UKH

After reading another thread about which cycle helmets offer the most protection I'd like to ask the same question about climbing helmets.

I've always used a Petzl Elios (ABS hard plastic shell with polystyrene foam inner) but most of the people I see at the crag are wearing helmets similar to the Petzl Sirocco (foam only with a small hard plastic top sheet).  It seems most helmets on the market broadly fit into one of these two styles.  I have always felt safer wearing the heavier older helmet and suspected it would offer more protection in the event of rockfall.

Putting weight, cost and durability to one side:  which style do you believe is safer?

Intriguing debate! I guess with Climbing Helmets the main aim is for stuff falling on your head (or if you have low spacial awareness like me smashing you heading roofs and protuberances) 

Personally I like the Sirocco, Perfect blend of lightness, comfort and does fit my head well. Being brand loyal the new Wild Country Synchro is excellent as well. I really rate the Nylon suspension system of the old BOA wheel. Packs better in your bag and is more adjustable.

The biggest difference between the 2 is the amount of knocks they can take before being damaged. A hardshell plastic helmet will take more abuse when paired with an expanded polypropylene hliner. The Scirocco does have an expanded polystyrene crown as well for extra protection same as the Borea (for instance if we just focus on Petzl) so the Borea has the same tech as a Sirocco but with a hard plastic outer for extra protection so will in theory last longer.

I guess in answer to your question both are perfectly safe, the Borea has the added bonus of being able to take more abuse than the Sirocco but if you where looking for lightweight with excellent protection I'd go for the Sirocco any day. I guess the compromise is the Meteor!

Personally, and I'd like to hear others thoughts, adding MIPS to climbing helmets is an unneeded addition as MIPS works great for MTB where you having potential head trauma impacts. I think in climbing if you fall from anything over 1mtr a serious head smack, regardless of how good your helmet is, won't do a lot for you.

Sorry, this is very rambly and does read terribly but I hope you get the jist!

Aren't they equally safe, what you have to choose between is weight and durability.

It's not a simple question - what do you mean by safest? Safest if something falls on you from above? Or safest if you fall off and smack your head into the rock?

I wrote this over a decade ago https://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/climbing/helmets/helmets-4905 but its central points are still true.

The Elios is now an old design of helmet, and I think Petzl no longer make them for any usages - they're not listed in the climbing section anyway. Look at a newer Borea, there is more foam in it, coming down lower. This is because it was understood from testing that the old generation of helmets like the Elios gave not great protection to the crown of your head that you are likely to hit in a swinging fall.

There was a much better summary than my monologue 

I'm sure I read somewhere that "foam" style helmets offer greater protection against you hitting your head on the rock in the event of a fall and the "shell" style ones provide greater protection against falling rocks. Before anyone asks I can't provide any source for this and can't guarantee it's even correct. 

Personally I prefer a heavier "shell" type helmet just because they seem a bit more durable and able to take the abuse of me bashing it around and occasionally throwing down in frustration. 

thanks everyone some really interesting points.. my understanding was exactly like yours andypeak, that the old style hard plastic helmets were better for falling rocks, and the new style foam better for you falling into the rock.  Surely there is some sort of comparative test data out there on how each helmet fares when an identical rock is dropped onto it?

My understanding is that the helmet standard (EN12492) has very few requirements associated with protection from side on impacts, however Petzl have commendably written themselves an internal standard which defines a minimum amount of protection from side on impacts.

The protection which an Elios would provide compared to a Borea or a Sirocco etc in a top down impact is much of a muchness (beyond the Elios possibly performing better from a penetration point of view and the sirocco performing better from a blunt force point of view due to differences in materials and construction methods). 

For my money a helmet like the Elios is a sensible and lower cost piece of equipment which is good for people seconding/ top roping (i.e. low risk of a side on impact in most cases), for someone who is leading/ doing lots of traverses (and therefore likely climbing more regularly than someone who only top ropes) helmets like the Sirocco are a better choice due to the improved side impact protection and the fact that someone who climbs regularly will probably be willing to spend a bit more.

There is also a choice to be made between helmets with Expanded Polypropylene (Petzl Sirocco and Mammut Wall Rider) which absorb impacts elastically (i.e. without permanent deformation for the most part) and helmets using Expanded Polystyrene (Black Diamond Vector and the like) which absorb impact plastically (i.e. the foam absorbs energy by cracking and you should dispose of the helmet after a heavy impact). The difference between the two is mainly weight and the height of the helmet's top(probably mitigated with the new style of Sirocco which has an Extended Polystyrene insert over the top of the helmet). I think Expanded Polystyrene probably absorbs more energy than Expanded Polypropylene in the same volume of foam, but it can only do this once while the polypropylene can do it multiple times before the foam will disintegrate.

