wiping out in convertible helmet?

[Roadstergal]

'Tis the season of chairty, so I'll forego beating on dead horses... for the moment.

[NiceGuysFinishLast]

'Tis the season of chairty, so I'll forego beating on dead horses... for the moment.

   aww... *puts away popcorn*...  :lol:  :lol:  :kiss:

[snowhownd]

From my research on flip-up helmets apparently there is a great deal of wind noise inherent from their design.  I don't know what it would compare to as I've never tried one.  Personally, I wear full face, but have been curious about flip-ups.  I guess it would depend on what you are trying to choose from... obviously a open face is better than a half helmet, a flip up is better than a open face, and a full face is better than a flip up (wow, that was a long sentence).  Anyways, do some more reading and maybe try to find someone who might loan you one for a trip around the block to see what the wind noise sounds like.  I prefer to adapt the old saying to the helmet discussion: helmet opinions are like @$$holes, everbody's got one...

[Badger]

I've heard only two justifications for a flip-face from people that own them:  1.) To make it easier to get the helmet on/off while wearing glasses and 2.) To be able to have a cigarette without taking the helmet off.

#1 is somewhat dubious...it's not really that much of a hassle (I only poke myself in the eye three or four times).  #2 is even more dubious...unless you plan on smoking while riding (I have seen it...but usually the folks are wearing skull-cap style helmets anyway  :dunno: ).

I can think of plenty of reasons not to get a flip face...but then I'm sure there are at least as many reasons against half-helmets and that doesn't stop folks from getting them.  My biggest concern would be that a flip-face might actually be less effective than an open face...more failure points, more moving parts.  

Personally, I'm not willing to sacrifice safety for convenience.  Like RG said: if I value it, I like to keep it covered up.  Securely.  Now where's that Dainese codpiece....

[Traveler]

Some reasons have already been given, but the everyday aggravations of fill-ups, backing up the bike around garage pillars on a steep camber, chatting to the passenger at traffic lights and cooling off in stop and go traffic are significant for me.
My next helmet will  be a flip-face and I do consider that ATGAT compliant.

[Roadstergal]

Some reasons have already been given, but the everyday aggravations of fill-ups, backing up the bike around garage pillars on a steep camber, chatting to the passenger at traffic lights and cooling off in stop and go traffic are significant for me.

Those all get taken care of for me by raising the visor on a fullface.   :dunno:   Except for filling up and backing the bike up - I don't have to do anything unusual to see well enough to do those two.  Backing the bike up is more of a leverage issue for me, and I get off of the bike to improve that.

[niteshade]

Probably gonna get shot down for this, but here goes...

Pirsig talks about a disadvantage of riding in a car, in that you are cut off from your environment... four glass walls.  Full windshield on a bike is better ('cause you're on a bike), but you still have one of those walls.  Nice to feel the wind in your face.  The Nolan is the only one of the flip helmets where the visor doesn't act as a sail when it's up (good in case it does on its own).  Guy at the bike shop said he sometimes rides with the visor up for short rides around town.  (One other guy there said he has two helmets; one 3/4 helmet for city driving, a full face for longer trips.)

The design of the Nolan in particular seemed nice when I wore it around the shop for a half-hour or so... comfortable; when the visor was up you could have a natural conversation (even though you feel a little like Marvin the Martian); it has a clean appearance; the latches seem solid.  Not a crappy helmet.  Really, it just seems like a nice compromise.

The guys said it is noisier than a full-face, but not a whole hell of a lot, and better than a 3/4 helmet of course.    I am not going to take a whole bunch of long trips anyways.

Just trying to figure this stuff out.  

[davipu]

they are like avalanches (the car)  not a truck, not a car, good idea, bad judgment, and you still get shitty milage.

[Badger]

Some reasons have already been given, but the everyday aggravations of fill-ups, backing up the bike around garage pillars on a steep camber, chatting to the passenger at traffic lights and cooling off in stop and go traffic are significant for me.
My next helmet will  be a flip-face and I do consider that ATGAT compliant.

Hrm...I don't have any problem at the pump with my helmet...I just don't take it off.

On the other hand, I almost always take my helmet off if I'm going inside the gas station convenience store...I've heard anecdotally that some attendants get testy if they can't see your face (they think you're going to hold up the place, I guess).  It also seems a little bit more polite.  Having a flip-face helmet might save me like a minute on those occasions.  I don't bother taking my helmet off at the one store I go all the time...I've been going there regularly for a very long time, and they recognize my car, my bike, and my gear when I pull up and have what I'm going in for ready before I walk in.

Not that I'm trying to poo-poo flip face helmets...I just personally wouldn't get one.   I'd expect them to be less protective than a full-face, noisier, and heavier.  I do know of a few people that are quite happy with theirs...although (not coincidentally, I think) most of them are smokers.

[Chuck]

Watch MotoGP.  What helmets do they wear?  Enough for me.

[JustinNoob]

I have a Fulmer flip-face.  :nana:  I like it.  It's DOT approved.  That's good enough for me.

