# Bell Super 2R



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

Spotted: New Bell Super 2R trail/enduro helmet with removable chin bar | Mountain Bike Review

Bell Super 2R All-Mountain Bike Helmet with MIPS - ActiveLifeStore.com: The Blog

Looks like the chinbar has cheek pads. This may be my next helmet.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

I'd personally wait for the Met Parachute. I looked into this one, it's not ASTM1952 certified according to what I can find.


----------



## DrewBird (Apr 11, 2007)

I dunno, the fact that the 2R's chin bar is removable (apparently via a buckle at the back?) is pretty interesting to me. This is the first "mini-full-face" I've seen that seems like it might actually give reasonable protection. I'd be curious to try both.


----------



## xhailofgunfirex (Jun 25, 2008)

This helmet has peaked my interest, I have a Super and a Full 9, I would love to have the removeable chinbar for some of the long climb days. From the second link it looks like the chinbar is compatible with the Super, unless they changed the original half shell Super. Interesting that both have a MIPS version also now.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

All personal preference. For me, if I'm getting a FF helmet, the point is for the chin bar to work. The only way to know for sure and not assume is for it to pass ASTM 1952.

Now, if they come out and say that it does meet the standard, I'd be all over this.


----------



## DrewBird (Apr 11, 2007)

In the MTBR article with the spy-shot of the catalog, in the upper right there's a "certifications" list. Hard to read but it looks like it has a CPSC and and CE certification; can't tell the numbers. I guess I don't know enough about the different standards; there are various levels of CPSC, SNELL, ASTM and DOT certifications for full-face helmets, though I guess some of these are actually moto certifications and may indicate that a helmet is LESS safe for MTB in some cases (see Tech Tuesday: DH Helmet vs. Motocross Helmet: Which is Safer? - Pinkbike ) Guess I'd want to know if the Bell failed the ASTM 1952 test or just wasn't tested?

Ultimately it will come down to fit I suspect; FF helmets need to fit well to work, so whichever has a nice snug fit with real cheek pads and support for the back of the head...


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

DrewBird said:


> .....Guess I'd want to know if the Bell failed the ASTM 1952 test or just wasn't tested?
> 
> Ultimately it will come down to fit I suspect; FF helmets need to fit well to work, so whichever has a nice snug fit with real cheek pads and support for the back of the head...


And that is the part that sucks- they won't tell you. Since 1952 is the only test related to the chin bar, if it's not 1952 certified you really have no idea about the chin bar strength. 
The other thing about getting it passed 1952 is that indirectly that would also be testing the chin bar attachment and it's strength.
Would suck to have a FF helmet only to find out when you needed that protection it failed you.


----------



## KingZee (Jul 11, 2014)

This helmet looks really appealing. I would hope they wouldn't develop something that doesn't work although it may not be adequate for the pro DH racer. For someone like me who's doing mostly trail and some non-pro speed DH this MIGHT be perfect. Even if the chin guard breaks off at impact it would significantly reduce initial impact...right?


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

TwoTone said:


> All personal preference. For me, if I'm getting a FF helmet, the point is for the chin bar to work. The only way to know for sure and not assume is for it to pass ASTM 1952.
> 
> Now, if they come out and say that it does meet the standard, I'd be all over this.


Seconded.


----------



## unrooted (Jul 31, 2007)

xhailofgunfirex said:


> I would love to have the removeable chinbar for some of the long climb days.


Why wear a helmet while climbing???


----------



## Legbacon (Jan 20, 2004)

When I climb my helmet is usually strapped to my pack. A helmet like this is great when you are going to encounter a variety of trails in one day.


----------



## xhailofgunfirex (Jun 25, 2008)

Because carrying a 2.5 lb full face on my back is annoying, especially if I have some soft armor in my pack already. I have a decent pack and even strapped down its pretty annoying, especially on tech climbs. Also if I have to duck under branches or low hanging brush the helmet always hits that stuff. Also if I need to pull something out of my pack real quick, taking the helmet off the pack and then putting it back on is annoying.

It depends on the climbing, a lot of climbing I do isn't just straight up and then descend back down, so lots of ups and downs but overall elevation gain can be quite a lot 3-4k.

For me a removable chin bar makes a lot of sense, just pack the chinbar in the pack for most of the ride and on the gnar sections I can pull it out. I have a full face for the DH bike, and I have tried the two helmet system on my AM bike quite a few times but it's cumbersome.



unrooted said:


> Why wear a helmet while climbing???


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

KingZee said:


> This helmet looks really appealing. I would hope they wouldn't develop something that doesn't work although it may not be adequate for the pro DH racer. For someone like me who's doing mostly trail and some non-pro speed DH this MIGHT be perfect. Even if the chin guard breaks off at impact it would significantly reduce initial impact...right?


Keep believing that on the way to the ER. Search Urge Archi Enduro.


----------



## PHeller (Dec 28, 2012)

Honestly the same thing could be said for wearing a full face without a neck brace. 

If you apply the same logic to something like a motorcycle, you wouldn't wear any gear whatsoover, or you wouldn't ride the motorcycle at all, considering there are safer options. 

I think Bell has created one of the most innovative lightweight full face designs in years, with proper coverage (no scoop like the Archie Enduro or point like the Parachute), proper construction (not just plastic), and solid connection points.

This isn't to say that you won't see pictures of people separating the chin ring from the helmet, or the lower portion of the helmet shattering, or any number of problems, but that might also be folks who are using the helmet beyond its intended use.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

PHeller said:


> Honestly the same thing could be said for wearing a full face without a neck brace.
> 
> If you apply the same logic to something like a motorcycle, you wouldn't wear any gear whatsoover, or you wouldn't ride the motorcycle at all, considering there are safer options.
> 
> ...


Again, it's all personal preference and honestly I don't agree with your logic. You can easily go the other way, why worry if the helmet passes any tests at all right?


----------



## In2falling (Jan 1, 2005)

What works for me here in the Arizona heat has been a SixSixOne Comp Helmet.

I take and remove/cut out the cheek padding and turn it into a half shell helmet that has now has a chin/face guard. Its cheap, well built, fairly light at 950 grams and fairly well ventilated (without the cheek padding even more so).


----------



## PHeller (Dec 28, 2012)

TwoTone said:


> Again, it's all personal preference and honestly I don't agree with your logic. You can easily go the other way, why worry if the helmet passes any tests at all right?


And I'm sure some folks think that. Especially the guys on sport bikes. Just because you wear a helmet, or heck, all of the gear, doesn't mean you can't get ran over by a commercial truck. Likewise, wearing all the gear on a DH bike doesn't make you Steve Smith.

I think for many people the little bit of added protection of something like the Super 2R doesn't mean they'll now attempt that road gap or 20' drop to flat, but it'll allow them to ride with just a little bit more confidence on their AM bike.


----------



## Joules (Oct 12, 2005)

PHeller said:


> I think for many people the little bit of added protection of something like the Super 2R doesn't mean they'll now attempt that road gap or 20' drop to flat, but it'll allow them to ride with just a little bit more confidence on their AM bike.


I think the issue here is there's no indication other than looks that the chin bar does or would do anything. They've said it doesn't pass ASTM F1952, one assumes it doesn't pass DOT since it's stricter than F1952, the only other chin bar cert is ASTM F2032 for BMX helmets which has an optional chin bar test; no word on if it passed that, but it seems unlikely.
Since there are no DOT or F1952 helmets with that many vents, I suppose it's possible that's why it doesn't pass, but we have no way of knowing. Maybe as demand for this type of helmet increases, ASTM will come up with a standard beyond road helmets. That hasn't happened yet.

They say it's rated for "trail use" but there is no test for that rating, so basically you're just taking their word for it. If it hasn't been tested to any standard that requires a chin bar, then the chin bar is just decoration as far as you know. 
Maybe someone will crash and prove it really is worthwhile; if you're willing to use your face as a test dummy, be my guest.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

Joules said:


> I think the issue here is there's no indication other than looks that the chin bar does or would do anything. They've said it doesn't pass ASTM F1952, one assumes it doesn't pass DOT since it's stricter than F1952, the only other chin bar cert is ASTM F2032 for BMX helmets which has an optional chin bar test; no word on if it passed that, but it seems unlikely.
> *Since there are no DOT or F1952 helmets with that many vents, I* suppose it's possible that's why it doesn't pass, but we have no way of knowing. Maybe as demand for this type of helmet increases, ASTM will come up with a standard beyond road helmets. That hasn't happened yet.
> 
> They say it's rated for "trail use" but there is no test for that rating, so basically you're just taking their word for it. If it hasn't been tested to any standard that requires a chin bar, then the chin bar is just decoration as far as you know.
> Maybe someone will crash and prove it really is worthwhile; if you're willing to use your face as a test dummy, be my guest.


