Leatt has a huge presence here at Whistler. Neck protection has become a signature accessory for park riders, and Leatt hopes to expand their presence among the sport's top athletes to include helmets and body armor. Today, the vanguard protection brand showed its most important products for 2017, including a range of well-engineered apparel, and a good looking convertible enduro helmet.Enduro 3.0 Helmet: $239.99 USDEnduro venues most often require racers to wear a full-face helmet for timed stages, but allow half-shell helmets to be used for transfer stages, which often are grueling climbs. Convertible full-face designs provide the option to climb the transfers in a lightweight, well ventilated half shell, without lugging a second full-face lid around the race course. Leatt's Enduro 3.0 helmet has a pair of quick-release latches that make it possible for the rider to remove or replace the chin bar without removing the helmet.
Details:• 360° Armourgel® Turbine inserts: reduces up to 30% of head impact at concussion level, 40% of rotational acceleration to head and brain, improves multiple-impact protection
• Removable chin bar
• Ventilation: 18 vents, effective at very low speeds.
• PC outer shell is offered in three sizes, with 3D in-molded impact foam for better energy absorption.
• Fidlock® magnetic buckle closure.
• One-dial retention.
• Break-away visor and low-friction cheek pads for easier emergency removal and rotational energy reduction.
• Certified and tested to EN1078; CPSC 1203 - Chin bar certified and tested to pass ASTM1952 standards
• Weight: Weight: 700g +/-50g, without chin bar: 375g +/-50g
• Sizes: Small (51-55cm), medium (55-59cm), large (59-63cm)
• Contact:
Leatt / @LeattUSA
Leatt's Enduro 3.0 helmet, in the half-shell configurations, is certified to EN1078 and CPSC 1203 standards, while the chin bar is certified to ASTM1952 standards, and it includes two important protection strategies: Leatt's 360-degree Armourgel Turbine technology to minimize rotational trauma, and a dual-layer foam liner with a V-shaped interface called 3D V-Foam. The EPS layer is in-molded with the helmet's plastic shell - a combination that, according to Leatt, allows them to make the helmet fit closer to the head. Leatt says that a smaller diameter helmet significantly reduces the consequences of rotational head trauma. Enduro 3.0 helmets are not certified to Downhill standards.
"Turbine Technology" refers to a number of circular discs which are placed around the inside of the helmet liner. In an impact, the specially-shaped discs are the first line of defense between the skull and the helmet. The energy-absorbing Armourgel discs have radial vanes, designed to flex in any direction, which lets the helmet rotate around the skull slightly. Leatt has used this technology in its full-face mountain bike and motorcycle helmets for a number of years, but 2017 marks the first time they have extended their rotational protection to an enduro or all-mountain lid.
The latching mechanism, as mentioned, is an over-center latch that snaps down relatively flush with the surface of the helmet. Leatt was careful to chamfer the edges of the parts of the levers that do protrude above the surface so that they should not hang up in a crash. The levers stay with the chin bar and the receivers in the helmet are carefully hidden, so when the chin bar is removed, there is little or no evidence that the Enduro half-shell was ever a full face.
See more of Leatt's helmet range in the Crankworx gallery
Current state of MIPS.
Do we have the data to really prove this helmet (or any other helmet) is safer? No. But this helmet has everything I've been looking for. The option of using chinbar for face protection is just a bonus.
You're absolutely wrong that I'm absolutely wrong. But I'll concede that it's not as simple as my first post suggested. I stand by my view that, at least on paper, this is a very promising concussion-reducing design.
I feel like someone in there (NOT helmet makers) should be able to scrounge up a half million dollars and perform some proper, rigorous scientific study as to how well (if any better at all) this new helmet tech works.
I'll still buy MIPS because it's a small price to pay just in case it does work better. But would definitely like to see some actually scientific method applied here. But I guess I just proved exactly why they don't feel the need to prove it works, because I'm still gullible enough to buy it, so why would they spend the extra money?
Quite frankly it seems like non GMO sticker - you buy iy and you are a moral human being.
