UKC

I was wondering if anyone knows if this would be ok.

I'm currently umemployed and poorer than a church mouse. i need a new climbing helmet but can't afford one. i have at least 4 very expensive cycling helmets. Surley as they are designed to take a big impact on the road they would be ok for climbing.

Any constructive thoughts or knowledge most welcome.

In reply to bobbybin: As I understand the only reason for not wanting to use a cycling helmet when climbing is that it is possible to strangle yourself as the clip doesn't undo itself under load. For example if for some bizarre reason you ended up being suspended by the helmet, a climbing helmet would release whereas a cycling helmet wouldn't.
However this seems an incredibly unlikely situation to be in. And given the choice between wearing a cycling helmet vs no helmet at all then I'd go cycling helmet every time.
The above is just what I thought, could be completely wrong! M

In reply to bobbybin: I was told that climbing helmets are tested differently to cycle helmets. Climbing helmets are tested with higher impact on the top.

In reply to bobbybin:
If you have an old climbing helmet just stick with that (unless it's damaged) but I expect a cycling helmet is better than nothing.

In reply to bobbybin:
>they are designed to take a big impact on the road

that is correct, are you going to be climbing any roads?

Basically, cycling helmets will protect areas of the head differently to a climbing helmet, as impacts to the head happen differently between cycling and climbing.

So if I had the money, I would have a cycling helment for cycling and a climbing helmet for climbing.

Saying that if I had no money and no climbing helmet then a cycling helmet would be better than no helmet at all.

Another thought, could you raise funds and sell 3 of the 4 cycling helmets (unless you have 4 heads, I would suspect you really only need 1).

The only issue with that is selling pre used protection gear. Not sure how many people would want to buy it.

In reply to davies00: I didn't know that. Bike helmets have a rucsac style buckle which i guess wouldn't release that easily. but as u say being suspended by ur helmet is highly unlikely, unless you're max mosely!!

In reply to Bob kate bob: Cheers BKB, thought it would be something like that. Though i did have a big off on the road once and landed on the edge of a very big kerb right on the side of my head with no damage at all, apart from broken ribs, collar bone and wrist, but my head was ok.

I think the other big difference is that climbing helmets are designed to stop rockfall (i.e. sharp pointy impacts), while cycling helmets are designed to stop impacts against flat objects (and kerb edges). So a cycling one would probably just fail when hit by a rock...

Having said that, in a climbing fall impact against a rock - i.e. probably a flat surface - a cycling helmet might work fine.

In reply to bobbybin: I notice on Needle sports web site that alot of Climbing Helmets are now rated for cycling which is why i thought it might work the other way round

In reply to bobbybin:

You are well 'ard!

In reply to Blue Straggler: I stopped racing on the road after that, 3rd and 4th Cat racing makes climbing look like a kids tea party. Give me mountain biking any day.

In reply to bobbybin:

Climbing helmets serve two main purposes (besides keeping your butties from getting crushed in the rucksac). Basically, stopping falling rock from getting in and stopping your brain getting out.

If you want your cycle helmet to deflect falling rocks effectively, it will probably let you down.

If you want it to absorb energy when you bang your head in a fall it'll do that rather well, it is after all what it's designed for, to cover the parts of your skull that are vulnerable when you smack it against something hard.

Falling rocks are not a big issue on a lot of crags. The point about the strap is a fair one but also a bit of a non issue in a lot of cases. It really depends where and what you climb.

jk

In reply to bobbybin:


Yep, there is a new trend for multi activity helmets, they are designed to take the impacts from different causes (cycling, climbing, kyaking etc) and so the designs have now got certificates for multiple uses.

They are different from helmets only designed for one type of usage.

In reply to davies00:

Quite wrong I'm afraid. Not least because the clip on a climbing helmet strap is also designed not to release under load.

In reply to jkarran:
Good post, quite agree.


It may even offer better protection against banging your head on the rock or the ground in a fall, since that's what cycling helmets are designed for, and with most climbing helmets it's a secondary consideration; they're primarily designed to protect against falling rock/ice. (There's a short article about that here: http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=1534 )

I don't know if cycling helmets are designed to resist penetration the same way climbing helmets are though, might not be so good if you bang your head on a pointy boulder or something.

My worthless opinion:
A cycling helmet would definitely be better than nothing if the main risk is hitting your head rather than falling stuff. If there's loose rock or whatever, and the main risk is stuff falling onto you its a waste of time, you'd be better off with an old or second-hand climbing helmet (of the traditional hard-shell + cradle design).

In reply to chalk bunny:

They just say this to justify charging £45 for a crappy piece of plastic.

There's all this talk of stopping pointy rocks getting in but frankly I very much doubt a Petzl Meteor is going to be any better at this than a bike helmet. Similarly if I inverted and hit my head in a fall a bike helmet might offer better protection than an Ecrin Roc, since they're designed for this sort of blunt side and top impacts.

That said, I believe Goran Kropp died when the bike helmet he was climbing in disintegrated on impact (with what, I don't know).

In reply to Alex C:

I'd be very surprised if it isn't, not least because bike helmets tend to have lots of ventilation holes across the top.

The point is though that a Petzl Meteor has been tested for resistance to penetration and meets a certain well defined standard. Cycle helmets aren't, unless the manufacturer decides to do it voluntarily, since there's nothing in the standard that requires it as far as I can tell. (From this: http://www.bhsi.org/stdcomp.htm )

In reply to deepsoup: I don't think the worry is a spike fiding its way through a hole but rather finding its way through the soft expanded polystyrene. These helmets aren't very durable and they're primarily designed for blunt impacts like hitting your head on the flat expanses of rock one climbs on.

In reply to Alex C:
I wasn't thinking only of the possibility of something finding its way through a hole - I don't know, but I'd expect the holes also to have an effect on how the material around them behaves in the event of a very localised impact (from something small or pointy).

Helmets like the Meteor resist localised impact by spreading the load across a wider area as the foam deforms - apart from the obvious vulnerability of having holes in the top of the lid, they'd also limit that, wouldn't they?

Whether helmets like the Meteor are primarily designed for blunt impacts or not, unlike bike helmets they *are* tested for resistance to penetration and have to pass before they're allowed onto the market.

Don't know. Seems to me we're both guessing here. I suppose the question for the OP is how much guesswork he wants involved when he's deciding which helmet to wear for climbing.

In reply to deepsoup:

'Tis true.


well summarised.