Scott Von Thun, styling in the CAMP Speed Comp on an AIARE 2 course outside Nelson, BC. Photo: Mahting Putelis
I remember watching Evel Knievel as a kid. White leather, stars and stripes, big Harley Davidson, and screaming fans. His head always looked giant to me, that bulbous moto helmet bobbing as he’d launch over 350 school buses or pile into his rocket (Snake River Canyon, bro, remember?).
The first time I ski toured in a helmet, sometime in the early 2000s, I remember feeling like I thought Evel looked — top heavy, like a bobblehead doll. And I didn’t have the white leather one-piece to fall back on, either.
These days, luckily for me, ski helmets have gotten lighter, tougher, and cooler. Naturally, the weight obsessed crew at CAMP has one of the frontrunners in terms of race-worthy options — the Speed Comp. I’ve had one for several years and it’s probably time to retire the thing (they say 3-5 years for a helmet like this), so here are my tasting notes on the thing before she hits the scarp heap.
Usage
Before I get down to dissecting the performance and details on the Speed Comp, I’ll give you the background. I scored my helmet from CAMP USA several years ago and since then I’ve toured with it in Canada, throughout the western US, on Svalbard, and the Alps. I’ve done everything from on-piste ski drills with my 10-year-old to corn turns in the high Arctic to couloir hunting to deep days in Kootenay old-growth. Truth is, it’s probably time for another helmet, but I’ve gotten a couple hundred days in this thing and there’s a few reasons why.
Stats
First and foremost among the reasons I’ve taken this helmet on so many ski missions is its weight. At 351g (12.6 oz.), it won’t weigh down your luggage, nor stress your neck out after a long day touring.
As climbing and ski helmets have shed grams over the years, I’ve heard horror tales of broken helmets, just from sliding them in/out of a backpack. Despite the Speed Comp’s feather weight, after dozens of days packing and unpacking, flying on planes, cramming gear in the back of vehicles, and yes, even whacking a few (small!) tree branches with the thing, I’ve done only cosmetic damage to it.
Light enough to not weigh you down. Robust enough to keep your dome protected.
The Speed Comp relies on a thin plastic shell over expanded polystyrene (EPS). This will be familiar construction to most of you, as bike and climb helmets use identical technology. Like any EPS helmet, this is a “one crash” unit. This means any significant impact and you should retire the helmet.
What’s a significant impact? Certainly anything that visibly cracks or compresses the material qualifies as significant. EPS effectively compresses to absorb impact — this tends to be effective at preventing lacerations and skull fractures, but does very little to prevent concussion.
MIPS (Multi-Directional Impact System) and other systems claim to offer some protection against concussion, but I’ve yet to see impartial, robust data proving these claims. These systems also add weight and cost to a helmet. As yet, CAMP hasn’t adopted any of these strategies.
The Speed Comp comes in one size, fitting heads 54-60cm (21.3 to 23.6 in.) in circumference. I’ve got a big skull (I know, surprising given the goofery that comes out of my mouth) and wearing a beanie underneath the thing, I had to remove pads.
And yes, pads — there are a few hook-and-loop pads on the inside, in addition to a ratchet-wheel that adjust circumference. Zero problem with the wheel do-hickey.
My only gripe with the construction of the Speed Comp is its webbing harness. The chin strap and adjustable sliders beneath tended to slip a bit over time. This required rejiggering during tours, which is a bit of a chafe, but nothing more.
Strap adjusters occasionally slide while wearing.
Notable is the helmet’s EN (European Norm) dual-certification in both “alpinism” and “ski-mountaineering.” This is a nice feature, but if we’re honest with ourselves, neither test is particularly rigorous, so I’ll admit I have skied and climbed in helmets not certified for the activity.
Details
The Speed Comp enlists a minimalist attachment system for both goggles and headlamp. Traditional plastic clips on the front of the helmet securely affix a headlamp, while at the rear a short section of bungee/stretch cord holds either goggle or headlamp straps.
