- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
TECH NEWS
poc ventral helmet1.jpgPOC Ventral aero helmet launched - "fastest and most aerodynamic, ventilated, lightweight and safest helmet ever developed"
Aero helmets, they're hot right now, and another to add to the growing list is the brand new POC Ventral. Swedish company POC has today launched its latest aerodynamic road helmet and as is usually the case with aero products, it’s claimed to be the fastest and most aerodynamic, ventilated, lightweight and safest helmet ever developed. That’s a lot of claims.
- Should you buy an aero helmet?
Jonas Sjögren, POC CEO said “Over the years we have developed a number of advanced performance helmets. The award-winning Octal is well known, but our Octal Aero, Cerebel and Tempor helmets have also been fundamental in improving aerodynamic performance and times for many track and road riders.
“With all our experience, we wanted to push our ideas even further and develop a ventilated aero helmet that would give significant speed gains to a rider and further improve safety.”
POC’s previous helmets have certainly made statements. Its Octal in bright colours stands out from the crowd, and the Octal Aero was simply that helmet with the vents filled in. The new Ventral Spin looks to be a significant step forward in the pursuit of aerodynamics, with an all-new design that channels air through the helmet, rather than around it.
Common wisdom would be that to create a low drag helmet the surface needs to be smooth and shaped in such a way to flow air around it. However, POC has come up with a design that channels air through the helmet rather than around it. This, it claims, reduces the wake behind the helmet and results in reduced drag.
“The Ventral SPIN has been designed with specific airflow zones in the helmet to create different pressure zones, inspired by the Venturi effect, which has the effect of increasing airflow and speed allowing the helmet to pass through the air with greater ease and efficiency,” explains the company.
The Ventral has precisely sized and angled front air intakes which channel air through the helmet, instead of around it, with internal channels controlling the passage of air and exit ports designed to work with this channelled air.
Any air that doesn’t enter the vents flows over the helmet where ‘aerodynamically optimised’ trailing edges reduce turbulence and maintains a linear airflow.
Poc doesn’t provide an aero data or claims for the new Ventral helmet, and we’ve no idea if they’ve benchmarked it against rival aero helmets. We’d presume they have conducted that sort of testing to see how its new helmet compares.
Cooling can be an issue with other aero helmets in hot climates, but Poc reckons the internal airflow enhances cooling inside the helmet.
- Six of the best Aero road helmets
Safety is of paramount importance to POC, and the new helmet will feature its own rotational impact protection system called SPIN, its own take on the more popular and common MIPS. It first debuted in the company’s snowsports helmets but is now available in a cycling helmet.
SPIN, short for Shearing Pad INside, involves silicone-filled pads placed at strategic places inside the helmet intended to allow a small range of rotational movement so the helmet can move relative to the head. POC says it reduces the amount of force transmitted to a user’s head and brain in the event of an oblique impact. It reckons that angled impacts are the most common and its research shows that this sort of impact can cause serious head injury with a much lower impact force.
“Rotational impact protection is necessary to counter the forces involved in oblique impacts, which are a common cause of head injury. SPIN pads are integrated inside a helmet and add an extra layer of rotational impact protection by shearing in any direction, allowing the head to move relative to the helmet, reducing the force transmitted to the brain,” explains the company.
“Without SPIN pads the remaining rotational impact energy would require nature’s impact defence system, Cerebrospinal fluid, to react. However, by using SPIN pads another layer of protection is introduced as SPIN pads are able to shear in any direction and reduce the energy and force transmitted to the head.”
Elsewhere, the new Ventral helmet uses a fully wrapped unibody shell made with an EPS liner and a lightweight retention system with easy adjustability. There’s a new eye garage for when you’re not wearing your shades. A size medium will weigh a claimed 248g.
The new Ventral is available now and costs €299. More at www.pocsports.com
The new helmet was developed by the company’s aerodynamic experts and tested not just in a wind tunnel, but also put to use by the Cannondale – drapac Pro Cycling Team. The new Ventral helmet will be used by the team in a race for the first time at Paris-Nice.
Jonathan Vaughters, CEO, EF Education First – Drapac p/b Cannondale Pro Cycling Team, added “We’ve been partners with POC since 2014 and their innovation and support has been essential to the success and well-being of the team. The reality of modern road racing is that results can often come down to the thinnest of margins. The Ventral gives us strong aerodynamics and doesn’t compromise at all on safety. Our riders also provided input in the Ventral’s development and are now looking forward to racing in it.”
