Ordering A Helmet From Europe For The Lower Weight? CPSC vs. EN-1078 regulations.

[Photosynthesis]

Hello,

I am thinking about ordering a helmet from Europe for the lower weight (and lower cost). In this particular case the helmet is 50grams lower in Europe due to their EN-1078 regulations compared to the US CPSC regulations. Has anyone else ever done this? Is this a good idea or bad idea? I have been doing research and now I'm looking for feedback and opinions please.

I thought this article provided some good information http://www.helmetfacts.com/standards/en-1078/

Is there any reason I shouldn't order from Europe when I can get it cheaper and lighter?

[Calnago]

Uh... because you value your brains more than 50grams and a few dollars? Other than that, no reason at all.

[Discodan]

I'm not familiar with the two specific standards (being in Australia) so I won't comment on one being more effective than the other. It's an interesting note in the article that there is no difference in the rate of brain trauma between the countries using the different standards so it's not like the euro standard is going to be a death trap.

The one thing I'd be wary of, we have the same issue here with imported helmets, is that some events (not just racing but MTB marathons etc) will check for standards stickers before letting you ride and you can have issues with insurance claims if you are wearing an 'illegal' helmet. Given the US reputation for being more litigious it may be one to think about

[Photosynthesis]

Uh... because you value your brains more than 50grams and a few dollars? Other than that, no reason at all.

Did you read the article? This is a list of countries that currently use the EN-1078 regulations...

-Austria
-Belgium
-Bulgaria
-Croatia
-Cyprus
-Czech Republic
-Denmark
-Estonia
-Finland
-France
-Germany
-Greece
-Hungary
-Iceland
-Ireland
-Italy
-Latvia
-Lithuania
-Luxembourg
-Malta
-Netherlands
-Norway
-Poland
-Portugal
-Romania
-Slovakia
-Slovenia
-Spain
-Sweden
-Switzerland
-Turkey
-United Kingdom

None of those countries citizens value their brains at all?

[Photosynthesis]

I'm not familiar with the two specific standards (being in Australia) so I won't comment on one being more effective than the other. It's an interesting note in the article that there is no difference in the rate of brain trauma between the countries using the different standards so it's not like the euro standard is going to be a death trap.

The one thing I'd be wary of, we have the same issue here with imported helmets, is that some events (not just racing but MTB marathons etc) will check for standards stickers before letting you ride and you can have issues with insurance claims if you are wearing an 'illegal' helmet. Given the US reputation for being more litigious it may be one to think about

That is a good point and something I did not consider. Thanks.

[Calnago]

Not saying they’re not safe, but one with more material might be a “teensy” bit safer. DiscoDan makes the better argument I suppose. I just generally always err on the side of strength and durability in parts, so why not err on the margin of safety where you head is concerned, I mean if there’s a choice to be made. I wasn’t aware that there were two standards either. Are you saying that a Giro Synthe, for example, is made differently depending on where it’s sold, with less material being used where there are less stringent standards?

[TobinHatesYou]

You are going to be really disappointed when the listed weight difference doesn’t match the real-world difference.

And yes, Calnago, helmets are made according to different standards. Sometimes the CPSC/EN helmets are the same, sometimes not. It basically depends on the origin of the brand. American centric brands like Giro/Bell, Specialized, etc. will generally meet CPSC standards as a baseline. Euro-centric and Asian-centric brands will use EN as a base. The most stringent standards are the AU/NZ ones and their helmets are almost always a different SKU than their CPSC counterparts.

[Calnago]

Well that settles it then... I’m going to New Zealand for my next helmet purchase.

[TobinHatesYou]

Once you achieve a certain level of impact protection, it probably starts making sense to look into head-neck stabilizers like the HANS device used in motorsports. I think there might actually be a few such devices in the DH MTB world.

[istigatrice]

I don't think the australian helmets are any safer than their US counterparts - I think part of the protocol is that it must survive certain collisions intact, so helmets like POC which were designed to compress fail the standard - so the AUS version of the POC is an inferior product IIRC but it should be "sturdier".

