Leatt first made their mark in the mountain bike world six years ago with the introduction of their DBX neck brace, which was based on the protective gear they first designed for motocross racers. In the ensuing years the South African company has continued to expand their lineup, adding in everything from knee pads to riding apparel.
The DBX 6.0 is their high-end full-face helmet, packed full of features like a carbon shell, Leatt's 360° Turbine Technology, and generous venting. Available in sizes XS-XXL, the DBX 6.0 retails for $499.00 USD.
Leatt DBX 6.0 Helmet Details• Carbon fiber shell
• 360° Turbine Technology
• Removable liner and cheek pads
• EN1078; US CPSC; ASTM F1952–10 Certified
• Sizes: XS, S, M, L, XL
• 8 color options (chrome adds $50)
• Weight: 1030 grams (size M)
• MSRP: $499 USD
•
www.leatt.com ConstructionThere's still a lot we don't know about brain injuries, but in recent years the dangers of withstanding multiple concussions have become increasingly clear, and more and more helmet manufacturers are trying new technologies in an effort to reduce the amount of force that reaches the brain during a crash.
With the DBX 6.0, the carbon fiber shell itself was designed to have a low profile shape, which Leatt says helps reduce the rotational force that reaches the head and brain. The visor is mounted with three plastic screws that are designed to break during a crash, releasing the visor and reducing the chance that it will hang up and put additional strain on the head and neck. Underneath the carbon shell are two layers of foam, each with a different density. A V-shaped pattern allows the two pieces of foam to lock together, forming a cohesive protective layer. By using two layers, Leatt says they are able to create a thinner, stiffer, and more impact absorbent layer compared to the traditional method of using one density of EPS foam.
Next, eleven Armourgel discs are attached to the foam, which Leatt calls “360° Turbine Technology.” Commonly used in knee and elbow guards, Armourgel is a viscoelastic material that's pliable until an impact occurs, at which point it immediately hardens. That transformation serves to reduce the force of an impact, and according to Leatt those blue discs also reduce the amount of rotational acceleration that occurs during a crash.
PerformanceAs always, when it comes to helmets, fit will vary from rider to rider depending on head shape, and whether your skull is shaped like a watermelon or a bowling ball, it's best to try a helmet on in person to ensure the optimum fit. I have more of an oval shaped head, and while the DBX 6.0 fit well around the top of my skull, it was a little looser around my upper cheek bones than I would have preferred – slightly thicker cheek pads would have helped. Conversely, the actual opening of the helmet seemed a little smaller than it needed to be, and it tended to yank on my ears when I took it off. Granted, I do have big ears, so this might not be the same for everyone. Otherwise, the helmet was very comfortable, with a nice cushy liner, and even with all of those Armourgel discs in place there weren't any odd pressure points. If anything, those discs added comfort by putting a compliant layer of rubber between my head and the foam liner.
As far as ventilation goes, the vents located just above the forehead are relatively small, but luckily the larger openings closer to the rear of the helmet take up the slack by giving hot air plenty of room to escape. I never felt uncomfortably warm even during the height of summer, when temperatures were sitting in the upper 80s / low 90s (28-34° C). Regarding goggles, I found that the DBX 6.0 worked best with lower profile frames, something along the lines of the Smith Squad. Models with larger frames or thicker foam, like the Spy Optic or Giro Blok didn't fit as well, and it felt like they were filling the entire face opening.
Leatt recently announced an updated version of the DBX 6.0, the DBX 6.0 Carb V23. The name may not exactly roll off the tongue, but the new version receives larger vents at the front of the chin bar, a revised visor shape, less busy graphics, and a Fidlock magnetic buckle instead of the D-ring design. The shell design and the other features remain unchanged, but the slight revision does help to make the helmet look even more appealing.
Pinkbike's Take: | There's no shortage of options these days when it comes to high end full face helmets, and that's a good thing. I had a few little issues with the fit, but that's a matter of head shape more than anything, and otherwise the DBX 6.0 meets all the criteria for a helmet of this caliber - carbon shell, light weight, well ventilated - and goes a step further with the use of multi-density foam and the 360-degree Turbine Technology. It's pricey, but if there's one thing worth investing in, it's keeping your head safe. - Mike Kazimer |
Visit the high-res gallery for more images from this review.
=/
No disrespect to all the websites and mags out there but most just say obviously we never crashed it but it fit well and looks cool. I've seen some tests on European web mags which do this but the manufacturer should supply this.
First company that does it with good results should sell a load more helmets, everyone thinks POC are the safest, prove it POC of beat there score any other manufacturer.
Result = We get safer helmets which we all want
ASTM: www.leatt.com/product_uploads/helmet_test_reports/dbx/ASTM%20F1952/DBX%206.0%20ASTM%20F1952.pdf
CPSC: www.leatt.com/product_uploads/helmet_test_reports/dbx/CPSC/DBX%206.0%20CPSC.pdf
EN1078: www.leatt.com/product_uploads/helmet_test_reports/dbx/EN1078/DBX%206.0%20EN1078.pdf
www.folksam.se/media/folksam-bicycle-helmet-test-2015_tcm5-24933.pdf
As @ibishreddin said below, we don't know if carbon helmets are better at protecting us more than composite or not because no data is ever released. We all know they get the better paint work and charge 2-3 times the price for them. It always makes me laugh when people say they don't trust carbon wheels or bars but they are willing to spend $500-600 on a sweet TLD carbon helmet.