Except for the New MET Parachute. Some decent pictures here MET Parachute HES - Un Fullface per l'enduro | Mountain Bike Web Magazine - TriRideMTB

I got a confirmation email from Bell- it won't be tested to ASTM 1952, so I ordered a MET Parachute.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

unrooted said:


> Why wear a helmet while climbing???


I never remove my helmet during a ride. Few climbs are purely climbing, and you can still crash while climbing.

And my helmet is more comfortable to carry on my head than anywhere else.


----------



## DrewBird (Apr 11, 2007)

So is the Parachute available in the US? I see that it can be gotten from Chain Reaction, but is it CPSC certified to be sold by US retailers? In theory, don't most races require that you use a CPSC-certified helmet? Not that they check, but....


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

DrewBird said:


> So is the Parachute available in the US? I see that it can be gotten from Chain Reaction, but is it CPSC certified to be sold by US retailers? In theory, don't most races require that you use a CPSC-certified helmet? Not that they check, but....


I ordered from overseas, don't race so wasn't an issue for me.

Interesting that you mention them checking. Here is an article about World Enduro Stop #5 in Colorado and he's wearing a MET Parachute. Also on Facebook they mention Hannah Barnes running a Parachute at the EWS#5
Met-Helmets - Met-Helmets


----------



## DrewBird (Apr 11, 2007)

Hmmm, maybe different because it's presumably a UCI rather than USA Cycling-sanctioned race? 

I've never heard of anyone checking, but when I used to race triathlons there were some aero helmets that weren't CPSC certified, so they did start to check. Heard horror stories of people whose CPSC stickers had been sweated off the inside of their helmets being DQ'd. Then again triathlons love their rules more so than MTB events in my experience!

Regardless, does anyone know if MET plans to sell the Parachute in the US?


----------



## KingZee (Jul 11, 2014)

DrewBird said:


> Regardless, does anyone know if MET plans to sell the Parachute in the US?


Also curious about this...the helmet looks awesome but seems to be tough to find in the US.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

KingZee said:


> Also curious about this...the helmet looks awesome but seems to be tough to find in the US.


Not in US currently. I read rumors that it will be here in 2015, but nothing from them. Ordered mine from Germany.


----------



## LCW (May 5, 2008)

So when is the Super 2R supposed to be available?


----------



## Joules (Oct 12, 2005)

DrewBird said:


> I've never heard of anyone checking, but when I used to race triathlons there were some aero helmets that weren't CPSC certified, so they did start to check. Heard horror stories of people whose CPSC stickers had been sweated off the inside of their helmets being DQ'd. Then again triathlons love their rules more so than MTB events in my experience!


Head farings that looked like helmets used to be a thing, before the UCI required helmets in road races. I bet the organizers of that tri were just trying to enforce their helmet rule - which was probably more out of deferment to their insurance than being sticklers. 
I suspect if there were common non-protective helmet-looking things, more mtb races would have helmet checks.


----------



## LCW (May 5, 2008)

Just picked up a Super (needed a helmet now) - it would be cool if the chin bar worked on the 1st gen Super's.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

LCW said:


> Just picked up a Super (needed a helmet now) - it would be cool if the chin bar worked on the 1st gen Super's.


I have read elsewhere (NSMB) that they will not.


----------



## LCW (May 5, 2008)

evasive said:


> I have read elsewhere (NSMB) that they will not.


if true - that sucks, but understandable


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

Just got my MET Parachute, really nice product. I love fit so far. Haven't ridden yet, but I'll post my impressions as soon as I get a ride in.


----------



## kalkhoffpink (Jul 31, 2010)

TwoTone said:


> Just got my MET Parachute, really nice product. I love fit so far. Haven't ridden yet, but I'll post my impressions as soon as I get a ride in.


You can watch some pictures of my MET on this page:

MET Parachute 2014 Impressionen | MTB-News.de

To me the helmet is really uncomfortable. The paddding is thin and the fit of the wheel construction at the back also isn´t great.
Finally the Double-D strap is a pain to close and to release.
In my opinion a light FF helmet is something for Enduro races where you have to wear the helmet for a longer time while riding up and down. For normal 20 minutes climbing and than 3 minutes descending, you can use every FF on the market. I wouldn´t leave the MET on while climbing just because it is 200g lighter and a little bit better ventilated than a normal FF.

Will send it back tomorrow and stay with my TLD A1 and my URGE Down-O-Matic.

But I will have a closer look at the Bell Super 2R, although I did not like the fit of the normal Super. That´s why I ended with the A1.
And there is another company, a German one, who invented a split helmet. It will be available in 2015:

Design Studie | Splithelm Design Studie | Vecnum GmbH

Ride on....


----------



## jkidd_39 (Sep 13, 2012)

LCW said:


> Just picked up a Super (needed a helmet now) - it would be cool if the chin bar worked on the 1st gen Super's.


I got my hands on one at a demo at my bike shop. The gen 1s will not work with the new set up. However you can buy the new super helmet and add the lower at a later time.

The cool part is the MIPS for only $20 more.

Another interesting feature is you can pull the chin section off and connect it around your neck when climbing.

It's got magnets to align the lower and a snap on part on each side and in the back. You can remove it with gloves on.

And I think they land at dealers OCT 1st. Fyi

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kalkhoffpink (Jul 31, 2010)

As far as I remember I tried the Super and it did not fit great. One of the reasons was that the manufacturers never produce overlapping sizes. They have something like 52-58 and 59-62. I have a 58 and sit between the two. The small one gives no room for a cap in winter and is quite tight and the big one sits too loose. Why not produce a 52-58 and a 57-62...?? 
Besides that I remember that the padding was very thin, just like those on the new MET Parachute. Padding does not weight much, so why are they all so avaricious with it. The same for the never padded, hard neck wheels.


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

kalkhoffpink said:


> As far as I remember I tried the Super and it did not fit great. One of the reasons was that the manufacturers never produce overlapping sizes. They have something like 52-58 and 59-62. I have a 58 and sit between the two. The small one gives no room for a cap in winter and is quite tight and the big one sits too loose. Why not produce a 52-58 and a 57-62...??
> Besides that I remember that the padding was very thin, just like those on the new MET Parachute. Padding does not weight much, so why are they all so avaricious with it. The same for the never padded, hard neck wheels.


I was beginning to think that I was weird and that I was the only person with this issue. My head is 59cm and the large is too big for me even though the helmet says 58-63cm on the inside. I did not try a medium as the large felt fine initially but no longer does. I no longer ride with the large - but will keep it for winter riding when I have more headgear on. Then it's fine..

I'm now thinking of trying a POC Trabec Race MIPS though the sizing guide for that is iffy too


----------



## LCW (May 5, 2008)

kalkhoffpink said:


> As far as I remember I tried the Super and it did not fit great. One of the reasons was that the manufacturers never produce overlapping sizes. They have something like 52-58 and 59-62. I have a 58 and sit between the two. The small one gives no room for a cap in winter and is quite tight and the big one sits too loose. Why not produce a 52-58 and a 57-62...??
> Besides that I remember that the padding was very thin, just like those on the new MET Parachute. Padding does not weight much, so why are they all so avaricious with it. The same for the never padded, hard neck wheels.


I think you have it backwards. I have a Medium Super and it's 55-59. I think large is 58-62. My head is 59 and the medium fit perfectly. Not much margin in the high end, but as I've been reading, the padding compresses a bit after a time. I'm 1 click from full open.

Large was way too big. Even cranked down it moved around on my head. I had ordered both M and L and kept the size that fit. I usually wear XL helmets but this Super was a surprise.


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

No overlap in the size chart.









Oddly my helmet claims it starts at 58cm for a large, though that is total lie. Fully clamped down it still moves on my 59cm head on rough terrain.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

here's a vid on how it works:


----------



## xhailofgunfirex (Jun 25, 2008)

Interesting. I'm just not seeing how that wouldnt attach to the original version of the Super.

The website is updated too, no ASTM DH cert.
http://www.bellhelmets.com/cycling/helmets/dirt/super-2r-7955


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

kalkhoffpink said:


> As far as I remember I tried the Super and it did not fit great. One of the reasons was that the manufacturers never produce overlapping sizes.


I had two sizes of Super and they both fit me fine so the sizing does overlap.


