# Just got my new MET Parachute yesterday



## liranbachar (Oct 27, 2008)

I got number 003 in the production 
It is much beefier than the old one.
Still didn't get the chance to ride with it...

It feels very comfortable, sizing is a bit larger than the old one.
many adjustments for the rear retention system, including height at the back of the head.
The chin straps are made of leather and padded with fabric at the inside, feels very nice and allows you to tighten the chin strap without feeling bulky plastic buckles at your throat.
You get 2 cheek pads, thin and thick. I used to ride the old parachute size M and it was a bit tight, the new one is size M and feels very good with the thin cheek pads.


----------



## Oni (Jan 15, 2004)

I do like the looks of that helmet. Have fun. 

Oni


----------



## Big Tiki (Nov 28, 2010)

*Where did you buy it?*

Glad to see these have finally hit the market. Where did you buy yours?

{Edit} - I see from your profile you are in Israel, not US. Anybody know if the MET parachute is available in US?



liranbachar said:


> I got number 003 in the production
> It is much beefier than the old one.
> Still didn't get the chance to ride with it...
> 
> ...


----------



## 53119 (Nov 7, 2008)

chain reaction in the uk carried the brand at one point and they're easy to deal with for the US but i dont know if they are carrying the brand this year.


----------



## zombinate (Apr 27, 2009)

Big Tiki said:


> Anybody know if the MET parachute is available in US?


It was my understanding that the US release was going to be in April, then July, and now the fall. US uses different certification standards than the EU does, and I think that is the holdup.


----------



## Ipe (Jan 28, 2014)

Big Tiki said:


> {Edit} - I see from your profile you are in Israel, not US. Anybody know if the MET parachute is available in US?


I found this on MET's Facebook page. According to this screen capture the US is looking to wait until about April 2015.


----------



## Max24 (Jan 31, 2013)

Oni said:


> I do like the looks of that helmet. Have fun.
> 
> Oni


Yeah same here. It easily ranks in my top 3 helmets judging from appearance. Congrats OP!


----------



## StevePodraza (Jun 29, 2006)

MET Parachute Full Face Helmet 2014 NOW IN STOCK!! - Global Bike

deliver to US


----------



## RS VR6 (Mar 29, 2007)

I just tried...and prompted that they won't ship to the US.


----------



## StevePodraza (Jun 29, 2006)

Just got an email back from High on Bikes - Cycling Parts and Bike Accessories | Road and Mountain Bike Parts | Bicycle Components

They will ship the parachute to the USA although he did say that it's not approved for the USA.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

Well OP have you ridden with it yet?


----------



## Big Tiki (Nov 28, 2010)

Thanks, Steve Podraza.


----------



## shining_trapezoid (Mar 24, 2014)

So have you ridden with it? How's the ventilation? Worth the price?


----------



## StevePodraza (Jun 29, 2006)

Good point. I don't need anymore med bills


----------



## pdxmark (Aug 7, 2013)

If you get this helmet shipped to the US, and something goes wrong with it while riding and causes the rider significant, long term problems/injuries, there will be no recourse through US law and regulation as the helmet had not been certified by the US. 

Meaning, there wont be a payout by the manufacturer for your medical bills. A certified helmet is a type of monetary protection, if you get hurt in a certified helmet and the injury was the fault of the manufacturer, then US law and regulation stipulates that the manufacturer has to pay 70-80% of your medical expense. 

I like the MET, but I'll wait to see if it gets certified for the states.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

pdxmark said:


> If you get this helmet shipped to the US, and something goes wrong with it while riding and causes the rider significant, long term problems/injuries, there will be no recourse through US law and regulation as the helmet had not been certified by the US.
> 
> Meaning, there wont be a payout by the manufacturer for your medical bills. A certified helmet is a type of monetary protection, if you get hurt in a certified helmet and the injury was the fault of the manufacturer, then US law and regulation stipulates that the manufacturer has to pay 70-80% of your medical expense.
> 
> I like the MET, but I'll wait to see if it gets certified for the states.


No more so than getting hurt in a FF helmet that passes our useless standard. Nothing in the standard says anything about the chin guard, so if the chin bar fails oh well.


----------



## pdxmark (Aug 7, 2013)

TwoTone said:


> useless standard.


You're missing the point; that "useless standard" is what stands between you getting your medical bills payed by the manufacturer in case of product malfunction or defect leading to, or causing, accidental injury or death.



> Nothing in the standard says anything about the chin guard, so if the chin bar fails oh well.


That chin bar is a functional piece of the helmet, and in US standards testing, all componentry to a larger component must pass, or the entire prototype fails US standards and safety and is not allowed to be sold in the US.

I do like the fact that the country I live in has standards and safety inspections. You wouldn't want to live in a society that sells you products that have not been tested for toxicity and safety, because nothing would be guarantied, nor would an offered guaranty have to be upheld since there would be no standards.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

pdxmark said:


> You're missing the point; that "useless standard" is what stands between you getting your medical bills payed by the manufacturer in case of product malfunction or defect leading to, or causing, accidental injury or death.
> 
> That chin bar is a functional piece of the helmet, and in US standards testing, all componentry to a larger component must pass, or the entire prototype fails US standards and safety and is not allowed to be sold in the US.
> 
> I do like the fact that the country I live in has standards and safety inspections. You wouldn't want to live in a society that sells you products that have not been tested for toxicity and safety, because nothing would be guarantied, nor would an offered guaranty have to be upheld since there would be no standards.


Are you saying the standards from other countries aren't as good as ours? I'd argue the opposite, but that's not the point.

The point is you really don't understand helmet testing do you? The CPSC test is the same for half lids as it is for FF helmets and has NOTHING to do with the chin bar. It's not tested period.

