Thanks for posting this. I couldn't find this segment of Fake Britain anywhere else, and it's pretty useful. It blows my mind how many people genuinely think they're getting a real helmet when they buy this shady knockoff junk
it is a very old video now but I do not think that matters. There are fakes and then there are fakes? Some fakes like fake Rollexes or Gucci bags don't matter but some do. Some one selling a fake just wants your money and does not care about consequences.
Well it's actually still better having something on your head than having nothing. It's just a marketing video, of course for 40$ + helmets i should expect good quality but yet still not much difference if you don't ride very fast.
it was not a marketing video. It was taken from a UK TV show dealing with consumer matters. well that ( by now old) video shows having a fake helmet is no better than not having a helmet as when it as tested it just caved in. So false sense of security. The point is all about genuine certification that fake helmets also fake. Some time ago I fell backwards getting on my bike ( I lost balance am getting old now) and my head hit a curb, the helmet was dented but intact. it was not a too expensive helmet but did have genuine certification. My head would have got "dented" without the helmet
for those who say this is just one example and not proof. Of course it aint proof, you would need to so some kind of sampling? What it is is an illustration of what a fake can mean. It dont matter that the video is old now, a fake is still a fake with no guarantee of quality ( that it claims to have met certain standards will be a lie, who knows whether it really does) or legal come back
mercalia beck well being 5 years old makes it kinda unreliable, because helmet technology has evolved ALOT, and fakes are getting better, and so are genuines, I would like do pay for this test myself to see the results, I don’t buy fake helmets btw
th-cam.com/video/5gJtAt-J6nw/w-d-xo.html Hope that you can buy this fake helmet from China (AUS$40) and see if you can break it. 2019 may not be the same as 2014 fake quality. I got a shock by these fake 2019 helmets.
I am a bit suprised at all the doubting thomases and strange ideas here. eg the helmit breaking means the full force would be on your head and skull rather than absorbed by the material of the helmit? The video was a TV programme from the UK.
Giro helmets are *Made in China* and Chinese counterfeits are almost exclusively produced by the same factory that produces the "genuine" product. They use the same materials and the same tooling for the counterfeits which is why this test seems very suspicious.
@@ww-pw6di and you know that how? I have heard of "fake" Gucci bags etc being the real thing due to matters of manufacture exceeding an order to deal with imperfect examples and the excess vanishing through the back door. That may account for a few items but thats a different matter
@@mercaliabeck6033 If your "genuine" helmet is made in China, then the "fakes" also came from the same production line in the same factory. The difference is those "fakes" didn't pass QC, You'll know this if you've ever doing business in China.
It is so funny video to me! These guys try evidence that if your helmet was crashead that is bad - hahaha. When helmet crack it means that it works well because energie was distibute to the constraction of helmet! Please look how looks the best cars after a crach test! 1209.8G vs 82.3G - it is inpossible. It is not a comparision of fake and not fake helmets it is ordinary FAKE test. Here you can find example how looks real POC helmet after accident: th-cam.com/video/2RNiii3BQYo/w-d-xo.html
The point is that the genuine helmet actually did something. The fake was next to non-existent and the headform took the full brunt in an instantaneous transfer of all energy in one moment. G is calculated as a force at any one moment, with the functioning helmet the energy transfer can be dispersed over a longer period of time, giving a lower peak-G. The fake helmet simply offered no protection at all meaning all energy was condensed into a smaller time giving an exponentially higher peak force.
Hi. I understand what is the G measure and what is the peak-G. My English is bad so is hard to me explain everything. I am complete confident that comparison is without physical sense because I've never seen that huge and nonsense diffrenses in results of tests.
@@mutos82 Sorry, I didn't mean my comment to sound as if you didn't understand these, it's just to contextualise the argument better. It's not really debatable.. they're the numbers. It may not make sense to get those numbers with any functioning helmet but those are the numbers when the helmet completely fails to absorb any energy at all and the headform takes the full impact. There's a crap ton on inertia behind that kind of a drop so given the nature of the impact, a simulated head onto a completely static metal block at significant speed, I would say it's entirely believable.
ofcours they are gonna show that. if they had the same results, they would have never showed it. Seems kinda staged to me. helmets are nothing more than foam. In chemistry class we made one. Nothing special and the prices are ridiculous
The point is that the genuine helmet actually did something. The fake was next to non-existent and the headform took the full brunt in an instantaneous transfer of all energy in one moment. G is calculated as a force at any one moment, with the functioning helmet the energy transfer can be dispersed over a longer period of time, giving a lower peak-G. The fake helmet simply offered no protection at all meaning all energy was condensed into a smaller time giving an exponentially higher peak force.
