Thanks for your reviews, always professional. The helmet looks like it would be on the warm side without as many vents which could be a good thing in winter. It would be nice to see a helmet with at least a 1,000 lumen headlamp built in. For myself, using a headlamp it gets hot and the helmet pushes it down towards my eyes. All of my riding is in the suburbs, although I do ride south to downtown San Rafael, CA occasionally. Congrats with popping the question to Lou! I hope it was special for you both.
Thanks for the video. I think people in the UK should be aware that you will have to pay import duties and taxes on this item, if you order from UNIT1 - not stated at the time of purchase. I got hit for a bill of nearly £60 from Fedex. Added to this, there are sync issues with the helmet and its companion app, making it unusable at times - not exactly a reliable product IMHO. It's been a bad experience for me so far and I advise others to avoid this product, until the issues are sorted out.
Can you test if it would cause someone with epilepsy to have an attack if you cycled toward them in an unlit park. My country has laws on how bright and how often a light can flash, most bike lights break the law.
It's a really nice looking helmet and it does what it says on the box, but I found it to be too heavy and the ventilation is insufficient. I might be able to live with the ventilation during the winter months, but the weight was just too much to put up with and so it's been relegated to the bottom of the cupboard.
1.5 hours with lights on.. this is already abandonware.. I'd rather go for the e-bike rated xnito, but I worry it might have the same lackluster battery life. Although they claim free replacements, if damaged.. not sure how that will go.
It's hard to tell. One thing to keep in mind is the weight of the helmet. The lighter the better. Battery life isn't too bad if you have this helmet on dimmer settings 👍🏼
This helmet has a good design concept and price point. My issue with electronics in helmets is product end of life waste. Electronics last for decades. Bicycle helmets should be replaced every 3-5 years due to deterioration of the foam. Of course, if you are unlucky enough to have a crash and the helmet does its job, then it may be trash before that time. Generally speaking, one should not design durable electronic components into a bike helmet unless the electronics can be removed and reused in a replacement product. If the helmet has not been designed with this in mind, no matter how beautiful it looks, or how well it works, it is only adding more e-waste to an already overburdened recycling system, if it gets recycled at all. Please, all companies that design for the environmentally friendly and sustainable activity of cycling, be more aware of the impact your products have through its lifecycle. As cyclists we should demand this of companies. I would not recommend any helmet with electronics that are not removable and/or reusable.
With all do respect, how much damage to the environment will this helmet do??? We're not talking about nuclear waste. We're not talking about a big screen TV, a laptop or a smartphone that is traded in every few years. The eWaste from this helmet is just some diodes and a small battery. When I buy a helmet it's about enhancing my personal safety, first and foremost. The chance of being hit by a car is a big reason why a lot of people don't ride. Enhancing being seen by motorist might encourage people to consider riding bikes. After all riding a bike over driving a car is a better choice for the environment. You talk about cyclist demands. My demands would be bringing more safe and affordable products to the cyclist market. That includes good lighting to see and be seen. Open your eyes and get off your holier than thou self righteous thrown of judgements. I'm sure that if I was to take a good look at your lifestyle under a magnifying glass, I would find plenty of environmental digressions. We all can do better, but this helmet now being for sale will not lead to the doom to our existence.
@@ilovephotography1254 Interesting. You say we can all do better, but when confronted with an opportunity to do better it would seem it's too much trouble, or rather it's easier to rail at others for having ideas that diverge from your own. If you notice, I did not simply complain, nor did I single anyone out for their point of view. I provided a solution. A solution that is feasible, reasonable and economical. If you know part of a product is disposable, and another part is durable, keeping the durable part separate from the disposable part can be incorporated into the design. In fact, this is *good* design. Removable and reusable electronics is a better design and ultimately a more economical design because one could replace the foam and shell and not have to purchase an entire helmet. One existing example of this - Motorcycle helmets. I ride a motorcycle. I'm sure you would agree that the safety requirements of motorcycle helmets are far more stringent than bicycle helmets. If you have a look at some of the helmets with intercoms, you'll see the electronics are detachable. Helmets that have electronics integration provisions are sold with electronics as an option that dock into the helmet. If a motorcycle helmet is ruined, the owner can remove the intercom and use it in the next helmet. Alternatively, one can move the electronics to different helmets if the owner has multiple helmets. As far as helmet lighting, there are surface mount motorcycle helmet lights available similar to the function of the bicycle helmet reviewed here. Again, the electronics are separate from the helmet. Now, the are motorcycle helmet and intercom companies wrong? Are they trying to force their values on their customers? No. They are doing what makes sense. They're not wasting resources and they aren't burdening the rest of us with dealing with wasted resources. This idea is sound as evidenced by companies already doing this. Your response is not.
