Kali's New Enduro Helmet - First Look
Enduro-inspired full-face helmets tend to come in three flavors; you've got convertible options like the Giro Switchblade and Bell's Super 2R that can be run with or without a chin bar, or you can use something like Urge's Archi-Enduro that employs a slimmer and low-profile chin bar that's not removable. The third option is a normal downhill helmet, of course, and we do see some racers using exactly that, weight and heat be damned. Kali's Brad Waldron is set to introduce a fourth option, however, with the upcoming Invader being a sort of hybrid between a true downhill helmet and an extremely well-vented half-shell, but with a non-removable chin bar.
In other words, the $250 USD Invader will be an enduro-specific full-face helmet with a permanently attached chin bar, unlike the Switchblade and Super 2R that are designed for the same type of use.
Unfortunately, actual prototype examples of the Invader are still a long way out—the helmet won't be for sale until this coming summer—but I was provided with some early sketches of the new enduro helmet that make it clear what Kali is going for, which is apparently maximum airflow and what's likely to be an impressive weight figure. Then again, if you're designing an enduro helmet that can't be converted to a half-shell, it being breezier than a screen door and lighter than a true downhill lid is going to be pretty much mandatory if you expect people to wear it during the entire ride.
Also, you can guarantee that Kali is going to employ their Composite Fusion Plus shell design and LDL (an acronym for Low Density Layer) system that's already put to use in their other offerings.
![Eurobike 2016]()
![Eurobike 2016]()
On the left is an exagerated example of an LDL strip and how it flexes, and on the right you can see them put to use on Kali's Interceptor trail helmet.
LDL are rubber-ish strips (neither Armourgel, the company Kali worked with, nor Waldron will say exactly what those strips are made of) that have a specific shape to them, with short, cylindrical extensions that are designed to flex laterally when an off-axis impact occurs. Kali claims that they allow for some movement and energy dissipation before the EPS foam comes into play, which Waldron says allows the helmet to reduce rotational forces by 25% and low-G impact forces by a claimed 12%. You can learn more about LDL by reading First Look at the technology from last year's Eurobike tradeshow.
Waldron has even gone so far as to describe LDL as a ''MIPS killer,'' despite the fact that the majority of helmet companies are currently incorporating MIPS into their designs. No, he isn't exactly a wallflower when asked about his opinions on helmet safety and current testing standards, which is exactly what you can read below.
Mike Levy: Unlike many of the new enduro-inspired full-face helmets with removeable chin bars, the Invader's is permanently attached. Those other helmets have passed the ASTM downhill testing with the removable chin bar, and Kali could have gone down the same road, but you've decided to go with a one-piece design regardless. Why is this?
Brad Waldron: While the ASTM is a good measure, it is not difficult to pass. The only standard you must pass to sell a bicycle helmet is the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) - there is not a chin bar test in the CPSC standard. So the only ‘test’ you have to measure DH helmets against is the ASTM standard.
Having said that, how strong should your chin bar be? Too strong and it does not give at all and the impact energy has to go someplace. It does; it transfers through to your head - so some ‘give’ is a good thing. Right now, how much give is up to each company and their manufacturing philosophy or the factory they depend on to do it for them. Our philosophy is that the safety standards we currently manufacture to require all helmets to be too hard, which transfers unnecessary amounts of impact forces to your head. Most helmet impacts are not catastrophic linear hits, the majority of the impacts a rider experiences are well below what the test machines put your helmet through in order to pass current helmet standards. We want to take care of those low-G hits as well because the lower hits are not being addressed by our current helmet standards. When I say lower hits, these are still hits that cause some level of brain trauma and concussions - usually a combination of linear and rotational impacts.
It only takes 74 G’s to get ‘knocked out’ according to Dr. Plant of Armourgel, a professor at the Imperial College of London. If you look at most of the test results with the current helmet standards, you are usually looking at G-forces over 100 g’s, sometimes over 200 G’s. Think of your last concussion, did you go unconscious? Then your last concussion was below 74 G’s. We are not addressing those low-G hits in our current test methodology. I believe there are compromises in design that you need to make when you use a removable system, and frankly, that is not how I ride. I don’t want to carry around extra pieces that I have to take off, put on, take off... the goal here is to have a comfortable-yet-safe helmet, leave it on, be protected and ride.
Levy: In your opinion, what exactly is inherently less safe about a clip-on chin bar?
Waldron: If you look at the helmet standards (CPSC and ASTM), you will see that helmets are not tested in the mechanism areas. The ASTM chin bar tests helmet impacts straight on the very front of the chin bar. People definitely hit this location in a crash, but it is not uncommon to hit your head in other areas as well, including the mechanism area. We study as many crashed helmets as we can get our hands on. You hit your head where the mechanisms are placed. So why add more mechanisms and weight when you don’t really need it.
