Probably more comfortable too.

Over the line?

Mark it zero.

I have a $225 Specialized Prevail Helmet, a $160 Specialized S3 helmet and a $110 Specialized Propero II helmet. My favorite. the most comfortable to me? The $110 Propero II. All are extremely well ventilated and yes the more expensive ones may be a few grams (i.e. a gel pack or 2) lighter but I notice no difference and since it's more comfortable I couldn't care less about the weight difference. And FWIW, I tried the $200 Kask Mojito, not impressed, the strap is stiff and the retention system in back is bulky and not comfortable.

probably, and much more comfortable than the exploding helmets

The most important, valuable feature of a helmet is how much it doesn't make your head look like a mushroom. I would pay $300 for a helmet with a Mushroom Factor of 0, but I haven't found one for my noggin yet.

Yes, the owner can "point to" these things but they don't provide any real world benefit to the typical owner.

None of these is really going to make the owner "faster" or mean the bike or parts will "last longer".

The value is mostly bragging that their bike is "better".

Given that it's $3,000 rather than $150 more, of course marketers have to provide "better" reasons to spend so much more.

The value is mostly bragging that their helmet is "better".

The "Star Pro Race" helmet apparently has vents that can be closed (to make it more aerodynamic). It's probably a poor choice if you want lots of airflow. It's a specialty item (not something people would normally choose).

===========================

In any case, it's likely very few people who buy $6,000 bikes who would also buy a $50 helmet.

That's exactly it. Cheap helmets are made so you look like a short track speed skater. Just like Shimano forgets to mill out all that extra aluminum on their heavier/cheaper groupsets. Manufacturing costs are probably very similar in both cases, but who else, if not cycling enthusiasts, will pay for "upgraded" stuff?

Coming from motorcycles and wearing full face helmets, I find this thread pretty amusing. The last moto helmet I bought was Carbon fiber and I loved how light it was, which was 6.3 pounds. Honestly I don't even feel my Giro bike helmet. And as far as ventilation goes, any bike helmet is orders of magnitude better than the best moto helmet.

Now the cost issue is a different story. My CF moto helmet listed for around $400 and included a polarized face shield, and carry bag. It's hard to imagine paying that kind of money for a bike helmet.

Having said that, worth is a personal thing. If you spend x amount of money and are happy, then it's worth it.

Maybe.. but it's been reported that MIPS helmets have in the instructions (who reads those, right?) not to wear with hat/liner underneath. What season are we in? That's a non-starter for me, who prefers a liner even in summer for sun protection.

I wish bicycle helmets came in cool designs like motorcycle helmets. Most of them are garish, but you find a nice one once in a while. Bicycle helmets are all dull.

I present, The Doctor.

I'm sure that you can find someone in StL that has airbrush skillz.

Maybe. I have a Louis Garneau Course helmet with better aerodynamics. It's quieter and still cools decently.

I like mine better, don't you?

Wow. Incorrect. Mold design and manufacturing process for a $200 helmet is much more complicated than for a $50 helmet. All that cool shaping is very expensive to build into a mold. Your bog standard $30-50 helmet is a two piece mold; top and bottom. The $200-400 helmets have into the 10+ piece molds with all sorts of inserts and internal structures.

In this thread, people are implying that by paying more, they being "tricked" into thinking they are paying for better protection. This cannot be established. What "standards" do is they fix the expectation. This is good in that it sets the expectation above a minimum level. It is bad because it disincentivizes innovation to move above the expectation.

So, short of taking performance data on a wide variety of helmets at all price points, with the CPSC standard in place, we simply don't know if you are able to pay for better protection or whether expensive helmets improve or worsen safety.

What we do know is more expensive helmets tend to be lighter, better ventilated, and/or more aerodynamic, while keeping to equivalent safety standards as less expensive helmets. If that's worth the extra cost, and it can be (a lightweight helmet is very nice), pay the price. If not, don't.

To me it's all about looks and fanciness. I am not too concerned about protection as long as I look pro.

Tbh, bike helmets aren't great protection, seen enough crashes that ended up badly to the point that i wish they'd made a full face helmet. I'd rock a cool / light full face helmet

I've never paid $6000 for a bike (geez, my used CAAD10 frameset was $375), but lightness is a real world benefit. Some people have an almost ideological commitment to the idea that weight doesn't matter. But duh, of course it does. What real world benefit do you get from being so delusional?

