Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Author

Climbing Helmets


Rich

9-Jul-2003
5:16:47 PM

Further to the thread in accidents/glasshouse fatality, I'd be interested to know if anyone has any info on particular climbing helmets in relation to their strength when in an accident where your head impacts the rock.

Apparently, numerous climbing helmets state in them that they are not to be used for cycling. This seems odd because you'd think that the head impact in a cycling accident can be very similar to the head impact in a climbing accident.

Anyone know anything about this? Are they made with this impact in mind at all?

Rich


climbau

10-Jul-2003
12:31:35 AM

most climbing helmets are a suspension type system, except for Petzl's Meteor(which is more like a bike helmet). The suspension system doesn't allow for enough stability on impact to meet cycling standards. Essentially climbing helmets are mostly meant to deflect rockfall (small impact area) as opposed to direct wide area impact (using your head to halt your rapid descent). Climbing helmets are designed to move with the impact of rocks(like a trampoline for your head) whereas a bike helmet relies on the stable fit combined with the esky type material to distribute the impact force (like the impact matting used on climbing gym floors these days). It is easier to work out impact forces that a cyclist may encounter during a head impact(speed, angle, surface type, etc..) than it is with the the highly variable nature of rock climbing impacts and falls(weight, length of fall, surface irregularities, rock stability, angle of impact, etc). Another way to think about it would be to take a piece of cycle helmet and hit it with the tips of your cam lobes, then take another piece of cycle helmet and hit it with a brick. Now compare the damage, assuming you used the same force at the same angle, yadda yadda yadda, the damage from the cam lobes may actually pierce the helmet piece where as the brick would bounce off(something to do with the inertia(?) of the materials used in the helmet). A climbing helmet(edelrid ultralite) would deflect the "cam impact".
As an aside I heard of a case where a guy wearing a baseball style cap, with the little button on top, under his climbing helmet had the button pushed into his skull when a rock hit him on the top of his helmet. The little button sits directly under the crossing points of the helmet suspension system. Moral= remove the button from your cap.
Andrew.
NB: This is all secondhand info but makes sense to me :)

Estey

10-Jul-2003
8:36:43 AM

One disadvantage of the Petzl Meteor (and similar helmets) is they are not as hardy as more traditional models. I know of two instances where a Meteor has broken in half inside a climbers pack. I think this would have happened because the foam is designed to compact and break when absorbing impact forces. So if you own a Meteor or equivalent always put your pack down carefully.

The advantage of a Meteor is that it is better designed to deal with a high impact fall (like a cycling helmet). It is clearly superior in a single impact fall. But how superior would it be in a tumbling fall where one's noggin might take a few blows?

I've been thinking of replacing my Eldirid Ultra-light for a while now. Its been very good for when small rocks, draws and bolt plates land on top of your head. However its probably not the best design to protect you from a high impact or side impact blow that could be generated in a lead fall.

Perhaps certain helmets are better in some situations than others.


Rich

10-Jul-2003
7:12:56 PM

Thanks for the input guys.. Do you think then that the Meteor is able to protect you enough from rockfall? And if so, to what degree compared to the traditional suspension style helmet? The meteor seems certainly a lot more comfy helmet and ur less likely to whack ur head against stuff, so ud probably use it more often but at what price?
Cheers
Rich


climbau

10-Jul-2003
10:22:21 PM

Rich,
The Meteor is designed to be used for sport climbing where you are less likely to encounter rockfall. The others are designed for trad climbing/mountaineering where rockfall is the predominant risk.

11-Jul-2003
4:11:48 PM

If you're looking for a helmet recommendation, I'd recommend the Petzl Ecrin-Roc as a tried and true formula. Very comfortable, with little adjusting wheels on the side, and I think these days they cost about $115 or so, so that is still affordable (comparable with a cheap bike helmet). And they look kinda cool I reckon.
Look at pictures of trad climbers and mountaineers in books and magazines and you'll see that a lot of them use the Ecrin-Roc. The only remaining question is: do you get a red one or a white one?


