I've worn it once which it was the lightest helmet I have ever worn. Some day I may consider getting one, but I can't help but be skeptical of the quality of it. Perhaps because of how thin it is. Is it really as powerful/protective as other helmets?

Likely just a typo but it is called the "ultralight, well-ventilated Petzl Meteor III+" these days.

And yes worth every penny in quality (better than any other foam helmet out there currently) and protection...equal to the best. It is actually thicker than most. May be you mean weight? It is not the lightest helmet available.
But it is th "standard" lwt helmet by which every other model is judged.

Foam helmets by design are not made to be extremely durable. One hard hit (like a bike helmet) and they are done. Cheap insurance as they offer more protection than a hard shell plastic helmet.

Dane1 wrote:Likely just a typo but it is called the "ultralight, well-ventilated Petzl Meteor III+" these days.

And yes worth every penny in quality (better than any other foam helmet out there currently) and protection...equal to the best. It is actually thicker than most. May be you mean weight? It is not the lightest helmet available.
But it is th "standard" lwt helmet by which every other model is judged.

Foam helmets by design are not made to be extremely durable. One hard hit (like a bike helmet) and they are done. Cheap insurance as they offer more protection than a hard shell plastic helmet.

More protection than a hard shell plastic helmet?

More protection from what? Falling rocks? The blow of your head smacking the wall?

I have a hard time believing that a Meteor offers more protection than a Petzl Ecrin from falling rocks.

I don't have the newer meteor III but have a meteor from a year or so back I guess. She's been fantastic. She, like all helmets take up space in the pack but she weighs almost nothing. As for how good it is? It's taken a light sprinkling of rocks a few times, no holes or anything or rocks of that size. That's what we want right? We try to avoid rock fall right?
As for the helmet though, if it's rated strong enough to be a bike helmet, then that's good enough for me (meteor III), I certainly don't want to find out first hand on purpose how tough it is.

As for the Ecrin, I used to use one of those... probably more durable and stronger... but for that much extra weight? It's also much bigger and for me anyway, uncomfortable in comparison. As dane says, they're made to take 1 big hit - that's its job - to save your life once. In the overall scheme of things, it's not that expensive.

(like my first car... paid a huge amount for it (in comparison to climbing gear) ... when I totalled it in a bad wreck, the car kept me alive, but could never drive it again... a hummer would do the same, as would most any car... made to take one big hit, that's it.)

Kai wrote:More protection than a hard shell plastic helmet?
More protection from what? Falling rocks? The blow of your head smacking the wall?
I have a hard time believing that a Meteor offers more protection than a Petzl Ecrin from falling rocks.

Meteor III+ or the earlier Meteor III, same helmet, just fookin with Josh a bit. My first is 3 years old now I think, may be four. Still useable.

*More protection than a hard shell plastic helmet?

Yes, more protection from a major traumatic hit (stone or head impact) than any simple hard shell out there including the Ecrin.

*More protection from what?

everything...once.

*Falling rocks?

yes

*or ice

Buddy was in a Ecrin and me in a Meteor last winter in -30C temps. Dinner plate broke his helmet. Bigger dinner plate damn near knocked me out and my helmet went inscathed. Me as well. Would a lesser helmet done as well? Maybe. Yes we were both surprised. He begrudgingly bought a Meteor as well. So may be not just one impact. But the idea behind the design is just one big one.

* The blow of your head smacking the wall?

yes by a long shot over simple plastic helmets like the Salamander, Half Dome and the Ecrin.

"I have a hard time believing that a Meteor offers more protection than a Petzl Ecrin from falling rocks."

Get use to it. I aint here to sell you a helmet and find it a little offensive..ok a lot offensive to pay $100 for a one shot helmet. Took awhile to convince me as well and it took climbing in one a lot. But it only takes one good hit to kill ya, rock, ice or head in a fall. You damage a Meteor, BD Tracer, Grivel Airtech or Camp Speed while actually climbing and a new helmet is likely the least of your worries.

I know of one Meteor that has been broken in a fall, none from rock or ice fall. A lesser helmet on the one that did break and the owner admitted to "an obviously serious head injury". Helmet worked as designed and wasn't warrentied by Petzl..I tried

They (foam hard shells) are in fact so much better that I suspect at some point in the near future we'll no longer see the less expensive and less proetective simple hard shells. Likely a good thing imo. A little research on the net will tell you a lot about helmets and the levels of protection they offer or don't. Lighter, stronger, better, what is not to like besides price?

I'm not convinced about the superiority of a foam helmet against falling rocks. (I do believe that they offer more protection against smacking your head against the wall.) I use a foam helmet (Meteor or Camp Speed) for cragging, but when I go in the real mountains, I wear my (no longer manufactured) HB carbon fiber/dyneema helmet. It's light (just under 13 ounces,) and I just can't imagine any foam helmet protecting my noggin from a falling rock as well as my HB. The thing is seriously stout. Plus, if I'm in the mountains and take one big hit, it may be a while before I can get down and buy a new helmet to replace my foamie. I'd rather be wearing a helmet that will survive several big hits.

