mconlonx

People already answered with that answer, among others, and OP went on to explain what he was looking for... and a motorcycle helmet was not the correct answer.

ItsJustMe

I think a full face bicycle helmet is probably better. A bicycle helmet does not have to put up with the level of impact that a motorcycle helmet does. The motorcycle helmet is therefore significantly heavier than a bicycle helmet which could lead to increased threat of neck injuries for no increase in protection given the likely impact energies.

However, it's also possible that a full face helmet might actually be WORSE - depending on what you want to protect. I don't know if it would be possible to make a helmet with MIPS that was also full face - because how would it rotate? Given the choice, I'd rather have a broken jaw and torn up face than a traumatic brain injury.

I-Like-To-Bike

Do I hear an echo?

rekmeyata

Waaaaaa, I wanted to be right.

rekmeyata

Why not get a full face motorcycle helmet?

CenturionIM

darn, this will make me want to wear my bell mtb full face helmet again.

That thing is so heavy and hot though...

TromboneAl

I sent the Scott Taal helmet back, and ordered a Tabec Race MIPS XL/XXL for a total of $143.99 at AllSportsProtection.com.



That price may only work for the XL/XXL size, but you can get 20% off the other sizes.

Go here for coupons: https://www.retailmenot.com/view/alls....com?c=4799364

ItsJustMe

@TromboneAl - thanks for the clue on the code. POC20 worked for me. Great deal on that helmet.

FBinNY 

The key to understanding helmets is to understand what they do. There are two basic types of helmets. Those designed to protect the head from low mass moving objects, ie. construction hard hats, and hose designed to protect the moving head from impacts on hard immovable masses, ie. bike and MC helmets. Some have some overlap of both elements, but are still mainly one or the other.

For bike helmets, the object is to reduce the rate of decelleration of the head, so he brain has a smaller impact within the skull. They do this by starting the process sooner, and crushing until they reach the zero point, essentially increasing the total braking distance. The key's here therefore are total crush distance (thickness of the crushable material) and the crush rate.

Crush rate is tricky, because ideally you want to use the entire available distance from initial impact to zero speed. Too hard and it won't help much on low speed impacts, too high and it'll be crushed to zero too soon and not protect at higher speeds. Bike helmets are usually designed based on a speed comparable to falling 6-8', and so are fine for many bike crashes, but totally inadequate if, for example you with a brick wall at 15mph+.

Thicker crush zones allow a broader range of effectiveness, but that comes at a penalty of weight, increased likelihood of impact to the side, and increased torque on sliding impacts, which is a key consideration at higher speeds.

So there's no perfect answer, and you need to seek the best compromise, balancing weight and coolness with protection.

Understand, that a thicker, harder shell does not translate to a better bike helmet, unless you hit on a protrusion that would pierce a thinner shell, which is why no bike helmet is a substitute for a hard hat, and vice versa.

TromboneAl

Thanks, FB. That does suggest that the MIPS has a real advantage. That is, you get more distance to decelerate a rotational impact since the helmet liner moves.

Six jours

I have seen many, many bicycle helmets that cracked upon impact, with little or no crushing. I am not in the camp that says a cracked helmet did nothing at all - energy is absorbed even in the process of cracking - but it should also be obvious that a cracked, uncompressed helmet didn't perform nearly as well as it should have. So I do think a stronger shell can make a helmet less likely to fail simply by holding the foam together long enough for it to do its job.

sudo bike

This is probably the most concise but informative way of explaining how a helmet really works that I've ever read. Kudos.

Long Tom

I'm hoping that the OP's wife is taking it slow. A brain injury is a big deal. I don't know if she was substantially concussed in addition to the brain bleeding she had, or if it was "just" localized bleeding. Seems like a concussion (a more general injury, not localized as much) would be part of any traumatic brain injury that could cause BLEEDING...... but I don't know that.

My own experience is with a severe concussion without any bleeders. It is a long, strange, dark tunnel to navigate. I'll say that while she might WANT to get right back on that horse... she shouldn't. Her judgement is suspect at best. Her brain is very prone to re-injury right now, and will be for quite a while. Re-injury can be devastating, and symptoms permanent this time.