----------



## Daxdagr8t (Jul 9, 2014)

I have a large bell super, my forehead hurts after a while maybe just my head anatomy lol but I'm looking forward when this come out. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## LCW (May 5, 2008)

xhailofgunfirex said:


> Interesting. I'm just not seeing how that wouldnt attach to the original version of the Super.
> 
> The website is updated too, no ASTM DH cert.
> http://www.bellhelmets.com/cycling/helmets/dirt/super-2r-7955


I'm wishfully thinking that it does attach to the original Super, but if not I'll probably get one of these eventually. Too cool of a system not to


----------



## squareback (Sep 19, 2011)

I believe this announcement has rendered moot my search for a Met Parachute.




Yes I do always speak thusly.


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

I've been wearing the Bell Super 3-4 times a week for 15 months. I absolutely love the helmet. It's in phenomenal condition still and I recently replaced the liner for the first time....a freebie from Bell just past my warranty period but only $7 if you have to pay. The moment I can find the white/black version of this 2R, I will throw down my money to own one. I can't wait!


----------



## pastajet (May 26, 2006)

I checked out the Super 2R at Interbike, and it is pretty cool. Felt comfortable on my head, and switching the chin bar on and off was simple. The latches are just like ones on a pair of ski boots, and once the chin bar is attached it seemed very strong and secure. And no, I didn't get to smash it into the ground to see how tough the system is. 

I for one think it will be a great helmet for All Mountain riders that want a more x-country like helmet for normal activities and something beefier for going down the gnarlier terrain, helping to protect the face from frontal assaults. It's not a full face helmet, but will be for more comfortable, cooler and have enough safety for most activities.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

I really want to like this idea, and I have a degree of confidence in Bell's reputation. 

However, when I would wear this, I'd be riding just as fast as I would in a bike park, and with arguably more trail side hazards. Nobody clears rocks and logs off the sides of backcountry trails. What makes me hesitant is that there is a published chin bar test/standard now. Did Bell test against it internally? Why did they not pursue the cert? I haven't seen any of those questions addressed, or even raised. Only guesses based on appearances or first impressions.

I'm not going to say I won't buy one. Maybe I will. But I won't beta test one with my face, and MET having the 1952 cert gives me more confidence in their offering.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

evasive said:


> I really want to like this idea, and I have a degree of confidence in Bell's reputation.
> 
> However, when I would wear this, I'd be riding just as fast as I would in a bike park, and with arguably more trail side hazards. Nobody clears rocks and logs off the sides of backcountry trails. What makes me hesitant is that there is a published chin bar test/standard now. Did Bell test against it internally? Why did they not pursue the cert? I haven't seen any of those questions addressed, or even raised. Only guesses based on appearances or first impressions.
> 
> I'm not going to say I won't buy one. Maybe I will. But I won't beta test one with my face, and MET having the 1952 cert gives me more confidence in their offering.


It's been addressed, currently no plans to certify with 1952. I emailed Bell and it's why I went with the MET.

Hi Rob,

Thank you for your email. The Super 2R will be certified to CPSC and CE EN 1078 certifications.

Thanks,

Katie McDonald
BRG Sports
1001 Innovation Road
Rantoul, IL. 61866


----------



## Ride-Aid (May 20, 2013)

Oh My Sack! said:


> I've been wearing the Bell Super 3-4 times a week for 15 months. I absolutely love the helmet. It's in phenomenal condition still and I recently replaced the liner for the first time....a freebie from Bell just past my warranty period but only $7 if you have to pay. The moment I can find the white/black version of this 2R, I will throw down my money to own one. I can't wait!


I saw that Art's Cyclery has the Super 2R up on their site for pre-order. The date on the website says Nov 9.

Bell Super 2R Enduro Helmet 2015 $199

Bell Super 2R Mips Enduro Helmet 2015 $219


----------



## Roaming50 (Apr 30, 2009)

It shows the red MIPS 2R as already being "sold out" in medium and small but I didn't think the MIPS version was available until December anyway..


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

TwoTone said:


> It's been addressed, currently no plans to certify with 1952. I emailed Bell and it's why I went with the MET.


I think you've posted the contents of that email before, right? I'd say that response doesn't address the question, by design. That's what I mean. I'd love to read an interview in which someone at Bell explains why they chose not to pursue that cert.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

evasive said:


> I think you've posted the contents of that email before, right? I'd say that response doesn't address the question, by design. That's what I mean. I'd love to read an interview in which someone at Bell explains why they chose not to pursue that cert.


I don't know what I'm talking about, but I seem to remember reading that removability of the chinguard prevents 1952 cert. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, then presumably Bell decided removability was a bigger selling point than 1952.


----------



## CHUM (Aug 30, 2004)

evasive said:


> I think you've posted the contents of that email before, right? I'd say that response doesn't address the question, by design. That's what I mean. I'd love to read an interview in which someone at Bell explains why they chose not to pursue that cert.


First Look: Bell Super 2R helmet | BIKE Magazine


> ...Andrew McSorley, Bell's director of product marketing, emphasized that the Super 2R isn't a replacement for a full-face helmet, but said that it's there for people who want that little bit of extra protection.
> 
> Or, by the sounds of it, a lot of protection.
> 
> ...


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

The fact that they thought about a chinbar standard when designing the helmet means nothing. "Used ... as the benchmark" is just empty marketingspeak.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

OldManBike said:


> I don't know what I'm talking about, but I seem to remember reading that removability of the chinguard prevents 1952 cert. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm right, then presumably Bell decided removability was a bigger selling point than 1952.


I wonder if that's it. I've tried finding the standard online, but it costs $ to download.

It would be interesting to know if it passed the test, but they can't officially say it does because of the standard specifying it can't have a removable chin bar.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

TwoTone said:


> I wonder if that's it. I've tried finding the standard online, but it costs $ to download.
> 
> It would be interesting to know if it passed the test, but they can't officially say it does because of the standard specifying it can't have a removable chin bar.


Agree.

Enduro magazine's review of the new Parachute says "The old MET Parachute came with an optional chin guard. However the new one is fixed, and can be be used as full-fledged Full Face even for racing. In order to certify the helmet for this it was necessary to adapt the face guard and fix it to the helmet." Again, not saying that's true, just what I've read.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

CHUM said:


> First Look: Bell Super 2R helmet | BIKE Magazine





OldManBike said:


> Agree.
> 
> Enduro magazine's review of the new Parachute says "The old MET Parachute came with an optional chin guard. However the new one is fixed, and can be be used as full-fledged Full Face even for racing. In order to certify the helmet for this it was necessary to adapt the face guard and fix it to the helmet." Again, not saying that's true, just what I've read.


Yea, that could just as easily meant they went that way to have the strength to meet the standard vs. the standard specifying no removable guard.

This is off the ASTM webpage:
"1.3 Partial utilization of this standard is prohibited. Any statement of compliance with this specification must be a certification that the product meets all of the requirements of this specification in its entirety. A product that fails to meet any one of the requirements of this specification is considered to have failed this standard, and should not be sold with any indication that it meets parts of this standard."

Basically you can't mention the standard unless its met fully. So it could meet the strength technically, but if the standard has a line that states no removable guard then they can't mention the standard at all.

So IMHO, it boils down to one of two scenarios:

#1 doesn't pass the standard at all.
#2 passes the chin bar deflection, but standard specifies no removable guard, so considered a fail.

So if we can get a copy of the standard, we'll be able to see if it says anything about a removable guard. 
If it doesn't, then it's all marketing speak and it didn't pass.

If it does, then it leaves a open question, because he could be telling the truth that is technically passed, but they cant say that.

I'll be the first to admit, if I know it technically passed and it was the 'removable' part that caused the fail, I'd be all over it. Until otherwise, I'm very happy with my MET, lot cooler and more comfortable than I thought it'd be.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

1.1 from the same page says, "this specification requires greater impact protection and provides performance criteria for chin bars on full-face helmets, but does not require full-face helmets."

One would think that if a non-FF can qualify then a part-time-FF could too. But without reading the standard, that's only speculation.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Dirt Rag has a short piece on this helmet up today. Reading between the lines, it sounds as though the speculation above is on point. I suspect that their internal testing was in fact based on the 1952 chin bar test, although it also appears from posts above that they can't say so. It would be interesting to watch the video that Dirt Rag mentions and see what the test consisted of.

First Impression: Bell Super 2R | Dirt Rag


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

And here's another maybe-its-true-but-we're-not-quoting-Bell version of why it isn't certified, from Outside: "Because of the vents in the helmet upper, the Super 2R isn't rated to the same standards as a typical downhill lid, but the face guard is just as secure as that on a DH helmet."