Levy: Kali has long been a proponent of helmet designs with slimmer profiles that won't provide as much leverage on the head and neck as a design with a larger silhouette. Softer and more forgiving helmet shells have also been a mainstay in Kali's line. Can we expect to see these principles applied to the Invader?
Waldron: Certainly, it is in our core beliefs that helmets need to be softer, not just the shells, but the interior foams and surfaces. We look to apply this to everything we make. We continue to learn about rotational forces and brain trauma, which reinforces my belief in the need to reduce the effects of rotational forces. Smaller, lighter helmets are a factor in reducing torque forces. We also use a Low Density Layer (LDL) next to your head. The material we are using is made by Amour Gel, and it reduces linear impacts and low-G hits. The LDL accomplishes this by compressing on linear impacts and folding over onto itself or shearing on oblique impacts - both actions reduce low-G linear and rotational impact forces.
The in-molding process we do for full-face helmets (Composite Fusion) lets us use a thinner shell; if the shell is too stiff the energy does not dissipate quickly enough and too much of the energy goes to the brain before it can start to be absorbed by the foam. In traditional construction, the shell spreads the load of the impact, while the foam dissipates the energy after the shell breaks down. With Composite Fusion, both still perform that function, but they do it simultaneously, getting the impact forces to the foam immediately.
In other words, the $250 USD Invader will be an enduro-specific full-face helmet with a permanently attached chin bar, unlike the Switchblade and Super 2R that are designed for the same type of use.
 |
Unfortunately, actual prototype examples of the Invader are still a long way out—the helmet won't be for sale until this coming summer—but I was provided with some early sketches of the new enduro helmet that make it clear what Kali is going for, which is apparently maximum airflow and what's likely to be an impressive weight figure. Then again, if you're designing an enduro helmet that can't be converted to a half-shell, it being breezier than a screen door and lighter than a true downhill lid is going to be pretty much mandatory if you expect people to wear it during the entire ride.
Also, you can guarantee that Kali is going to employ their Composite Fusion Plus shell design and LDL (an acronym for Low Density Layer) system that's already put to use in their other offerings.
On the left is an exagerated example of an LDL strip and how it flexes, and on the right you can see them put to use on Kali's Interceptor trail helmet.LDL are rubber-ish strips (neither Armourgel, the company Kali worked with, nor Waldron will say exactly what those strips are made of) that have a specific shape to them, with short, cylindrical extensions that are designed to flex laterally when an off-axis impact occurs. Kali claims that they allow for some movement and energy dissipation before the EPS foam comes into play, which Waldron says allows the helmet to reduce rotational forces by 25% and low-G impact forces by a claimed 12%. You can learn more about LDL by reading First Look at the technology from last year's Eurobike tradeshow.
Waldron has even gone so far as to describe LDL as a ''MIPS killer,'' despite the fact that the majority of helmet companies are currently incorporating MIPS into their designs. No, he isn't exactly a wallflower when asked about his opinions on helmet safety and current testing standards, which is exactly what you can read below.
 |
Mike Levy: Unlike many of the new enduro-inspired full-face helmets with removeable chin bars, the Invader's is permanently attached. Those other helmets have passed the ASTM downhill testing with the removable chin bar, and Kali could have gone down the same road, but you've decided to go with a one-piece design regardless. Why is this?
Brad Waldron: While the ASTM is a good measure, it is not difficult to pass. The only standard you must pass to sell a bicycle helmet is the CPSC (Consumer Product Safety Commission) - there is not a chin bar test in the CPSC standard. So the only ‘test’ you have to measure DH helmets against is the ASTM standard.
Having said that, how strong should your chin bar be? Too strong and it does not give at all and the impact energy has to go someplace. It does; it transfers through to your head - so some ‘give’ is a good thing. Right now, how much give is up to each company and their manufacturing philosophy or the factory they depend on to do it for them. Our philosophy is that the safety standards we currently manufacture to require all helmets to be too hard, which transfers unnecessary amounts of impact forces to your head. Most helmet impacts are not catastrophic linear hits, the majority of the impacts a rider experiences are well below what the test machines put your helmet through in order to pass current helmet standards. We want to take care of those low-G hits as well because the lower hits are not being addressed by our current helmet standards. When I say lower hits, these are still hits that cause some level of brain trauma and concussions - usually a combination of linear and rotational impacts.