Edit: The cost of collecting the data for how much impact energy is transferred to various points on the head would be reasonably expensive, I very nearly wrote my undergraduate dissertation on this but couldn't get samples so I was strongly discouraged from doing it by my supervisor.

All technicalities aside, there's a lot to be said for convenience one way or another.

If you tend to abuse your helmet in a way that only a hard shell is going to survive, that's definitely going to be the safest helmet for you.

If you find helmets uncomfortable or annoying, and having a lighter helmet means you wear it more often or for longer, that's a safer helmet for you.

If you want proper side protection to a certain standard, you can pick a multi sport helm that is not only EN 12492 certified, but also certified for a side impact. So certification for bike EN 1078 or ski EN 1077/B.

That does mean compromising on ventilation, size, price and looks (subjective obviously). 

The safest helmet is the one you wear. So one that is light and comfortable enough that you aren't going to take it off while having lunch at the bottom of the crag, and aren't going to um an ah about wearing on a safe looking route.

The safest helmet is the one you're actually wearing. Which from my perspective means lightness, comfort & fit are paramount

I couldn't agree more with this. Until I got a Sirocco I never had a helmet which fitted (I think I have a funny shaped head) and which I didn't find annoying and took off at every opportunity. I now sometimes forget I am wearing one and only do the odd trad route without it if it is both safe and photogenic!

Edit: Just realised that this is nonsense; much like that rubbish about the best camera being the one you are carrying The safest helmet would be something like motor cyclists wear but made of thick steel and with a wide brim to protect the shoulders from stonefall. But of course nobody would wear it.

You have to look at how the testing standards are done. But I’d doubt dropping rocks is the way it’s done as very hard to repeat accurately with known force and angle etc.

Depends what you're using it for.

Sirocco-style helmets do a great job of absorbing shocks and will protect you from one big smash - all good, but what if you're trapped under sustained rockfall? What if you're fifteen pitches up and you need to carry on up or bail off? Having a more solid shell over the top of your helmet in those sort of situations just seems sensible to me.

Good information on helmet testing and certifications here:

https://blog.weighmyrack.com/understanding-climbing-helmet-certification/

If you're worried about getting hit by things that are falling on you, rather than protection from you yourself falling, there probably isn't a safer helmet ever made than the old HB Dyneema helmet.  

I rate my Scirocco for the reasons above, weight and comfort, but I also considered longevity. My logic is you can see if it's taken a hit that'd write it off, and it is designed for multiple hits anyway. A hardshell with stiff foam like a bike helmet could hide a crack till it's too late. 

I also chose it as I was slap bang in the middle of one size, in other helmets I seemed to straddle two sizes. A downside I'd mention is that due to its flexibility, occasionally I've managed to wedge it into a crack whilst climbing which makes for a tricky escape. Presumably the chin strap would give up if you fell off in that situation but it's not something I'm keen to test. 

I agree that MIPS seems unnecessary for climbing helments. 

They are pretty flimsy. Mine split at the side when I stupidly sat on it in my rucksack. I meneded it with duct tape. I'm sure it is now very dodgy, but I havn't got round to replacing it!

Another thing about them is the stupid magnet in the fiddly buckle. I can only assume it seemed like a good idea but nobody actually tested it properly. The metallic "dust" which collects in it is really hard to clean out and makes the buckle virtually unusable. What's wrong with a robust larger buckle?

The buckle on the Sirocco is utterly useless, every time I put it on I spend time faffing about trying to get it to align and close properly. I genuinely don't know how anyone tested it and thought it was a good idea.....I'm secretly hoping I sit on it or something so I have an excuse to replace it.

You have referred to my thread, and I also recently posted a thread about buying a Simond Helmet as my Original Sirocco is getting a bit long in the tooth.

Something I found interesting in the Bike Helmet radio program was the expert said that the materials of the helmets did not seem to deteriorate markedly, but as helmet design is moving forward so fast, newer helmets are better, but I am taking it, that my helmet has not got any less effective than when I first bought it.

I am fairly careful with my helmet and always carry it in my Sack, whereas one of my partners always has it hanging off the back of their pack and it is one of the ones with a thin hard skin, and it ends up with loads of little dings all over it, which I think may degrade the helmets effectiveness.

Worth noting again the Elios no longer seems made. The Boreas have a lot more foam in them around the crown, where the Elios didn't. 