Here's my two cents. Pinkbike, MTBR, Dirtrag, etc: you guys are journalists. Journalists ask the right questions and publish the answers. So, journalist, ask Bell, "Why isn't the helmet DH certified?" And just tell us what they say. If the answer is, 'because we wanted a removable chinguard or lotsa ventilation or whatever and the standard didn't allow that,' print it. Maybe Bell isn't allowed to say "we passed the chinguard test," but there's no valid reason they can't say "this feature that we included is a feature that isn't allowed for certification."

Because until Bell says that, I'm assuming it isn't certified because it isn't safe enough to pass any of the tests. And, IMHO, anyone who doesn't assume that is a sucker.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

OldManBike said:


> And here's another maybe-its-true-but-we're-not-quoting-Bell version of why it isn't certified, from Outside: "Because of the vents in the helmet upper, the Super 2R isn't rated to the same standards as a typical downhill lid, but the face guard is just as secure as that on a DH helmet."
> 
> Here's my two cents. Pinkbike, MTBR, Dirtrag, etc: you guys are journalists. Journalists ask the right questions and publish the answers. So, journalist, ask Bell, "Why isn't the helmet DH certified?" And just tell us what they say. If the answer is, 'because we wanted a removable chinguard or lotsa ventilation or whatever and the standard didn't allow that,' print it. Maybe Bell isn't allowed to say "we passed the chinguard test," but there's no valid reason they can't say "this feature that we included is a feature that isn't allowed for certification."
> 
> Because until Bell says that, I'm assuming it isn't certified because it isn't safe enough to pass any of the tests. And, IMHO, anyone who doesn't assume that is a sucker.


Agreed 100%.
I just posted the cert question on their website: 
Www.bellhelmets.com 
Anyone interested enough should do the same. We might be able to get some info from them...


----------



## Bell Helmets (Sep 30, 2014)

We love all of this dialogue around the new Super 2R - if nothing else, it raises the need for more information to be published about what goes into all of these different standards that manufacturers must meet and exceed. 

In regards to the questions being posed regarding the Super 2R, we'd like to offer the following: Like all of our trail riding helmets, the Super 2R meets and exceeds the CPSC and CE Bicycle Standards. However, it is not certified to the ASTM Downhill standard. 
We are breaking new ground by developing a helmet that is designed for a new class of rider that wants the weight savings and ventilation properties offered by the Super for climbing, but with the added measure of protection offered by a chin bar for descents. 
The Super 2R is designed specifically for All Mountain or Enduro riding where weight and ventilation are important factors. It weighs 694 grams, approximately 1 pound lighter than a traditional downhill helmet, and has 4 brow ports and 23 vents for ventilation. Since there is currently not a helmet certification standard in place to meet the unique criteria of this emerging rider, we designed and tested internally against existing benchmarks including a commonly used deflection test.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Bell Helmets said:


> We love all of this dialogue around the new Super 2R - if nothing else, it raises the need for more information to be published about what goes into all of these different standards that manufacturers must meet and exceed.
> 
> In regards to the questions being posed regarding the Super 2R, we'd like to offer the following: Like all of our trail riding helmets, the Super 2R meets and exceeds the CPSC and CE Bicycle Standards. However, it is not certified to the ASTM Downhill standard.
> We are breaking new ground by developing a helmet that is designed for a new class of rider that wants the weight savings and ventilation properties offered by the Super for climbing, but with the added measure of protection offered by a chin bar for descents.
> The Super 2R is designed specifically for All Mountain or Enduro riding where weight and ventilation are important factors. It weighs 694 grams, approximately 1 pound lighter than a traditional downhill helmet, and has 4 brow ports and 23 vents for ventilation. Since there is currently not a helmet certification standard in place to meet the unique criteria of this emerging rider, we designed and tested internally against existing benchmarks including a commonly used deflection test.


Thank you for posting here.

Why isn't the helmet DH certified?

Are there features of the helmet (like the removability of the chinbar or the amount of ventilation) that would have defeated DH certification?


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

OldManBike said:


> And here's another maybe-its-true-but-we're-not-quoting-Bell version of why it isn't certified, from Outside: "Because of the vents in the helmet upper, the Super 2R isn't rated to the same standards as a typical downhill lid, but the face guard is just as secure as that on a DH helmet."
> 
> Here's my two cents. Pinkbike, MTBR, Dirtrag, etc: you guys are journalists. Journalists ask the right questions and publish the answers. So, journalist, ask Bell, "Why isn't the helmet DH certified?" And just tell us what they say. If the answer is, 'because we wanted a removable chinguard or lotsa ventilation or whatever and the standard didn't allow that,' print it. Maybe Bell isn't allowed to say "we passed the chinguard test," but there's no valid reason they can't say "this feature that we included is a feature that isn't allowed for certification."
> 
> Because until Bell says that, I'm assuming it isn't certified because it isn't safe enough to pass any of the tests. And, IMHO, anyone who doesn't assume that is a sucker.


I doubt it's the vents, my MET Parachute has vents and 1952 cert.

Like I said, I'd love this thing to be 1952 because then it would have everything I want in a helmet. I'd get the MIPS version.


----------



## Bell Helmets (Sep 30, 2014)

There are a lot of tests that go into the ASTM DH certification - namely the velocity of the impact and where the test line is that the impact must be tested at (in addition to the chin bar deflection test). It should be noted that the chin bar deflection test is only applicable for helmets that are built with chin bars - yes, that's right; you can build an ASTM DH certified helmet that does not have a chin bar and still be certified as an ASTM DH helmet based on the way the certification is written. 

But, going back to your original question regarding why we are not DH certified: it's because of the amount of ventilation and weight that we purpose built into this helmet as we believe that the trail rider who will use this helmet values ventilation and weight savings during climbs. We also believe that this rider appreciates the added measure of protection that a chin bar provides for descents. Finally, it should be stated that we are not advocating for the Super 2R to replace your Full-9 or DH helmet on downhill trails - we believe that if you're doing lift or shuttle access trails, you should ride with your DH helmet. The Super 2R is for an all mountain trail rider who wants the additional protection that a chin bar can provide.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Bell Helmets said:


> There are a lot of tests that go into the ASTM DH certification - namely the velocity of the impact and where the test line is that the impact must be tested at (in addition to the chin bar deflection test). It should be noted that the chin bar deflection test is only applicable for helmets that are built with chin bars - yes, that's right; you can build an ASTM DH certified helmet that does not have a chin bar and still be certified as an ASTM DH helmet based on the way the certification is written.
> 
> But, going back to your original question regarding why we are not DH certified: it's because of the amount of ventilation and weight that we purpose built into this helmet as we believe that the trail rider who will use this helmet values ventilation and weight savings during climbs. We also believe that this rider appreciates the added measure of protection that a chin bar provides for descents. Finally, it should be stated that we are not advocating for the Super 2R to replace your Full-9 or DH helmet on downhill trails - we believe that if you're doing lift or shuttle access trails, you should ride with your DH helmet. The Super 2R is for an all mountain trail rider who wants the additional protection that a chin bar can provide.


Again thank you. I realize you guys are being careful how you answer, but that does shed a little more light on things, I think.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

Bell Helmets said:


> We love all of this dialogue around the new Super 2R - if nothing else, it raises the need for more information to be published about what goes into all of these different standards that manufacturers must meet and exceed.
> 
> In regards to the questions being posed regarding the Super 2R, we'd like to offer the following: Like all of our trail riding helmets, the Super 2R meets and exceeds the CPSC and CE Bicycle Standards. However, it is not certified to the ASTM Downhill standard.
> *We are breaking new ground by developing a helmet that is designed for a new class of rider that wants the weight savings and ventilation properties offered by the Super for climbing, but with the added measure of protection offered by a chin bar for descents. *
> The Super 2R is designed specifically for All Mountain or Enduro riding where weight and ventilation are important factors. It weighs 694 grams, approximately 1 pound lighter than a traditional downhill helmet, and has 4 brow ports and 23 vents for ventilation. Since there is currently not a helmet certification standard in place to meet the unique criteria of this emerging rider, we designed and tested internally against existing benchmarks including a commonly used deflection test.


Edited due to Bell response while I was typing mine.

First, thank you for taking part in the discussion.

I doubt I'll get an answer, but it makes me wonder how the MET can be ventilation as well as it is and pass, yet the Super can't.

I'm not trying to start a pissing match, trust me a light FF with MIPS is exactly what I want, but I have to be confident I'm not going to the ER again and 1952 helps with that.