I think this is like cars with crumple zones a 'strudy' helmet isn't desireable.

EDIT: To relate back to the OP, if you're allowed to wear any approved helment, and if it's a big brand, purchase the version the helmet was originally designed for - e.g. if it's a big american company designing for american standards I'd buy that helmet, but if they made a new helmet specifically to meet another jurisdiction's standards I'd be skeptical.

[sychen]

I think any of the established standards are fine in terms of safety in the general sense. Australia's archaic standards not withstanding.

The point to consider is, IF you have an accident, any injury sustained may not be covered by insurance as the "recognised" standard by the insurance company for that country does not allow for other standards as subsitute.

I know this has been mentioned in the local(AU) cycling community as a reason to get AU approved helmets, I would think this applies for insurance claims no matter where you are in the world. After all, insurance companies live for these type of loopholes.

[TobinHatesYou]

I don't think the australian helmets are any safer than their US counterparts - I think part of the protocol is that it must survive certain collisions intact, so helmets like POC which were designed to compress fail the standard - so the AUS version of the POC is an inferior product IIRC but it should be "sturdier".

I think this is like cars with crumple zones a 'strudy' helmet isn't desireable.

EDIT: To relate back to the OP, if you're allowed to wear any approved helment, and if it's a big brand, purchase the version the helmet was originally designed for - e.g. if it's a big american company designing for american standards I'd buy that helmet, but if they made a new helmet specifically to meet another jurisdiction's standards I'd be skeptical.

No, the Australian standard means that in a single event/crash the helmet must be able to survive subsequent impacts, not just the first one. It also must have its retention system intact throughout the test. It's not about being sturdier and being able to reuse the helmet, it's the consideration that your head might impact a windshield and then also impact the ground a moment later.

I think any of the established standards are fine in terms of safety in the general sense. Australia's archaic standards not withstanding.

The point to consider is, IF you have an accident, any injury sustained may not be covered by insurance as the "recognised" standard by the insurance company for that country does not allow for other standards as subsitute.

I know this has been mentioned in the local(AU) cycling community as a reason to get AU approved helmets, I would think this applies for insurance claims no matter where you are in the world. After all, insurance companies live for these type of loopholes.

Australia's standards are the newest...implemented in 2008 or 2009 IIRC. It's expected that the other standards will rise up to meet them the next time they are updated. Now I don't think Australia should make helmets mandatory as they have done, but their helmet impact test protocol is not archaic.

[Discodan]

And ironically enough a lot of helmets have lighter variants to meet the AUS standards. Admittedly because the manufacturers have to remove visors and peaks to comply

[Photosynthesis]

I think any of the established standards are fine in terms of safety in the general sense. Australia's archaic standards not withstanding.

The point to consider is, IF you have an accident, any injury sustained may not be covered by insurance as the "recognised" standard by the insurance company for that country does not allow for other standards as subsitute.

I know this has been mentioned in the local(AU) cycling community as a reason to get AU approved helmets, I would think this applies for insurance claims no matter where you are in the world. After all, insurance companies live for these type of loopholes.

It is a good point and something to consider, but how are insurance companies going to know? Do you think they will ask to see the helmet to verify a sticker? Are they going to check the helmet for the one sticker that says either CPSC or EN-1078? If you remove the sticker how could they tell the difference when the helmets are as far as I understand identicle in looks (Not sure on this one might be slightly bulkier to meet regulations?)

[bilwit]

Not saying they’re not safe, but one with more material might be a “teensy” bit safer. DiscoDan makes the better argument I suppose. I just generally always err on the side of strength and durability in parts, so why not err on the margin of safety where you head is concerned, I mean if there’s a choice to be made. I wasn’t aware that there were two standards either. Are you saying that a Giro Synthe, for example, is made differently depending on where it’s sold, with less material being used where there are less stringent standards?

Don't forget that even in the US we still have the choice between standard CPSC and MIPS which is usually a bit heavier (~20g) than normal and most people (especially casual joe-schmoe commuters) don't even bother with MIPS. There's also plenty of World Tour teams that have non-US compliant helmets (Movistar, AG2R, UAE, etc)