Along the side of the helmet, two tiny bits of nylon webbing have a small wedge on the end, which fits snugly into a hole on the shell of the helmet. This serves to hold goggle straps along the side of the helmet. Having done the infamous Grand Traverse (the death march skimo-race between Crested Butte and Aspen), and many other missions, the straps do what they are supposed to, no stress. The little side attachments take a bit of precision when inserting them into their holes, but other than that, easy and quick to deploy and manage.
Goggle strap fasteners can take some fiddling but are secure.
Goggles and buff nestle beneath the helmet. Headlamp clips visible just above.
Venting isn’t nearly as open as some helmets, particularly if you’ve used a cycling helmet or even lightweight climbing helmet. On cold days, this is a welcome feature, but on a long, hot climb — it’d be nice to have some more venting. I tend to run hot, though, so perhaps it’s just me (and my muffin top).
If you need additional protection or warmth, CAMP does offer “ear muff” add-ons which will cover your ears. Never used ‘em — I go for the Buff system.
Performance
As advertised, it’s light, comfortable, and yes, even durable.
I whined above about needing more venting, but to get the weight down to 350g, I assume cutting more holes in the thing would mean adding material elsewhere. I tend to just remove the helmet for the up, though I enviously see partners simply flip up goggles, leave the helmet on, and disappear up the skin track. If I tried that, I’d arrive a sweating mash of soaked base layers and fogged eyewear!
The biggest endorsement I can say for the Speed Comp is that I often forget I’m wearing it at transitions. This results in my annoying habit of starting up the track, only to feel my internal temp rising like a hooker in church, which necessitates a quick stop for helmet removal. That aside, it’s testimony to the comfort and lean weight of the Speed Comp.
With only one size and shape available, I have heard of people finding the helmet incompatible with their melon. I recall cyclists modifying the inside of their helmets to customize fit, and they did this by compressing the EPS in certain places. You could conceivably do this with the Speed Comp, though this naturally voids the warranty and removes a bit of the EPS’s ability to deform/absorb energy. Not recommended, but people do it.
When compared to a dedicated alpine helmet, the Speed Comp won’t give you open/close vents, a rad-guy motocross visor, or quite as much coverage, but for touring, most of you won’t want all that bulk and weight anyway. I’d say the CAMP folks check most of the boxes on this particular piece of gear, as they often do.
$120, 351g, available in three color schemes. $30 ear muffs available.
Shop for the CAMP Speed Comp
Rob Coppolillo is the author of The Ski Guide Manual and an IFMGA licensed mountain guide living in Chamonix, France.
Rob Coppolillo is a mountain guide and writer, based on Vashon Island, in Puget Sound. He’s the author of The Ski Guide Manual.
25 comments
I think I also remember Evil Knievel. He was Evel’s younger brother, right?
Wait, what?! I need confirmation on this immediately! This changes everything!
This one really hurts…I mean, misspelling Evel Knievel’s name? Dood. For real. You deserve your money back for this one…I hereby apologize to the community, to all the testosterone in the universe, to my parents, my teachers….
Coming from Bozeman, MT, I was always steeped in Evel lore since he was from Butte, MT. Of note is that he was actually a keen skier as well and ended up winning the Class A Northern Rocky Mountain Ski Association ski jumping champs in 1959!
Question: Could Evel have been any radder?
Answer: Yes. *&^%$-A yes.
Chuckle, thanks for the lighthearted correction Martin. I always spell it “Evil,” can’t help myself…, it just seems to work. Rob, we’ll need some kind of significant penance from you, any ideas (smile). Lou
Ah, Lou, the list grows (and grows)….ha! Tracksetting on a deep day, while carrying all the salami—let’s make it happen somehow!
Another option is the BD Vapor at 7 oz.. Super breathable and easy to pack. My son has the BD Vector at 8.5 oz and 60% the cost of the Vapor. Dr. Evil and Mini Me approved.
That is indeed a nice, comfy helmet—not sure it is “ski” certified, for what that’s worth…but indeed, a nice option. Another super option: Edelrid’s 200g Salathe helmet…also 7oz! That said, it doesn’t have the Dr. Evil and Mini Me badge of approval……
The IIHS, in conjunction with Virginia Tech evaluated bike helmets with and without MIPS. You can read about here: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/new-tests-show-some-bike-helmets-protect-better-than-others. It would be nice if similar tests for ski touring helmets were performed.