@@randorecumbent Yes, you suggested a solution, but for a problem that doesn't really exist? Think on Scale. How bad of a problem are eHelmets? Would you like to outlaw helmets all together? The overwhelming reason why people who I know that don't and won't ride bikes, is because they feel bikes aren't safe! As I stated in prior comments, I want to see more people feeling safe about riding a bike. If eDevises can improve cultural attitudes about bike safety, maybe more people will ride? Can you agree, more people choosing to bike ride would be a victory for the environment?
@@ilovephotography1254 One problem I have with the way you frame the issue is that you make a declaration of minimal impact without stating any supporting data. You assume that a problem "doesn't really exist" and you hold up straw man arguments and ad absurdum statements I never said. You also make statements which frame the issue in a false dichotomy. You *can* have safety *and* design that isn't wasteful. You don't have to choose one over the other. Your framing is misleading and does not support your point. Going back to first principles, good design does not waste. Where a product can be designed to fulfill its primary function and provide a useful secondary function it should do so without waste. A helmet is designed to keep your head safe. That's it's reason for being. Putting bright colors or lights on it is a secondary function of visibility. Visibility can be enhanced many ways, lights being but one. Your argument is that the waste created by integrating LED lights, circuits, and a power source which will last decades into a product made to last years is minimal- No analysis, no evidence. Not even a simple projection estimating the number of cyclists in the market, estimation of a modest, market share and a projection of helmet sales. Nothing. Just gut. OK. The question you posed but haven't properly answered is the key to this discussion. "How bad is the problem?". I'd say the problem is pretty bad. TheRoundup.org has compiled e-waste data. In 2021, 57 metric tons of e-waste was created in the world. Projections for 2022 are 60 metric tons. To put it in perspective, 50 metric tons is the approximate weight of all commercial airplanes ever made. We're adding that and more every year. The total existing unrecycled e-waste today is estimated at 347 metric tons. The amount of e-waste is projected to increase yearly at 2-3 metric tons. So that's the scope. Your position amounts to, "So, what? A tiny bit more won't hurt anything". Alright, again, an assumption from you and no supporting data. So in what is the environmental impact of all that junk? If you're lucky enough to live in a place where you can send your garbage away and not have a second thought how it might affect the quality of water and air where you live, then I guess there's no net impact in your mind. The heavy metals which can leach into water & soil, poisoning them and the people near them is of no consequence to you but may be of immediate consequence to someone's health. Let's also remember that all the water that we have on the planet is all we've got. Clean water is becoming, no IS, a commodity that is more rare, which is not good, since we all need it. Let's revisit the scope for a second. According to the information on TheRoundup.org LED bulbs and lamps make up 1.7% of the total e-waste. For this year that's going to be about a metric ton. That's half the year on year increase of total e-waste. Now here's the crux of your counter argument, albeit presented without supporting data - The amount of e-waste that is contributed by smart helmets with integrated lights is insignificant and therefore not a problem. And here is where you miss the point. Even if the amount contributed is small, it's still *contributing* to a growing problem. Its not nothing. The solution is to not contribute to it at all or at least delay it as long as possible. This should be especially true for items which can be easily designed to achieve this without affecting the primary function of the product or its price. Am I to believe that if you had choice between 2 products of the same price and performance, and one allows you to keep and reuse perfectly good durable components and the other you would have to dispose of whole, that you would choose the latter? Why? That makes no sense. Imagine if bike wheels were sold with tires permanently attached to them. When you get a flat you'd have to get rid of the whole wheel and replace it. The whole thing, rim, hub, spokes and all. Based on your logic, you'd happily go along buying new wheels for every flat. Then someone comes along and says, "It would be easy to design a wheel with a replaceable tire, then you wouldn't have to throw away the whole wheel." Given your logic, you'd say "No, that's fine. My priority is having a good wheel. You're creating a problem that doesn't exist". You'd say this even though you could have a good wheel with the replaceable tire design and there would be no impact to the quality of your cycling experience. Look, you're free to buy whatever you want. I don't really care. What I care about are the designers of the future and how they think about solving problems within the scope of the entire production life of what they design. If they do their jobs better, then I won't need to spend any time explaining how our consumer choices impact our environment (which means everyone), or responding to clumsily constructed attacks.