Judgement suffers because The Judge got whupped upside the head. An illustration. My TBI cost me two ski seasons, and I'm a rabid skier. At one month after my TBI, I was thinking I could ski. Wife and neurologist said no way. Smart people. At 3 months I realized it would be dumb to ski. At 6 months, IE last chance for the kind spring skiing, I realized it'd be INSANE; and I realized how impaired I'd been before! At 14 months (the next season) I was healed enough to know I STILL wasn't ready. Reflexes and processing power were still not back, but at least I knew it. We'll call that progress.

An injured brain is a very poor judge of these things, especially at first, when the desire to be normal again can overpower one's better judgement... So, my advice to her would be to avoid high-speed activities where simple physics render the vagaries of helmet design largely moot. Whatever helmet she's wearing won't mean diddly if she hits her head hard again. If she's doing double-digit MPH on a bike, a helmet might help an impact a bit, but it's Fool's Gold. It'll still be a very bad thing.

If this was caused by someone else, get a lawyer and I mean yesterday. I can't emphasize enough how symptoms and issues can crop up and evolve over time. I know a guy who developed dehabilitating migraines SIX MONTHS after a TBI; he'd never had one before. Thought he was out of the woods... not so.

My main point here, hopefully not obfuscated by my babbling, is not to be under the illusion that a helmet is enough protection for a recently-injured brain. It is not. Ask her neurologist.

TromboneAl

The Trabec Race MIPS came today, and here's a comparison with the Scott Taal:



Looks safer to me.

rekmeyata

Looks to me as if the POC would be hotter to ride with while the Scott would be cooler, one look at the ventilation slots will tell you that...However, you're right the POC looks safer due to the expanded rear head coverage mostly and just a tad more side coverage.

TromboneAl

That's where the "without regard to ventilation" comes in. It is rarely above 60 degrees here; I have never gotten hot on a ride around here.

Wife says she doesn't notice that her POC is any warmer than her previous helmet.

sudo bike

Yes, typically, the more comfy the venting, the less safe the helmet.

rekmeyata

that's true, but I can't help to think that a helmet like the Scott Taal could have gone further with the back of the head protection and brought the helmet a tad lower on the sides. Then the Scott would have been as protective as the POC but have better ventilation.

FBinNY 

What I find so interesting about helmets, is how little reliable performance information is available.

In the bicycle world, makers are asked to reveal the most minute details about their products. Just about every spec is published. Then riders have the ability to make additional judgements as they use them.

No so with helmets. Very few performance related details are offered. Nothing on crush rate, crush distance, shell resistance to puncture or high impact failure, in fact just about nothing about how a helmet will perform in any set of circumstances. So helmet users have to uy completely on faith and a few visual judgements which may or may not be relevant. Add to that that the only opportunity one has to find out how the product will perform is during those critical micro seconds which happen after it's too late to make a change.

Given the stakes, I'm amazed that helmet buyers are willing to accept this situation.

ItsJustMe

Thanks for the photo. I have my POC MIPS on the way from the link you posted earlier. I got a white one.

I don't care about ventilation. I'm perfectly OK with riding with a Bell Citi in 105* weather, and the Citi had little ventilation.

sudo bike

Coverage to the back, while also lacking, isn't why more vents trade-off safety for comfort

Six jours

Helmet buyers, in my experience, tend to put no more thought into the matter than "helmet=safe". The manufacturers have done a fine job at encouraging this and probably are perfectly happy with that status quo.

FBinNY 

My post was more by way of a rhetorical question.

My intent was to point out that helmet use and purchasing decisions are more a matter of faith that informed consumerism.

I-Like-To-Bike

Most likely no such info has ever been gathered by helmet manufacturers for two reasons:
1. They can sell the helmets without providing any evidence that one helmet is any better than another for these performance details. Or performs reliably well at all.
2. They might be embarrassed by how miserably their helmets perform when measured for these circumstances. No sense for them to poke a hornets' nest.

Saluki1968

I posted a thread on this but thought this thread also fit. I just bought a new helmet - POC Trebec Race - after learning of a friends serious head injury in a single bike wreck (ICU, TBI, coma, etc). The POC is very comfortable, fits well and looks to be a real quality product. It cost about $200 but I figure my head is worth that (well, almost that much anyway).