Aero Helmet

Back by popular demand, the general all-things Road forum!

Moderator: robbosmans

TobinHatesYou
Posts: 12455
Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2017 12:02 pm

by TobinHatesYou

Nereth wrote:
Fri Apr 28, 2023 6:38 am

When i tried on an Evade III, it sat much higher on my head than the evade II, made it look bigger?

Maybe I needed to size up?

Nope, that's just how both a correctly sized Evade III and also the Prevail III fit on my tall, skinny head too.

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Nereth
Posts: 250
Joined: Wed Jan 18, 2023 10:18 am

by Nereth

Welp, I was, and remain, disappointed.

voicycle
Posts: 170
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2021 8:38 am

by voicycle

cajer wrote:
Tue Apr 11, 2023 7:07 pm
Thanks for the response Mitch!

Does anyone know if there are third party test results with the Giro Eclispe helmet? It doesn't seem like it should be significantly faster than the vanquish, but giro says it is
I'd love to know more about this too. Based on the marketing it sounds like the main way they achieved improvements was by reducing the overall profile of the Eclipse compared to the Vanquish (and it is much smaller). That makes acceptable sense to me, but if it's faster in all situations then why not discontinue the Vanquish? It's still in the product lineup but they don't seem to have a use-case where they'd encourage you to choose it over the Eclipse. I think they say the Eclipse is still faster even when compared to the Vanquish with the shield/visor in place.

As someone who enters maybe 2-3 TTs per year just for fun and never really intends to own any TT specific kit, I really like that I can bring the Vanquish shield out and feel like I've got a 'sort of' TT helmet setup without going all-in. But if the Eclipse is genuinely faster then the only real use for my Vanquish now is to effectively play dress-up (and go slower because of it!)

Now that I own both is my Vanquish literally just hanging on the wall as a backup option? And if so, then why do they still sell it?

dgdracing
Posts: 56
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 12:33 pm

by dgdracing

I got the Giro Eclipse since I usually get along well with Giro helmets (Aeon owner) and did not want to pay north of 200 EUR for a helmet. The weight does not feel too bad, and it is comfy. How fast is it? No idea but it looks fast at least but so far no experience in hot weather.
Depending on the current sale, Ekoi can be a great value, especially the previous models in some "strange" colours can be very cheep :)

thirdsun
Posts: 402
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2021 3:20 pm

by thirdsun

TobinHatesYou wrote:
Thu Apr 06, 2023 6:57 am
thirdsun wrote:
Thu Apr 06, 2023 6:53 am
Quick question: I'm considering upgrading to a Lazer Vento Kineticore. However I already own a Lazer Genesis und often use it with Lazer's Aeroshell. Mostly as weather protection. Now I'm wondering if there even is a worthwhile aerodynamic difference between an aerodynamically optimized helmet like the Vento and an Aeroshell-equipped Genesis. Any thoughts?

I like the versatility of the Aeroshell approach. It's a huge feature in the winter.
Frontal area is probably the single biggest contributor to aero drag, so a svelte modern helmet is almost surely more aero than Genesis+additional shell. Plus, the Vento name implies good venting...which is necessary on hotter days or on climbs.
I reached out to Lazer with the same question and to my surprise they came back to me with a specific answer and actual values from the research and development team:
In a 40 km race the Vento would be 1.8 seconds faster than Genesis with Aeroshell.
It’s a minimal difference .. but a remarkable one.

Meanwhile, Genesis on its own would be 54 seconds slower than Vento in the same race so the Aeroshell is still a big improvement.
Attached are the results of Vento vs Genesis + Aeroshell tests.
Here's the attached graph: https://www.dropbox.com/s/zod8yct9po4y4 ... .xlsx?dl=1

Surprising results. And they confirm that Lazer's Aeroshells are a hell of a deal. They shield you from elements during cold seasons and are pretty damn fast all year round. Apart from deep summer I can wear them in most conditions.