Ah, cool link—I’ll check it out.
Hi Bart, thanks for taking the time to share an interesting link. I do recall linking to that Virginia Tech study a while ago. While I hope it’s not designed to make MIPS look good, it does appear to me to be that way. More, it’s a good example of how lab testing can be useful, but is not real-life, for example snow isn’t sandpaper. The thing I think is always worth emphasizing: Ski helmets offer some degree of protection no doubt, but a lot less than most people realize, indeed most ski helmets are little more than foam lined hats. More, the cost and weight of MIPS might be better spent on just adding another centimetre of thickness to the helmet. One of my many rants on the subject: https://www.wildsnow.com/414/helmets-for-backcountry-skiing/
Lou, I own the same Camp helmet. I needed the dual certification for skimo races like last year’s world masters in Innsbruck. I’m glad I bought it. As you know and have explained in earlier articles, a dual cert hemet must pass two separate tests. The first is applicable to typical climbing accidents, like a rock hitting the helmet from above. The second test is for impacts where the skier is the object moving at speed, not the rock. Both those accident profiles seem to me to be relevant to my skiing. There are certainly safer helmets out there to purchase, but none without serious compromise. Helmets certified for world cup DH racing are quite good, but are also heavy and $$$$. The CAMP helmet, and other manufacturers’ newer designs with dual certification intended for skimo events, seem to me to be the best compromise currently available for general BC or alpine skiing.
Hi Jim–Thanks for the words. Indeed, as Lou says above, the CAMP and other helmets offer some protection, though less than we realize…all told, especially racing skimo—great idea….but like avy gear, avoidance is our best strategy!
There seems to be a lack evidenced based research into most things backcountry related, which is why I’ve been reading wildsnow for so many years. More so then any mainstream site, wildsnow posts tend to make me ask questions and seek out answers. I still use my old camp speed helmet, but it is clear it’s value is limited to minor impacts. Interestingly, I learned that many snow sport helmets are only designed for speeds of 11-14mph from the following article: https://www.wemjournal.org/article/S1080-6032(15)00337-3/pdf.
At any rate, even if this brain buckets won’t prevent a TBI they may reduce the severity and for me are great place to strap a head lamp. I never like the feeling of a head lamp on my head.
If one wants to see what a “real” helmet looks like, just check out a motorsports helmet. We have one we occasionally use for snowmobiling, the difference between it and a “ski” helmet is striking. The physics of this bear a repeat mention. The main injury prevention mechanism of a speed sports helmet is to attenuate the acceleration of the moving head when it encounters an immovable surface/object, or in other words, to decelerate it slower, usually by providing a crush-able substance of a given thickness. The only way to add time to deceleration is to add distance for the event to happen. That distance is a function of the thickness of the helmet. Nothing more. Sure, MIPS might help in TBI prevention, and there is a benefit to distributing impact via the helmet shell as well as protecting the scalp from lacerations, or sharp objects that could punch through the skull. But the be-all end-all thing is to slow down how quickly your head stops when encountering an immovable surface, such as a tree. Again, the only way to slow that down is to add distance to the slowing-down event, the crushing of the helmet liner. And that means a thicker helmet. At this point in product engineering, a thicker helmet seems to be the only way to do that, but there is hope that things such as reactive surfaces and airbag type technology could give us thin, lightweight helmets that perform like they’re three feet thick. But that’s not here yet in any practical sense for skiing. As it stands, to avoid the bobble head look, current helmets are quite thin, that’s why they offer true protection only at low speeds. The helmet standards don’t help with this, as they’re quite forgiving. I’ve always felt that percentage-wise, adding just a few millimetres thickness to the common thickness of ski helmets would result in significant safety gains, but the standards don’t require that, and the thicker helmet probably would not sell. Lou
Regarding MIPS specifically, one has to wonder if simply wearing a Buff under the helmet might do the same thing. Where is the science?
