/ COMPETITION: WINNERS - Win 1 of 2 Petzl SIROCCO Helmets

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.
UKC Articles - on 15 May 2017
Sirocco thumbnail, 4 kbPetzl have updated their revolutionary ultra-lightweight climbing and mountaineering helmet with reinforced protection and a new look.

Read more
Rich Ellis - on 15 May 2017
In reply to UKC Articles: Great stuff , just a quick thought though . How about if your head is 63 cm ?
purplemonkeyelephant - on 15 May 2017
In reply to UKC Articles:

This redesign is a load of rubbish. Most of the main features that made the original so good have been phased out. If my current Scirroco had a PC crown I would have totalled it in weeks, it's the spot that has received the most abuse and still looks brand new. The whole helmet was flexible and one piece which made it absorb impact so well.

Can anyone enlighten me on the benefits of doing this?
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

I've written a review of the SIROCCO which will be published soon. It should give you an idea of how I found the helmet after using it for the last 8 weeks. Unfortunately I didn't drop anything on my head to test the absorbency.
purplemonkeyelephant - on 15 May 2017
In reply to Theo Moore - UKC and UKH:

Look forward to reading it But surely the only way to review something like a helmet is to first and foremost test it's primary function? (proxy heads are allowed).
Dr.S at work - on 15 May 2017
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

Is that not the point of the EN rating?
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

I think - as I've said before on various threads before - there's a big difference between a test and a review.

As a quick definition (courtesy of Google) of what each entails, a test is "a procedure intended to establish the quality, performance, or reliability of something" whereas a review is a critical appraisal of how it performed in use. With specific reference to the Sirocco, we all know it's passed all of the relevant CE + EN tests - if it hadn't it wouldn't be available; as such, the big question how it actually performed in reality.

I am, like many others, genuinely interested to hear how Theo got on: how it lived up to being stuffed in rucksacks, how worn it's looking after 8 weeks of thorough use (and just have a look at Theo's logbook to see how thorough that is!!), whether or not he felt the design changes to the top made a difference, if there was wear around the edges where the compound/material changes, and so on and so forth.

Still, I'm aware different people want different things, but this is what we aim to provide.
gethin_allen on 15 May 2017
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

> This redesign is a load of rubbish. Most of the main features that made the original so good have been phased out. If my current Scirroco had a PC crown I would have totalled it in weeks, it's the spot that has received the most abuse and still looks brand new. The whole helmet was flexible and one piece which made it absorb impact so well. Can anyone enlighten me on the benefits of doing this?

The polycarb crown probably increases protection from sharp objects. And seeing as it's only a relatively small section on top of the main material I can't see it affecting the flexibility of the helmet that much.
I'd certainly consider this helmet if I were looking for a new one.

purplemonkeyelephant - on 15 May 2017
In reply to gethin_allen:

> seeing as it's only a relatively small section on top of the main material

Under the Polycarb is polystyrene, a much more fragile material designed to break when absorbing force, not nearly as good as the EPP for multiple small impacts. I expect it's still more robust than the BD vapor but it's a disappointing update on such a clever original design.
Graeme Hammond - on 16 May 2017
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:
> I expect it's still more robust than the BD vapor but it's a disappointing update on such a clever original design.

the BD Vapor does NOT pass UIAA (Union Internationale des Associations d’Alpinisme) certification were as the Sirocco does so you'd expect the Sirocco to be safer. Safety test rating and robustness might not always be related though?
Post edited at 00:46
purplemonkeyelephant - on 16 May 2017
In reply to Graeme Hammond:
I've heard lots of stories of Vapours cracking very easily, in comparison I've done many things to my Scirocco that really should have destroyed it but it still looks pretty much shop ready. That's robust to me. I think the biggest difference is the ability to absorb impact without breaking, and I'm guessing that's probably what the UIAA test involves?

Edit: Just checked, UIAA just checks initial impact absorption capabilities, plus a top of helmet penetration test which may be more relevant here.
Post edited at 13:32
Stuart the postie - on 16 May 2017
In reply to purplemonkeyelephant:

I own a Meteor III, light but not robust, easily damaged in pack, or banged beneath chockstones! Having said that, a friends crampon landed ontop of it, whilst wearing, dented but not punctured!

Would the more flexible orange Sirocco have punctured with the above crampon?

Stuart
purplemonkeyelephant - on 16 May 2017
In reply to Stuart the postie:

I find it hard to imagine the mass of a crampon being enough to push it's spikes through foam that thick. A crampon travelling terminal velocity with zero spin.... maybe?
Graham - on 18 May 2017
In reply to UKC Articles:

has anybody used the Mammut Wall rider? Looks like an all EPP helmet with a slight hardshell over the high-impact areas? I'm not thrilled with petzl's move away from an all EPP helmet with the new sirocco.
jimsim55 - on 23 May 2017
In reply to Theo Moore - UKC and UKH:
Just read and enjoyed your review (Damoclean rock, nice phrase) and the new Sirocco does sound an excellent piece of kit. One thing that niggles me, though, is that it's not certified for mountain biking. Now, is that because the fees for testing it would be too high for what is principally a climbing helmet, or is there really that much difference between a helmet for climbing and another for Mountain biking? At the risk of being labelled a massive dullard, surely a bang on the head is the same whether you fall off a bike or get hit by a rock or a quick draw? It would be really nice to just have one go-to helmet for both sports.
Post edited at 12:59
JR_NL - on 23 May 2017
In reply to jimsim55:

While not a mountainbiker I'd be interested to hear PETZL's view on this.
jezb1 - on 23 May 2017
In reply to UKC Articles:

Most importantly you'd look a right plank wearing a climbing helmet whilst mountain biking.
In reply to jimsim55:

Hey, thanks for your comments. I have contacted the powers that be to find an accurate answer to your question.
jimsim55 - on 23 May 2017
In reply to jezb1:
Oh – when you look like me that really isn't a concern, trust me. A plank would be injured by the comparison.
I just get hacked off having to pack two bits of kit and pay for two sets of headgear that seem to perform the same function.
A while ago Decathlon sold a helmet that was certified for both and I don't see the difference in appearance as being that radical – both need to be tough, durable, light and well-ventilated. Comparing my Meteor with the MTB helmet the main difference is that the MTB helmet has ventilation holes in the top, where pebbles could conceivably lodge, and that's it.
Post edited at 14:52
ads.ukclimbing.com
Lyon Equipment Ltd - on 23 May 2017
In reply to jimsim55:

Unfortunately, the SIROCCO is not certified to the EN 1078 cycling standard.

Our helmets help protect users from falls or falling objects and meet the requirements of the EN 12492 standard (mountaineering helmet).

From a standards viewpoint, we cannot recommend using Petzl helmets for cycling.

Lyon Equipment Ltd / UK Petzl Agency

Please Register as a New User in order to reply to this topic.