I already bought the Specialized Evade 3 before receiving Lazer's answer and I like the helmet a lot. So no regrets but I'm not sure if I'd have done the purchase with this new information.
  • Canyon Aeroad CF SLX 8 Di2
  • Cervelo Caledonia Rival eTap AXS
  • Vitus Venon Evo
  • Canyon Grail CF SL 8 Di2

RDY
Posts: 2354
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:31 pm

by RDY

Received my Smith Ignite MIPS in L. It's USELESS. Completely useless. If the bottom of your ears are in a relatively normal position relative to your jaw and top of your head, it will not work. I assume mine are since the Abus Gamechanger is non-adjustable in this respect and the straps fit in the perfect position under my ears.

Nominally the ear straps are adjustable on the Ignite .. it's delivered with them being insanely long (halfway to my chin). Once you adjust them up, however, the excess strap sits in a big loop underneath and protruding from the sides of the buckle, meaning it doesn't sit flush with your face, and will also easily pull back in the other direction. The chin strap doesn't take up the excess as on virtually every other design I've ever seen, the ear straps are a closed loop and the excess just bunches under the buckle with no way of securing it or stopping it pulling back.

I now note in a lot of photos that people are running the ear strap buckle miles below their ears, and often lopsided. I can't see how that can be a 'feature', or that the numerous reviews didn't bring this up.

RDY
Posts: 2354
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:31 pm

by RDY

RDY wrote:
Wed May 03, 2023 1:42 pm
Received my Smith Ignite MIPS in L. It's USELESS. Completely useless. If the bottom of your ears are in a relatively normal position relative to your jaw and top of your head, it will not work. I assume mine are since the Abus Gamechanger is non-adjustable in this respect and the straps fit in the perfect position under my ears.

Nominally the ear straps are adjustable on the Ignite .. it's delivered with them being insanely long (halfway to my chin). Once you adjust them up, however, the excess strap sits in a big loop underneath and protruding from the sides of the buckle, meaning it doesn't sit flush with your face, and will also easily pull back in the other direction. The chin strap doesn't take up the excess as on virtually every other design I've ever seen, the ear straps are a closed loop and the excess just bunches under the buckle with no way of securing it or stopping it pulling back.

I now note in a lot of photos that people are running the ear strap buckle miles below their ears, and often lopsided. I can't see how that can be a 'feature', or that the numerous reviews didn't bring this up.
Contacted the retailer ... they said it's designed to be like this and most people don't try to adjust it, and that most are satisfied with it, but a few have complained. It seems to be not safe and not secure to me, definitely isn't aero, and looks ridiculous either adjusted or unadjusted.

Guess I should have paid more attention to photos of people wearing it with the straps adjusted very poorly.

RDY
Posts: 2354
Joined: Thu Jul 30, 2020 10:31 pm

by RDY

RDY wrote:
Wed May 03, 2023 2:03 pm
RDY wrote:
Wed May 03, 2023 1:42 pm
Received my Smith Ignite MIPS in L. It's USELESS. Completely useless. If the bottom of your ears are in a relatively normal position relative to your jaw and top of your head, it will not work. I assume mine are since the Abus Gamechanger is non-adjustable in this respect and the straps fit in the perfect position under my ears.

Nominally the ear straps are adjustable on the Ignite .. it's delivered with them being insanely long (halfway to my chin). Once you adjust them up, however, the excess strap sits in a big loop underneath and protruding from the sides of the buckle, meaning it doesn't sit flush with your face, and will also easily pull back in the other direction. The chin strap doesn't take up the excess as on virtually every other design I've ever seen, the ear straps are a closed loop and the excess just bunches under the buckle with no way of securing it or stopping it pulling back.

I now note in a lot of photos that people are running the ear strap buckle miles below their ears, and often lopsided. I can't see how that can be a 'feature', or that the numerous reviews didn't bring this up.
Contacted the retailer ... they said it's designed to be like this and most people don't try to adjust it, and that most are satisfied with it, but a few have complained. It seems to be not safe and not secure to me, definitely isn't aero, and looks ridiculous either adjusted or unadjusted.

