- This topic has 10 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 1 month ago by Jeff in Kentucky.
Blowing the Lid off- great helmet article
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 25, 2010 at 11:25 pm #3803Jeff in KentuckyParticipant
This article shows that a more expensive helmet is not always the safest helmet, and many of these findings were used to improve the Snell 2010 helmet certification:
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html
March 30, 2010 at 1:49 pm #25284AParticipantSNELL, DOT, EU certification mean little to me, real helmet test do not take place in labs. Personally, I try to find the lightest helmet that fit my head, so it cuses me the least strain while wearing it and protects me properly in the worse case.
March 30, 2010 at 2:46 pm #25287JackTradeParticipantare how they determine whether it protects you properly in the worst case. Without them, that’s a lot of trial and (catastrophic) error.
One of the big and very controversial findings of the Hurt Report is that the older Snell standards were not necessarily better than the DOT for *most* crashes.
Snell-rated helmets were harder, but they’d actually transmit more energy than a “softer” DOT-rated helmet. At the limit (like a crash at triple-digit speeds), Snell was better as it would still offer some protection whereas the DOT helmet had more or less totally crapped out, but in lower speed crashes (statistically way more common), the DOT helmet’s softer construction transmitted less energy to the rider’s head. One of the best rated helmets was a cheap model sold at Pep Boys if I recall…
The EU ECE standard was somewhere in the middle in terms of hardness (and therefore energy transmission), and was starting to be seen as a good compromise (the most protection for the most cases). Of course, Snell furiously disagreed, and among riders, this was a very hot topic that generated endless debate.
Fortunately, it looks like there’s starting to be some convergence in standards…I believe the Snell 2010 standard meets the EU ECE certification.
Thanks for the article Jeff…a nice followup to the one of a few years back on the subject.
March 30, 2010 at 4:18 pm #25290IBA270ParticipantThe test standard debate has been raging for years…most of the “intellegent” arguments have merit with the pro’s and con’s of the Snell debate. At the end of day, it’s crucial to wear a helmet. Frankly, IMO only, the specifics of the crash (type, speed, object contact, area of head contacted, how many contacts, etc.) determine how effective each will be.
I agree with Eon…choose the most comfortable helmet you can find, and call it good. My personal favorites have included HJC, Arai and Shoei. My next lid will like be a Suomy (LOVE the light weight and phenominal graphics), but the new, lower priced Bell is really impressive for fit, finish and price. Don’t even know what ratings each of those have. I really don’t pay attention to it as long as it’s DOT or EU.
March 30, 2010 at 6:09 pm #25295eonParticipantWow, you agreed with me before I even posted. I knew you were good but that’s impressive (I think you meant you agreed with A).
I spent a lot of time reading about the differences between SNELL and ECE awhile back and my leanings were towards ECE. However trying to find a non SNELL certified helmet in the States severely limits your choices and I am with A (and Allen) on this. Fit and comfort matter more to me than which certification it has. I was planning on buying an ECE helmet until one day I happened to try on an Arai Profile. Wow, I instantly knew this was the one for me (much to my disgust as I had not been planning on spending $500). Now I hate wearing my old Scorpion lid, which I had been perfectly happy with before.
March 30, 2010 at 6:29 pm #25296WeaponZeroParticipantThough I made an exception for my new Scorpion helmet (only because I got it as a package deal with my new Scorpion jacket), I generally ONLY buy ECE certified helmets. In the past that pretty much limited me to just Shark, but with the new nonsense going on involving Snell, many other brands are switching to ECE. Scorpion is replacing the EXO 400 and EXO 700 with the 450 and 750 (though its a slow, phasing out process), which are identical but now have whats called World Standard certification, meaning they are DOT and ECE certified and give Snell the middle finger. All Icon helmets being made from mid 2009 on are the same, they’re ditching the Snell certification for the ECE certification.
The recent motorcyclist article that they did as a followup to that one you linked was basically Snell admitting (though not in so many words) that ECE was a better test and that they are changing their tests so that they somewhat mirror ECE. By doing this, Snell has basically made it hard for the helmer manufacturers to take them seriously, and so the Snell certification isn’t as important as it once was. In fact, many are saying that it is more important to get ECE certified than Snell.
March 30, 2010 at 7:07 pm #25298Sean_DParticipant… the SHARP Safety scheme is said to be a more stringent test than ECE 22.05 and a better testing methodology than Snell.
Covering the bases I suppose, my helmet fits very well, is DOT approved, Snell 2010 approved, and has a 5 Star SHARP rating.
March 30, 2010 at 7:13 pm #25299eonParticipantI read that article and I did not get the impression Snell was admitting anything, other than conceding smaller heads weigh less than larger ones. In fact I remember they were very condescending towards ECE, making out it was a lower standard than DOT. It was this condescending infantile tone that turned me off Snell more than any facts or figures.
But if helmet manufacturers are turning away from them then I for one am glad.
March 30, 2010 at 7:16 pm #25300eonParticipantThere was (is?) some controversy over the SHARP tests also. Something to do with not testing the chin bar I think. Can’t remember now. But I do love the star rating system.
March 30, 2010 at 7:32 pm #25301Sean_DParticipant… who were displeased that many cheaper helmets outperformed their more expensive ones in SHARP tests.
That is a long article I linked to with a lot of minutia, but it does mention how ECE only tests the left or the right side of the helmet while SHARP tests both, ECE doesn’t allow the free fall at the end of the drop, SHARP does testing at both higher and lower velocity than ECE and SHARP also includes testing on flip front helmet lock failure on modulars.
They don’t carry out an enhanced chin bar test other than what was already part of ECE 22.05. They also don’t include it as a result as it isn’t part of the COST 327 report it is based on. But I believe the ECE 22.05 test is carried out despite that. I could be wrong on this.
But like you, I do love the star system. I think it is a more accurate measure of tested performance than a simple pass/fail result.
March 30, 2010 at 9:19 pm #25302Jeff in KentuckyParticipantThis article scared me away from the flip-up helmets, that are nice for getting your sunglasses on and off:
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.