Despite having already announced a new Aeroad and new CFR shoes this summer, Canyon wasn’t done yet. The brand unveiled two new performance helmets this week, both featuring the new HighBar retention system – that plastic mono-strap thing that replaces the traditional Y-splitter yoke found on every other helmet ever.
We already covered the HighBar fit system in detail back in April so we already knew both Canyon and HighBar claim the new fit system improves rider safety and comfort. Still somewhat surprisingly, though, the companies also claim the single rigid strap that sits proud of the face actually dramatically boosts aerodynamic efficiency, reduces noise, and is cooler (cooler as in less hot, not cooler like “I’m so cool” cool.)
Anyway, before delving into all the details and my experience riding with both helmets over the past two months, it’s worth first reiterating the mono-strap fit system is a HighBar design; it is a “helmet ingredient” a la MIPS or Fidlock buckles that the HighBar will license to other manufacturers in future. While Canyon is HighBar’s official launch partner and has a short exclusivity period, it is not a Canyon design, so expect to see HighBar systems on other helmets from other manufacturers in future, albeit perhaps a little different-looking as the exact dimensions will change somewhat based on each helmet.
Good stuff: Secure fit, plenty of coverage, reflective elements, light integration on the Disruptr, aero savings (if accurate), and good to see attempts at safety innovation in a previously overlooked space.
Bad stuff: Price, neck rub, uncertainty, no Virginia Tech rating (yet), neither helmet is the most breathable.
New helmets?
On to the new HighBar-equipped Canyon helmets, and, again, there are two.
Firstly, the Disruptr CFR, a highly ventilated all-around helmet designed to be cool and comfortable, with some 18 or so (depending on how you count them) vents dotted across the entire helmet, eight of which are forward-facing. Bridges between the vents retain the helmet’s structure and presumably aid in impact protection, but overall, there’s a considerable amount of openness to the helmet.
Up front, Canyon has included three main vents, with a central vent flanked on both sides and along the bottom by one large, U-shaped vent. This design concept is much more noticeable on the Stingr CFR helmet, which we’ll get to in a bit, and is seemingly Canyon’s distinctive design feature on both helmets, clearly identifying the two as siblings.
Out back, the Disruptr is BIG and offers plenty of head coverage, and Canyon has included an integrated rear light option (very 2024) with five light modes and up to 30 hours of claimed run time. It also gets a coat of reflective paint on the central exhaust ports for a little added visibility. Never a bad thing.
Claimed weight of the Disruptr CFR is 275 grams and ours came in pretty close at 281 grams (both weights size medium CE) without the light. I either lost or forgot to pick up a light. The Disruptr is available in black, white, or grey colourways and is priced at €300. US prices won’t be confirmed until the helmet is available in the region later this year.
The second helmet, the Stingr CFR, takes similar concepts and goes all in on speed and aerodynamics.
If the Disruptr is characterised by a huge number of vents, the Stinger is the opposite and is notable for an almost entirely closed upper section with just a few vents on the front. The helmet also tapers along its length, both along the top and the sides, to a narrower exhaust port at the rear. Combined, the closed and tapered design looks smooth, slippy, and fast.
This is a road/XC helmet, though, and not a TT helmet, and so it does require some cooling. This is where the Stingr shares that same two or three (depending on how you count them) main front vent design with the Disruptr. The U-shaped side vents and single central vent design are much more pronounced on the Stinger, though, so much so that it reminds me of a “sign of the horns” hand gesture (🤘) or a particularly well-groomed upside-down horseshoe moustache.
The rear of the Stingr is also quite different to the Disruptr. Where the Disruptr features a much larger, almost squared-off rear, the Stingr aero helmet, again, tapers to a much more compact exhaust-like rear. And while the aero helmet does get the reflective paint treatment on the rear, it misses out on the light integration because this smaller surface area and tapered profile left nowhere to integrate a light mount that would have the light actually facing backwards towards traffic rather than down toward the ground.
