Road bike helmets vs. mountain bike helmets

In shopping for a new helmet, it appears to me that the only real difference between a road bike helmet and a mountain bike helmet is that the latter has a visor/brim. That seems odd to me.

I often ride early in the morning or late in the afternoon, at least in the summer. To keep the sun out of my eyes, I frequently wear a cycling cap under my helmet. Having a detachable visor seems to me like a good idea for riding my road bike because with a hat on, it doe snot matter how many vents I have. My head still drips sweat.

I'm nothing near being a racer, so I don't need the top of the line road bike helmet, but I don't want the cheapest either. I'm looking for something around the $150.00 mark. It seems like I mostly find helmets with visors, mostly built-in, in this price range. That's consistent between the two LBS I go to as well as what I see available mail order.

I don't want to wear a mountain bike helmet while riding an expensive road bike, but I don't want to have to pay $250.00 for a relatively light and well-made helmet either. So what is it about having a visor that is so bad for a road bike helmet? I can understand that it makes it a little harder to see ahead with a visor when down in the drops, but is that the only issue? I saw an ad for a Bell Sweep helmet that is about $50.00 off retail, putting it down around $80.00. That looks like a good deal to me, but it has an optional visor, which must mean it is a mountain bike helmet.

So is there any real difference between a road bike helmet and a mountain bike helmet besides the visor? Thanks.


Ken

On 8/27/2014 12:00 AM, OccasionalFlyer wrote:
In shopping for a new helmet, it appears to me that the only real difference between a road bike helmet and a mountain bike helmet is that the latter has a visor/brim. That seems odd to me.

I often ride early in the morning or late in the afternoon, at least in the summer. To keep the sun out of my eyes, I frequently wear a cycling cap under my helmet. Having a detachable visor seems to me like a good idea for riding my road bike because with a hat on, it doe snot matter how many vents I have. My head still drips sweat.

I'm nothing near being a racer, so I don't need the top of the line road bike helmet, but I don't want the cheapest either. I'm looking for something around the $150.00 mark. It seems like I mostly find helmets with visors, mostly built-in, in this price range. That's consistent between the two LBS I go to as well as what I see available mail order.

I don't want to wear a mountain bike helmet while riding an expensive road bike, but I don't want to have to pay $250.00 for a relatively light and well-made helmet either. So what is it about having a visor that is so bad for a road bike helmet? I can understand that it makes it a little harder to see ahead with a visor when down in the drops, but is that the only issue? I saw an ad for a Bell Sweep helmet that is about $50.00 off retail, putting it down around $80.00. That looks like a good deal to me, but it has an optional visor, which must mean it is a mountain bike helmet.

So is there any real difference between a road bike helmet and a mountain bike helmet besides the visor? Thanks.


Ken


The big difference is the visor. Other differences, if any, are
minimal. And the optional visor doesn't mean it's a mountain bike
helmet. If you don't like the visor, it just allows you to leave it off.

Remember, any bike helmet sold in the U.S. must meet the CPSC standards,
which are also pretty minimal. Essentially, it is supposed to keep
linear head deceleration below 300 "gees" in a 14 mph linear impact.
There's no testing regarding rotational acceleration, even though that's
long been known to be much more predictive of brain damage. At their
best, bike helmets are mostly token protection.

What's not as well known is this: A more expensive, lighter, cooler
helmet will be _less_ protective, more likely to _just barely_ pass the
test. Cheaper ones are designed quickly, so they tend to be designed
more conservatively, i.e. more protective, to avoid extra design and
test time. This has been shown several times by Consumer Reports' helmet
tests, although they reduce their findings to their trademarked colored
dots, rather than giving numbers.

I think it makes little sense to worry much about helmet style. Only a
tiny portion of cyclists have an opinion on which helmet looks more
"stylish," and there's little point in trying to impress them. And
anyone who's a non-cyclist is never going to think of a bike helmet as
good looking. (If they did, they'd wear one just walking around.) Face
it, they all look goofy.

If you really want to wear a helmet: find one that fits your head shape,
and looks like it has enough air holes for you, and is in your budget.
The cheaper the better. They all meet the same standards.

--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, August 27, 2014 12:00:16 AM UTC-4, OccasionalFlyer wrote:
In shopping for a new helmet, it appears to me that the only real difference between a road bike helmet and a mountain bike helmet is that the latter has a visor/brim. That seems odd to me.



