Helmet safety

[Actionfigurejoe]

The latest Motorcyclist magazine has an excellent article on helmets and helmet certification. Unfortunetly Snell rated helmets are subpar to many DOT rated helmets. The article also has an interesting description of what takes place inside the skull during an impact. How anyone could ride without a helmet is beyond me.

[sherob]

That's interesting about Snell and DOT... will have to read it. Thanks for the tidbit. :)

[Horst]

Helmets good, skid-lids baaad ... :-)

Hey do you guys remember this BMW ad .... "Sure I have a haistylist ... his name's Helmut" ..... ha ha ha ... get it ? .... Helmet ... Bwaaaaaaaaaha :crackup

[alan]

I found the Motorcyclist article very well done and believable. They used a testing lab that also tests for the helmet manufacturers so I am comfortable with the results. The article is a bit of an eye opener, it appears that the Snell testing criteria are very arbitrary and not grounded in science, they just picked some numbers out of the air and test to those numbers. I am glad that the Schuberth helmet, the brand I use, did very well in this more realistic Motorcyclist test. :03biker:

[Fireball18]

It was interesting to read that article and realize that even an "el cheapo" helmet can be Snell rated/approved. The difference, of course, between a cheapie and a good, expensive helmet, lies in the overall quality of manufacture, comfort and weight. A $600.00 Arai or Shoei won't necessarily protect you any better than a $90.00 Whatever brand, but it will sure be more enjoyable to wear. It's also interesting to know that the so-called DOT specs are no longer in place, and DOT ratings are basically a joke. Decent helmets may be made to the old DOT specs, but I don't believe, if I understand the article correctly, that there is anymore than voluntary compliance on the part of helmet manufacturers.

[GRN]

would be grateful if any of you folks who have that mag on hand would let me know how the RF1000 did? Thanx!

[Don-STOC237]

Shoei didn't allow their helmets to be tested.

However, you can make some assumptions based on the outcome of the tests they did. That is, the harder the shell of the helmet, the worse the outcome is likely to be for your head. This basically means the better a helmet does on the Snell tests, the worse it is likely to protect your head against the kind of shock prevalent in MC accidents. (Ya, I was shocked at that, too) :eek:

Basically, the reason is that the more flexible helmets transmitted less shock to the head because they absorbed more shock in the helmet shell. The fiberglass and other hard laid-up helmets did way worse than the cheaper polycarbonate molded helmets. The best helmet in their test cost under 100 bucks.

Best helmets in their test results:
Z1R: ZRP-1 (152G's) , Fulmer ADF-4, Schubert s-1 (161G) AGV: TI-Tech, Suomy Spec 1R (182G's)
Worst: Scorpion EXO-700 (211 G), HJC AC-11(204G), Arai Tracker GT (201 G's)

So, one would expect that the hard, laid-up Shoei's wouldn't do very well on the tests they did.

Personally, next time I look for a helmet, I'm going to try on one of those Z1R helmets.

[Carl_T]

This sounds suspicious, I need to take a trip to Barnes and Nobles. :confused: I wonder if they are looking at the whole picture or not to come up with such radicaly different results?

[eddiemack]

If I read the article correctly research had found that people who died on bikes from head injuries would have died regardless of the helmet rating. Helmets are important but other parts of your body have vital organs to protect as well. I would never expect my head inside a helmet to be dropped over 6 feet. I would expect on a fall to sustain leg and torso injuries so jackets, pants and boots are more of a concern to me. DOT vs. Snell is like asking what oil to use. Probably doesn't matter as long as there's some in there.

[Actionfigurejoe]

I agree, eddie. However, it does appear that helmet testing standards are based more in the realm of superstition rather than science based research and development. The article lead me to believe that much safer helmets could be developed if there was a paradigm shift of sort. Moving from harder compound helmets to something "softer". I still give the Snell Foundation and it's people a lot of credit. They are responsible for the creation of improved helmet technology. The article leads me to believe it's time for a change. Give Motorcyclist magazine credit. They risked much by publishing this article. I'm very disappointed in Shoei for opting out. I was looking at a X-11. Now it looks like the S-1 will be my next helmet.

[AgSTreak]

Bottom line- As long as you buy a quality helmet, it's not price but
the fit that matters.

[eddiemack]

Action Joe,... I love my Shoei X-11 and would buy it again in a heartbeat regardless of that article. The helmet fits awesome, doesn't fog and is so light it's incredible. The interior is very comfortable and it's very stable at high speeds. AgSTreak is right though.. it's the fit that counts most. I credit helmet manufacturers for making helmets that offer so much over protection. no matter what the rating. I wouldn't ride without one.

[Actionfigurejoe]

Action Joe,... I love my Shoei X-11 and would buy it again in a heartbeat regardless of that article. The helmet fits awesome, doesn't fog and is so light it's incredible. The interior is very comfortable and it's very stable at high speeds. AgSTreak is right though.. it's the fit that counts most. I credit helmet manufacturers for making helmets that offer so much over protection. no matter what the rating. I wouldn't ride without one.