Oh, and yes, if you’re serious about getting the most effective helmet in terms of injury prevention, I’d agree that one with dual-certification is a given. Me, personally, I’ll use a dual-cert helmet if I think I’m really in a situation where a helmet might be necessary. Otherwise, if I still want to wear a helmet I do grab the foam-lined hat from my helmet quiver.
MIPS is certainly worthwhile. My perspective is of a medical professional with background in rescue and emergency care including in hospital. Secondly, at 63 years old I deal with TBI after at least eight concussions since my first in the military in my youth. TBI is no joke. A concussion or two may very well change your behavior, cause many health problems, as well as problems in life, relating to others, work and personal relationships. I have MIPS helmets for skiing, dirt bike, and mountain bike. Please take good care of your head!
Hi Robert—any good, impartial research on the MIPS thing and TBI? Seems like it rotates against your head inside the helmet, so as Lou says above—would another layer (Buff, ball cap?) on which the helmet can rotate perform similarly…? I’m not aware of any robust research on MIPS….
Yes, no. There seems to be.
Perhaps ask a scientist, or a neurologist, before offering opinion here that influences so many!
With your title, and the influence that you have, please do the research and offer informed writing. Many folks will be influenced by you and Lou.
What I relate with certainly is that TBI is no joke, and may affect your life significantly, and permanently.
Thanks.
Hi Lou and others. Lou, I respect your perspective on helmets, and I agree (to some extent) with your analysis. Specifically, that the adding distance/thickness is the best way to make helmets safer. I wouldn’t say that it’s the only way, however. For example, let’s say a helmet is 2 cm thick. Would you rather that thickness is composed of iron, compressible foam, or tissue paper? Clearly, the type of material plays some role. You need to use a material that 1) deforms, and 2) absorbs some energy as it deforms. That’s pretty obvious, so really I guess I’m being a bit pedantic. At the same time, I imagine designers might try to balance the thickness with the density (and other mechanical properties) of the foam. I’m sure the foams used are all very similar, but are they identical? More generally, however minimal the energy absorbing qualities of a helmet might be, they will absorb some energy, and that energy might make all the difference. A tiny difference in energy might prevent some neurons from getting damaged, a blood vessel from rupturing, and so on. So I don’t think it’s fair to say that helmets, as they are currently designed, are worthless. What about the future? Shear layers of other material in the foam? Internal structures of varying density? Non Newtonian polymers? Internal electronics to communicate emergency? Just a simple matter of increased coverage, which thankfully, is coming to climbing helmets? Who knows what the future may bring. And I’m sure you’ve seen this: https://hovding.com/. People use there here in Switzerland! Always cool to wear a futuristic-looking scarf with blinking lights!
Bruno, exactly, the type of crush-able material is critical, my take assumes it’s optimized to balance acceleration, bottoming out, durability, etc. As well as it conforming to the known acceleration rates necessary to prevent the type of TBI caused by the brain impacting the inside of the skull as a result of rapid acceleration. Then, just provide a thicker layer so it does its job at higher speeds without bottoming out.
https://helmets.org/limits.htm#:~:text=Motorcycle%20helmets%20are%20tested%20at,per%20cent%20of%20brain%20injuries.
http://www.cadexinc.com/headforms.php
Lou
Hi Lou! I think the point you made about distributing the forces over a larger area is also interesting and important. For the future, what about a very rigid carbon fiber skeleton, inside the foam, to distribute stress? Also, this technology is interesting. Wave cell. It could just be hype. Hard to know without data. By the way, helmet rants seem to be like telemark skis, adjustable poles, or global warming–opinions get heated! Understandable. Hope you’re doing well.
Never said helmets are worthless. My point is they’re not a safety talisman and offer surprisingly minimal protection for something that’s regarded so highly, costs plenty of money, is subject to peer pressure as to wearing, gets so much media attention in accident reports, etc. I think they’re overall a good thing, and like avalanche beacons, could stand some improvement and less mythology. Lou
Very true Lou!
Nobody has mentioned the fact that a helmet is a risk compensator. Try skiing some steep trees with a helmet for a while………then ski the same trees without a helmet.
Regarding price, in the early 80’s I payed $380 for a motorsports helmet. If you have a $10 head get a $10 helmet.
Comments are closed.