I often ride early in the morning or late in the afternoon, at least in the summer. To keep the sun out of my eyes, I frequently wear a cycling cap under my helmet. Having a detachable visor seems to me like a good idea for riding my road bike because with a hat on, it doe snot matter how many vents I have. My head still drips sweat.



I'm nothing near being a racer, so I don't need the top of the line road bike helmet, but I don't want the cheapest either. I'm looking for something around the $150.00 mark. It seems like I mostly find helmets with visors, mostly built-in, in this price range. That's consistent between the two LBS I go to as well as what I see available mail order.



I don't want to wear a mountain bike helmet while riding an expensive road bike, but I don't want to have to pay $250.00 for a relatively light and well-made helmet either. So what is it about having a visor that is so bad for a road bike helmet? I can understand that it makes it a little harder to see ahead with a visor when down in the drops, but is that the only issue? I saw an ad for a Bell Sweep helmet that is about $50.00 off retail, putting it down around $80.00. That looks like a good deal to me, but it has an optional visor, which must mean it is a mountain bike helmet.



So is there any real difference between a road bike helmet and a mountain bike helmet besides the visor? Thanks.





Ken

NNNNNNNNNNN0


WHILE there pick up a new pump


http://goo.gl/LHl7dn

Frank Krygowski schreef op 27-8-2014 6:30:
On 8/27/2014 12:00 AM, OccasionalFlyer wrote:
In shopping for a new helmet, it appears to me that the only real
difference between a road bike helmet and a mountain bike helmet is
that the latter has a visor/brim. That seems odd to me.

I often ride early in the morning or late in the afternoon, at least
in the summer. To keep the sun out of my eyes, I frequently wear a
cycling cap under my helmet. Having a detachable visor seems to me
like a good idea for riding my road bike because with a hat on, it doe
snot matter how many vents I have. My head still drips sweat.

I'm nothing near being a racer, so I don't need the top of the line
road bike helmet, but I don't want the cheapest either. I'm looking
for something around the $150.00 mark. It seems like I mostly find
helmets with visors, mostly built-in, in this price range. That's
consistent between the two LBS I go to as well as what I see available
mail order.

I don't want to wear a mountain bike helmet while riding an
expensive road bike, but I don't want to have to pay $250.00 for a
relatively light and well-made helmet either. So what is it about
having a visor that is so bad for a road bike helmet? I can
understand that it makes it a little harder to see ahead with a visor
when down in the drops, but is that the only issue? I saw an ad for a
Bell Sweep helmet that is about $50.00 off retail, putting it down
around $80.00. That looks like a good deal to me, but it has an
optional visor, which must mean it is a mountain bike helmet.

So is there any real difference between a road bike helmet and a
mountain bike helmet besides the visor? Thanks.


Ken


The big difference is the visor. Other differences, if any, are
minimal. And the optional visor doesn't mean it's a mountain bike
helmet. If you don't like the visor, it just allows you to leave it off.

Remember, any bike helmet sold in the U.S. must meet the CPSC standards,
which are also pretty minimal. Essentially, it is supposed to keep
linear head deceleration below 300 "gees" in a 14 mph linear impact.
There's no testing regarding rotational acceleration, even though that's
long been known to be much more predictive of brain damage. At their
best, bike helmets are mostly token protection.

What's not as well known is this: A more expensive, lighter, cooler
helmet will be _less_ protective, more likely to _just barely_ pass the
test. Cheaper ones are designed quickly, so they tend to be designed
more conservatively, i.e. more protective, to avoid extra design and
test time. This has been shown several times by Consumer Reports' helmet
tests, although they reduce their findings to their trademarked colored
dots, rather than giving numbers.

I think it makes little sense to worry much about helmet style. Only a
tiny portion of cyclists have an opinion on which helmet looks more
"stylish," and there's little point in trying to impress them. And
anyone who's a non-cyclist is never going to think of a bike helmet as
good looking. (If they did, they'd wear one just walking around.) Face
it, they all look goofy.

If you really want to wear a helmet: find one that fits your head shape,
and looks like it has enough air holes for you, and is in your budget.
The cheaper the better. They all meet the same standards.


Why not choose a stylish (to the owner) one? Do you buy ugly stuff?