[Jeff P]

A dude on another board had a 40-45 mph, tumbling down the road wipeout.  He was wearing a Schuberth flip face, and it didn't open or anything.  

jeff

[aaronstj]

Even those tiny brain buckets are DOT approved.  The DOT's approval means very little.  They simply specify standards for helmet design, and don't do any actual testing (unlike Snell).

[Jeff P]

Even those tiny brain buckets are DOT approved.  The DOT's approval means very little.  They simply specify standards for helmet design, and don't do any actual testing (unlike Snell).

Incorrect.  It's true that a proper half-helmet can be DOT approved.  They will meet the requirements for protecting your brain.  But I'm not sure if you're referring to those, or if you're talking about the plastic "skid lids" popular with the cruiser crowd.  Those aren't DOT approved despite the stickers many owners put on them.  

It is true that DOT doesn't test.  They rely on the manufacturer to ensure their designs meet the requirements.

DOT requirements are like Snell's, just with different limits & allowances.  If you haven't read the Motorcycling article referenced earlier in the thread, you really should.  It's quite an eye opener.  Suffice it to say that a helmet that's only DOT approved is not necessarily less protective than a Snell certified lid.  

jeff

[callmelenny]

Even those tiny brain buckets are DOT approved.  The DOT's approval means very little.  They simply specify standards for helmet design, and don't do any actual testing (unlike Snell).

I swore to myself that I would stay out of this but that statement is simply untrue.

IMHO the DOT /SNELL debate is like synthetic/dino oil. I know people are very passionate about their opinions and I have no desire to change anyone's mind. The two testing schemes assume different crash scenarios, so the results differ. The SNELL data give the consumer another standard to judge the product by, I'm all for that. But assuming that a manufacturers refusal to submit and pay for testing is the same as failing is a logical fallicy, argumentum ex silentio

[aaronstj]

I'm referring to the barely-DOT-approved half-helmets.

Also, it seems highly unlikely to me that there aren't manufacturers out there willing to bend the rules a little when testing their own helmets.  Really the only way to ensure safety is to have an independant, objective testing.

And while it's true that a non-Snell helmet could be superior to a Snell helmet, it is a bit suspicious that no flip-face helmets have been submitted to Snell testing.  Snell says on their website that they're perfectly willing to pass a flip-face helmet as long as it passes testing.  So what do the manufacturers know that they aren't telling us?

Also, I haven't read the article you're talking about.  I would be happy to read it if someone would provide a URL.

[Jeff P]

Here's a link.  Watch out it is long!

http://motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/hatz/

Ok, big difference between saying a half helmet ain't as good as a Snell-certified full face, and saying "The DOT's approval means very little."  If we stick to comparing apples to apples (full face DOT vs. full face Snell) then that statement is very much incorrect.  

FWIW I've got a Shoei RF-900, Snell approved.  

Also note, all the low-cost brands in the Motorcylist test performed well, meeting the DOT standards.  I'd suggest that a company "bending the rules" on a piece of safety equipment would be opening themselves up to bankruptcy-inducing lawsuits, so they probably don't do it.  

jeff

[niteshade]

It seems the principle difference between the Nolan flip face and full face helmets is in the chin bar, right?  Only a difference if you hit your chin.

The tests of Snell and DOT are against the main skull section, as well as the tests in the above Motorcyclist article.  From the pictures in the article, even fancy $400 helmets don't have structural padding in the chin bar.  And there's always the face shield...  all helmets have a weak point where there's not any padding at all.

So, are Nolan (for example) full face helmets SMT certified?  Would Nolan use different main skull padding for its full face and flip face helmets?  Granted the chin has a little less protection, but maybe that's the risk you take for the convenience.

And can anyone attest to HOW MUCH noisier a flip is compared to a full face?  I mean, not for 80MPH cruising days... just around town, not more than 45MPH.

[callmelenny]

So, are Nolan (for example) full face helmets SMT certified?  Would Nolan use different main skull padding for its full face and flip face helmets?  Granted the chin has a little less protection, but maybe that's the risk you take for the convenience.

And can anyone attest to HOW MUCH noisier a flip is compared to a full face?  I mean, not for 80MPH cruising days... just around town, not more than 45MPH.

No Nolan helmets that I know of have Snell certification. Since they are Italian, I would guess they are manufactured with the European standards in mind. I have not done an exhaustive search on the matter, though.
As for the chin bar, the article I posted on pg 1 discusses defelection. A flip face actually offers more coverage for your chin, most people can't take the helmet off w/out lifting the face. Whether more coverage = more protection of course is another story

I'm not much help on the noise. I always ride with ear plugs but I don't notice that the Nolan is remarkably louder than other helmets I've owned.

For me the decision was based on the fact that the Nolan fit my melon better than other brands (incl. Arai and Shoei full face). A secondary benefit is that when I'm riding in 100 degree heat 3 months out of the year, I can flip it up at long lights and traffic jams to get some relief.