LAS Haxial Helmet - tested
Great ventilation and svelte style from LAS
This latest design from LAS claims to be “the world's most technically advanced helmet” and certainly seems to live up to it’s reputation. A number of rather impressive and unique features really set the design apart from others on the market.
As the choice of the Raleigh women’s team and male pro-team, Liquigas, this really is a high spec piece of kit. The innovative aluminium upper ventilator assists in more rapid air exchange as well as overall resistance to impacts.
The design is quite overwhelming on first impressions and would probably be the wrong choice for those wishing to remain understated on the bike. I went for the pink model with a chrome ventilator - a blinding combination! There are, however, a range of colours and designs available for those who would prefer a more subtle look.
The Velox Size adjustment system with a single size adjustable from 53 to 61cm allows for vertical adjustment even during use.
Exceptional internal ventilation is ensured by a 23 vent system augmented by the use of the aluminium ventilator. The helmet features a mesh/padded insert made of a single removable and washable piece of transparent CoolMax with Sanitized antibacterial and anti-fungal treatment. This may slightly compromise ventilation on longer and harder rides but has many benefits. It is removable which means you can allow more air flow through the vents but leave it in and the netting feature will prevent any bugs etc from falling through. The rear vents are left open with or without the inner, which allows air to circulate from the back of the head.
|
On first appearances, the adjustment mechanism at the back looks complex, but once you’ve mastered it, the fit is spot-on. It is worth taking the time to get the adjustments right to get an optimal and comfortable fit. The first time I wore the helmet, it dug in slightly at the back and rubbed at the front, however after a little attention to the straps and rear mechanism the fit is really secure. Also, unlike some designs, it doesn’t loosen at the back as you ride. The only down side for me was that there is no space for a ponytail to easily fit though the back.
One of the best design features, for me, is the streamline and narrow look at the front and the generally svelte appearance of the helmet. What puts me off quite a few designs is that on a petite female head, helmets can often look like they stick out for miles in a 1980’s kid’s helmet kind-of-way. The LAS, however, looks great on a petite face.
- Price: RRP £99.95
- Sizes: One size is adjustable from 53-62
- Colours: Various
- Performance: 9
- Value: 8
- High tech and svelte with great ventilation
- Contact: www.lashelmets.co.uk
Discuss this story
I was surprised that the main function of the helmet was given no appraisal at all. Svelte looks, colour range, 23 ventilations holes, removable inner lining, are all very pleasing, I'm sure.
But how good is it at protecting your head? Side impact, front, ear protection, etc, get no mention what so ever! Do the straps hold the helmet in the correct position was covered partially.
I'm being selfish. I recently had a collision with a pedestrian who stepped out in front of me. I went over her left shoulder, landed on my left hip, which acted like a fulcrum point, and the left side of my head bounced 3 times on the tarmac. At the time it felt like my scull was actually bouncing off the tarmac. I nervously remember feeling my head to see if the helmet was still on, it was, but it was a right off.
As this was slow speed fall, less than 20kph, I was lucky.
Why should I feel confident about my replacement helmet? From your review the inference is that the quality of the colour scheme, number of ventilation holes, etc, are the base measure of overall quality and suitability for purpose!
Posted: 22/04/2006 05:53
I am still strongly of the opinion that if RCUK wants to retain credibility for reviewing products that have one purpose, and one alone, in this case our safety, then if that isn't the primary purpose of their test, why bother?
Word getting around is one way, if you aren't the unfortunate one!!
Get real guys a reveiw of a safety helmet that focusses on its looks isn't worth the paper its written on.
Check out the Consumer Association to see just often the EU Standards either are not as effective as they were designed to be, and secondly, that manufactured samples, vs the test samples made specifically for EU certification, fail regularly.
RCUK can do a real service for us here, or they can pretend.
Posted: 29/04/2006 12:05
Paul you say:
"I am still strongly of the opinion that if RCUK wants to retain credibility for reviewing products that have one purpose, and one alone, in this case our safety, then if that isn't the primary purpose of their test, why bother?"