Lou

On 8/27/2014 1:21 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Frank Krygowski schreef op 27-8-2014 6:30:
On 8/27/2014 12:00 AM, OccasionalFlyer wrote:
In shopping for a new helmet, it appears to me that the only real
difference between a road bike helmet and a mountain bike helmet is
that the latter has a visor/brim. That seems odd to me.

I often ride early in the morning or late in the afternoon, at least
in the summer. To keep the sun out of my eyes, I frequently wear a
cycling cap under my helmet. Having a detachable visor seems to me
like a good idea for riding my road bike because with a hat on, it doe
snot matter how many vents I have. My head still drips sweat.

I'm nothing near being a racer, so I don't need the top of the line
road bike helmet, but I don't want the cheapest either. I'm looking
for something around the $150.00 mark. It seems like I mostly find
helmets with visors, mostly built-in, in this price range. That's
consistent between the two LBS I go to as well as what I see available
mail order.

I don't want to wear a mountain bike helmet while riding an
expensive road bike, but I don't want to have to pay $250.00 for a
relatively light and well-made helmet either. So what is it about
having a visor that is so bad for a road bike helmet? I can
understand that it makes it a little harder to see ahead with a visor
when down in the drops, but is that the only issue? I saw an ad for a
Bell Sweep helmet that is about $50.00 off retail, putting it down
around $80.00. That looks like a good deal to me, but it has an
optional visor, which must mean it is a mountain bike helmet.

So is there any real difference between a road bike helmet and a
mountain bike helmet besides the visor? Thanks.


Ken


The big difference is the visor. Other differences, if any, are
minimal. And the optional visor doesn't mean it's a mountain bike
helmet. If you don't like the visor, it just allows you to leave it off.

Remember, any bike helmet sold in the U.S. must meet the CPSC standards,
which are also pretty minimal. Essentially, it is supposed to keep
linear head deceleration below 300 "gees" in a 14 mph linear impact.
There's no testing regarding rotational acceleration, even though that's
long been known to be much more predictive of brain damage. At their
best, bike helmets are mostly token protection.

What's not as well known is this: A more expensive, lighter, cooler
helmet will be _less_ protective, more likely to _just barely_ pass the
test. Cheaper ones are designed quickly, so they tend to be designed
more conservatively, i.e. more protective, to avoid extra design and
test time. This has been shown several times by Consumer Reports' helmet
tests, although they reduce their findings to their trademarked colored
dots, rather than giving numbers.

I think it makes little sense to worry much about helmet style. Only a
tiny portion of cyclists have an opinion on which helmet looks more
"stylish," and there's little point in trying to impress them. And
anyone who's a non-cyclist is never going to think of a bike helmet as
good looking. (If they did, they'd wear one just walking around.) Face
it, they all look goofy.

If you really want to wear a helmet: find one that fits your head shape,
and looks like it has enough air holes for you, and is in your budget.
The cheaper the better. They all meet the same standards.


Why not choose a stylish (to the owner) one? Do you buy ugly stuff?



Are you asking Frank if he buys big ugly helmets? lol

Duane schreef op 27-8-2014 19:32:
On 8/27/2014 1:21 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Frank Krygowski schreef op 27-8-2014 6:30:
On 8/27/2014 12:00 AM, OccasionalFlyer wrote:
In shopping for a new helmet, it appears to me that the only real
difference between a road bike helmet and a mountain bike helmet is
that the latter has a visor/brim. That seems odd to me.

I often ride early in the morning or late in the afternoon, at least
in the summer. To keep the sun out of my eyes, I frequently wear a
cycling cap under my helmet. Having a detachable visor seems to me
like a good idea for riding my road bike because with a hat on, it doe
snot matter how many vents I have. My head still drips sweat.

I'm nothing near being a racer, so I don't need the top of the line
road bike helmet, but I don't want the cheapest either. I'm looking
for something around the $150.00 mark. It seems like I mostly find
helmets with visors, mostly built-in, in this price range. That's
consistent between the two LBS I go to as well as what I see available
mail order.

I don't want to wear a mountain bike helmet while riding an
expensive road bike, but I don't want to have to pay $250.00 for a
relatively light and well-made helmet either. So what is it about
having a visor that is so bad for a road bike helmet? I can
understand that it makes it a little harder to see ahead with a visor
when down in the drops, but is that the only issue? I saw an ad for a
Bell Sweep helmet that is about $50.00 off retail, putting it down
around $80.00. That looks like a good deal to me, but it has an
optional visor, which must mean it is a mountain bike helmet.