On helmets, I've liked the expensive ones I've had better than the cheap ones. First expensive helmet was a Giro Atmos. After that, I've had three Lazer Z1s, because I'm a klutz and broke two. I don't think I would buy them at full price, to be fair. But gosh, they're light, and the Lazer matches my team kit so perfectly. If you can get a deal, they're amazing. If you can't, today's inexpensive helmets are still pretty great.

Whoa, I don't know if I can follow you there. It would have to be damned light and very well ventilated. It's funny that you should mention this because as I've been fixing up and riding these old bikes I've kind of gone the other way--riding without a helmet for the sense of freedom that it confers (although I'd never do such a thing on my sportbike). I know. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

So here is where I get confusing (not confused). I agree with the no helmet thing. If I wanted to go for a beautiful ride in the swiss alps and at my own leasurely pace I'd rock a cap and that's it.

However, for me I do mostly hard rides and races. I want a full face for those occassions. We must have the techonology to make a nice helmet that is light, breathes well and is safe. Problem is that this industry is driven by fad, and somebody using that would be seen as a total fred.

My ideal bike ride would be on an old italian bike with a baguette on my jersey, a bottle of wine on the top tube, a picnic basket full of ham and cheese and a cycling cap. No more.

I understand you perfectly. The devil is always in the details!

A couple of months ago on one of our local climbs, I saw a guy rocking an s-works tarmac and a full-face helmet that matched his kit.

How much weight are you talking about? You don't say.

How much "real world" benefit are you talking about? You don't say.

How much lighter do you think a $6,000 bike weighs over a $3,000? You don't say.

The difference in weight is small. The real world benefit is very small. Spending an extra $3,000 doesn't make sense for most people.

I've looked for one specifically for high speed mountain descents on the road.

But I wouldn't really want full face on the ride up.

Some kind of convertible piece would be nice.

Here's my take on the analogy between bike prices and helmet prices: it's a p**s poor analogy

My current main ride (which I'd call a race-worthy road bike), had I paid full retail, would have cost well in excess of 6,000 USD for the frame and all the *extra* equipment I have on it (bought in 2015). Compared to a $6K race bike it:
- Is not a full-carbon frame
- Does not have carbon wheels (hand-built wheels, though)
- Does not have carbon bars, stem, or seatpost
- Has a mechanical groupset
- Weighs nearly 8 kg
- Has a level of comfort that is leaps and bounds above any other bike I've owned, while being able to handle all the power I can muster through the pedals (and I'd say I'm well above average in that department).
- I've lost just as many races on this bike than my others
- The bike has the look I want, and the comfort I want, while sacrificing weight and aerodynamics for the former.
- Loved for everything it is

The bike that one replaced was roughly the same retail value and in 2010 was top-of-the-line carbon.
- Was 1 kg lighter
- More aero
- Still a mechanical groupset, but Di2 wasn't a thing reasonably priced at the time
- Stiffer for better power transfer (marginal, at best though)
- Still managed to lose races ad nauseam
- Loved for everything it was

At one point I had bought a CAAD10 which was:
- About the same weight as my current
- Marginally more aero than my current
- Marginally stiffer than my current
- Less comfortable than my current
- Not as pretty as my current
- Lost races on that one too
- Less than half the retail cost of the two above


The three bikes fit well, handled well, were functionally capable as bicycles, were able to handle all the power I could put through the pedals, and never left me feeling like it was the bike holding me back. My current bike is still my favorite, and I'd buy it again if it came to that... but probably with eTap.

When it comes to function of bikes, the laws of diminishing returns strike at a higher dollar amount than helmets. Furthermore, there are dozens of components on bikes that all add up to significant price jumps in the overall cost. The better analogy would likely be between tires and helmets, or groupsets and helmets. For example, I can get some top-of-the-line tubular race-tires which would run roughly $300+ for the pair, compared to a functional set of clinchers for as little as $40 for the set. For some, that higher cost is worth it for a marginal difference in weight, feel, and performance. For others, being round, pneumatic and vulcanized rubber to protect the rims and absorb road shock is all that's important. Each has their own valid reason, but both tires generally will function as tires.