They ALL look like dunce caps. Having around 40% of the volume, I'd say it's 40% of the regular dunce look.

If it stays on, it fits!

Test ride to the store, it did stay on. The fit feels pretty good actually, but not as good as the first one.

I sported the 0.8 version on this morning's commute. Very comfortable, a great improvement over the standard cheap styro-covers. Yet compared to bare-headed riding it still leaves something to be desired.

These standard hats are basically designed to allow air flow through strips, front to back, and consequently block air flow along the covered strips. And blocked in the very front. That's backwards for cooling when you think about it. It should be more open at front and promote air flow at every point across the width of the head, at some point near the front.

A radical re-design is out of scope here, since unsurprisingly the Bell and Schwinn had basically identical skeletons with (possibly cosmetic) differences in the space between ribs. So I can't do much with that. However, I have a tentative scheme for version 0.7 which really will wait for my Chinese fake carbon fiber covering. It occurred to me that I don't really need all the ribs to continuously contact my head. I still have some room to carve out on the underside, where it's not visible to casual inspection. So I'm going to cut some angled channels in the ribs, drill some vent holes in front, and I think add some vent panels in the front voids to distribute the initial air flow.

Plan B would be to simply drill a bunch of holes in the ribs from the top and front, at whatever angle the hat usually is with respect to ground plane. But my intuition is that the holes will eliminate the "cyclist equipment" appearance so that's definitely a fallback plan.

After five pages of this I have concluded that: 1) The OP will successfully build the helmet of his dreams and 2) He will then use it to win a Darwin Award.

It's not a Darwin Award if he has already reproduced.

I thought OP was specifically avoiding the use of the above bold and underlined word that should no be mentioned. Didn't we agree to go with "pancake adornment"? If not, then I'd like to suggest "pancake adornment".

Check the helmet thread in A&S if you wish to discuss the effectiveness of helmets.

#1 is a safe bet, since my ideas usually work.

I raced in one of those back in the early 80's as a teen! Mine was silver. I remember that "hosing" around the ears had to be scrubbed or it grew some sort of funk...

As to the OP, why not just wear a hat? It is vaguely protective against UV and bee stings...so it is actually a protective device.

If it's not clearly similar to cycling protective gear, difficulties could arise at facilities where helmets are required such as military installations and some corporate campuses, in the sporadic jurisdictions that do require helmets (admittedly not a big issue for me), in parks and paths that require helmets, in group rides and organized events, and on those random occasions where you encounter someone who is ignorant of the facts and probabilities but who wants to make a point about cycling headgear.

So one purpose is to dissuade excessive authoritative scrutiny where helmets are required? Hmmm, you could simply "open up" a cheap helmet with a dremel and saw. Remove some of the structure to allow more venting (a lot more venting), but to still maintain the general shape of the helmet. The suggested idea of looking at "large children" helmets would serve well in this. They tend to be lower profile and fit the crown of the head deeper into the space provided. I was looking around for low profile helmets and while they exist, they tend to be expensive "racing" affairs.

That's exactly what I did, so far. Not a child's helmet, but some ratty ones that have fallen into disuse. I also trimmed off the top and sides to reduce the profile.

No need or desire to talk about the effectiveness of helmets. I was commenting on your idea. Not to mention that you are on a public forum discussing the ways in which you intend to break the law. Since we are both confident in the success of #1 , I will stick with #2 . I applaud your effort.

Break the law? So call the police Hilarious Hats: would you wear them? >> The Fashion Police

Regardless of his weird view of "the law", apparently he wishes me dead. Well so be it, there are some people who are destined to be disappointed.

So your hoped-for "Darwin award" refers to something other than the effectiveness of helmets??

You know, I don't even want to hear it. It's completely irrelevant. If you want to hand out Darwin awards to people not conforming to your ideas regarding head-gear, the helmet thread is there for you. It's the policy of this "public forum". If you persist in this you'll simply be ignored, by myself and hopefully everyone else on this thread.

I'd just wear a jaunty cycling cap. Toss a little bubble wrap under it. Done!

[LIKE]

The people that believe in helmets are not necessarily ignorant. I respect your right to an opinion that differs from mine. I hope you can do the same.

Those occasions where I encounter an ignorant person, who wants to lecture over headgear, I don't want to discuss it with them. That's not saying that everyone who'd do that is ignorant. I don't necessarily mind discussing it with someone who isn't ignorant of the facts and probabilities.

I see both bike and horse mounted police wear these:

Troxel Sport Helmet - The Original Lightweight Schooling Helmet » Troxel Equestrian Helmets

- Andy

It's actually a good choice if you're primarily concerned about impacts, since they fall from considerably greater heights. Not so good where ventilation is concerned.

My wife swiped the 1.0 version for the ride today, mainly for the style points I think. I didn't mind since I went bare-headed - mostly on the street, no hat required!

Do you ride anywhere where noggin toppers are required, other than with some bicycle groups that may require them to participate in their activities?

Yes technically they are required on the Alpharetta Greenway.