Hi mate, it will be how the energy transfers across the surface of the helmet due to the impact. The design and materials used will affect how the helmet performs, in this case the fake helmet had a poor energy dispersion and or sub standard materials so the energy went straight to the weak spot, the side.
You can get decent helmets in Decathlon for €10 that pass all European safety standards. Don't buy fake knockoffs of expensive helmets that are pretending to be something they not, but there's nothing inherently unsafe with cheap helmets if they authentic and pass certification. helmets.org/testbycost.htm
In my opinion this test do not get a conclusion that the original is best once they do not take in consideration the damage in the head, I can made an aluminium helmet and it wont brake. And the head? Oh!! the head is a secondary detail.
Marked difference - good to know. However...admittedly it's all anecdotal, but to do a SECOND destructive test with the SAME (true Giro) helmet without at least some spoken caveat is poor testing. If the fake passed the first test how would we know if test #1 didn't crack it and skew test #2? The fact that the faux head/test helmet falls off the stand and hits the ground shows either inexperience in testing or ignorance.
I get your point and the helmet should be replaced after one hit because it won't work as good afterwards. However, it's a pretty good thing if it can take two hits without breaking apart completely, imagine hitting the windshield of a car head first and then falling to the ground, hitting the road with your head, it's a realistic scenario after all and it's good if your helmet still offers any protection at the second hit...
Lol, watch the video... they test helmets twice by impacting one side on test A and the other side on test B. The nature of the material allows this to be effective testing as long as the structure as a whole isn't destroyed. Also "anecdotal"?? No, it's data. It's testing scientifically with protocol. This is what these guys do for a living and there's no way they'd risk their credibility and certification with trying to dupe you.
People know there fake that's why they buy them as they are cheap. A true FSA carbon stem can retail for about £100 to £150,but the fake Chinese ones from Ebay and Aliexpress are about £20 to £30. Also some fake ones are actually alloy with carbon decals. So if you buy fake parts from China and it breaks you only have yourself to blame.
sdq sdq Oh really? I read somewhere that it is recommended to change your cycling helmet every year. Says there is disintegration of material even if kept in storage.
nothing new. been using chinese carbon chinese parts and cost a quarter to Easton products which are the top tier compared to FSA and they are just as good.
lol...stating the obvious there, they are made their after all...& if you buy Fakes then your a muppet....do us all a favour if you are using Fakes then Take only yourself out when you have Catastrophic Failure of blouse parts.....your comments & soft lads above you are up there.....you pair of proper inner tube brains......lol
Doesn't Bluetooth digitally compress the audio it sends out, sort of defeating the purpose of using vinyl? I thought the point of returning to vinyl was to avoid digital compression and such in CDs and MP3s. Someone correct me if I am wrong, as I would be very interested if the Bluetooth would do nothing to reduce the quality.
+Ch4osWe4veR compression is more on the the way the person remasters music. obviously its going to sound different but not as different if you listen to the original release on vinyl to the remastered CD.
Aren't helmets supposed to absorb the impact which means they should break?
the numbers the tests gave indicates no - the forces recorded would end up on your exposed head? A good helmet represents a barrier?
Thanks for posting this. I couldn't find this segment of Fake Britain anywhere else, and it's pretty useful. It blows my mind how many people genuinely think they're getting a real helmet when they buy this shady knockoff junk
it is a very old video now but I do not think that matters. There are fakes and then there are fakes? Some fakes like fake Rollexes or Gucci bags don't matter but some do. Some one selling a fake just wants your money and does not care about consequences.
Oryginal have roll cage and this is key difference
Well it's actually still better having something on your head than having nothing. It's just a marketing video, of course for 40$ + helmets i should expect good quality but yet still not much difference if you don't ride very fast.
it was not a marketing video. It was taken from a UK TV show dealing with consumer matters. well that ( by now old) video shows having a fake helmet is no better than not having a helmet as when it as tested it just caved in. So false sense of security. The point is all about genuine certification that fake helmets also fake. Some time ago I fell backwards getting on my bike ( I lost balance am getting old now) and my head hit a curb, the helmet was dented but intact. it was not a too expensive helmet but did have genuine certification. My head would have got "dented" without the helmet
Suspected fake?? The OEM would know exactly what is and isn't theres
Brought to you by GIRO
I just baught a FSA stem could not installed yet would a cycle shop know if it's a fake or its genuine?