@@randorecumbent No one of us happens to be perfect when it comes to our environmental footprint. I took a quick look at your TH-cam channel and viewed your videos. Let's look at your possible eWaste... ...You seem to have a fair amount of tech gear. Camera, microphone and a computer would be needed to download, process, edit and share on TH-cam. BTW It's a good channel if you're in to recumbent bikes. When you purchased your tech equipment, was it new? If yes to new, why not buy capable second hand equipment that would be adequate for performing the same job? Would that had been a more responsible choice for the environment? Have you ever upgraded your equipment to newer devices, because you rationalized to yourself that it was necessary? But in reality you just had to have it. Please be honest with answers. If you answered yes to any of this, please understand why, attacking a new tech item to the market that is attempting to raise the bar on bike safety, makes little sense.
Almost 300 is just to expensive for a helmet. Keep in mind you pay almost 150 extra for lights.. we can call this smart, but lets be honest here.. its not so smart. Anyway, nice video!
No! It doesn’t have a face eye 👁️ 👁️ shield 🛡️, after 12 miles per hour you need to protect your eyes from debris, and the glaring sun 🌞, that is damn important 😱🫣🤭🫢🫤😬
$$$ This helmet only cost $250 and if you want the wireless remote it will cost you another $40.. WTF you have got to be kidding me!! You won't be seeing many people wearing this helmet..
I would rather buy a chinese carbon frame for that price you must be joking 265£ And it is definitely from China branded by someone trying to make quick bucks via Facebook and PayPal. No ways.
Thanks for your reviews, always professional. The helmet looks like it would be on the warm side without as many vents which could be a good thing in winter. It would be nice to see a helmet with at least a 1,000 lumen headlamp built in. For myself, using a headlamp it gets hot and the helmet pushes it down towards my eyes. All of my riding is in the suburbs, although I do ride south to downtown San Rafael, CA occasionally.
Congrats with popping the question to Lou! I hope it was special for you both.
Thank you! I will look at it tomorrow! I commute 73 km by bike to work.
Thanks for the video. I think people in the UK should be aware that you will have to pay import duties and taxes on this item, if you order from UNIT1 - not stated at the time of purchase.
I got hit for a bill of nearly £60 from Fedex. Added to this, there are sync issues with the helmet and its companion app, making it unusable at times - not exactly a reliable product IMHO. It's been a bad experience for me so far and I advise others to avoid this product, until the issues are sorted out.
Saw that Brompton in the "commuting in London" clip 😊
Can you test if it would cause someone with epilepsy to have an attack if you cycled toward them in an unlit park. My country has laws on how bright and how often a light can flash, most bike lights break the law.
It's a really nice looking helmet and it does what it says on the box, but I found it to be too heavy and the ventilation is insufficient. I might be able to live with the ventilation during the winter months, but the weight was just too much to put up with and so it's been relegated to the bottom of the cupboard.
Give me it please
Great review!!! Really good videos.
That gray color looks good, waiting for mine after 2 months delay
They do have some nice colours! 👌🏼
Have you successfully tested the Fall Detection, call your mum part? Does it show where you are when you fall? Or just let her know you did fall?
1.5 hours with lights on.. this is already abandonware.. I'd rather go for the e-bike rated xnito, but I worry it might have the same lackluster battery life. Although they claim free replacements, if damaged.. not sure how that will go.
It's hard to tell. One thing to keep in mind is the weight of the helmet. The lighter the better. Battery life isn't too bad if you have this helmet on dimmer settings 👍🏼
Does the handlebar break light sensor allow you to turn off the brake light after it is activated? And does it tell you when it is active?
all helmets should have lights and be ultralight
Sadly in the Netherlands it’s not allowed for a speedpedelec. The rest of Europe does.
Op de normale e bike heb ik nog nooit commentaar gehad. Zelfs een compliment voor de zichtbaarheid van ome agent
Appreciate this great review!
Just as an FYI, where I live it's illegal to wear a flashing white light. It's dangerous to other people. (Flashing red at the back is ok though)
I can't find this helmet in Amazon I am from India if you tell me the buying opption
cool and informative review … good job…thx
Glad it helped
Ventilation?
This helmet has a good design concept and price point. My issue with electronics in helmets is product end of life waste. Electronics last for decades. Bicycle helmets should be replaced every 3-5 years due to deterioration of the foam. Of course, if you are unlucky enough to have a crash and the helmet does its job, then it may be trash before that time. Generally speaking, one should not design durable electronic components into a bike helmet unless the electronics can be removed and reused in a replacement product. If the helmet has not been designed with this in mind, no matter how beautiful it looks, or how well it works, it is only adding more e-waste to an already overburdened recycling system, if it gets recycled at all. Please, all companies that design for the environmentally friendly and sustainable activity of cycling, be more aware of the impact your products have through its lifecycle. As cyclists we should demand this of companies. I would not recommend any helmet with electronics that are not removable and/or reusable.