So is there any real difference between a road bike helmet and a
mountain bike helmet besides the visor? Thanks.


Ken


The big difference is the visor. Other differences, if any, are
minimal. And the optional visor doesn't mean it's a mountain bike
helmet. If you don't like the visor, it just allows you to leave it
off.

Remember, any bike helmet sold in the U.S. must meet the CPSC standards,
which are also pretty minimal. Essentially, it is supposed to keep
linear head deceleration below 300 "gees" in a 14 mph linear impact.
There's no testing regarding rotational acceleration, even though that's
long been known to be much more predictive of brain damage. At their
best, bike helmets are mostly token protection.

What's not as well known is this: A more expensive, lighter, cooler
helmet will be _less_ protective, more likely to _just barely_ pass the
test. Cheaper ones are designed quickly, so they tend to be designed
more conservatively, i.e. more protective, to avoid extra design and
test time. This has been shown several times by Consumer Reports' helmet
tests, although they reduce their findings to their trademarked colored
dots, rather than giving numbers.

I think it makes little sense to worry much about helmet style. Only a
tiny portion of cyclists have an opinion on which helmet looks more
"stylish," and there's little point in trying to impress them. And
anyone who's a non-cyclist is never going to think of a bike helmet as
good looking. (If they did, they'd wear one just walking around.) Face
it, they all look goofy.

If you really want to wear a helmet: find one that fits your head shape,
and looks like it has enough air holes for you, and is in your budget.
The cheaper the better. They all meet the same standards.


Why not choose a stylish (to the owner) one? Do you buy ugly stuff?



Are you asking Frank if he buys big ugly helmets? lol


That applies to anything one buys. 'We need a couch, lets get the ugly
one...'. I don't understand that.

Lou

I'm nothing near being a racer, so I don't need the top of the line
road bike helmet, but I don't want the cheapest either. I'm looking
for something around the $150.00 mark. It seems like I mostly find
helmets with visors, mostly built-in, in this price range.

If you really want to wear a helmet: find one that fits your head shape,
and looks like it has enough air holes for you, and is in your budget.
The cheaper the better. They all meet the same standards.

I agree that you don't really get much more with an expensive helmet.
However, the very cheapest helmets usually come in just one size, so going
up a notch or two (into around the $60 range) might get a much better fit.
One other difference is that the cheaper helmets often have exposed foam in
back, and are supposedly less durable than more expensive helmets that have
the foam covered all around. I've never had a problem with the bare foam,
but I guess if you throw your helmet in the trunk with tools, etc., it might
be a concern.

On 8/27/2014 12:43 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Duane schreef op 27-8-2014 19:32:
On 8/27/2014 1:21 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Frank Krygowski schreef op 27-8-2014 6:30:
On 8/27/2014 12:00 AM, OccasionalFlyer wrote:
In shopping for a new helmet, it appears to me that the
only real
difference between a road bike helmet and a mountain
bike helmet is
that the latter has a visor/brim. That seems odd to me.

I often ride early in the morning or late in the
afternoon, at least
in the summer. To keep the sun out of my eyes, I
frequently wear a
cycling cap under my helmet. Having a detachable visor
seems to me
like a good idea for riding my road bike because with a
hat on, it doe
snot matter how many vents I have. My head still drips
sweat.

I'm nothing near being a racer, so I don't need the top
of the line
road bike helmet, but I don't want the cheapest
either. I'm looking
for something around the $150.00 mark. It seems like I
mostly find
helmets with visors, mostly built-in, in this price
range. That's
consistent between the two LBS I go to as well as what
I see available
mail order.

I don't want to wear a mountain bike helmet while
riding an
expensive road bike, but I don't want to have to pay
$250.00 for a
relatively light and well-made helmet either. So what
is it about
having a visor that is so bad for a road bike helmet?
I can
understand that it makes it a little harder to see
ahead with a visor
when down in the drops, but is that the only issue? I
saw an ad for a
Bell Sweep helmet that is about $50.00 off retail,
putting it down
around $80.00. That looks like a good deal to me, but
it has an
optional visor, which must mean it is a mountain bike
helmet.

So is there any real difference between a road bike
helmet and a
mountain bike helmet besides the visor? Thanks.


Ken


The big difference is the visor. Other differences, if
any, are
minimal. And the optional visor doesn't mean it's a
mountain bike
helmet. If you don't like the visor, it just allows you
to leave it
off.