David worked on the road.cc tech team from 2012-2020. Previously he was editor of Bikemagic.com and before that staff writer at RCUK. He's a seasoned cyclist of all disciplines, from road to mountain biking, touring to cyclo-cross, he only wishes he had time to ride them all. He's mildly competitive, though he'll never admit it, and is a frequent road racer but is too lazy to do really well. He currently resides in the Cotswolds, and you can now find him over on his own YouTube channel David Arthur - Just Ride Bikes.
Latest Comments
- bensynnock 2 sec ago
I was thinking about the words used by the opposers here, 'jumped-up' and 'arrogant', and wondering what behaviour on that part of cyclists...
- Rendel Harris 1 hour 58 min ago
The organisers are Elite Event Management, a for-profit company. Do you not know this or are you just ignoring it?
- check12 7 hours 11 min ago
Surely please get down on your knees, rappers rap about gats not cats and foil isn't made from oil and can hold your all told
- David9694 8 hours 33 min ago
The news from Exeter traders is to good today: Justine must furious with all the drivers not carrying anything causing all this traffic:...
- David9694 8 hours 46 min ago
Elderly man sentenced following serious crash in Ringwood...
- Slartibartfast 10 hours 41 min ago
What I find most amazing is that they didn't use this an opportunity to encourage drivers to check their vision and get an eye test. I was waiting...
- the little onion 12 hours 48 min ago
I didn't remove the sound because I didn't think that it mattered - quite clearly the swearing was in reaction to an act of frankly horrid...
- Nigel_2003 13 hours 35 min ago
Know how the limiter screws on your derailleur work and use the right ones to keep chain on a manageable cog at the back and/or chainring at the...
- Freddy56 13 hours 59 min ago
Story one: "Here is all the deals at 50% off."...
Add new comment
35 comments
.
StrangeWomen.png
I had a crash last year. Probably at about 30mph. I say probably because I blacked out and was unconscious for a few minutes. I then suffered dizzy spells for the next 6 or so weeks before my head finally recovered. I was wearing a helmet. Whilst I cannot say for sure how the same crash would have turned out if I was not wearing the helmet, I can tell you there’s is no amount of money in the world that would make me want to find out. Helmets all the way!
You've still got a sensible head on your shoulders, Andy. What I don't understand about the 'noddy hat' doubters is what speed are they going? Are they pootling around at 11kph? I don't wear a helmet on the way to the shops, but I do when I am out and about training at the weekend, it's not very hard to get up to 32kph/20mph and I wouldn't want to be hitting anything with my head at that speed. The old excuse is I am not 'riding to conditions,' as if the anti helmet brigate has a superior level of skill that protects them for minor spills. No one claims a helmet will protect you from an HGV, but there are plenty of pot holes, gravel, ice, and literal shit on the road that it can. I have half a dozen chutes over the years, none more than a bruised hip, however one resulted in a scrape down the side of my helmet, I am not really interesting in finding out what would have happened without the helmet; and I'm not really interested in people pretending they have never skidded, crashed, or had cars cutting them up.
Your argument re speed misunderstands yet again the problem.
Firstly, given the number of cyclists coming off in single person or not involving motorvehicle incidents will be more before helmets became a thing (simply due to more people riding) and as far as Ican tell from the data you're vastly more at risk of actually hitting your head whilst wearing a helmet in the same scenario and importantly less lkkely to be in that scenario as a non helmet wearer anyway, so much so that the limited benefit of helmets doesn't outweigh that negative aspect of increased incident.
Also when a helmet is struck at speeds/forces well beyond their test values they no longer offer the same protective capabilities simply because the material itself reqcts differently to this higher load. So when helmets break/split/crack they haven't absorbed or given the cushioning effect as it would at lower forces.
And again if the original dissipation in forces themselves are not enough to bring that to below cincussion levels whilst in a best case scenario how can one beleive that the material absorbs more when it's shown that it simoly hasn't and that the forces were transmitted to the head/brain.
Even when riding at 20mph (or more) when you crash this doesn't always equate to your head hitting a solid object at the same speeds.