I'd love to see the UIAA test data on various helmets, particularly the "pointy rock" test and compare how the different helmet designs stand up.

A foam helmet protects your skull by crushing, which absorbs the momentum of the rock.
A fiberglass helmet protects your skull by breaking, which also absorbs the momentum of the rock.

In both cases, the helmet is no longer able to withstand another severe blow, and is useless.
But it has done its job: The helmet is destroyed, so the climber may live to climb again.

I've seen pictures posted on the web, of helmets severely destroyed, and the climber sustained severe neck/skull injuries. But these wrecks are beyond UIAA's requirements. Still, the helmet did its job. Without the protection, those climbers heads would have been destroyed, instead of the plastic.

So look at the label of your climbing helmet. For example, the Petzl Meteor III has one label, "For climbing only", and another with the CE/UIAA logos.

You guys should stop worrying about whose helmet is "better". They're all good.
Correction: They're all good, if you wear them properly.

"if I'm in the mountains and take one big hit, it may be a while before I can get down and buy a new helmet to replace my foamie. I'd rather be wearing a helmet that will survive several big hits."

My original thoughts as well. Not so much anymore as the "one big hit" that will destroy a hard shell foam will likely do some serious damage to the user or close enough you'll likely want to rethink what you are doing.

I generally climb winter and summer in the Rockies. Which is the CHOSS pile of the world. Chances are you'll get hit hard eventually if you are climbing there often enough. And I have..sadly not totally on my helmet. But with out one (an old Ultimate btw) I'd be dead.

Protecting your head like a HD Carbon will from top impact, won't be all that impressive if ithe impact drives your skull into your spine.

Even today's hard shell foam helmets can be bettered for technology and will be eventually. If you want the best of both Metoius has a great helmet that does just that. Wild Country does as well. Both offer a good degree of additional safety but are heavier than the "sport" helmets.

Post up the UIAA tests results. Take a look at the bike helmet regs/tests as well. Impact data there is enlightening which is why I changed my opinion.

My Petzl Meteor III looks so good, I don't have to climb anything anymore.
I just sit on a rock, and look cool.



(Actually I destroyed this one, which is certainly not cool!)

dan2see wrote:A foam helmet protects your skull by crushing, which absorbs the momentum of the rock.
A fiberglass helmet protects your skull by breaking, which also absorbs the momentum of the rock.

In both cases, the helmet is no longer able to withstand another severe blow, and is useless.
But it has done its job: The helmet is destroyed, so the climber may live to climb again.
............
Correction: They're all good, if you wear them properly.

Part of that is correct. Foam helmets protect by the foam crushing and absorbing the blow. Plastic helmets don't absorb much in comparison and fail at a predetermined impact engergy. Stay under that failure point number and you'll have decent protection. Go over it and the helmet will fail. The trick here is at what point does the helmet fail and the head injury occur? Foam simply gives you a bigger "comfort zone" where you are able to avoid injury than a full suspenion, hard shell.

Totally different technologies and levels of over all performance to protect you from injury.
The real key is how much of the energy for the impact is transmitted to your brain and further along your body.
In every instance a foam helmet will casue less damage to both from a severe impact.

They are all "good" but some are a lot better than others for the intended task.

The BMC had this to say about the differences between foam and suspension helmets:

"For general rock climbing, at the typical British crag you should be looking for a lightweight helmet that offers good all round protection (ie. from impacts from all sides) with good ventilation to help keep the old noggin cool. Modern foam/shell combinations are a good choice.

For alpine and ice climbing, good top impact performance is more important along with good resistance to penetration from sharp falling objects. Traditional shell/cradle models are more appropriate for this use."

http://www.thebmc.co.uk/Feature.aspx?id=1534

http://www.southamptonrats.org/BMC_Helmet_Guidebook.pdf

Here's a breakdown of the BMC's findings: SC=traditional hard shell, EPS=foam, SF=combination shell/foam



http://www.ukclimbing.com/gear/review.php?id=1116

For top impacts and penetration, the hard shell with suspension was deemed the best.

My question was going to be "what about a hybrid of hard shell and foam inner? However, I see that your last post addressed it, Kai.

Good info, thanks. Two points, the UIAA info is from 2002. Bit dated.

The UKC web site info is nothing but a blog and opinions worth no more or less than ours here.

Only the current 2010 info from the BMC seems relavant to the current discussion. It is worth the read.

http://www.southamptonrats.org/BMC_Helmet_Guidebook.pdf

Dane1 wrote:
The UKC web site info is nothing but a blog and opinions worth no more or less than ours here.

But they're British. They have British accents. That makes them smarter than us colonials, so their opinions are certainly worth more than ours.

(and I think that the UKC page I linked was just quoting BMC stuff)

Agreed..
if I didn't I know a couple of them....