Remember, any bike helmet sold in the U.S. must meet the
CPSC standards,
which are also pretty minimal. Essentially, it is
supposed to keep
linear head deceleration below 300 "gees" in a 14 mph
linear impact.
There's no testing regarding rotational acceleration,
even though that's
long been known to be much more predictive of brain
damage. At their
best, bike helmets are mostly token protection.

What's not as well known is this: A more expensive,
lighter, cooler
helmet will be _less_ protective, more likely to _just
barely_ pass the
test. Cheaper ones are designed quickly, so they tend
to be designed
more conservatively, i.e. more protective, to avoid
extra design and
test time. This has been shown several times by Consumer
Reports' helmet
tests, although they reduce their findings to their
trademarked colored
dots, rather than giving numbers.

I think it makes little sense to worry much about helmet
style. Only a
tiny portion of cyclists have an opinion on which helmet
looks more
"stylish," and there's little point in trying to impress
them. And
anyone who's a non-cyclist is never going to think of a
bike helmet as
good looking. (If they did, they'd wear one just
walking around.) Face
it, they all look goofy.

If you really want to wear a helmet: find one that fits
your head shape,
and looks like it has enough air holes for you, and is
in your budget.
The cheaper the better. They all meet the same standards.


Why not choose a stylish (to the owner) one? Do you buy
ugly stuff?



Are you asking Frank if he buys big ugly helmets? lol


That applies to anything one buys. 'We need a couch, lets
get the ugly one...'. I don't understand that.

Lou

OK, then explain new cars please. I don't get it.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On 8/27/2014 1:43 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Duane schreef op 27-8-2014 19:32:
On 8/27/2014 1:21 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Frank Krygowski schreef op 27-8-2014 6:30:
On 8/27/2014 12:00 AM, OccasionalFlyer wrote:
In shopping for a new helmet, it appears to me that the only real
difference between a road bike helmet and a mountain bike helmet is
that the latter has a visor/brim. That seems odd to me.

I often ride early in the morning or late in the afternoon, at least
in the summer. To keep the sun out of my eyes, I frequently wear a
cycling cap under my helmet. Having a detachable visor seems to me
like a good idea for riding my road bike because with a hat on, it doe
snot matter how many vents I have. My head still drips sweat.

I'm nothing near being a racer, so I don't need the top of the line
road bike helmet, but I don't want the cheapest either. I'm looking
for something around the $150.00 mark. It seems like I mostly find
helmets with visors, mostly built-in, in this price range. That's
consistent between the two LBS I go to as well as what I see available
mail order.

I don't want to wear a mountain bike helmet while riding an
expensive road bike, but I don't want to have to pay $250.00 for a
relatively light and well-made helmet either. So what is it about
having a visor that is so bad for a road bike helmet? I can
understand that it makes it a little harder to see ahead with a visor
when down in the drops, but is that the only issue? I saw an ad for a
Bell Sweep helmet that is about $50.00 off retail, putting it down
around $80.00. That looks like a good deal to me, but it has an
optional visor, which must mean it is a mountain bike helmet.

So is there any real difference between a road bike helmet and a
mountain bike helmet besides the visor? Thanks.


Ken


The big difference is the visor. Other differences, if any, are
minimal. And the optional visor doesn't mean it's a mountain bike
helmet. If you don't like the visor, it just allows you to leave it
off.

Remember, any bike helmet sold in the U.S. must meet the CPSC
standards,
which are also pretty minimal. Essentially, it is supposed to keep
linear head deceleration below 300 "gees" in a 14 mph linear impact.
There's no testing regarding rotational acceleration, even though
that's
long been known to be much more predictive of brain damage. At their
best, bike helmets are mostly token protection.

What's not as well known is this: A more expensive, lighter, cooler
helmet will be _less_ protective, more likely to _just barely_ pass the
test. Cheaper ones are designed quickly, so they tend to be designed
more conservatively, i.e. more protective, to avoid extra design and
test time. This has been shown several times by Consumer Reports'
helmet
tests, although they reduce their findings to their trademarked colored
dots, rather than giving numbers.

I think it makes little sense to worry much about helmet style. Only a
tiny portion of cyclists have an opinion on which helmet looks more
"stylish," and there's little point in trying to impress them. And
anyone who's a non-cyclist is never going to think of a bike helmet as
good looking. (If they did, they'd wear one just walking around.)
Face
it, they all look goofy.