People often say this, but what is this abuse? I can't imagine many sit around throwing rocks at their helmet for a laugh. I've had foam helmets since about 1998. Never broken one, I just tend to stop using them regularly when they're about 10 years old. 

No, all helmets will pass the drop tests etc... but some by design are better if you say take a lead fall, drop, swing, then impact around the rim side on. Others fair better with multiple impacts from above from modest sized pieces of rock or ice(think Alps or winter). Without even factoring in ventilation you'd have at least 2 different helmets to obtain peak protection! 

Then the hybrids for multi sports will pass the specific tests, but again won't be the absolute best individually.

However, the key thing is they are all infinitely better than no helmet at all. The best helmet is the one that fits and can be comfortably worn all day without even thinking about it. 

Totally agree about the buckle. It bugged me every time I put it on.  Mine often came undone mid day. I took a magnet out which solved some issues, it finally broke a tang the other week. I have now repaired it with a conventional ,tried and proven sr20 buckle, looking forward to hassle free use until I eventually get a replacement ten years from initial purchase.

I also had issues with ventilation on the forehead. A velcroed on spacer solved that.

Hopefully I can just buy a helmet that works next time.

If you strap your helmet to the top/back of your 20kg-ish bivvy pack on some walk in and aren't careful putting it down, I'm sure you could damage a foam only hat.  My hardshell stack hats have taken a beating that way.  Also slamming my head into overhangs on mountaineering scrambly terrain.  Big, big knocks coz I move fast sometimes.

But in 2016 a hardshell Petzl Ecrin Roc helmet saved me when a rock 2-4 times the size of my head hit me on the top/side of the head from 100s of metres above.  I was 300m or so up a big icy couloir and made the mistake of trying to traverse sideways to avoid the rock, so also had one ice axe out in the air...  My helmet turned the massive knock into a glancing blow, and I survived just avoiding passing out -- well felt pretty close.  The helmet has one hell of a gouge in it.  I'm not sure a pure foam helmet would have survived that force, or sheared the rock off sideways as much.  Who knows.  But I do like hard shells.

Go on - give us the story!

Not sure, to be honest. I also have a foam helmet these days and haven't managed to noticeably damage it yet. But I don't tend to break many things. I assume people either put them in bags then sit on them or strap them to the outside of bags and drop the bag on them repeatedly.

You need to remove the build up of magnetic grit from the magnet - some crags are very bad for this - it makes the buckle hard to close! It only requires a little to make it hard to close.

I found removing the magnet and buckle far more effective!

Also concerned about  navigating off a crag in  winter and the magnet affecting a compass bearing.

Edit. The biggest issue with my sirocco now is it blowing away when unpacking the rucksack before I get it on.

Can you point me to the cycling helmet thread? Thanks

Is it so outrageous to suggest that if you were to go cragging you might wear a light foam helmet so that you would never see it as an inconvenience, and that if you were to go mountaineering or winter climbing you might choose something tougher instead?

“I think in climbing if you fall from anything over 1mtr a serious head smack, regardless of how good your helmet is, won't do a lot for you”.

I do not think this is true. Just speaking from experience I fell about 5 metres and hit the back of my head of a boulder. I was knocked unconscious for a minute or so and my Petzl Meteor was smashed to pieces but it did it’s job and I think it probably saved my life or at least prevented a massive open fracture and very serious head injury. 
 

I definitely agree you are relying on luck when dealing with an impact over one metre if so but you can definitely get away with it wearing a helmet. 
 

I have also witnessed similar impacts (more glancing blows) over the years where the fall has been in the region of 6 metres or more and the helmet has worked. 
 

Another thing to consider with a helmet is what you are using it for? You may want to consider a more robust helmet for ice climbing if expecting to deal with falling ice. 

Having used variety of helmets over the last 50 years, from the original JB's through to the latest lightweights, I have to say I use only one helmet now.  As I go skiing, ski mountaineering, rock climb, winter cimbing, alpine stuff, expeditions, mountain biking and on road, I wear a Movement Bando for the lot. Really can't reccomend it enough tbh..

Barbeg

I think the MIPS is of some use in cycle/motorcycle/climb helmets, though it's in its infancy: it's designed to let the helmet rotate a wee bit on your head when it's hit obliquely (swinging fall?) so reducing the spin force on your poor brain. I believe it was noticed that the scalp provided a similar function in some oblique impacts where hemets were not worn (I had goosebumps writing that sentence).

I have to admit I DIDNT buy a MIPS clmbing helmet last time (2 yrs ago) - limited choice, price, and subjective perception of helmet fragility - but I likely will next time.