Of course this is a bias video
I'll stick with Al alloy handlebars thanks!
people who sell fake helmets are scum
for those who say this is just one example and not proof. Of course it aint proof, you would need to so some kind of sampling? What it is is an illustration of what a fake can mean. It dont matter that the video is old now, a fake is still a fake with no guarantee of quality ( that it claims to have met certain standards will be a lie, who knows whether it really does) or legal come back
mercalia beck well being 5 years old makes it kinda unreliable, because helmet technology has evolved ALOT, and fakes are getting better, and so are genuines, I would like do pay for this test myself to see the results, I don’t buy fake helmets btw
@@HeathyRoidz that's like saying crooks and thieves are more conscientious these days, they really care about you
Many original models Giro helmets do not have rib cage
How does a bar break in three pieces? That evidence seems fishy.
A bar broken on one side would be more convincing.🤓
why? you have eyes to see, in this case? you suggesting its a con of a con?
Hits rock and momentum carries both arms forward,leading to the centre of the bars remaining in the stem and both sides snapping off.
th-cam.com/video/5gJtAt-J6nw/w-d-xo.html Hope that you can buy this fake helmet from China (AUS$40) and see if you can break it. 2019 may not be the same as 2014 fake quality. I got a shock by these fake 2019 helmets.
a fake is a fake, you have no guarantee of quality or legal come back. good luck
Wow! Thank you so much for this demo. Completely opened my eyes to the benefit of getting quality products strait from the source. Mind. Blown.
phew, well that was only one test run with one fake helmet. not enough data to draw a general conclusion
Kek5kopF and it’s 5 years old
I am a bit suprised at all the doubting thomases and strange ideas here. eg the helmit breaking means the full force would be on your head and skull rather than absorbed by the material of the helmit? The video was a TV programme from the UK.
Giro helmets are *Made in China* and Chinese counterfeits are almost exclusively produced by the same factory that produces the "genuine" product. They use the same materials and the same tooling for the counterfeits which is why this test seems very suspicious.
@@ww-pw6di and you know that how? I have heard of "fake" Gucci bags etc being the real thing due to matters of manufacture exceeding an order to deal with imperfect examples and the excess vanishing through the back door. That may account for a few items but thats a different matter
@@mercaliabeck6033 If your "genuine" helmet is made in China, then the "fakes" also came from the same production line in the same factory. The difference is those "fakes" didn't pass QC, You'll know this if you've ever doing business in China.
that giro helmet is the same i have ! lol
It is so funny video to me! These guys try evidence that if your helmet was crashead that is bad - hahaha. When helmet crack it means that it works well because energie was distibute to the constraction of helmet! Please look how looks the best cars after a crach test! 1209.8G vs 82.3G - it is inpossible. It is not a comparision of fake and not fake helmets it is ordinary FAKE test. Here you can find example how looks real POC helmet after accident: th-cam.com/video/2RNiii3BQYo/w-d-xo.html
The point is that the genuine helmet actually did something. The fake was next to non-existent and the headform took the full brunt in an instantaneous transfer of all energy in one moment. G is calculated as a force at any one moment, with the functioning helmet the energy transfer can be dispersed over a longer period of time, giving a lower peak-G. The fake helmet simply offered no protection at all meaning all energy was condensed into a smaller time giving an exponentially higher peak force.
Hi. I understand what is the G measure and what is the peak-G. My English is bad so is hard to me explain everything. I am complete confident that comparison is without physical sense because I've never seen that huge and nonsense diffrenses in results of tests.
@@mutos82 Sorry, I didn't mean my comment to sound as if you didn't understand these, it's just to contextualise the argument better. It's not really debatable.. they're the numbers. It may not make sense to get those numbers with any functioning helmet but those are the numbers when the helmet completely fails to absorb any energy at all and the headform takes the full impact. There's a crap ton on inertia behind that kind of a drop so given the nature of the impact, a simulated head onto a completely static metal block at significant speed, I would say it's entirely believable.
ofcours they are gonna show that. if they had the same results, they would have never showed it. Seems kinda staged to me. helmets are nothing more than foam. In chemistry class we made one. Nothing special and the prices are ridiculous
If true that would be a pretty serious spread of misinformation by helmet manufacturers.
Lol, have fun being a vegetable.
There's something weird with this datas... 12x more G. I dont belive that orginal polymer and foam are 12 times best and resitence.
The point is that the genuine helmet actually did something. The fake was next to non-existent and the headform took the full brunt in an instantaneous transfer of all energy in one moment. G is calculated as a force at any one moment, with the functioning helmet the energy transfer can be dispersed over a longer period of time, giving a lower peak-G. The fake helmet simply offered no protection at all meaning all energy was condensed into a smaller time giving an exponentially higher peak force.