Rich

11-Jul-2003
4:41:59 PM

yeh xtreme909 I've been using a very old petzl suspension style and am considering updating. If the meteor was able to protect u sufficiently from rockfall then i'd choose that one for sure. the main reason that is i believe i would wear it more due to it being less of a hassle to wear, ie u don't hit u head on things,more comfy and less mongy looking! ;) hehe
it amazes me that petzl would produce a helmet that doesn't protect u sufficiently from rockfall when its a climbing helmet. does it actually say anywhere climbau that it is only to be used for sport climbing?

kieranl

11-Jul-2003
11:02:03 PM

I don't think the Meteor is a good helmet for rockfall. It's more designed to spread the load of an impact. It depends on the circumstances. If you are alpine climbing, I would go for the heavier, traditional helmet. If sport climbing or repeating trad routes something like the meteor might be the way to go.
In 1975 I was descending a gully in New Zealand when I was hit by a rock. Apparently I just keeled over backwards and fell about 30metres down the gully. Amazingly the anchor held. We got out of there and I spent a few days in hospital, mainly because of neck soreness from rocketing down the gully upside down. I had about six stitches in the crown of my skull but had no head-aches or concussion. When friends went back to retrieve some gear they found a rock about the size of two house-bricks lying next to my ice-axe. On one side there was a sharp point, covered in fibreglass and blue paint. My suspension style helmet had a sharp puncture mark on the crown.
There's no moral to this story, it's just what happened. I hope it informs your helmet choice.


climbau

12-Jul-2003
7:30:48 PM

The Meteor is marketed as a sport climbing helmet. I just use an Ecrin-Roc and it is red, That way when your on the rock or in a canyon others can tell you apart from punters when the shit hits the fan ;). You used to be able to order a wood grain finish as well as purple(or similar). But now of course the space age Helios is available to help you look like Flash Gordon when your at the crag :). Always check out the optional colours available in the manufacturers' catalogues, because you can always get your fave store to do a special order if need be.


kezza

12-Jul-2003
8:30:54 PM

*I don't think the Meteor is a good helmet for rockfall. It's more designed to spread the load of an impact* Keiranl
*The Meteor is marketed as a sport climbing helmet*Climbau
Climbau; you also mentioned that its marketed at sport climbers because there is less potential rock fall? I cant say i agree... how can there be less rock fall just cause its a sport climb?.......although i may be wrong.
I was intereseted in buying the meteor because it was light and i wouldn't have to keep borrowing someone elses so i emailed a rep at petzl and he said basically the meteor was an all rounder helmet. Strong enough to take blows from falling rocks and designed for falls where you may flip upside down and hit your head on the rock etc...
It can takes these kinds of impacts because as Keiran said it 'spreads the load' like a bike helmet.
The one downfall the petzl rep pointed out was it wasn't as durable and it should be
treated with as much care as your rope, you dont stand on your rope now do you? and you probly shouldn't throw your helmet around any way!
An upside to it being less durable would be you are able to see the damage so you are more aware of when it is time to retire your helmet
"It (the petzl meteor) is rated for both top and lateral protection where almost any other helmet is only rated for top protection" petzl rep.
So i'd have to say i'm sold on the meteor! I'd like to hear from someone who actually has one though whats there opinion?


climbau

12-Jul-2003
9:13:53 PM

On 12/07/2003 kezza wrote:
>Climbau; you also mentioned that its marketed at sport climbers because
>there is less potential rock fall? I cant say i agree... how can there
>be less rock fall just cause its a sport climb?.......although i may be
>wrong.
Sport climbing (being climbing for the masses) crags tend to see more traffic due to their convenience and clean up a lot quicker because of this. Also sport climbs tend to be on clean soaring walls and overhanging, plus not always topping out(generalisation, I know). Sport examples = Nowra, Centennial Glenn, Millenium Caves, The Gallery. And Trad = Arapiles, Mt Piddington, Buffalo, Booroomba Rocks. When you think about these crags you realise the potential for rockfall is much less at the Sport crags in comparison.
The Meteor is definitely safe for rockfall situations, I just think that it may not be as durable in the long run for this purpose and prefer to use my ecrin-roc :).
I know a guy who loves his Meteor. He reckons nothing else comes close for comfort.


kezza

12-Jul-2003
9:26:29 PM

yeah i do realise these places have 'less' rockfall but it's not totally out of the question...
It can still happen and i'm sure petzl wouldn't design a helmet just for sport climbers as it would be a potential risk for other climbers and themselves... As the representative said it copes as well and maybe even better with rock fall then other helmets. Not as durable yes but once any helmet has taken a huge impact or alot of medium impacts they should be replaced. The meteor shows the damage so you are more willing to replace it. All helmets should be taken care of anyway just because they dont show signs of damage doesn't mean there is none.