With all do respect, how much damage to the environment will this helmet do???
We're not talking about nuclear waste. We're not talking about a big screen TV, a laptop or a smartphone that is traded in every few years. The eWaste from this helmet is just some diodes and a small battery.
When I buy a helmet it's about enhancing my personal safety, first and foremost. The chance of being hit by a car is a big reason why a lot of people don't ride. Enhancing being seen by motorist might encourage people to consider riding bikes. After all riding a bike over driving a car is a better choice for the environment.
You talk about cyclist demands. My demands would be bringing more safe and affordable products to the cyclist market. That includes good lighting to see and be seen.
Open your eyes and get off your holier than thou self righteous thrown of judgements. I'm sure that if I was to take a good look at your lifestyle under a magnifying glass, I would find plenty of environmental digressions. We all can do better, but this helmet now being for sale will not lead to the doom to our existence.
@@ilovephotography1254 Interesting. You say we can all do better, but when confronted with an opportunity to do better it would seem it's too much trouble, or rather it's easier to rail at others for having ideas that diverge from your own.
If you notice, I did not simply complain, nor did I single anyone out for their point of view. I provided a solution. A solution that is feasible, reasonable and economical. If you know part of a product is disposable, and another part is durable, keeping the durable part separate from the disposable part can be incorporated into the design. In fact, this is *good* design.
Removable and reusable electronics is a better design and ultimately a more economical design because one could replace the foam and shell and not have to purchase an entire helmet.
One existing example of this - Motorcycle helmets. I ride a motorcycle. I'm sure you would agree that the safety requirements of motorcycle helmets are far more stringent than bicycle helmets. If you have a look at some of the helmets with intercoms, you'll see the electronics are detachable. Helmets that have electronics integration provisions are sold with electronics as an option that dock into the helmet. If a motorcycle helmet is ruined, the owner can remove the intercom and use it in the next helmet. Alternatively, one can move the electronics to different helmets if the owner has multiple helmets.
As far as helmet lighting, there are surface mount motorcycle helmet lights available similar to the function of the bicycle helmet reviewed here. Again, the electronics are separate from the helmet.
Now, the are motorcycle helmet and intercom companies wrong? Are they trying to force their values on their customers? No. They are doing what makes sense. They're not wasting resources and they aren't burdening the rest of us with dealing with wasted resources. This idea is sound as evidenced by companies already doing this. Your response is not.
@@randorecumbent Yes, you suggested a solution, but for a problem that doesn't really exist? Think on Scale. How bad of a problem are eHelmets? Would you like to outlaw helmets all together?
The overwhelming reason why people who I know that don't and won't ride bikes, is because they feel bikes aren't safe! As I stated in prior comments, I want to see more people feeling safe about riding a bike. If eDevises can improve cultural attitudes about bike safety, maybe more people will ride? Can you agree, more people choosing to bike ride would be a victory for the environment?
@@ilovephotography1254 One problem I have with the way you frame the issue is that you make a declaration of minimal impact without stating any supporting data. You assume that a problem "doesn't really exist" and you hold up straw man arguments and ad absurdum statements I never said. You also make statements which frame the issue in a false dichotomy. You *can* have safety *and* design that isn't wasteful. You don't have to choose one over the other. Your framing is misleading and does not support your point.
Going back to first principles, good design does not waste. Where a product can be designed to fulfill its primary function and provide a useful secondary function it should do so without waste. A helmet is designed to keep your head safe. That's it's reason for being. Putting bright colors or lights on it is a secondary function of visibility. Visibility can be enhanced many ways, lights being but one.
Your argument is that the waste created by integrating LED lights, circuits, and a power source which will last decades into a product made to last years is minimal- No analysis, no evidence. Not even a simple projection estimating the number of cyclists in the market, estimation of a modest, market share and a projection of helmet sales. Nothing. Just gut. OK.
The question you posed but haven't properly answered is the key to this discussion. "How bad is the problem?". I'd say the problem is pretty bad. TheRoundup.org has compiled e-waste data. In 2021, 57 metric tons of e-waste was created in the world. Projections for 2022 are 60 metric tons. To put it in perspective, 50 metric tons is the approximate weight of all commercial airplanes ever made. We're adding that and more every year. The total existing unrecycled e-waste today is estimated at 347 metric tons. The amount of e-waste is projected to increase yearly at 2-3 metric tons.