If helmets were as effective as you and others make out then we would have endemic proportions of head injury only deaths before helmets became in the public consciousness, except we didn't and indeed in the pro ranks matters have got worse re crashes, injuries and deaths since mandation.
I've never made any claim for effectiveness, or requested mandation. All I am saying is in a like for like situation a helmet can mitigate (not prevent) injury. Why you need to denigrate people who choose to wear a helmet is the real question. Your calculation based on nothing more than your own not so humble opinion "as far as Ican(sic) tell from the data..." was so tortuous as to be laughable. Simple put you didn't grow up wearing them and decided years ago that you didn't like them and would take the risk of not wearing one out of pride or hubris or stubborned, or sartorial taste; whatever reason, you have made up your mind and now bristle at any hint that you might be 'required' to wear one. So you will come up with any spurious argument to say that like is not like and deny that wearing a helmet might, might, just make a difference to someone, sometime. Please don't dignify your choice as for the good of others, let them decide. And if the helmet they so choose costs £300, we so be it. You are still not required to wear one. If you fear complusion argue with the people advocating it not with the denizens here.
And since "helmets became a thing," well I am 41 and helmets have always been a 'thing' perhaps you can't muster a lick of speed on your Eroica bike, Grandpa.
299euro.
wth.... just really. Piece of crap.
@Ush - I kind of agree with your opinion on helmets, but I think Road.cc should be allowed to post reviews/articles on new products without attracting the same old arguments. There's more general news related articles that are a better place for that kind of discussion and we don't really want to be hurting Road.cc's ability to get advertising money. It'd be different if the opinions are about the specific helmet or manufacturer.
Well, that seems like a reasonable and politely phrased request that I think most people could agree with.
I certainly want road.cc to continue to succeed, but hopefully they're not dependent on misleading advertorials for SPIN(tm) helmets. And given the intransigence of those that Believe it seems more likely that they'll be running out to prove science wrong by falling off into lamposts with their new hundreds of euro helmets.
Generally I don't bother reading these or commenting on them, but saw the nasty comments in the sidebar. Over and out.
Wow more than 1000€ per kg of pure mass produced plastic!! That is superb marketing!!
Many people will say "and so what, it is my money". It is not that simple really. In a country with debt, the money that we think we have in our pockets is actually borrowed from our children.
that's ok - they can have our helmets when we're dead.
When there are sold certified helmets for 5$ in a first world country (Australia) you understand that your helmet will have to pass from father to son for 60 generations or around 1800 years. Even Excalibur wasn't that lucky.
yes, but Excalibur was a mythical invention plucked from swirling mists of ancient legend by a weird, beardy old man mumbling mystical incantations, but which failed to live up to the wizardly hype and in fact offered nothing of value to its users other than a mistaken feeling of invincibility, whereas bike helmets...
LOL. Who cares about some man-made construct like cash spent on a helmet? Its such a dullard and short-sighted thing to get your nickers in a twist about. The damage we have done to the planet and environment will have f***ked up our children's lives far more than any monetrary concerns.
Do you have the faintest idea how boring it is for anyone who wants to read an article on a new helmet to read your predictable diatribe every time? Just look at the likes, get the message and stop.
Absolutely. We've got other threads for banging on about helmets (and they've got graphs too!).
Oooh. Ooh. I know this one! Yes! I do! I can imagine it's like reading your comments, but more interesting.
Well worth a read
"Enough with the Helmet Shaming Already"
https://www.outsideonline.com/2285286/enough-helmet-shaming-already
Not going to get into the protective aspect, people know my thoughts.
Just wondering about the claims, if they can't/won't produce data then surely to advertise as being the 'most' or 'best' without evidence would be enough for advertising standards to pull the wording/claim?
Also re the aero, if the airflow through the inner part of the helmet is being channeled inside to have this cooling effect it must travel directly over a portion of the head, usually this would create drag would it not?
Ergo the flow of air over the top of the head (inside the helmet) would not be smooth, smoothing that out before it exits would create drag and or pressure wouldn't it?
Far more marketing than sense here. There really is nothing special to bike helmets. 250g of simple packing polystyrene and plastic. Some situations they may help, some not. Are they worth €300? Definitely not.