Sticky

14-Jul-2003
1:26:57 PM

I'm no expert, but here's my two bob worth: Black Diamond make an ice climbing (i think) helmet - the Hemisphere - that has the foam surround similar to the Meteor but seems much stronger and more durable, and with a (seemingly) better shell. Not sure if it takes rockfall as well as the suspension types do, but it's light, comfy, and feels much more secure than the Petzl model. I bought one recently for trad climbs and swear by it, though I've never had rockfall land on it or taken a hit on the head yet (fingers crossed) so I can't really vouch for its performance. Worth a look anyway.

dodgy

14-Jul-2003
2:48:58 PM

Basically suspension type helmets like the the Ecrin Roc and Edelrid ultralights are
better long term.
Soft shell types like the Meteor and Hemisphere are lighter and (often) more comfortable, they are usually a bit lower profile so may be a bit less clumsy in offwidths and under roofs etc. (you WILL get the shits regardless).
Helmets are tested ONCE with a blow that will destroy them. The helmet absorbs the energy of the blow by doing so. Providing the test shows that the crash test dummy wouldn't have been seriously injured the helmet passes. Both types pass the same test, so both offer the same safety.
But in the real world, most helmets are subjected to lots of smaller hits, scraping in gullies, being bashed when hanging off your pack etc.etc. This sort of treatment can destroy a soft shell quite quickly.
Soft shells are not recommended for mountaineering where you are subject to lots a hits, and if you do take a bigger one, and survive, the soft shells are less likely to "get you home".
If you are really only thinking of the one big hit that will kill you (or permanently disable you), and want to protect yourself from that; either will do.
Just remember that you have to look after soft shells better.


tmarsh

14-Jul-2003
4:15:48 PM

All really sound comments, Dodgy.

I am certainly of the view that the sorts of 'real world' situations we encounter climbing makes a hard-shell helmet a much better choice. They're more likely to stand up to all the minor insults a helmet has to deal with *and* be there for The Big One.

That said, the helmet that stays in the bottom of the pack when you start up a climb is a totally useless helmet. If people feel that the features offered by soft-shell helmets are compelling enough to make them don a helmet where they otherwise wouldn't have, then good luck to them.

Hard shell, soft shell, dorky or cool, you've got to actually put the damn thing on before it will make any difference to things.

tim

ps: my vote is to the venerable Petzl Ecrin Roc, though if I had to buy another one, the Black Diamond Half Dome would definitetely be on my short-list as well.

dodgy

14-Jul-2003
5:15:15 PM

Favorite Helmet "in use" story

Guy buys new helmet,
Guy belaying mate, (unused) helmet sitting on ground next to belayer,
Big rock falls down, kills helmet.

What's wrong with this story?

1. He could have saved money by NOT buying a new helmet
2. He could have been killed by the rock but the helmet would have been saved
3. He could have been wearing the helmet and still been killed, or not

I can't think of anything definate about this story EXCEPT the guy is a lucky dick.

NOTE: that the guy was pissed off because he felt he WASTED his money, I wonder if he replaced the helmet?


A.K. Dancer

14-Jul-2003
7:33:57 PM

whats wrong with the story is that he should have had his helmet on and saved himself the price of buying a new one - i'm sure he did because he has just had a fine demonstration of why helmets at the base of cliffs are a good thing.

kieranl

14-Jul-2003
9:18:46 PM

I'm probably making a subjective judgement. Maybe the Meteor and it's equivalents will cope with a rockfall incident such as I described (where a point of the rock punctures the helmet). All I can say is that I was hit on the crown of my head by a single rock that penetrated my helmet. I can't say how a Meteor would have coped in that situation.
Feedback from Meteor owners would be appreciated.
If anyone is interested I still have the helmet, with traces of blood, and you can check it out when you are in Natimuk (just give me some notice).


Rich

15-Jul-2003
9:43:10 AM

Yeah I would be very interested to hear from anybody who's heard of a meteor that's been involved in a rockfall incident also. It vertainly will help ppl to make an informed decision regarding helmet choice. If it does stand up to rockfall well, then potentially it could be a better choice of helmet for your typical sport/trad (repeater) climber IMO. Of course this is assuming you don't mind the aspect that its a one hit wonder..
And Kieran, you're damn lucky, that's all i have to say..

dodgy

15-Jul-2003
11:05:59 AM

Sorry, I'll try to explain myself again...

A substantial hit will render any helmet useless. The helmets are all designed, regardless of construction type, to be destroyed by a large impact. So the meteor will (in theory) work as well as the ecrin roc with the same impact. The (UIAA) test procedure is exactly the same for all types.
My point is that in normal "rough treatment" situations a suspension helmet will cope better.
Of course the test is only a representation of what MIGHT happen when climbing. Every impact is different and CANNOT be imitated accurately, so, if you and or your helmet, survive an impact, in so many ways it will be luck. Helmets cannot guarantee survival.
When someone dies not wearing one, the comment is "if only..."
And, as with motorcycle helmets, when someone dies when wearing one, helmets get a bad rap for being useless. Strange...

There are 29 messages in this topic.