Guess I should have paid more attention to photos of people wearing it with the straps adjusted very poorly.
Update, I got a response promptly from Smith ... apparently this design is NOT meant to be adjustable, and is supposed to be more aero. But it sits so low on my face (and most of the photos I've seen) that it can't possibly be a good fit, and I'd question how it could be more aero than a small buckle directly below the ear. They also said this design is new this season. Anyway, for me, the helmet is not usable. Bonus points, the Koroyd in the sunglasses crevice chews up rubber booted glasses immediately ...

maurice1
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2022 12:51 pm
Location: Jura

by maurice1

I've had a few showers thinking about it recently.. I don't understand why glasses don't come with helmets. I think it would be a great quality of life improvement to have the lens just slide on and off the helmet.
The greatest argument against it I can think of is that people like having their own glasses instead of proprietary glasses that have to come with the helmet, but many of us run the same brand and many of us don't care much.
Why has the bike industry not shoved this specific proprietary solution this time, when it could for once benefit consumers?
I suppose the glasses would rather be called a visor. I don't see many brands offering it for non-TT helmets

Lina
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:09 pm

by Lina

maurice1 wrote:
Thu May 11, 2023 9:00 pm
I've had a few showers thinking about it recently.. I don't understand why glasses don't come with helmets. I think it would be a great quality of life improvement to have the lens just slide on and off the helmet.
The greatest argument against it I can think of is that people like having their own glasses instead of proprietary glasses that have to come with the helmet, but many of us run the same brand and many of us don't care much.
Why has the bike industry not shoved this specific proprietary solution this time, when it could for once benefit consumers?
I suppose the glasses would rather be called a visor. I don't see many brands offering it for non-TT helmets
Because they're awful to use.

Sock3t
Posts: 448
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2018 2:20 am

by Sock3t

calicyclist wrote:
Tue Mar 28, 2023 4:28 pm
I've been debating between getting the S-works Prevail2 or Evade3 or the new Giro Aries. I realize that two of these helmets aren't considered "Aero" helmets but am just wondering if anyone has experience with one or more of these and can probide any thoughts and didn't want to start a whole new thread. I think the Evade3 looks the nicest but am a little concerned about heat buildup. I've been seeing multiple reviewers on Specialized site give anecdotes of it working well for them in 90+ degree heat so I am guessing it's all right but would like any community feedback here before committing to anything. The Giro Aries has some glowing reviews on cycling sites saying it's by far the best road helmet out right now. Not a huge fan of their blue but could probably live with it. Is it really that much more advanced though?
Evade sat on top of my head and I didn't like how high it sat. The Prevail felt big, but the vents were amazing. The comfort was very nice. I don't like specialized so I moved on from it when I bought the Aries. The Aries encompasses my head very well and sits secure. The strap doesn't always like to stay tight, the venting is REALLY good, and it's top of the list in the VA tech safety charts.

RadB
Posts: 229
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:24 am

by RadB

maurice1 wrote:
Thu May 11, 2023 9:00 pm
I've had a few showers thinking about it recently.. I don't understand why glasses don't come with helmets. I think it would be a great quality of life improvement to have the lens just slide on and off the helmet.
The greatest argument against it I can think of is that people like having their own glasses instead of proprietary glasses that have to come with the helmet, but many of us run the same brand and many of us don't care much.
Why has the bike industry not shoved this specific proprietary solution this time, when it could for once benefit consumers?
I suppose the glasses would rather be called a visor. I don't see many brands offering it for non-TT helmets
There's a lot about road cycling that is backwards to me and self delusional. Other genres of bikes have evolved at a much higher rate over the last decade, road cycling is content with new fabrics, integrated cockpit and ceramic bearings. Adding a visor or other step change to integrate a few ideas into a potentially better solution, of the sacred traditional bike helmet? They and UCI will tell you to gtfo with that crazy thinking.