I for one think that POC look like a Piece Of Crap. ( I have a teeny heid)
I advocate 'choice' for wearing of helmet(s), no mandate necessary!
Price of some of these is f'n ridiculous...
I wear one, own several. Will it save my life, doubtful! Will they save me X watts over X kms? about as much as the shite(s) I have before cycling...
Is it a fashion accessory, more so than an effective life saver in real world crash/impact.
I'm more likely to die from cardiac failure, than head trauma (possibly - I made that data up).
In fact I'm more likely to die of tedium, discussing helmets....
The front half looks amazing, but the back half looks kinda like a mountain bike helmet. I'd have to see them in the flesh and try on before purchasing I think.
Burtthebike, you pick your poison. If you live in a glass house don't throw stones.
You inevitably ascribe to various belief systems which have no scientific credibility, and invest large amounts of time and money in them. That is the nature of human behaviour. Unfortunately your tendentious position on the helmet debate, by the way you express it, is equally, if not more flawed than the position of 'the helmet zealots'. In other words pull the plank out of your own eye before you pick at the splinters in others'.
So looking at all the evidence and believing the most robust and reliable which has stood the test of peer review is more flawed than the people who believe the propaganda, lies and "helmet saved my life" fairy stories?
My MSc dissertation was on cycle helmets, I've read hundreds of reports and I keep up to date with the latest research. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate a little on exactly what the plank in my eye is?
Clearly if you have an MSc you understand my point that observational studies aren't conclusive proof of anything, but you dont' address that in your reply
Lots of people who have written a dissertation have done it with a full dose of confirmational bias. You have an utterly dogmatic approach to this topic, so there's no reason to expect your assessment of 'the latest research' is any less myopic.
My point was about your use of hyperbole to make completely unsupportable statements (with examples) which is exactly your complaint of "the other side" -propaganda, lies and fairy tales. However, in spite my use of 'prolix' to spell it out clearly for you, you have been unable to grasp the central point. Perhaps this will be succinct enough:
You can not make un-substantiatable statements and expect people to take your argument seriously when that is precisely your complaint of the opposing view.
Oh do shut up burt... it's fucking tedious. Don't like, don't agree ?.. don't buy, don't waste time spouting holier than thou crap in articles for them if they're so offensive to you.... sheesh.
Wow! Touched a nerve there.
Tell you what; if you can stop the helmet zealots pushing their incessant propaganda and continually calling for a helmet law, I'll shut up.
Gee Burt, I don't see anyone here advocating compulsion; but you sure are reading off your own off topic hymn sheet. The reason there is no conclusive scientific evidence is that no one will volunteer for the control group. Would you be a sweety and smash your head on some asphalt and report back to us if you can.
I didn't say the people advocating compulsion were on here, you invented that, but there are plenty of them and they never rest, or are you denying that?
There is conclusive proof; the long term whole population studies so kindly done by those nice Aussies and Kiwis, but despite that people continue to ask for more. Odd that the helmet zealots have no difficulty dismissing the most conclusive evidence while believing the most tenuous.
It's easy to deny that <compulsion advocates> never rest. They're not on here now, as you pointed out. If they never rested they would be all over this like... well, like BTB. Your hyperbole has made your argument entirely redundant.
Statistical surveys are absolutely not conclusive proof of anything., especially not whole of population observational studies. Again your hyperbole, or inability to understand the role of statistics in substantiating arguments has let you down.
"helmets.... have never shown any safety benefit". Well, how are you going to narrowly define 'safety' to give that argument any chance of standing up. It is demonstrable with recognised technologies that accurately predict injury rates (think crash test dummies) that in some circumstances helmets reduce injury. Arguably that is a reasonable application of the term 'improving safety'. It is also demonstrable in a simple empirical experiment. ride into a lamp-post at 30 kph first with a helmet, and then without a helmet, making sure you hit the post squarely on with your head. Then compare the relative injuries. It would take an extraordinarily obtuse person to not see that injuries from the former would be measurably different to the latter. This scenario has been played out multiple times with, ultimately, small variations, and easily substantiates the point that helmets may reduce some injuries. Again this is a reasonable application of the term "a safety benefit". Again, your hyperbole and dogmatic position have terminally undermined your argument and credibility.
Prolix is not proof of anything except your inability to sum up an argument succinctly.
Pages