The Stingr is available in either black or white, with the same 275 g claimed weight, although ours came in slightly lighter than the Disruptr at 279 g (again both size M, CE)
Both helmets were designed and tested in collaboration with Swiss Side, utilising CFD analysis to optimise airflow, cooling through the helmets, and aerodynamics. Canyon also aero benchmarked the helmets against “key competitors,” but we’ll get to those results in a bit.
Branding on both helmets is quite subtle, with just a single chrome CFR badge on one side and some name, features, and sizing specs on the other. There is also a bright yellow MIPS decal that stands out like a sore thumb, but obviously, you’ll also find it on many helmets these days, signifying both these helmets feature the MIPS Air Node system designed to reduce the severity of rotational head motion inside the helmet on impact. Finally, both helmets feature eyewear grippers at the front on the outermost vents for stowing glasses mid-ride.
Of course, I can’t mention eyewear or glasses without pointing out the obvious. With the main anchor point of the HighBar chin strap sitting quite proud of the face and located exactly where the glasses’ arms also sit, there is no way to wear glasses over the straps, as many prefer, with these helmets. If you care about this, you probably really care; if you don’t, this probably makes no difference.
So, that strap?
Unsurprisingly, much of the presentation on the new helmets focused on the HighBar fit system rather than the actual protective shell. “Fit system” may sound like marketing speak, but we can’t just say strap, as the HighBar system also includes the retention system at the rear of the helmet. It’s effectively a two-pronged approach to ensuring the helmet both sits correctly on your head and stays there in the event of an impact.
That said, it is, of course, the strap up front that grabs most of the attention. Again, we’ve covered this in much greater detail in that previous article, so we won’t go into all the details here, but briefly recapping, the strap effectively consists of a few key parts:
- The two anchors fully integrated into the helmet shell are designed to ensure the strap is accurately positioned and isn’t ripped from the shell, thus removing the protective shell from the rider’s head on impact.
- The pivoting retention strap swings down and under the rider’s chin when the helmet is in place. Although slightly flexible and featuring a dial to adjust the strap tension, the strap is somewhat rigid to ensure it sits accurately in place
- The rear retention system is, though, another key element of the entire system. According to HighBar, it combines with the front strap to ensure the helmet is positioned correctly and stays on the head in the event of an impact. It’s also quite precise to further aid retention and reduce the likelihood of poor fitment, with only 5 mm of extra opening for each size. So, the retention system on a 55 – 59 cm helmet will only open to 59.5 cm.
HighBar and Canyon were keen to stress that helmet design below the ears hasn’t changed in over 100 years and that the common Y-splitter yoke presents several issues, namely poor fit and poor retention. Long story short, HighBar claims its new mono-strap design resolves these issues ensuring proper fit which in turn ensures better retention. As an added and unintended bonus, HighBar claims its system is significantly faster thanks to better aerodynamics, cooler because it’s not flat against the skin, and quieter because it’s not vibrating or oscillating in the wind.
HighBar claims testing with an “independent third-party expert” at the San Diego Low-Speed wind tunnel showed significant aero gains compared to a well-fitted strap system. It’s important to first understand that due to the drag-inducing vibrations and variability straps can introduce into results, many brands will actually cut the straps off helmets for wind tunnel aero testing. While I certainly understand why this would be done, 1) you can’t improve what you are not measuring, and 2) if this is true, who knows how it affects all the aero claims made of other helmets given the various different takes and styles of Y-splitter yoke we see from various different brands.
In its testing, HighBar tested two takes on the same helmet shell design, one with both a traditional (and they claimed, well-fitted) strap system versus one with its new HighBar retention system. What it found seems a little odd at first, in that HighBar claims its system has “no effect on aero performance.” As for the comparison, HighBar claims at lower speeds (<30 km/h), there is “almost no difference” aerodynamically between the two systems, but as speeds increase and web strap systems begin to vibrate and oscillate, the drag they create ramps up, and so at 40 km/h, HighBar claims a 3-4 Watt saving versus traditional and well-adjusted straps. These savings ramp up to 7 W at 50 km/h and a frankly difficult-to-believe “10-20 watts at final sprint speeds of 60-70 km/h.”