It only takes 74 G’s to get ‘knocked out’ according to Dr. Plant of Armourgel, a professor at the Imperial College of London. If you look at most of the test results with the current helmet standards, you are usually looking at G-forces over 100 g’s, sometimes over 200 G’s. Think of your last concussion, did you go unconscious? Then your last concussion was below 74 G’s. We are not addressing those low-G hits in our current test methodology. I believe there are compromises in design that you need to make when you use a removable system, and frankly, that is not how I ride. I don’t want to carry around extra pieces that I have to take off, put on, take off... the goal here is to have a comfortable-yet-safe helmet, leave it on, be protected and ride.
 |
Levy: In your opinion, what exactly is inherently less safe about a clip-on chin bar?
Waldron: If you look at the helmet standards (CPSC and ASTM), you will see that helmets are not tested in the mechanism areas. The ASTM chin bar tests helmet impacts straight on the very front of the chin bar. People definitely hit this location in a crash, but it is not uncommon to hit your head in other areas as well, including the mechanism area. We study as many crashed helmets as we can get our hands on. You hit your head where the mechanisms are placed. So why add more mechanisms and weight when you don’t really need it.
Levy: Kali has long been a proponent of helmet designs with slimmer profiles that won't provide as much leverage on the head and neck as a design with a larger silhouette. Softer and more forgiving helmet shells have also been a mainstay in Kali's line. Can we expect to see these principles applied to the Invader?
Waldron: Certainly, it is in our core beliefs that helmets need to be softer, not just the shells, but the interior foams and surfaces. We look to apply this to everything we make. We continue to learn about rotational forces and brain trauma, which reinforces my belief in the need to reduce the effects of rotational forces. Smaller, lighter helmets are a factor in reducing torque forces. We also use a Low Density Layer (LDL) next to your head. The material we are using is made by Amour Gel, and it reduces linear impacts and low-G hits. The LDL accomplishes this by compressing on linear impacts and folding over onto itself or shearing on oblique impacts - both actions reduce low-G linear and rotational impact forces.
The in-molding process we do for full-face helmets (Composite Fusion) lets us use a thinner shell; if the shell is too stiff the energy does not dissipate quickly enough and too much of the energy goes to the brain before it can start to be absorbed by the foam. In traditional construction, the shell spreads the load of the impact, while the foam dissipates the energy after the shell breaks down. With Composite Fusion, both still perform that function, but they do it simultaneously, getting the impact forces to the foam immediately.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
How to Watch the 2024 Mountain Bike World Cup [Update: Staylive Offering Access in New Zealand, South Africa & More]
59222 views
59222 views
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
"If you look at most of the test results with the current helmet standards, you are usually looking at G-forces over 100 g’s, sometimes over 200 G’s. Think of your last concussion, did you go unconscious? Then your last concussion was below 74 G’s."
Makes sense to me... good stuff
I think my next helmet with be a Kali
That said - I'm stoked to see lots of helmet companies doing lots of good homework and research, but I'm flabbergasted as to why there's not an industry wide effort at getting to better standards that more realistically model the sorts of risks we're actually trying to protect against. Today's helmet standards area joke, as they all predate a revolution in what we know about brain injuries (which is still, all in all, pathetically little, but you gotta start somewhere). Why won't the industry get together and finance the research that could produce a better model of the risks to be managed, so that then they can all compete (using their proprietary technologies and different approaches) in how to best mitigate them?
Find a researcher interested in a juicy dissertation subject. Develop a thin skull cap with accelerometers hooked up to data collection to be worn under helmets. Hand out to riders volunteering to be part of the study (for example, at large events like Enduros or demo days and such). Correlate the data with other tracking (such as Strava etc.) and what you know about each rider (short questionnaire, what sort of bike, etc.). Then create shit-tons of data and start looking for things that can tell you what sort of use is likely to create what sort of crashes, and what those crashes translate into in terms of forces on the head. One full season of data collection, one off-season of data crunching and writing, and then a peer reviewed process to draw conclusions that can then turn into a standards setting process.
The outcome would be something like recommended types and levels of protection for different types of use profiles (because frankly the risks faced by different types of riders may very well be different not just in level/extent, but also in a qualitative way). Which would then turn into standards. Which would then allow manufacturers to create helmets that target the sorts of things riders really should care about, and to quantify performance against those standards.
What's in it for the industry is that when you have real data backing the whole thing up, what's probably going to happen is that riders will be more aware and concerned about injury risk, and that will lead to them happily buying more than one helmet (if they do different types of riding), replace their helmets more frequently (if you can show them in some way what does or doesn't compromise a helmet, instead of just rules of thumb), and evangelize for helmet use all over the place - all of which would be good for the industry's sales, good for riders, and a win for science (as there'd be some spillover from this to other disciplines - that research could then be replicated for contact sports like football and soccer and hockey, or for skateboarding, skiing, snowboarding, motor cycling, MX, etc.).