I'm not looking for a downhill helmet replacement, but I sure there are plenty of us that even XC riding at speed, one miscalculation can send you into a tree or rock. I just met a rider this Saturday that faceplated on some rocks and split open his nose. He was interested in my MET.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Here's how I parse Bell's 2 responses. 

I think some of us were hoping the new Super is a lightweight, DH-worthy helmet that would be DH certified except for a technicality. And that's how many of us have read the early media coverage. But I think Bell is saying pretty clearly here that's not the case. The new Super is not a DH-worthy helmet with an asterisk -- it's an enduro helmet with a good chinbar. (They're not allowed to say the chinbar is strong enough to pass the chinbar test for DH certification, but that's the clear implication and I assume they wouldn't be saying what they're saying if they couldn't pass that test.)

Is the 2R as real-world protective as the Parachute, even though it doesn't have the DH certification the Parachute has? Is the 2R a better everyday trail helmet because it didn't have to do what Parachute did to get DH certified? Are they both enduro-plus, not DH-minus? All debatable.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

OldManBike said:


> Here's how I parse Bell's 2 responses.
> 
> I think some of us were hoping the new Super is a lightweight, DH-worthy helmet that would be DH certified except for a technicality. And that's how many of us have read the early media coverage. But I think Bell is saying pretty clearly here that's not the case. The new Super is not a DH-worthy helmet with an asterisk -- it's an enduro helmet with a good chinbar. (They're not allowed to say the chinbar is strong enough to past the chinbar test for DH certification, but that's the clear implication and I assume they wouldn't be saying what they're saying if they couldn't pass that test.)
> 
> Is the 2R as real-world protective as the Parachute, even though it doesn't have the DH certification the Parachute has? Is the 2R a better everyday trail helmet because it didn't have to do what Parachute did to get DH certified? Are they both enduro-plus, not DH-minus? All debatable.


I do get that, anyone looking for this to be a true downhill helmet is a ...... My MET is 1952 and it's not replacing my DH FF for park days.

I know Bell can't reference the 1952 but, they can say for example we internally tested the bar and it only deflected 30mm with a 1 lb weight dropped 2ft.

Now if that happens to coincide with the 1952 test protocol, oh well, Bell is referencing their internal testing. I know I've seen the chin bar standard somewhere, so at that point we can make what inference we want, but it will be based on numbers not suggestive writing.


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

twotone - where did you get your met?

pls&thnx


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

53119 said:


> twotone - where did you get your met?
> 
> pls&thnx


Hibike in Germany


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

A couple more thoughts.

One, I give Bell a lot of credit for working to develop a safer enduro helmet. Chinbar (apparently sturdy) plus an inexpensive MIPS option says to me Bell is taking safety seriously. Probably would have been easier for them to stand pat with the original Super for another year or two instead. Yay, Bell.

Two, IMO Bell risks undermining the good they're doing with a safer enduro helmet if they keep marketing the new 2R in a way that will leave many buyers thinking this is a good-enough DH helmet. Bell is sending a garbled and vague message through the MTB media, and frankly the vagueness seems intentional. Maybe that strategy will result in more sales in the short run, but I (unqualified anonymous internet know-it-all) think it's a real mistake over the long run. If people get hurt using the Super like a full-on DH helmet, Bell's good deed isn't so good any more.

Three, I'm still confused about Bells' explanation that ventilation was what prevented DH certification, given that a helmet (Met Parachute) that appears equally well-ventilated is DH certified. _Maybe _the Parachute is a little less ventilated, and that was the difference? But I have a really hard time believing that Bell would pass up certification if all they needed was a tiny reduction in ventilation. So, something doesn't add up. From here it looks like the Bell engineers are still playing catch-up to Met, not that Bell just chose a different comfort/safety balance than Met.

But, as always, the absence of real information about helmet safety makes it impossible to know.


----------



## challybert (Sep 5, 2014)

There isn't any type of riding where a full face helmet isn't a better option than a standard helmet. The face plants I've had/seen on buttery smooth, flowy, uneventful single track are epic. Having some sort of chin bar would have materially changed the outcome of all those events. The problem, beyond people not wanting to appear dorky in a full face, is typical ff helmets are too damn hot and for many too heavy. 

I ride what many define as All Mountain. I just call it mountain biking. Up hills, down hills, through trees, up rock gardens, down rock gardens, up rooty sections, down rooty sections. I ride it all with a non-FF helmet. Truth be told, many of the more technical longer downhill sections I ride now "should" be done with a FF lid. That said, I don't lug around a DH lid for the 10min out of a total 2hr ride. So being able to snap on a chin bar that I cary in/on my backpack is perfect. Again, these are sections I ride anyhow. So a bit more protection makes sense. I'm not pushing my limits due to a chin-bar, just riding what I already ride with a "smarter" helmet set-up.

Agree, certifications are important and telling. Yup, Bell needs to be concerned that this 2R is used/viewed appropriately by consumers. A relatively light weigh, cool, FF / pseudo-FF helmet is a big deal. I'm actually shocked MET is waiting to get their Parachute into US retailers. Seems they'd sell 10,000 helmets by Christmas.


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

i don't see the absence of information. it is what it is. it is not a dh lid in any way shape or form nor is it marketed that way. that is why it isn't certified as such. to compare it to the one piece met is pointless. i don't see the confusion at all. it's like why don't they just make it like the met? why? because it's not.

if one has that info in hand and still straps it on to do a dh run well... why bell did or didn't design to meet another products spec has zero to do with what their product is about. if it is not certified for a specific use why even question it? 
with bell's history and expertise they see a niche and are simply trying a new product. NBD. one thing for sure, it won't be a misinformed rider who gets hurt in one.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

53119 said:


> i don't see the absence of information. it is what it is. it is not a dh lid in any way shape or form nor is it marketed that way. that is why it isn't certified as such. to compare it to the one piece met is pointless. i don't see the confusion at all. it's like why don't they just make it like the met? why? because it's not.
> 
> if one has that info in hand and still straps it on to do a dh run well... why bell did or didn't design to meet another products spec has zero to do with what their product is about. if it is not certified for a specific use why even question it?
> with bell's history and expertise they see a niche and are simply trying a new product. NBD. one thing for sure, it won't be a misinformed rider who gets hurt in one.


You're the one missing the point. Where is anyone saying they want this to be a downhill helmet?

I think you're failing to grasp, past helmets with removable chin guards were said to do more damage when the chin bar broke and cut up your face.

So since 1952 is the ONLY standard that tests chin bars, it's all we have to go by to have some quantifiable measure of chin bar strength.

Bottom line, Bell is implying the chin bar pass 1952 but it's the rest of the helmet that can't pass cert because of the ventilation causes it to fail the penetration part of the cert. We know the MET is/almost as well ventilated, so that reason just doesn't add up. As oldman said, if it were a few minor tweaks to the venting, I can't believe Bell wouldn't have made them to pass the Cert.


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

^ok. given all that, is it fair to say that bell did not want to give up the ventilation and that is why they have what they have to address a niche they see? the product will probably evolve as they all do. why can't one "believe" that a company like bell simply did not want to do that because they have other products that currently fill those needs. 

it's all good. you're not runnin one cuz you thought the met is better for your needs. i agree with your choice. that's why i asked where you got it. do i wish the bell did what the met does? sure. but it's a first run product of it's kind for them so in reality i don't expect it to tick all the boxes that a competing product that isn't in their direct market may have.

i guess i differ in that i believe bell has done the helmet the way it is for a reason rather than believing a company that has been creating racing lids since the 50s missed or omitted a follow thru step in delivering what the met may have. run what ya brung. i'm good either way.

i really do dig the met better, twotone.


----------



## challybert (Sep 5, 2014)

Looking at pics of the Met Parachute (new version). It appears that the chin-guard is not molded to the helmet but rather bolted in place (referencing the cap cover near the temple and behind the ear). So, is it also still "removable"? If so the Met just has a different mechanism (albeit a "not supposed to" activity) of affixing a "removable" chin-guard to a helmet.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

Pinkbike's coverage is the first I've seen with photos that show how the chinbar wraps around the back of the helmet.