I do think you are being a little heavy here and slightly inflamatory. And we don't 'pretend' as opinions on helmet legislation and standards are subjects we take very seriously and we regularly debate this on the forum and in the office.
What do you want us to do anyway? Bang our heads against a wall until we pass out? reading between the lines I think the issue you have here, perhaps, is with the helmet manufacturers and the current standards and not RCUK?
We can't carry out impact and standard tests as this requires laboratory equipment and testing machines, so with helmets there is an element of trust that the manufacturer has carried out the necessary tests for you, in the same way you would expect them to test forks or other highly sensitive safety areas on a bike. This is why there are standards so a product is only released when it matches certain criteria - I have visited helmet factories and this is the one thing they do take very seriously.
The LAS Haxial reaches CE EN1078 and CPSC PART 1203. So it's not the 'safest' helmet out there, but still a match in it's class. Arguably all current helmets are less safe than they were 10 years ago anyway, but they do fit better and are less likey to slide off in a crash than the polystyrene buckets we wore way back then. I agree that standards have 'slipped' - but at least our helmets don't anymore.
Looks and ventilation are important, so I do take issue with your comment that they have 'no value'. Like it or not one of the main reasons many people won't wear helmets is because they can look awful and if you race in temperatures over 20 degrees ventilation is essential.
Personally I have had helmets shatter on impact and still save a serious head injury. But there are so many variables involved in a crash that it's difficult to say how good one helmet is against another, every rider is different and many don't even wear their helmets correctly. Or wear a helmet that is so old an past it's useful lifetime so it would provide little protection in a crash.
I've also seen rider's helmets slide off heads in a crash too, unable to help any subsequent impacts because of poor fit. So I believe real world testing is essential to give any 'test' credibility, but almost impossible. A good helmet worn badly is no use at all, but a lower quality helmet worn correctly will provide ample protection.
Furthermore I don't think any cycling magazine or website has the facilities to test helmets 'properly' as you suggest (perhaps some of the German mags but that's about it) so no one can possibly comment accurately on impact safety in a test review, and anyway for legal reasons alone, it would be a hornet's nest.
My biggest concern is fit and how to wear a helmet properly, so we'll do a feature on that ASAP because that will do our readers a bigger service. I personally would like to see a company offer custom fit helmets as my head is very long so very few helmets even fit me which negates much of the safety and protection I could gain from a helmet, as I always have to compromise.
So no more helmet 'tests' then... we'll call them overviews or something else. OK?
Posted: 29/04/2006 19:10
Guy, Thanks for your response.
I realise that RCUK doesn't have the facility to do destructive testing, it was others that inferred that, but not my expectation. I make no apology for expecting a credible reveiw of a safety product to focus on safety features.
Your response was interesting for a number of reasons. Firstly your descriptions of accidents where helmets, despite the EU standards, just not doing an adequate job, as I inferred CA find with allsorts of products. You also say that 'looks' encourage riders to wear them, (despite imatating kiddies cartoons) I'm sure you are correct and hence is worthy.
Your most valuable comments, for me, were about standards and fit.
It is shocking to hear your view that standards of helmet safety have declined over the last decade. Is that possibly due to 'looks' becoming predominant, or have EU relaxed earlier standards? What can be done about that?
Fit, is a major issue, ie, a well made but poorly fitting helemt is worthless, and worse. Your proposed feature could indeed be a real value add service. If for example you can arrive at various fit characteristics for different heads shapes, and possibly helmet features that are safer, then your future helmets reviews could use that guide as a reference, eg, Helmet A is suitable for 'egg but not carrot heads, provides good side impact protection, but strap adjustment for fore and aft tilt is complex, etc". As the CA and its international affiliates have tried testing helmets you may be able to do a collaborative feature, where they provide their assistance and you provide expert users, worth a try.
I look forward to this feature.
Posted: 30/04/2006 00:52
|
|