Those wattage-saving claims were the same as touted for the new Stingr aero helmet with references to comparisons with three leading competitors, and so more testing as the new strap rolls out on more helmets might provide better benchmarking on both the Stingr shell and the HighBar strap. Ultimately, setting safety for a second, the only thing that matters to performance-minded consumers is which helmet is fastest, not which part of it is fastest.
HighBar also claims that because its new strap system isn’t sitting against the skin, it is more comfortable in hot conditions, with CFD analysis (HighBar said they used CFD because a heated head form didn’t exist for physical testing) showing a 4.8 ºC difference between the area under the straps on a traditional strapped system and the new HighBar system.
As if all that wasn’t enough, the testers also found that moving or vibrating straps create noise, and since its system doesn’t move or vibrate, well … yeah, you can guess the rest. Using a microphone in the head form, they found a 6-7.5 decibel reduction with the HighBar system at each speed increment.
Don’t you feel that riding?
If all this is true, the new Canyon helmets, being the first to incorporate the new HighBar system, must be hands down the best helmets ever made. Well … they aren’t. I’ve been riding in both helmets on and off for two months, and while neither is a bad helmet, so to speak, neither has become my go-to helmet.
Let’s start with the HighBar system since that is such a key point for both new helmets and first off, to clarify, the buckle on the HighBar should only be tightened enough so that the strap doesn’t slip over the chin; it should not be ratcheted up so tight it’s verging on a choking hazard or left loose enough it is free to swing back up into the open position.
The new strap is very easy to use and, thankfully, less intrusive than it first appears. I mean, the good old-fashioned buckles on other helmets aren’t exactly complicated; most of us had them mastered by the age of five or six, but still, there is something satisfying about the swing-down and ratchet-up strap/retention mechanism HighBar has developed. Once in place, the strap is entirely out of view. I can’t see it no matter how much I strain my eyes left or right, and it does not obstruct my peripheral vision in any way like I feared it might.
It does, though, present a slight pressure on my throat. While I’ve experienced similar to a lesser extent with more traditional strap-and-buckle systems, it’s more of an ever-present pressure with the wider, bulkier, and more rigid HighBar buckle. Loosening it off only mitigates the issue a little and gets me to wondering if the buckle might slip right over my chin in the event of an impact. Tightening it up only makes it worse. Set at the correct tension for my chin, it’s not a major issue; it’s not choking me, and I forget about it when doing intervals, but I can’t quite ignore it when riding easy.
Despite having had a fit tutorial, I still find myself wondering “How loose is too loose?” and “Which chin position are we adjusting to?” If it’s lips closed or slightly opened for easy breathing, that requires a tighter position than that for a wide-open heavy breathing jawline. Adjusting for one leaves the strap too tight or too loose for the other.
It’s not a problem I’ve run into or a question I’ve found myself pondering with the traditional and more flexible/forgiving web straps, even when tightening those right up. But it does now have me questioning the issue HighBar sees with poor fitment and poor helmet retention on impact using web straps; an issue it wants to resolve.
Ultimately, I often found myself adjusting the HighBar tighter or looser throughout a ride, which is an option HighBar representatives pointed to as a new and positive option only provided by its new system. Thanks to its simple one-handed adjustability, I did find myself opening the ratchet on climbs where I wanted a looser, more breathable fit and then tightening it up as I crested the climb and readied for the descent. Truthfully, I’d probably rather have fewer things to adjust mid-ride rather than more.