First Ride: Bell Super 2R Helmet - Pinkbike


----------



## Raoul_Duke2k (Dec 21, 2011)

challybert said:


> There isn't any type of riding where a full face helmet isn't a better option than a standard helmet. The face plants I've had/seen on buttery smooth, flowy, uneventful single track are epic. Having some sort of chin bar would have materially changed the outcome of all those events. The problem, beyond people not wanting to appear dorky in a full face, is typical ff helmets are too damn hot and for many too heavy.
> 
> I ride what many define as All Mountain. I just call it mountain biking. Up hills, down hills, through trees, up rock gardens, down rock gardens, up rooty sections, down rooty sections. I ride it all with a non-FF helmet. Truth be told, many of the more technical longer downhill sections I ride now "should" be done with a FF lid. That said, I don't lug around a DH lid for the 10min out of a total 2hr ride. So being able to snap on a chin bar that I cary in/on my backpack is perfect. Again, these are sections I ride anyhow. So a bit more protection makes sense. I'm not pushing my limits due to a chin-bar, just riding what I already ride with a "smarter" helmet set-up.
> 
> Agree, certifications are important and telling. Yup, Bell needs to be concerned that this 2R is used/viewed appropriately by consumers. A relatively light weigh, cool, FF / pseudo-FF helmet is a big deal.


Totally agree - I think there's a real need for this type mid-range protection.


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

> So, is it also still "removable"?


No. It's not designed to be removed.

I have one and the chinguard is two pieces, bolted together at the front and then to the helmet shell. The bolts (or could be rivets for all I know) are covered up with grommets permanently fixed in place.

Could you get it off? Sure, if you want to tear it apart.


----------



## challybert (Sep 5, 2014)

Harryman said:


> No. It's not designed to be removed.
> 
> I have one and the chinguard is two pieces, bolted together at the front and then to the helmet shell. The bolts (or could be rivets for all I know) are covered up with grommets permanently fixed in place.
> 
> Could you get it off? Sure, *if you want to tear it apart*.


No, I could cut the chin-guard off my DH helmet too, with a hacksaw. Was wondering if under the grommets were just screws/bolts. Thanks for the response.


----------



## xhailofgunfirex (Jun 25, 2008)

Bells explanation makes perfect sense to me. I didn't think they even needed to explain that. Seems like people are asking to much of what it's intended for. They wanted to make a safer enduro/am helmet instead of having people carrying two helmets on trails or at races. They already have the Full 9 and Transfer 9 DH helmets that already meet the 1952 standard. If you are shuttling trails or at a bikepark then you have no reason for not bringing a heavy certified DH helmet with you and don't need the extra ventilation of a regular helmet if you are doing that type of riding.

I think a lot of people here would be surprised how many full face helmets don't have the 1952 cert. Off the top of my head a popular helmet like the sixsixone comp doesnt.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

xhailofgunfirex said:


> Bells explanation makes perfect sense to me. I didn't think they even needed to explain that. Seems like people are asking to much of what it's intended for. They wanted to make a safer enduro/am helmet instead of having people carrying two helmets on trails or at races. They already have the Full 9 and Transfer 9 DH helmets that already meet the 1952 standard. If you are shuttling trails or at a bikepark then you have no reason for not bringing a heavy certified DH helmet with you and don't need the extra ventilation of a regular helmet if you are doing that type of riding.
> 
> I think a lot of people here would be surprised how many full face helmets don't have the 1952 cert. Off the top of my head a popular helmet like the sixsixone comp doesnt.


And many of us wouldn't buy one of those. So the Bell isn't 1952, so how strong is the chin bar? Is it more than a decoration? Hmm I always thought there were some pretty fast decent in enduro, what's the point of a non certified helmet then?


----------



## Harryman (Jun 14, 2011)

After getting home and looking my MET over, the grommets are actually anodized AL pieces that are the fasteners themselves. The inside of the chin bar is padded, has 2 sizes of cheek pads and is nicely finished. It's very stiff, it hardly flexes under pressure.

I think the Bell is great in concept, I'm curious to see how it holds up to repeated on/offs. If i didn't have the Parachute, I'd likely buy one.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

xhailofgunfirex said:


> If you are shuttling trails or at a bikepark then you have no reason for not bringing a heavy certified DH helmet with you and don't need the extra ventilation of a regular helmet if you are doing that type of riding.


People seem to continually misunderstand this.

I have a full face. It's a POC. I didn't cheap out on it, and I wear it when I ride in parks or trails appropriate for it. I'm pretty sure TwoTone has a real full face, too. Neither of us is looking to slot a helmet like this into a niche filled by a full face helmet, and I doubt we're alone. Speaking for myself, what I want is a lid that offers the same impact resistance as my half shell, but with a chin bar that offers a degree of confidence that it won't collapse on my face.


----------



## Francis Cebedo (Aug 1, 1996)

In about a week, I should have both the Bell Super 2R and the new Met Parachute. I'll compare them for sure.

Good news is the Parachute and other Met helmets will be legal in the US soon will be available in US retailers. Estimate is Jan 2015.

fc


----------



## challybert (Sep 5, 2014)

francois said:


> In about a week, I should have both the Bell Super 2R and the new Met Parachute. I'll compare them for sure.
> 
> Good news is the Parachute and other Met helmets will be legal in the US soon will be available in US retailers. Estimate is Jan 2015.
> 
> fc


Great. Looking forward to your commentary on both helmets.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

evasive said:


> People seem to continually misunderstand this.
> 
> I have a full face. It's a POC. I didn't cheap out on it, and I wear it when I ride in parks or trails appropriate for it. I'm pretty sure TwoTone has a real full face, too. Neither of us is looking to slot a helmet like this into a niche filled by a full face helmet, and I doubt we're alone. Speaking for myself, what I want is a lid that offers the same impact resistance as my half shell, but with a chin bar that offers a degree of confidence that it won't collapse on my face.


How many times do we have to say it? This is for XC riding. I have a 'real' FF for downhilling.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

If (a) the Parachute weren't DH certified, and (b) Bell were being clearer that the Super is not as protective as a DH-certified helmet instead of leading some media to imply that its lack of DH certification is just a technicality, then I think we'd all be raving about how the Super is a wonderful increase in enduro-helmet safety. 

I agree with TwoTone and evasive, no one's blaming Bell for making an enduro helmet that's not a DH helmet.


----------



## jazzanova (Jun 1, 2008)

OldManBike said:


> If (a) the Parachute weren't DH certified, and (b) Bell were being clearer that the Super is not as protective as a DH-certified helmet instead of leading some media to imply that its lack of DH certification is just a technicality, then I think we'd all be raving about how the Super is a wonderful increase in enduro-helmet safety.
> 
> I agree with TwoTone and evasive, no one's blaming Bell for making an enduro helmet that's not a DH helmet.


The thing is that nobody can say for sure the chin piece increases enduro helmet safely. We just need to rely on Bell's word regarding their internal testing... 
There is even a possibility of an increased safety hazard if it collapses on impact.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

jazzanova said:


> The thing is that nobody can say for sure the chin piece increases enduro helmet safely. We just need to rely on Bell's word regarding their internal testing...
> There is even a possibility of an increased safety hazard if it collapses on impact.


That's the issue and can't wrap my head around how so many people are just taking Bell's word as gospel. It's a company, plain and simple and it will do what it take to sell it's products.

I think its safe to say this was developed over night. I would wager started before news of the MET, so now that have to say what they can without getting into legal trouble. I doubt they were expecting competition from a light, well vented 1952 certified helmet. Keep in mind, when MET Parachute news was released, they hadn't certified to 1952, so Bell wouldn't have know.

I emailed MET directly and was told in an email it was going out to a lab for 1952 cert. So I bet is was a surprise to Bell when it pasted.

I know this is all my supposition, but I think I'm pretty close and when I ask my Eightball, it tells me I am.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Look, I'm not taking their word as gospel, but I said before, "I assume they wouldn't be saying what they're saying if they couldn't pass that test," and I still believe that. 

Even if you think they'd say anything to make a buck, look at it this way. If I'm a lawyer suing Bell on behalf of a mountain biker who broke his head open when the chinbar of his 2R failed, you better believe I'm going to get Bell's internal testing of the helmet during discovery. And if that testing showed them failing the 1952 chinbar test but telling the world about how it passed their internal test using a well-known standard, well, I'm going to be licking my chops seeking gazillions in punitive damages.

A massive risk like that, and all the bad publicity and lost sales that'd come with it, just isn't worth a half-dozen extra sales to nerds like us who pay attention to alphabet-soup certifications, is it?

Does that prove that the 2R passed the DH chinbar test? No. Do I now think it did? Yes.


----------



## moshemark (Mar 1, 2007)

If anyone has both the Bell Super 2R and the Met Parachute, I'd appreciate your posting a comparison.