If you really want to wear a helmet: find one that fits your head
shape,
and looks like it has enough air holes for you, and is in your budget.
The cheaper the better. They all meet the same standards.


Why not choose a stylish (to the owner) one? Do you buy ugly stuff?



Are you asking Frank if he buys big ugly helmets? lol


That applies to anything one buys. 'We need a couch, lets get the ugly
one...'. I don't understand that.



No, I don't either. Unless you're going for that retro look...

Anyway, lots of road bike helmets have visors these days. My Giro has
one. I wear a cap too but reversed. I use it to keep the sun off my
thinning sic hair. A good pair of sun glasses takes care of the
sunlight - I ride east to work in the morning and west home in the late
afternoon.

On 8/27/2014 1:21 PM, Lou Holtman wrote:
Frank Krygowski schreef op 27-8-2014 6:30:
On 8/27/2014 12:00 AM, OccasionalFlyer wrote:
In shopping for a new helmet, it appears to me that the only real
difference between a road bike helmet and a mountain bike helmet is
that the latter has a visor/brim. That seems odd to me.

I often ride early in the morning or late in the afternoon, at least
in the summer. To keep the sun out of my eyes, I frequently wear a
cycling cap under my helmet. Having a detachable visor seems to me
like a good idea for riding my road bike because with a hat on, it doe
snot matter how many vents I have. My head still drips sweat.

I'm nothing near being a racer, so I don't need the top of the line
road bike helmet, but I don't want the cheapest either. I'm looking
for something around the $150.00 mark. It seems like I mostly find
helmets with visors, mostly built-in, in this price range. That's
consistent between the two LBS I go to as well as what I see available
mail order.

I don't want to wear a mountain bike helmet while riding an
expensive road bike, but I don't want to have to pay $250.00 for a
relatively light and well-made helmet either. So what is it about
having a visor that is so bad for a road bike helmet? I can
understand that it makes it a little harder to see ahead with a visor
when down in the drops, but is that the only issue? I saw an ad for a
Bell Sweep helmet that is about $50.00 off retail, putting it down
around $80.00. That looks like a good deal to me, but it has an
optional visor, which must mean it is a mountain bike helmet.

So is there any real difference between a road bike helmet and a
mountain bike helmet besides the visor? Thanks.


Ken


The big difference is the visor. Other differences, if any, are
minimal. And the optional visor doesn't mean it's a mountain bike
helmet. If you don't like the visor, it just allows you to leave it off.

Remember, any bike helmet sold in the U.S. must meet the CPSC standards,
which are also pretty minimal. Essentially, it is supposed to keep
linear head deceleration below 300 "gees" in a 14 mph linear impact.
There's no testing regarding rotational acceleration, even though that's
long been known to be much more predictive of brain damage. At their
best, bike helmets are mostly token protection.

What's not as well known is this: A more expensive, lighter, cooler
helmet will be _less_ protective, more likely to _just barely_ pass the
test. Cheaper ones are designed quickly, so they tend to be designed
more conservatively, i.e. more protective, to avoid extra design and
test time. This has been shown several times by Consumer Reports' helmet
tests, although they reduce their findings to their trademarked colored
dots, rather than giving numbers.

I think it makes little sense to worry much about helmet style. Only a
tiny portion of cyclists have an opinion on which helmet looks more
"stylish," and there's little point in trying to impress them. And
anyone who's a non-cyclist is never going to think of a bike helmet as
good looking. (If they did, they'd wear one just walking around.) Face
it, they all look goofy.

If you really want to wear a helmet: find one that fits your head shape,
and looks like it has enough air holes for you, and is in your budget.
The cheaper the better. They all meet the same standards.


Why not choose a stylish (to the owner) one? Do you buy ugly stuff?

Well, as I said, [I believe] only a tiny percentage of cyclists have an
opinion on which helmet looks more "stylish." And a major portion of
that percentage is little kids who want pink ones with flowers, or red
ones with flames. ;-)

We can discuss people's perceptions of style, I suppose. Provided
nobody scolds us for being off topic, of course!

But the only time I can remember hearing anyone compliment the looks of
a helmet ("Hey! Nice helmets!") was a certain helmets-for-all promoter I
know, who wanted to make some little kids feel better about being made
to wear them. Those helmets did have flowers on them.

Feel free to post links to those you think are good looking, though.
- Frank Krygowski