I’ve also found if the helmet is anything less than perfectly straight on my head with the rear retention system firmly tightened before I set off for a ride, my natural jaw movements – be that eating, talking, or heavy breathing – push on the more rigid HighBar strap and effectively pull the helmet out of position. The result was I’d find myself adjusting the helmet as if it were reading glasses slipping down my nose, time and time again, if I hadn’t spent the time before leaving the house to get it perfectly straight and fully tightened at the rear.
Perhaps the HighBar system just highlights an asymmetry in my head or jaw. Speaking to a HighBar representative revealed that what I sensed as a helmet sitting square on my head was actually a helmet sitting slightly off-centre. Still, though, it’s not something I’ve noticed with other helmets despite paying much less attention to the fit, other than to ensure the straps were tight and the rear retention system was adequately tightened.
However, with the other helmet options I have at hand, these few issues were enough that I wasn’t reaching for the HighBar/Canyon helmets out of choice.
Otherwise, and along the side of my face, the strap isn’t any more or less noticeable than a well-adjusted strap while riding, and other than that constant light pressure on my throat, I’d have quickly forgotten I was wearing anything different.
Canyon repeatedly spoke at the launch of the new helmets about how noticeable switching back to web-strapped systems was. Truth be told, I didn’t get this sensation. Of the helmets with traditional straps that I didn’t particularly like previously, I didn’t like them any less. And I still didn’t notice those straps that I liked or those that hadn’t particularly bothered me previously.
One step forward, one step back?
This gets me to the retention system’s improved safety claims. There is no doubting ill-fitted helmets are a major issue. Regardless if it’s kids playing on the street or seasoned riders on my local club spin, I see loose straps, helmets sitting too high on the head, or even helmets worn back to front ALL! THE! TIME!
Having been preaching about helmet fitment for years – I worked in a school cycling program in a previous job – I was encouraged to see HighBar tackle this problem with its new system, and while the new system does ensure better, close-to-perfect fitment when used correctly, I find myself concerned it creates as many issues as it resolves.
On three separate occasions, I gave the HighBar-equipped helmet to friends and family members, all of whom ride bikes with varying frequency, including one friend who raced a lot until around a decade ago and once won a team medal at the elite Road National Championships. None of them had previously seen the HighBar system. They all popped the helmet onto their heads and proceeded to tighten up the front HighBar strap against their forehead. They all missed the “swing it down under your chin first” step and another rider put it on back to front.
Now, granted, Canyon includes details on how to wear and fit the helmet in a manual supplied with the helmet, and there is a “REAR” sticker denoting the rear of the helmet inside both helmets, but this was an assessment of the HighBar system with riders picking it up blind as will happen in future if other manufacturers utilise the HighBar system across a range of helmets. It highlighted to me that the HighBar only resolves the fit issues it claims to if the user knows helmets can be fitted incorrectly, which could be argued is no different to ill-fitted straps.
Asked if the HighBar-equipped helmets create as many issues as they resolve, one of the key designers at HighBar explained there is still an element of “rider responsibility” to ensure the helmets are fitted correctly. To be fair, I still believe the HighBar system will ensure a safer fit for many riders who don’t currently get the strap fitting right, but it’s certainly not the panacea I originally hoped it might be.
Ultimately, I do believe the HighBar system could ensure more avid “cyclists” fit their helmets correctly, but nevertheless, the results of the test cases I mentioned above are worrying. These riders would not have got a traditional strap so badly wrong. That said, perhaps they’d have gotten this right had they purchased the helmet, presumably seeing it fitted either in a picture on a box or while browsing in-store or online rather than being handed the helmet blind.
More disappointingly, I am left questioning whether the HighBar system will make any meaningful difference where that difference is needed most … with people and kids who choose to ride bikes from time to time.
Now granted, “people and kids who choose to ride bikes from time to time” are not going to choose to do so in a €300 helmet anyway, and so the new Canyon helmets are almost only ever going to see an “avid cyclist’s” head. We don’t know if the incredibly high price tag on the Canyon helmets is where these helmets would have sat, even with a traditional strap. Or is the HighBar system adding considerable cost in the form of a licensing fee and/or increased manufacturing costs? The answer is likely a bit of both, but I’m now questioning if we’ll ever see the HighBar strap on the helmets arguably most at risk of incorrect fitting: kids and budget-friendly helmets. Only time will tell.