They strap the helmet in and drop it on to an anvil and measure the G forces, next test strap strength and then the retention system- that's it. No where is the chin bar tested. You could have cardboard as a chin bar on a FF helmet and it would pass the CPSC standard.

Your line about all components to the larger component must pass is utter BS and completely incorrect.

Here you can see the lab for yourself: CPSC Bicycle Helmet Test Lab - 2013

Please, show me the chin bar testing equipment. So, yea, I'll trust the international ASTM-1952 over the CPSC.

ASTM-1952 summary:
This specification covers performance requirements for helmets used by downhill mountain bicycle riders. Studies have shown higher risk to the head and face for this sport as compared to recreational street riding; hence, this specification requires greater impact protection and *provides performance criteria for chin bars on full-face helmets*, but does not require full-face helmets. Retention system tests shall be performed before impact testing. The helmet can be impacted anywhere on or above the test line with the curbstone anvil in any horizontal orientation. *The ambient test helmet shall be subjected to the chin bar impact test.*


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

Here is another comparison of the ASTM standards compared to CPSC.

---ASTM has published the improved version of F1447, Standard Specification for Helmets Used in Recreational Bicycling or Roller Skating.
The new version is the first ASTM helmet standard to *use variable mass headforms for impact testing.* The drop assembly that includes the smallest child headform now weighs 3.1 kg, while the assembly for the largest headform weighs 6.1 kg. Formerly all sizes weighed 5.0 kg, a convenience for the test technician but woefully unrepresentative of head weights in the real world.

*The greatest significance of the change is that helmets made for toddlers will have to have less dense foam in their liners. The lighter headform will not crush very dense foam, and would just stop immediately on impact, with a spike in g levels that represents brain injury. The less dense foam in child helmets will hopefully reduce the incidence of concussion.*

The less dense foam will occur in three other sizes as well, but the drop assembly for the large and extra-large headforms will weigh more than the old 5.0 kg. For those sizes manufacturers will have to either use denser foam or thicker helmets, or a combination of both. Although there was concern about the denser foam option, those helmets will be better able to handle the impact energy of a real-world large head.

Very few manufacturers now certify to ASTM F1447. *All who sell in the US market use the legally-mandated CPSC standard. We hope that CPSC will follow suit on the variable mass headform change, improving protection for the youngest helmet users.----
*

The CPSC standard is from 1999, it hasn't kept up with all that's been learned about head injuries. The CPSC is doing bike riders a huge disservice. By sticking with an old outdated test system, US manufacturers don't have to meet stricter standards. The CPSC should throw out there requirements and just adopt the ASTM standards.


----------



## FireLikeIYA (Mar 15, 2009)

The old MET had a lot of complaints with the chin guard shattering on impact and causing lacerations that otherwise would not have happened with a open faced helmet. I wonder how the new helmet will compare. I've been very interested in this helmet for sometime now. I hope they got it figured out.


----------



## pdxmark (Aug 7, 2013)

TwoTone said:


> Are you saying the standards from other countries aren't as good as ours?


I'm stating that the standards of one country are not the standards of another. That if I buy a product from a different country than which I live, that does not meet Standards and Safety of the country I am a resident of now, for whatever reason, then I will not receive a check for medical expenses from the manufacturer of the product I bought. I will be left holding the bill on a medical expense as my country would not protect me under consumer protections, because my government either had not tested yet, or it failed certain points during testing, or other reasons it is not certified for my region.

If it is determined that the injury or death is certainly my fault, and not a failure of the device, I'm responsible for myself!


----------



## Haggis (Jan 21, 2004)

America - land of litigation and medical extortion


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

FireLikeIYA said:


> The old MET had a lot of complaints with the chin guard shattering on impact and causing lacerations that otherwise would not have happened with a open faced helmet. I wonder how the new helmet will compare. I've been very interested in this helmet for sometime now. I hope they got it figured out.


Did you miss the entire part of it being ASTM-1952 certified?


----------



## FireLikeIYA (Mar 15, 2009)

TwoTone said:


> Did you miss the entire part of it being ASTM-1952 certified?


Your summary doesn't answer my question. Go back to arguing with pdxmark. Maybe I will catch something on a future post.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

FireLikeIYA said:


> Your summary doesn't answer my question. Go back to arguing with pdxmark. Maybe I will catch something on a future post.


Yea it does, you just fail to recognize it.


----------



## pdxmark (Aug 7, 2013)

Haggis said:


> America - land of litigation and medical extortion


Seems like that!


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

pdxmark said:


> I'm stating that the standards of one country are not the standards of another. That if I buy a product from a different country than which I live, that does not meet Standards and Safety of the country I am a resident of now, for whatever reason, then I will not receive a check for medical expenses from the manufacturer of the product I bought. I will be left holding the bill on a medical expense as my country would not protect me under consumer protections, because my government either had not tested yet, or it failed certain points during testing, or other reasons it is not certified for my region.


What's your basis for saying this? Are you a products-liability lawyer? I'm not, but I would think as long as your country has jurisdiction over the defendant (and I would think personal jurisdiction is easily satisfied for MET in the US, without helmet certification) then you are able to sue. I'm not aware of any reason why US courts would say "well, that helmet wasn't certified in the U.S., so your products-liability suit cannot proceed." At most I'd think recovery _might _get reduced for contributory negligence.

Again, I'm not a products liability lawyer, so if I'm missing something and pdxmark isn't just bullsh!tting about this too, please correct me.


----------



## altron2000 (Nov 11, 2016)

Someones selling them new on ebay for $195, at the moment. Best deal Ive seen.


----------