MIPS is controversial in the motorcycle world and the vast majority don't use the system (it is proprietry). We have one in my family from six and I don't know which one it is! I've never had a climbing helmet that fitted so well that rotation on impact could ever be of concern and only one rider in MotoGP rides with a MIPS  helmet ( because he is paid to).

Oh for sure. I was generalising! 

Definitely you'll have a better time with a helmet than without if you smack you head!

A topic I am quite interested in! This is by group I know from the states:  https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1361-665X/acb6ea . Its not behind a pay wall, for anyone interested. 

The US group's findings supported the fairly common view that crushable foam helmets seemed to perform better than the hard shell ones with strapping and foam inserts - particularly for impacts not directly on top of the head. The standard does mainly focus on impacts to the top of the head - and it logically follows that helmets generally perform better when impacted there. The difference in performance between regions seemed to be largest for the hard shell helmets than foam ones - which again seems logical,  as the hard shell ones have thick foam inserts on top of the head, but not elsewhere. It is also unclear if the trend would switch in really severe impacts - like large or sharp falling rocks.

There are not many independent assessments of climbing helmets. The standard (as with most standards) confirms a minimum level of performance accross a selection of impacts,  but achieving certifiaction doesn't offer much more information than that. There is very limited independen assessment of other additions to climbing helmets (e.g. slip planes like MIPS) or soft shell helmets. 

Was this a simple process, or a bit of a faff, as it is something I have been considering. 

If you email me on here I can send a PM + photo of how mine looks now after being modified for my  personal use.

Thanks for all the responses - really useful and interesting to me that there is no clear cut answer.  Regarding MIPS, BruceM's account and the research OllyD linked: I do feel (maybe wrongly?) that I would prefer to be wearing a hard shell helmet in a major rockfall.  But Sirocco type helmets seem to offer the most protection (particularly sides and rear) in sport climbing type fall.  So maybe hard shell is best for mountaineering and foam for sport and single pitch trad?

All helmets on the market will achieve a minimum "performance" standard so whilst they are not all equally safe, they all achieve this minimum. For helmets bought within the EU and UK, these will be to EN 12492. This is a compulsory standard written by CEN, unfortunately to see what it actually means, you have to buy it (at great expense).

Some helmets will also be to UIAA 106. This is NOT a compulsory standard, but something signed up to and that products are assessed against voluntarily. In the case of the helmet standard, it is more stringent than EN standard is some tests. As the UIAA standards are best described (IMHO) as a climbing community project, they are all available on the UIAA website. The pictograms that are created give a good, quick and clear idea of the tests that products undergo. The helmet standard, UIAA 106, pictogram, is here:

https://theuiaa.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/UIAA106-Helmets-web-731x1024...

As you can see, the impact/force transferal test is not just for a top impact. It is probably worth knowing that the helmet standard is under review, and the side impact requirements are becoming more onerous. Some brands, such as Petzl, are ahead of this development and have already incorporated improved side impact protection in their designs. 

Re-MIPS, I am undecided. It came about for for incidences when a helmet hit a high friction surface at high speed. I am unsure whether the base case for use holds true for climbing falls, the injuries suffered and as mentioned above, the "fit" of the helmet.

And finally, to re-iterate the point, a helmet only works if you wear it so get one that fits. 

I'm not sure that there are many "hard shell helmets" available now are there? I just looked up the Edelrid Ultralight which was my first helmet and a proper old school suspended in the cradle shell helmet, but from what I can see they now have a disc of foam on top of your head like the old Elios' did. So I guess technically they're hybrid helmets.

I'd recommend the Borea - it still has the strong plastic outer shell but the inside is lined with lots of foam including all around the sides for the side impact protection. Heavier than a meteor or Sirocco but not stupidly so. I haven't worn mine in summer yet, but I bet it's not that much more noticeably sweaty than my meteor.

Same as me! Mine was the fluro yellow colour, wonder if I still have it somewhere? My climbing partner had a Snowdon Mouldings helmet which made mine look like cutting edge technology.

Currently have a Meteor (my second having accidentally reversed over my last one......!). Really rate it, very comfy, wear it for all my climbing.

I stick to the hard shells, but that´s probably just habit. My 30 Euro Decathlon Simond recently did its job perfectly; I took a 7m fall on lead while attempting to clip a high 2nd bolt. I flipped over backwards and my head smacked into a rock on the ground on the rope stretch. No damage done, either to me or to the helmet. I couldn´t even find the mark on it, since it´s already covered in them due to my tendency to stand up incautiously underneath overhangs/jammed blocks in chimneys etc.