What of the actual helmet?
As for the actual helmets themselves – i.e. everything above the ears – they fit my head really well and provide a sense of safety. Granted, this might just be a “this helmet sizing fits my head shape well” kind of thing, and, as such, your mileage may vary. But, putting on these helmets, I have the sense I’m adding something truly protective rather than something flimsy and/or lightweight. I like that, and it stems from a secure fit, good padding, the overall lower position the helmets take on the head, and a thick brow/rim that is considerably thicker than many helmets I have on hand. It feels safe, although there is a flip side to that extra coverage on hot days when a little extra ventilation would go a long way.
There are some smaller issues, such as the fact the lower rim at the rear of the Disruptr helmet blocks the retention dial when in its highest two positions, but this is probably a trade off worth making for all the extra coverage out back. You’ll also need a climber’s snap hook/carabiner (or similar) to attach the helmet to a backpack or otherwise, given there’s no buckle on the helmet strap. Neither are particularly damning issues and I’ve certainly found the same retention dial issue on other helmets.
But there is one glaring omission that adds an element of uncertainty to a new helmet release in 2024: Canyon’s new helmets do not yet have a Virginia Tech rating.
While by no means the be-all and end-all for helmet safety standards, the independent Virginia Tech testing is arguably as close as we have right now. Without its independent seal of approval, I’m left wondering, perhaps unfairly, how safe a HighBar-equipped Canyon helmet is and why it doesn’t yet have a Virginia Tech rating.
“Yet” is the key word here. HighBar representatives told Escape Collective that Virginia Tech testing is on its “to-do list”, but initial conversations with VT had revolved around what HighBar sees as oversight in current testing procedures’ assessments of helmet retention, focusing instead on rotational impacts.
Then there are the aero claims. While time and time again, HighBar and Canyon assured me the web straps they compared against were well-fitted, I still have a hard time believing tight-fitting straps could provide the additional drag figures Canyon have claimed. Loose flappy straps I could understand, but well-fitted, face-hugging straps? I’m less convinced.
That’s not to say straps are fast or HighBar isn’t faster. It’s just that the claimed savings (or cost of straps) seem huge, and while it makes sense they’d scale with increasing speed, I struggle with the difference being this big.
I haven’t yet had the weather conditions conducive to aero testing the new Canyon helmets against competitors; fingers crossed that happens soon. Obviously, though, I cannot compare a HighBar system to a traditional strap system, as there are not yet any helmets available with both systems.
If those gains are accurate, though, every manufacturer will surely have to offer their World Tour sprinters a HighBar helmet for these aero gains alone. That said, I’m not so sure we will even see Canyon-sponsored WorldTour riders race with the new straps or helmets. Canyon was quite coy when asked if Alpecin-Decunenick would wear the new helmet next year, merely confirming negotiations are ongoing. If that were not to happen and the team continued wearing Canyon-branded Abus helmets, then there really would be major questions surrounding the new helmets.
We haven’t even gotten into the question of why Canyon is adding shoes and helmets to its product line and if the market for such offerings is limited to Canyon bike riders, or if the subtle-enough branding means they will appeal to the masses.
Those are interesting questions, and no doubt Canyon is hoping the inclusion of the HighBar differentiates its helmets enough so that they appeal to everyone. To achieve that, I believe the novel and, let’s face it, divisive-looking HighBar system has to be a slam-dunk, a no-brainer, an undeniable improvement over the existing status quo. I don’t believe it is. Those who buy these helmets probably won’t be disappointed, but I don’t expect to see a rush on them anytime soon … except maybe among the aero-obsessed should those savings prove accurate.
Did we do a good job with this story?