So that's the scope. Your position amounts to, "So, what? A tiny bit more won't hurt anything". Alright, again, an assumption from you and no supporting data. So in what is the environmental impact of all that junk?
If you're lucky enough to live in a place where you can send your garbage away and not have a second thought how it might affect the quality of water and air where you live, then I guess there's no net impact in your mind. The heavy metals which can leach into water & soil, poisoning them and the people near them is of no consequence to you but may be of immediate consequence to someone's health. Let's also remember that all the water that we have on the planet is all we've got. Clean water is becoming, no IS, a commodity that is more rare, which is not good, since we all need it.
Let's revisit the scope for a second. According to the information on TheRoundup.org LED bulbs and lamps make up 1.7% of the total e-waste. For this year that's going to be about a metric ton. That's half the year on year increase of total e-waste.
Now here's the crux of your counter argument, albeit presented without supporting data - The amount of e-waste that is contributed by smart helmets with integrated lights is insignificant and therefore not a problem. And here is where you miss the point. Even if the amount contributed is small, it's still *contributing* to a growing problem. Its not nothing. The solution is to not contribute to it at all or at least delay it as long as possible. This should be especially true for items which can be easily designed to achieve this without affecting the primary function of the product or its price.
Am I to believe that if you had choice between 2 products of the same price and performance, and one allows you to keep and reuse perfectly good durable components and the other you would have to dispose of whole, that you would choose the latter? Why? That makes no sense.
Imagine if bike wheels were sold with tires permanently attached to them. When you get a flat you'd have to get rid of the whole wheel and replace it. The whole thing, rim, hub, spokes and all. Based on your logic, you'd happily go along buying new wheels for every flat. Then someone comes along and says, "It would be easy to design a wheel with a replaceable tire, then you wouldn't have to throw away the whole wheel." Given your logic, you'd say "No, that's fine. My priority is having a good wheel. You're creating a problem that doesn't exist". You'd say this even though you could have a good wheel with the replaceable tire design and there would be no impact to the quality of your cycling experience.
Look, you're free to buy whatever you want. I don't really care. What I care about are the designers of the future and how they think about solving problems within the scope of the entire production life of what they design. If they do their jobs better, then I won't need to spend any time explaining how our consumer choices impact our environment (which means everyone), or responding to clumsily constructed attacks.
@@randorecumbent No one of us happens to be perfect when it comes to our environmental footprint.
I took a quick look at your TH-cam channel and viewed your videos. Let's look at your possible eWaste...
...You seem to have a fair amount of tech gear. Camera, microphone and a computer would be needed to download, process, edit and share on TH-cam. BTW It's a good channel if you're in to recumbent bikes.
When you purchased your tech equipment, was it new? If yes to new, why not buy capable second hand equipment that would be adequate for performing the same job? Would that had been a more responsible choice for the environment?
Have you ever upgraded your equipment to newer devices, because you rationalized to yourself that it was necessary? But in reality you just had to have it.
Please be honest with answers. If you answered yes to any of this, please understand why, attacking a new tech item to the market that is attempting to raise the bar on bike safety, makes little sense.
Great video
Great Review..... Thanks
Glad it was helpful!
optional mips is stupid___ty : they should automatically put it and no options for no mips must be presented
Yeah, it should be standard across the industry
Wow Québec merci
Casque love
If the brake light wasn't pink it would be great. But it's a good helmet for girls.
Battery life seems poor for the price. Amazing helmet though.
124 Euro that's a reasonable price
They stole this concept from LUMOS.
Almost 300 is just to expensive for a helmet. Keep in mind you pay almost 150 extra for lights.. we can call this smart, but lets be honest here.. its not so smart. Anyway, nice video!
No! It doesn’t have a face eye 👁️ 👁️ shield 🛡️, after 12 miles per hour you need to protect your eyes from debris, and the glaring sun 🌞, that is damn important 😱🫣🤭🫢🫤😬
For that price they could have at least included a speaker in it and microphone to take calls.
$$$ This helmet only cost $250 and if you want the wireless remote it will cost you another $40.. WTF you have got to be kidding me!! You won't be seeing many people wearing this helmet..
This helmet is much too heavy !
I would rather buy a chinese carbon frame for that price you must be joking 265£
And it is definitely from China branded by someone trying to make quick bucks via Facebook and PayPal. No ways.
This a complete rip off of the thousands helmet
Nothing like it lol
I don’t ride at night, I am no fool 😱🫣🤭🫢😬🫤 psycho people will hit you at night just out of spite. You become just a squirrel 🐿️ to drivers at night.