good minimum strength, the problem is that they are not tested to destruction, and therefore there is no way of knowing whether one helmet is stronger than another.

I still use a polycarb shell, even though it is not as comfortable, just because I have more confidence in it.

In reply to UKC Gear:

I'm with sutty on this. I'd not use one in the high mountains both due to the ventilation hole size and in general not a fan of expanded polystyrene helmets. My head, my choice. As someone has said already it's how you view risk and what you are willing to compromise on.

Petzl: some free customer feedback for you.

Mick: you are still fulfilling your "obligation" to sponsors by having an open and grown up discussion about a commonly used product. Surely the whole obect of these gear notices are to publicise products, get more folk to buy and use them. If folk like myself and sutty take one look at a product and so "nah not for me" then perhaps gear manufacturers want to know why we won't buy it and perhaps address some of those issues if they deem them valid.

In reply to Tom Ripley Mountain Guide:
If he wore a Rover biscuit tin on his head then what would that mean?

In reply to SFM:


But he doesn't does he? He wears a climbing helmet.

Part of the idea in making smart-arse comments is that they include some smartness in them. You appear to have not quite grasped that.

In reply to SFM:

Do you really think that? Do you ever think about the those that may have to get involved in a rescue? Your climbing partner being put at risk? That your family may have to wipe your arse and feed you with a straw for the rest of your life?

PeterM

In reply to PeterM: Didn't see anything in SFM's post that implied the poster chose not to wear a helmet. Rather, he implied that he chose not to wear *this* helmet.

T.

In reply to Pursued by a bear:

Yep - but UKC's pro-helmet lobby likes to play the moral card so much they don't always take time to actually read what has been said. Indeed SFM seemed to be suggesting that the helmet concerned isn't good enough for his head.

In reply to Pursued by a bear ,SFM & TobyA:

Fair point. Read it too quick. Happy to be corrected and apologies to SFM.

PeterM

In reply to TobyA:

I think you are missing my point. Just because one person chooses to wear one particular type of helmet does it mean that we should all wear it?

In reply to PeterM:

ta :O)

In reply to UKC Gear:

good to know about it but i won't be changing from my Elios....awesome helmet, only 70g heavier and i have more confidence in its long term durability.

In reply to SFM: I'm not missing the point, although you might have not got Tom's. He was suggesting that probably the most experienced winter climber in the UK, who also guides and teaches, chooses to use one winter climbing considering it to be fit for his purpose. Therefore those of us who haven't climbed a thousand routes at grade V or harder like Andy, should at least consider why he thinks it's OK.

Of course everyone makes their own choice, but its worth considering the opinion of genuine experts.

In reply to TobyA:

You hit the nail on the head there "considering it fit for HIS purpose". I'm not him. And no I'm not saying I better or more experienced than him. I'm not. I just am entitled to my own opinion on what gear I choose to use.

I know exactly what Tom was saying. I've met Nisbet and have the utmost repect for the guy but just because he chooses to use a particular bit of kit does not automatically mean that I will. Like I said earlier my head, my choice.

Experts get killed just like the rest of us mortals.

Perhaps just I'm hyper-aware of hero worship and celebrity endorsements. :O)