@MikeLevy, @richardcunningham, @vernonfelton, @mikekazimer - how about PB turning that into a bit of a crusade? Head injuries in risk sports are a huge issue, there's huge economic impact (both on the industry, and in terms of public health), and tremendous personal impact. Taking this up could elevate PB over the usual action sports media model of journalism...
I'm not saying my head isn't worth the extra coin . It's just rediclous how soft they already are .
But... that sounds like a decent subject for a capstone project. It would need funding, but to have that research come out a decent university as a true third party would seem like a plus, eh?
@KaliProtectives
It is worse. The CPSC standard says that a 2 m drop to a flat anvil or a 1.2 m drop to a curbstone anvil shall not result in a peak acceleration to a standard headform of greater than 300 g. Why 300 g? Because that is the best estimate of what it takes to kill someone.
Why won't they change the standard to protect against concussions? Because people will yell and scream that they are loosening the standard and people will DIE!!!! If you aren't going to make the helmet a lot bigger, you can't improve protection against concussion-level impacts without reducing the protection against death-level impacts. Everyone who has put in a lot of miles on a bike, doing any kind of riding, would make that trade in a second, but they don't work at the CPSC. It is good to hear a helmet designer saying it.
Not counting brakes, then?
Fair enough. Unfortunately, MTB is a small market compared to kids' helmets and road bike helmets. So, the obstacles are pretty big. For kids and road bikes, it is less obvious that it would be better to design for lower-speed impacts (though I still think it would be). There is no way the CPSC will develop a separate MTB standard, because it will be seen as too confusing (and manufacturers almost certainly will not be supportive of that). So, I am not very hopeful.
"Through a series of impact tests, helmets are evaluated using 2 fundamental concepts: 1) each test is weighted based on how frequently players experience them and 2) helmets that lower head acceleration reduce concussion risk. The impact conditions and weightings are sport-specific, and inclusive of the broad range of head impacts that athletes are likely to experience."
www.beam.vt.edu/helmet/index.php
Even if the companies would just release the data they produce when they test the helmets would be a huge step forward. At least we would know how well it passes a test rather than yes or no. Imagine if suspension was tested like that, Q, Did it go up and down by 8"? A, Yes. Review: It's great!!!!, it looks good, has an animals head on it and shines a nice color of cold, It's totally worth $2000!!!!!!!!! (being very sarcastic here).
Kali and Leatt both linked the actual data when requested but we shouldn't need to ask, it should be given to every reviewer as an advertisement of how great the products are. Then we can easily tell if a helmet is good or not.
The testing you mention would be great but would take years to pull together, don't get me wrong it should be done. However, we could get the data the manufacturers already have tomorrow if they wanted to release it. Then the consumer can make an informed decision.
@karl-burkat @MikeLevy, @richardcunningham, @vernonfelton, @mikekazimer
Oh, and Specialized already did a highly ventilated FF helmet in the past, that even looked good. Props to Kali for making such helmet but still... first world problems... first thing you'll see is folks riding in the bike parks in full body armor and these. Cuz brain damage is more acceptable than scratches on elbows and forearms. You can see them already in Met Parachutes and Super 2Rs.
If someone plans on replacing their DH helmet with this, that's just poor judgement. Point being these helmets definitely have their place.
The two helmet system doesnt work for everyone due to a few factors. The variety of choices that are coming to market and focus on reducing concussions and neck injuries instead of just life threatening head injuries is a step in the right direction. I have to give props to Kali for questioning the status quo and striving for something better...even if better looks almost exactly like the original switchblade
For those people riding one of these and full body armour, maybe they're just being wise and are aware that this helmet better suits the speed they're going at? Rather than go "I need the toughest biggest helmet out there because I'm the fastest and when I go down, I go down proper hard". As for the rest of the body armour, you are aware that it is not to protect you from scratches. A simple MX shirt does that just fine. Spine protection does a horrible job at protecting your elbows, must be a useless piece of kit then.
From what I've been told there's limited if zero penetration tests or all helmets would fail with any form of vents
No way, man. I am going enduring today. It is freaking brilliant. You've coined a new word that will catch fire. Some days I like XCing, other days I like enduring, every once in a while I go downhilling.
I want to go Enduring in the Below Threshold, will people please downvote me there?
Quit creating categories to market your products when others already exist. Competition is good, but lets exist in a fact-based reality.
#stopalternativefacts
I've had a bunch of small-ish crashes off my moto, and every time I've hit the dirt face first, I have wound up with the most incredibly sore neck and shoulders as a result of being violently jarred by an unforgiving chin bar. For some reason, I've never experienced the same type of crash on the MTB (not for lack of trying!) but given our relatively 'low' speeds, this all makes sense..
This makes me wonder if a headwear like "buff" or so, under the helmet, has a significant impact on protecting the head.
If so, maybe it's a different approach to improve head protection.