Why would anyone consider a fake helmet? A gyro at that, it’s not like some status symbol lol
Who paid for this study
Giro, obviously...
Fake or not they are both same styrofoam helmet
Plus oryginal have ROLL CAGE
my only question is: why would the side of the helmet break off if the impact is directly in center?
Hi mate, it will be how the energy transfers across the surface of the helmet due to the impact. The design and materials used will affect how the helmet performs, in this case the fake helmet had a poor energy dispersion and or sub standard materials so the energy went straight to the weak spot, the side.
Because if you watch the video they set it up to impact one side.. thats how they get two tests out of each helmet.
It's tests like this which prevents me from buying a fake cheap helmet. But geez genuine ones can be pricey.
Fake ones cost more though. It would cost you your life.
You can get decent helmets in Decathlon for €10 that pass all European safety standards. Don't buy fake knockoffs of expensive helmets that are pretending to be something they not, but there's nothing inherently unsafe with cheap helmets if they authentic and pass certification. helmets.org/testbycost.htm
@@jamesambrocio and thats why genuine ones can be expensive because they're banking on people not willing to risk it.
I wonder who order the test, certainly a giro :/ !
it was a tv prgramme If my memory is correct
In my opinion this test do not get a conclusion that the original is best once they do not take in consideration the damage in the head, I can made an aluminium helmet and it wont brake. And the head? Oh!! the head is a secondary detail.
The data they get in the computer is exactly what happens to the head.
Almost cost me my life. Don’t buy cheap carbon. Watch this... th-cam.com/video/mkjNKY4HLuU/w-d-xo.html
Marked difference - good to know. However...admittedly it's all anecdotal, but to do a SECOND destructive test with the SAME (true Giro) helmet without at least some spoken caveat is poor testing. If the fake passed the first test how would we know if test #1 didn't crack it and skew test #2? The fact that the faux head/test helmet falls off the stand and hits the ground shows either inexperience in testing or ignorance.
I get your point and the helmet should be replaced after one hit because it won't work as good afterwards. However, it's a pretty good thing if it can take two hits without breaking apart completely, imagine hitting the windshield of a car head first and then falling to the ground, hitting the road with your head, it's a realistic scenario after all and it's good if your helmet still offers any protection at the second hit...
Lol, watch the video... they test helmets twice by impacting one side on test A and the other side on test B. The nature of the material allows this to be effective testing as long as the structure as a whole isn't destroyed. Also "anecdotal"?? No, it's data. It's testing scientifically with protocol. This is what these guys do for a living and there's no way they'd risk their credibility and certification with trying to dupe you.
People know there fake that's why they buy them as they are cheap. A true FSA carbon stem can retail for about £100 to £150,but the fake Chinese ones from Ebay and Aliexpress are about £20 to £30. Also some fake ones are actually alloy with carbon decals. So if you buy fake parts from China and it breaks you only have yourself to blame.
1:54 This simply is not true that steam is not made of 3 parts
Steam is H2o...so no its not made of 3 parts...
He's from fsa,He's talking about the alloy bonded to the fibreglass
I'd like to see the difference between a new helmet and one that's been ridden for a few years.
by motorbike standard , 5 years duration , provided its not taken any impact
sdq sdq Oh really? I read somewhere that it is recommended to change your cycling helmet every year. Says there is disintegration of material even if kept in storage.
nothing new. been using chinese carbon chinese parts and cost a quarter to Easton products which are the top tier compared to FSA and they are just as good.
lol...stating the obvious there, they are made their after all...& if you buy Fakes then your a muppet....do us all a favour if you are using Fakes then Take only yourself out when you have Catastrophic Failure of blouse parts.....your comments & soft lads above you are up there.....you pair of proper inner tube brains......lol
yes but there's are difference of oem parts and fakes
Doesn't Bluetooth digitally compress the audio it sends out, sort of defeating the purpose of using vinyl? I thought the point of returning to vinyl was to avoid digital compression and such in CDs and MP3s. Someone correct me if I am wrong, as I would be very interested if the Bluetooth would do nothing to reduce the quality.
+Ch4osWe4veR compression is more on the the way the person remasters music. obviously its going to sound different but not as different if you listen to the original release on vinyl to the remastered CD.
your solution sucks
i just dont know why they changed the hitting surface..justto say the fake is worse? i would like to see the original in the same test..
+pedro gomes You should actually watch the video before you comment on it.