Thanks!
Mark


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

OldManBike said:


> Look, I'm not taking their word as gospel, but I said before, "I assume they wouldn't be saying what they're saying if they couldn't pass that test," and I still believe that.
> 
> Even if you think they'd say anything to make a buck, look at it this way. If I'm a lawyer suing Bell on behalf of a mountain biker who broke his head open when the chinbar of his 2R failed, you better believe I'm going to get Bell's internal testing of the helmet during discovery. And if that testing showed them failing the 1952 chinbar test but telling the world about how it passed their internal test using a well-known standard, well, I'm going to be licking my chops seeking gazillions in punitive damages.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree with most of what you said, but also think it its a little odd that it failed based on penetration. I'd love to get my hands on one to compare it to my MET. The MET is very well ventilated and that's why I have some doubts as to the reason the Bell failed.

But as we discussed before, we need to get a hold of the standard as well to have an idea what it's setting as the bar for passing.


----------



## StevePodraza (Jun 29, 2006)

hello, I just want to know how good the ventilation would be with general trail riding, now that I am going on 48 I want to portect my mug. any thoughts? I would probably go with the Bell over the MET since the Bell is easier to get. thanks guys


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

One question for everyone: If the MET does not have a removable chin bar, how is it even in comparison with the Super 2?

Shouldn't the MET be in the regular full-face category? 

The BIG selling point to me is the ability to have a chin bar I can easily remove when climbing and such. I understand the "older" MET parachute had a removable chin bar, in fact, I think they were the first to market with this concept. Either them, or some old Giro. But the newer one everyone keeps comparing to the Bell Super 2 does not, right?


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

TwoTone said:


> I tend to agree with most of what you said, but also think it its a little odd that it failed based on penetration. I'd love to get my hands on one to compare it to my MET. The MET is very well ventilated and that's why I have some doubts as to the reason the Bell failed.


Yes, I agree that's puzzling.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

net wurker said:


> One question for everyone: If the MET does not have a removable chin bar, how is it even in comparison with the Super 2?
> 
> Shouldn't the MET be in the regular full-face category?
> 
> The BIG selling point to me is the ability to have a chin bar I can easily remove when climbing and such. I understand the "older" MET parachute had a removable chin bar, in fact, I think they were the first to market with this concept. Either them, or some old Giro. But the newer one everyone keeps comparing to the Bell Super 2 does not, right?


Right, the new Parachute's chinbar is fixed. So if removable chinbar is your thing, look elsewhere.

The conversation that both the Parachute and the 2R belong in is lightweight fullface options, for enduro or everyday riding. Parachute is a different beast from the typical DH fullface.


----------



## net wurker (Sep 13, 2007)

OldManBike said:


> So if removable chinbar is your thing, look elsewhere.


My Super 2 is sitting on my front porch right now, according to UPS tracking info.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

net wurker said:


> One question for everyone: If the MET does not have a removable chin bar, how is it even in comparison with the Super 2?
> 
> Shouldn't the MET be in the regular full-face category?
> 
> The BIG selling point to me is the ability to have a chin bar I can easily remove when climbing and such. I understand the "older" MET parachute had a removable chin bar, in fact, I think they were the first to market with this concept. Either them, or some old Giro. But the newer one everyone keeps comparing to the Bell Super 2 does not, right?


As oldmanbike mentioned they both are the first 2 lightweight FF helmets, so are going to be compared, removable chin bar or not.
I wouldn't consider the MET in the DH helmet category because of how light and well ventilated it is. I wear it for everyday XC riding, I don't know of any other DH helmet I'd do it in.

So nce they are going to be compared that brings up the reliability. The old MET had issues because the chin bar could break. SO of course the question is being asked about the 2R. I'm the first to admit I'd have the 2Rover the MET in a hearbeat if it passed, but to me the point of wearing the FF is protecting my face and currently the MET is the only one with 3rd party testing saying it does.

If Bell tweaked it and got it to pass next year, I'd pick one up.


----------



## StevePodraza (Jun 29, 2006)

Wonder which helmet is better ventilated? I would only use either for trail riding not downhill. Not alot of downhill in Minnesota😜


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Don't think anyone posted this link/vid:
Video: Bell Super 2R Helmet Impact Testing - Pinkbike

Pinkbike article hits the points discussed here.

I have my D3 Carbon for my lift serve and hucking 20', I am thinking of trying an enduro race or three this year, and the 2R seems like it would fit the bill so I'm not hauling a D3 around on my back.

I think for a 6 hour XC whistler tour that involved some of the double blacks on the west side of the Valley, this would be great.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

thefriar said:


> Don't think anyone posted this link/vid:
> Video: Bell Super 2R Helmet Impact Testing - Pinkbike
> 
> Pinkbike article hits the points discussed here.
> ...


Interesting how the internet can influence even big companies like Bell. I have to believe the only reason this video was made is they are well aware of the discussions going on about the 2R not passing 1952 and the MET passing.

I'd love to see the MET in the same tests.


----------



## thefriar (Jan 23, 2008)

Video hit in December.

I think you'd be fine. There are so many other things that go wrong in a bad crash. 

Having eaten rocks numerous times in various full faces, I like having something that will deflect on trails I'm hauling the mail or where I have tricky moves that might end in face plant. 

I only need it to work once, and I think the Bell (based on the video), gives you a fighting chance to come out in with most of your teeth/chin intact... or to summarize what I think others have said: it will be a good XC lid with an added safety feature on aggressive AM rides you might already be riding with a half shell.

I personally don't get how BMXer don't wear helmets given # of head to deck instances I've seen, but hey, ymmv.

EDIT: I'm in the market for a new lid this season, I have an A1 and a Trabec, the Trabec is 3 years old, so time for new protection. MIPS, good Super (2) reviews, plus the chin bar are super appealing. I see this lid going to whistler for me to hit Gargamel/Cheap Thrills and some of the bigger non-FF Squamish lines.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

thefriar said:


> Video hit in December.
> 
> I think you'd be fine. There are so many other things that go wrong in a bad crash.
> 
> ...


I get, I already have my MET for a XC FF and different FF for park riding.


----------



## tacticalbeard (Oct 20, 2014)

How do you like the MET for xc? what trails do you ride? I'm looking for a new helmet and I want to keep my face clean haha.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

tacticalbeard said:


> How do you like the MET for xc? what trails do you ride? I'm looking for a new helmet and I want to keep my face clean haha.


I'm happy with it. I ride in MD so its pretty humid here. The only down side, which you'd have with any FF is not using a water bottle. I don't like wearing packs for my short weekday lunch time rides, but I deal with it to protect my face.


----------



## StevePodraza (Jun 29, 2006)

So it is ventilated enough for some xc trail riding?


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

StevePodraza said:


> So it is ventilated enough for some xc trail riding?


I got in about 15 miles on pedaling-intensive trails on my Spec 2R yesterday. It was 50F and windy, however. I did about 11 miles with the chinbar attached to make sure it was comfortable. (It was - I had no problems with the side padding referenced earlier in this thread.) I did about four miles with the chinbar detached..

It will be months before it's hot enough for me to tell how well the helmet ventilates for sure, but it was a major improvement in weight and comfort compared to my Giro Remedy. As much pedaling as I did, my head would have been soaked in sweat with the Remedy, despite the cool temperature.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

StevePodraza said:


> So it is ventilated enough for some xc trail riding?


If you're asking me about the MET- then yes for me it is. Little warmer on the climbs than other helmet, but as soon as I get some speed going it's as cool as my other helmet.


----------



## Bruce in SoCal (Apr 21, 2013)

Anything new on the 2R?

I do a lot of riding in the Southern California mountains. It consists of a long climb followed by a long descent. I've always used a basic bike helmet. I'd feel a lot safer with a FF helmet for the descents. However, I won't wear one on the climbs. Nor will I tote one with me on the climbs. 

With this in mind, I think Bell has the answer. I'd can wear the 2R without the chin piece for the climbs and with the chin piece for the descents. It won't be as good as a FF, but since I won't wear a FF, it is better than a basic helmet.


----------



## ayahuasca (Jul 1, 2015)

I've had it since early January. The fit is excellent and I feel much more confident and secure wearing it compared to my open face Bluegrass Goldeneye (which is a good helmet in its own right). I usually do the main climb with the chinbar strapped to my pack, then attach it at the top. Even though I may have more climbing to do later on the trail, I've never found it stifling to wear. I do take my goggles off for climbs, but that's all I need.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

Bruce in SoCal said:


> Anything new on the 2R?
> 
> I do a lot of riding in the Southern California mountains. It consists of a long climb followed by a long descent. I've always used a basic bike helmet. I'd feel a lot safer with a FF helmet for the descents. However, I won't wear one on the climbs. Nor will I tote one with me on the climbs.
> 
> With this in mind, I think Bell has the answer. I'd can wear the 2R without the chin piece for the climbs and with the chin piece for the descents. It won't be as good as a FF, but since I won't wear a FF, it is better than a basic helmet.


