Print

[thecord]

Thanks for the positive comments re the helmets.

The current range hasnt passed the BS 7928:2013 but the new one will.

We have tried to keep the weight on them to a minimum whilst still meeting the new requirements, initial weights will be in the region of 930g for the steel model.

When's the new range likely to be available Tom?

[Ayrtek Cricket]

New Year in all likelihood as just doing the last few bits towards it now, would rather spend the extra few weeks fine tuning it that rush it out pre-xmas

[jimmyca]

If any suppliers or people have a lightweight lid on a good deal then please let me know!

[Simmy]

Jimmy just my 2p.

I never used to have a lid because i didnt like the peak on the standard lids.

in anything other than bright sunshine i use to struggle with visibility.

Since discovering ayrtek i have no issues at all.

If you are used to a normal lid it feels very strange at first but if you dont have one wont take you long to get used to one.

They are super light!
Always a talking point in the middle too

[Jaffa]

Thanks for the positive comments re the helmets.

The current range hasnt passed the BS 7928:2013 but the new one will.

We have tried to keep the weight on them to a minimum whilst still meeting the new requirements, initial weights will be in the region of 930g for the steel model.

Hi Tom, I have an 'old' Ayrtek with the inflatable liner. When you say current range hasn't passed I take it that is the Adidas version but does that included the Ayrtek one?

Either way, what do they fail on?

[roco]

I think the new standard says fixed grill so the gap cannot be adjusted but I may be wrong @Ayrtek

[Ayrtek Cricket]

Hi Rodger

When we produced the Ayrtek range back in 2010-2012 the new BS7928:2013 wasn't in existence so obviously we couldn't adhere to passing this. We were on the committee that helped decide what the new test should entail an as such it took 2 years to get this through to publication on the 31/12/2013.

The new part of the safety standard includes a penetration test where the ball is fired at numerous points of the grille at 63mph with an adult ball and in order to pass the "no contact zone" must be free from impacts/helmet parts etc that may break during the test. We carried out prelim testing to establish where the range stood, the carbon fibre models were leading the way in terms of performance at speeds above and beyond 63mph. The only area where the overall range was failing was at one particular impact point upon the chin where the test headform and our design of grille sat too close to each other. Meaning when hit it contacted the headform leading to a failure.

We have taken the opportunity to review the grille design and plastics being used in the shells again (previously we used military grade materials but customer feedback was that the steel grille A.C.I.S model at 960g was too heavy) so we reverted to a lighter grade material bringing the overall weight down by approx 100g with the adidas range.

We have also moved the grille further away from the face to eradicate the issue of the bottom bar striking the chin section which was leading to a failure.

Despite what people may think following the Broad incident the helmets that are on the market are only required to keep a ball out at upto 63mph. Providing they do this they are certified against the standard, previously the speed was going to be 75mph but it was voted by the committee to reduce this at the time. When Broad was hit the delivery was traveling at approx 80mph.

In hindsight we should have insisted he wore the carbon fibre model which at the time had the A.C.I.S liner within it rather than having the AdiZero model we now offer which he preferred the EPS fitment....but hindsight is a wonderful thing and having just had BTTF Day time travel isnt yet possible.

Were still more than confident the shell design works as its meant to but have altered the grille so that it will be a fixed position with a 45mm gap and further away from the face when worn. (The models are currently a 55mm in the default setting but can be adjusted to 45mm using the junior settings).

[edge]

Great info Tom, good to read the inside track on the new regs and adjusting designs to them. I guess I'd probably get used to it if I had to buy one, but the grilles being so much further forward really puts me off on new model helmets, messes with my vision a lot compared to where I set mine at present.

[Ayrtek Cricket]

Yeah for the manufacturers its a difficult one to handle, players want maximum vision and by having something closer to your face is less likely to interfere with your line of sight.

However by having it closer to your face its more likely to fail testing as the ball will force the grille onto the no-contact zone meaning a failure. A smaller gap between peak and grille means less peripheral vision but an easier method of keeping the ball from penetrating the gap to pass testing and ensure optimal safety levels.

With the unfortunate events surrounding Phil Hughes I think safety has had to take priority over all other aspects and players adopting the new helmet designs will have to learn to adapt to them.

[edge]

Yeah of course, it's a safety product after all and the manufacturers have to meet the regs. You mentioned the gap has closed by 10mm, how much further forward have you had to move the grille?

[Ayrtek Cricket]

We've moved it 15mm forward so that it aligns with the edge of the peak of the helmet now by extending the mounting plates to do so.

Its not just women that think size matters it seems!