User avatar
wheelsONfire
Posts: 6283
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2014 8:15 am
Location: NorthEU

by wheelsONfire

I would like to ask, does anyone here have an idea which is the sleekest, least bulky helmet?
I wouldn't look at many vents, because i don't suffer from a cooked head.
Or possibly what i miss most, a helmet with holes that i can block. Like snap on(s).
Bikes:

Ax Lightness Vial EVO Race (2019.01.03)
Open *UP* (2016.04.14)
Paduano Racing Fidia (kind of shelved)


Ex bike; Vial EVO D, Vial EVO Ultra, Scott Foil, Paduano ti bike.

Lina
Posts: 1060
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:09 pm

by Lina

RadB wrote:
Fri May 12, 2023 12:15 pm
maurice1 wrote:
Thu May 11, 2023 9:00 pm
I've had a few showers thinking about it recently.. I don't understand why glasses don't come with helmets. I think it would be a great quality of life improvement to have the lens just slide on and off the helmet.
The greatest argument against it I can think of is that people like having their own glasses instead of proprietary glasses that have to come with the helmet, but many of us run the same brand and many of us don't care much.
Why has the bike industry not shoved this specific proprietary solution this time, when it could for once benefit consumers?
I suppose the glasses would rather be called a visor. I don't see many brands offering it for non-TT helmets
There's a lot about road cycling that is backwards to me and self delusional. Other genres of bikes have evolved at a much higher rate over the last decade, road cycling is content with new fabrics, integrated cockpit and ceramic bearings. Adding a visor or other step change to integrate a few ideas into a potentially better solution, of the sacred traditional bike helmet? They and UCI will tell you to gtfo with that crazy thinking.
It's very clear that neither of you have actually used any of the helmets that do have visors. There's a reason why no on really makes them, mainly that they're so much worse than having separate glasses. The airflow to your face will be worse, ALL of the sweat drips straigth to the visor, venting goes to shit when it's not in use, etc.

maurice1
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2022 12:51 pm
Location: Jura

by maurice1

RadB wrote:
Fri May 12, 2023 12:15 pm
maurice1 wrote:
Thu May 11, 2023 9:00 pm
I've had a few showers thinking about it recently.. I don't understand why glasses don't come with helmets. I think it would be a great quality of life improvement to have the lens just slide on and off the helmet.
The greatest argument against it I can think of is that people like having their own glasses instead of proprietary glasses that have to come with the helmet, but many of us run the same brand and many of us don't care much.
Why has the bike industry not shoved this specific proprietary solution this time, when it could for once benefit consumers?
I suppose the glasses would rather be called a visor. I don't see many brands offering it for non-TT helmets
There's a lot about road cycling that is backwards to me and self delusional. Other genres of bikes have evolved at a much higher rate over the last decade, road cycling is content with new fabrics, integrated cockpit and ceramic bearings. Adding a visor or other step change to integrate a few ideas into a potentially better solution, of the sacred traditional bike helmet? They and UCI will tell you to gtfo with that crazy thinking.
Are there actually UCI rules against lens integration? I'm so jealous of tech from sports that don't center everything around UCI certifications for the 0.1% that might take part in UCI races. I'm not even arguing for the aero benefits of the integrated lens or the storage, but there are so many cool innovations that would actually benefit the average rider that aren't being done just because of stuck up UCI rules. We could have integrated frame storage, mounts, proper standards, probably better water bottles, mech hangers that make sense, and glasses that don't have to be twisted in weird ways to fit helmet vents. (in my case, my lazer glasses don't even fit in my lazer helmet :roll: )

by Weenie


Visit starbike.com Online Retailer for HighEnd cycling components
Great Prices ✓    Broad Selection ✓    Worldwide Delivery ✓

www.starbike.com



Post Reply