I have now used mine extensively for 3 months. As such, I think I can comment objectively on it.

It is the best solution that I am aware of for exactly what you describe, which is the trail profile for most rides I do - up, up, up, and then down, down, down. The chin bar takes a couple of minutes to put on so doing it once only on the ride is ideal.

I could feel the pressure points on my head above my temples, that some people talk about. It was never an issue though - not painful or even a nuisance - just noticeable at times. Anyway, I ordered some Sweat Busters. No more pressure points, no more sweat, and my helmet is even more secure in the rough stuff than it was before.

I recently used it on High Society, Danimal and lots of other similar trails in Whistler. Also used it when we rode (up and down) Mount 7 in Golden. It was perfect. I could not have asked for anything more.

On less aggressive rides, the helmet without the chin bar is equally awesome.

I have been riding seriously (3-6x in the mountains per week) for 20+ years. This is the best helmet I have ever owned.


----------



## Chicane32 (Jul 12, 2015)

Great thread that assured me this is the helmet I want to buy. I found this killer deal, but the size, color is limited.

Super 2R Mips Helmet (100152672) at CambriaBike.com


----------



## AaronJobe (Sep 20, 2009)

I'm a medium in a bell super and just received my medium super2r mips and it is way too tight on the side of my head. Did any of you need to size up?


----------



## Lithified (Apr 14, 2007)

About 7 months in on my 2R and still the best helmet I've had. Absolutely loving the versatility and using the chinbar on probably 1/3 rides where it's either high speed, high gnar, or just being dumb.

Looking for a new pack and wondering if anyone can shine some light or even offer an opinion here. I am looking hard at the Camelbak Skyline 10 LR. I love the idea of the pack but I am wondering how easy/difficult it might be to securely carry the 2R chinbar. I am trying to locally source one to check, but in the meantime/if I can't find one - what say ye folks who have been toting this thing around on various packs? Think it will stay securely in the outer elastic pocket with the clip around it? I don't see another way to do it.


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

Hmmmmm....good question. I run the newest Mule NV and it fits the chinbar assembly perfectly by unsnapping the 2 buckles and feeding the buckles through the chinbar air vents. The smaller storage compartment fits right in the center of the chinbar with the bottom edge of the chinbar facing outward. I'm not seeing any configuration on that Skyline that would make it "easy" to mount.


----------



## Lithified (Apr 14, 2007)

Oh My Sack! said:


> Hmmmmm....good question. I run the newest Mule NV and it fits the chinbar assembly perfectly by unsnapping the 2 buckles and feeding the buckles through the chinbar air vents. The smaller storage compartment fits right in the center of the chinbar with the bottom edge of the chinbar facing outward. I'm not seeing any configuration on that Skyline that would make it "easy" to mount.


I've been doing the same exact thing with my 10y/o Mule. Making me consider another one, but also want to check out the new lumbar stuff. Seems like a good move.


----------



## pastajet (May 26, 2006)

Lithified said:


> About 7 months in on my 2R and still the best helmet I've had. Absolutely loving the versatility and using the chinbar on probably 1/3 rides where it's either high speed, high gnar, or just being dumb.
> 
> Looking for a new pack and wondering if anyone can shine some light or even offer an opinion here. I am looking hard at the Camelbak Skyline 10 LR. I love the idea of the pack but I am wondering how easy/difficult it might be to securely carry the 2R chinbar. I am trying to locally source one to check, but in the meantime/if I can't find one - what say ye folks who have been toting this thing around on various packs? Think it will stay securely in the outer elastic pocket with the clip around it? I don't see another way to do it.


It's an excellent pack CamelBak Skyline 10 LR Pack Review and you can carry the chinbar, though it won't fit in the sleeve. I tried a bunch of methods, but you end up having to use the bottom armor straps and the sleeve QR, though you can also rig up a net system to attach it.

So far this has worked the best for me:


----------



## rpearce1475 (Jan 24, 2015)

I've got one of those packs, like it a lot very comfortable and breathes much better than my old pack did. I can easily carry the chinbar of my 2R, I flip it around compared to above so the rear buckle is passed under the outside pocket's buckle and the two lower buckle straps go around the chin part of it. Very secure.


----------



## Lithified (Apr 14, 2007)

Wow thanks to both of you guys my wallet will shortly be a bit lighter! Good deal.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

Continuing the (slight) derailment: I've used a Camelbak Charge LR for 4 years (since it came out) and now have moved to a Evoc FR Enduro Blackline for all but the lightest rides. I don't have any bottle cages or bags on my bike, otherwise, a light ride would probably use those instead of the Charge LR.

There were a few problems with the Charge LR, but overall, I liked it better than the traditional Camelbaks I had before it, which definitely carried weight high on your back and exclusively on your shoulders. So at least the Charge LR had the water low and attempted to put the weight on your hips.

But it doesn't do it well.

The Evoc waist strap is so much better at carrying the pack's load on your hips than Camelbak that you have to experience it. It's a large belt but some air can flow through it, and the wide, slightly stretchy, waist/hip belt uses a lot of velcro to secure it in place. Finally there are fasteners on top of that to keep the velcro shut. 

It's roughly 3" wide, versus less than 1" for the Camelbak waist strap. Turns out, this makes a massive difference. The pack feels very light on your back and shoulders because the weight is almost entirely on your hips - which is what Camelbak was trying to do, but they've been undone by their ineffective waist belt.

Plus the Evoc can easily carry the Super2R chinbar, knee pads, and a rain jacket, along with your tools and 3L of water. I'll post a pic later as I don't have one handy.


----------



## ColinL (Feb 9, 2012)

Cost is quite high, though. I paid $170 shipped for my Evo FR Enduro Blackline, $30 for a Camelbak Omega / Milspec 3L bladder, and $6 for a bite valve cover. But you do have removable spine protection as well, which you won't get with a Camelbak.


----------



## GRPABT1 (Oct 22, 2015)

I've been using a Bell Super 2R since their release. Here in Australia they're accepted for national DH use, (not that I use mine for that) but not UCI approved I don't believe. I use mine for Enduro racing and trail rides and it's saved my face more than once, each time after a thorough inspection it's suffered no more than cosmetic scratches. I'm contemplating replacing it very soon purely based on its age. I've eaten dirt literally quite hard in this thing racing enduro's and it's proven itself to me. Interestingly I think the chin piece adds strength to the overall Super design and I have several friends who've broken Super's but the few friends with 2R's have lasted several crashes.


----------



## Erock503 (Oct 20, 2014)

Wow, that evoc looks killer! Unfortunately I got a Volt not too long ago, so not really looking for a new pack already. It does hang ok on the 2 upper straps though the chin guard, feels ok and seems to stay put, but I'm worried it's going to go flying off one of these times. I can't figure a way to secure the bottom for piece of mind. Anyone using a volt or charge to carry the chin guard with some long term ride reports?


----------



## DiRt DeViL (Dec 24, 2003)

AaronJobe said:


> I'm a medium in a bell super and just received my medium super2r mips and it is way too tight on the side of my head. Did any of you need to size up?


My medium 2R MIPS fits my head just fine but is tight on the ears.


----------



## Oh My Sack! (Aug 21, 2006)

It's a MIPS thing. I'm right on the edge of Med and Large in the S2r and both actually fit but the large has way more volume than I need. I have MIPS in a Smith road helmet and I had the same dilemma. If you're near the edge of the fit specs, I believe that MIPS consumes some of that needed space since it's laid into the helmet between the EPS and the padding. It causes an otherwise perfect fit to be a bit odd. Once again, if you're on that edge.


----------



## Duffman1976 (Aug 27, 2015)

Bell Super 2R fit me terribly. I'm comfortably in the medium range and it sat way high on my head and I had terrible hot spots above my temples. I then looked at the padding and there was a thin dense foam pad that was the source of the hot spot. Took those off on each side and it now fits awesome. Couldn't be happier! They must put those in for rectangular headed folks. I have a round head and it fit perfectly once those thin pads were removed.


----------



## CWnSWCO (Apr 24, 2012)

Does anyone have a crash experience with this helmet? I'm wondering if anyone can comment on how the chin guard performed under impact....?


----------



## coolhand80 (Oct 19, 2011)

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CWnSWCO (Apr 24, 2012)

Sweet, thanks.


coolhand80 said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