I know its pricey to do these tests and you wouldn't want to do them, but can Pinkbike request the data from manufacturers when they send a helmet for testing? You could start your own league table of sorts if you wanted. PB said a while back you would be doing more comparative tests between brands, what better place to start than helmets?
Start a revolution Mike! :-)
ep1.pinkbike.org/p5pb13967335/p5pb13967335.jpg
reviews.mtbr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/leatt-dbx-6p0-carbon-1.jpg
It look quite better!!
'Leatt recently announced an updated version of the DBX 6.0, the DBX 6.0 Carb V23. The name may not exactly roll off the tongue, but the new version receives larger vents at the front of the chin bar, a revised visor shape, less busy graphics, and a Fidlock magnetic buckle instead of the D-ring design'
The Folksam document you linked to provide some methods to assess the rotational forces but be aware that this methods choosen come from one of the guys behind MIPS...
What we need is an international standard based on real world data that proposed methods and levels of acceptance for rotational forces and direct impacts. These kind of standards takes years to develop... maybe some industry insider will tell if work on such a document has started.
Just asking producers to provide certification reports and then highlight how they do among others in a review would be great for a start!
Come on @mikekazimer: @RichardCunningham: @mikelevy: do a Pinkbike poll, if crash test results were released with each helmet would it help you choose a helmet?
If the people want it, start producing the data and make us a table or graph we can search, lowest impacts, rotational forces, price, Pinkbike review here.etc.
The real price difference on a helmet like this is the carbon shell which really just reduces weight. That could have some safety effect under the right circumstances by reducing the inertia of the hemet, but that's unproven.
I don't think bike helmets are tested for penetration with a dart test, but that's one place a carbon shell could help ie. it's nice to keep pointy rocks from actually poking your head. Mostly carbon is cool and there's none more black.
I have a couple of carbon helmets and the light weight is super nice.
I design helmets for a different industry and can say that the setting of these standards is slow and political. The current standards are pretty old. This is the first time ever that I've seen consumers pushing for more safety so things could start to change. One really good thing about this and similar helmets is that they are actually trying to respond to real medical data without the standards forcing them to. That suggests a real attempt by this and other manufacturers to keep us safe out there. Good for them.
Well, there´s actually a huge difference between a carbon frame and a carbon helmet.
People are not worried about carbon not being strong, they are worried about how it doesn´t show signs of damage and therefore after a crash a frame could potentially be damaged but there´s no way to tell if that´s the case.
A helmet is designed to absorb the impact by deformation and be replaced afterwards (at least with most of todays material choices). Therefore people tend to not worry about how the carbon will do after a crash.
Also even if damaged, there´s no stress on a carbon helmet (except on a new impact. but that´s the same for any shell material) whereas a carbon frame or handlebar are load bearing components, so any weakening of the fibers can lead to sudden failure.
So i don´t think it´s laughable to trust carbon helmets but chose to not run certain carbon components.
For me personally it´s a head thing. I can´t ride carbon bars. There´s always that little doubt in my head about a sudden failure because of overtightened bolts or something like that. So i chose to just not run carbon bars as it keeps me from overthinking my component choices on the trail. With my helmet, i don´t work on it or anything and once it takes a hit it gets replaced. Not much to worry about there so i run carbon (or whatever looks good and fits).
I provided the document because it shows 'g' forces applied during the test. This is one of the main pieces of data we would look at. Would you prefer to take a 180g impact or a 110g?
I am aware carbon depends on many factors, weave, layers, stand size, kevlar, manufacturing, design, quality controls,the list goes on and on.
Two questions for you:
1) does a carbon helmet protect you more than a composite helmet?
2) if yes where is this information available to view to prove this?
Carbon used correctly is an amazing material, I just wish a company could quantify that it makes a safer helmet.
Well, you´re right that would be interesting to know, but had to be specified on a individual basis for every helmet since it would heavily depend on manufacturing methods (layering etc).
So we can´t really say whether carbon helmets are safer or not.
As always it depends on the comapnys knowledge of how to produce a quality product.
Regarding your questions, i don´t know where one would get that kind of information. I wasn´t stating that carbon was better or worse though.
But then again, i was just explaining why people go crazy about exploding bike parts but noone cares about helmets.
Not if you torque properly. But I guess your post-crash comment is still valid though.
very interesting topic and questions raised
I thought the introduction of the "ASTM F 1952 Downhill Mountain Bike Racing Helmet standard" was a good move forward, taking chinbar flexibility and impact protection / coverage into account as a "DH" MTB specific safety standard.
Further specific standards for shell penetration (mountain bikes often encounter sharp rocks) and energies transferred at different impact angles / conditions would be very useful to empower consumers when purchasing new helmets.
Personally? I used to wear an ACU Gold certified Super-X helmet when the extreme freeriding thing was going on - we rode in a lot of quarries and woods with close proximity rocks and trees, undertaking massive drops, gaps and jumps at high speed, and the rationale was the Moto helmet design envelope was more suited to our riding, than a typical DH helmet.
Different helmets for different needs? But running a Moto helmet at lower speeds could lead to more energy transfer and easier concussion.
When I stopped doing the crazy stuff, I moved to a Giro Remedy with ASTM 1952 certification.
@leatt please fire your entire design team for coming up with this monstrosity!
1. Those 'silly' looking turbines (yes, you can have MIPS in D3 for extra)
2. Dual density foam
And you don't see the helmet while wearing it...
I feel obligated to offset your negative opinion with a positive one. I think this helmet looks f'n sick.
singletrackworld.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2016/09/P1100139-640x360.jpg
Nice price)
500$
Damnnn! $500 though.