MIPS doesn't replace compressible foam and definitely should not be considered as a way to slow deceleration. It's role in changing moment of inertia also seems to be bogus "on paper". It's not promising technology.
To clarify, what I meant was I wish there were some more rigorous, peer reviewed, controlled, methodical testing.
I've seen the videos and I do believe that these companies are making good faith efforts at making better helmets. But when you have Leatt's "turbines", MIPS, Kali's "composite fusion plus" AND Scott's Koroyd... It's getting a little Wild West with the "this is what's REALLY gonna save you're brain".
Yes, you could argue that all this just means better helmets, and each company's competing technology is only furthering that goal, which benefits all of us.
What I'd really like to see is all these things tested against one standard, which is what you've also said.
Again, I'm gonna keep ponying up for the added safety feature whether it's a millimeter thin slippery bit of plastic, or a bunch of soda straws glued together. Because I like my brain the way it is. But it wouldn't hurt seeing some hard, unbiased data when I'm parting with that extra cash.
Nevertheless what is vital here is the timing. As your head hits the object, your skull may or may not compress the EPS before your brain smacks into the inside of the skull. If this would be the case, all this divagation is pointless and we could all ride thinner helmets. No matter how thick is the shell of a nut, the inside will bounce on it's walls. But I don't know, we get no info on that, just fancy tech words and graphs.
Finally it may be that the answer is something like airbag system that Hövding offers. However that would mean that even a tiny crash ends your competition.
Look, a full face helmet has no use if it isn't DH worthy. The reason we wear full face helmets is because we ride pretty much DH tracks on bikes that give us less room for error than DH bikes, while going as fast as possible. I ride a lot of sketchy stuff in my open face helmet, but I always keep an extra margin compared to when I'm in my full face, and I think there is a high chance that you'll be lulled into a false sense of security with something like this. This is the original switchblade/parachute all over again...
On that matter actually, what is the deal with "3.0", did we miss the first 2? Isn't this Leatts first open face/semi whatever offering?
Jokes aside though, I'm a strong advocate of knowing ones limits. If I'm not feeling up to it, I'd rather swallow my pride and walk around. A crash can still be painful as fvck, flimsy chin guard or not.
And when the PR material states that it's designed to replace proper FF helmets on enduro stages, I'd say that's endorsing it.. Sure, a lot of top riders would probably race in an OF helmet if they were allowed to, but I don't see them being the main risk group here.
Don't get me wrong - I've not gone the convertible route and have a seperate half shell and full face so it's not for me, but to write these off immediately is a bit silly. I know plenty of people who have gone down this route, are happy that they have, and are better protected than had they worn their half shells... Most of them wouldn't ever dream of purchasing a full face anyway!
Look on the bright side in that the more protection people wear, the more the severity of any accidents is reduced and the less likely it is that some chump determined to sue your local trail group causes your trails to be dumbed down.
I do think that they've been pretty fair here though, specifically saying the helmet isn't suitable for downhill use.
I 100% agree with you..After having my Met Parachute for 6 months now, I wonder why the manufacturers are focusing so much on the removable chinbars instead of just making a lighter / well ventilated fullface???
I have wore my Met on some incredibly HOT and HUMID days and I have yet to even notice any difference compared to my TLD A1...ok maybe a LITTLE difference...but the differerence is almost nothing and the security of having the fullface makes it a no brainer..
I have a D3 when riding my big bike and I know the feeling of ripping it off my head on hot days just to breath..I never had that feeling with my Met Parachute even after some decent size climbs..
But I'm with you. I personally like the lightweight DH certified full face concept.
www.astm.org/Standards/F1952.htm
"Enduro 3.0 helmets are not certified to Downhill standards."
There is a lot of teck going into the making of this helmet.
March,15 2017
"another non-DH certified "
it passes the ASTM-1952 test that TLD D3 does dumb ass
Get a proper full face or get f*cked. These half way jobbies are a joke aimed at the 'more money than brains' 40+ dentist crew.