Maybe I'm just looking for an excuse to pay the extra ching for the S1 :p:

[Horst]

... so these were 'different' tests then ... as a survivor of a *real* dump 2 years ago, my old SHOEI RF-200 did a great job saving my head (big skid type mark on the front and another smack in the back) ... I'll have to read this article just to see what they did here. :rolleyes:

[Carl_T]

I was very skeptical hearing this, so I took that Barnes & Nobles trip and got the mag. I have to admit, that is seems they have good points. Their logic and testing seems sound.

I have to agree Joe, that it appears better helmets could be made for us, but it would take re education of the full coverage buying public in the USA also, since SNELL has had such a traditional hold on the public view of things.

[NormanPCN]

A recent MCN article had an interview with the gentleman that did the first Motorcycle safety study in the US. I believe it was called the "Hurt report". He complained about the Snell specs as arbitrary. Snell responded to MCN with a letter disputing that of course. Hurt said you want the thickest and softest helmet to impart the least amount of decelleration to your brain. Hurt said a new study was sorely needed but the politicos are only interested in studies that support thier agenda... whatever that may be.

[Horst]

.. you can find it online. I read it, and to this day have not seen anything like it ... as you say, somebody has sponsor it ... why not AMA ?

[rocky17]

The only problem with the DOT rated helmets is the company does the testing and sends in the results to the DOT. Then the DOT gives the company the authority to put their sticker on the helmet. Does anyone really think that a helmet manufacturer is going to send in a report that their helmet failed the test. The penalty for sending in a faulty report is a fine. And how do they find out that the test was a phony. Could be your head in the helmet after the accident. :mad:
Ken

[STeelersFan]

I also read the article, and it was an eye operner, and also a bit frightening. I bought an Arai because I thought it was the best money could buy. Now I may buy a helmet that retails for less than $100, based on their testing (I can't remember the brand that was the highest rated, but it was less than $100).

[04ST1300a]

I bought an Arai because I thought it was the best money could buy. Now I may buy a helmet that retails for less than $100, based on their testing (I can't remember the brand that was the highest rated, but it was less than $100).

Helps prove my theory, you dont always get what you pay for. Just because it cost more does not mean it is better.

[Pansmiker]

Is there anywhere on the net to see this article?

The "RIDE" mag in the UK did a recent test on a number of helmets and didn't come to the same conclusion i.e. buy a cheaper plastic helmet.

The mag in question is at the forefront of testing motor bike clothing.

An other publication did a test.
http://www.motorcyclenews.com Go to this link and search for helmets and there is a list of the top 10 helmets tested around Nov 2004. Non of this publications results are "plastic"

Paul :biker:

[NormanPCN]

An other publication did a test.
http://www.motorcyclenews.com Go to this link and search for helmets and there is a list of the top 10 helmets tested around Nov 2004. Non of this publications results are "plastic"

Paul :biker:

I looked for the article you mentioned and I found "October 6 2004, Top 10 helmets named".
This was based on user reviews. No lab tests. Did I hit the wrong article?

[motojedi]

I have Snell's response to the test on my other computer. I'll post as soon as I get a chance. It does a very good job of explaining why a Snell compliant lid is a better way to go. Basically, the stiffer helmets transmit more energy in low to moderate level impacts (but still at acceptable levels) but offer the neccessary protection that the cheapies don't in more extreme cases.

[motojedi]

Sorry, the file was too big to upload here but heres a link to fireblades.org where I have it posted.

http://www.fireblades.org/forums/showthread.php?t=36726&highlight=snell+response

[Fireball18]

Based on what I've read, a more expensive helmet doesn't necessarily protect you better than a cheaper one. What you get for your extra $$$ is a helmet with better fit and finish, more comfort while wearing and less weight, as well as better noise supression. The protection is about the same.

The Snell rating were developed for motorcycle racers who are much more likely to have an unplanned getoff at very high speed than the average street rider who may never have a crash. But just in case........ . This is precisely the reason Schuberth gave when they declined to have their flip front helmets Snell tested. They said that they never intended for the "Concept" helmet to be used for road racing, so why test it for something it wasn't going to be used for?

Personally, I'd rather spend a few bux more for a "better" helmet, for the comfort. In any case, any helmet is better than no helmet. As Eddiemack stated above, though, protection for the rest of you body makes more sense, as that's what's more likely to receive the brunt of injuries, and any crash that would kill you without a helmet is likely to kill you with one. Wearing good protective gear is (relatively) cheap insurance, costs less than medical bills, and just makes sense.

[NormanPCN]

The Snell rating were developed for motorcycle racers who are much more likely to have an unplanned getoff at very high speed than the average street rider who may never have a crash.

I have read this. On a low side racers will hit the ground softer than you or I since they are practically on the ground already. On a high side we all hit the ground about the same. The speed of the racer comes if they slide into something. A typical dead drop test means nothing at those impact speeds. Even side street impact speeds (T-bone) are way beyond helmet drop tests. DOT = 6ft dead drop. Two impacts in same spot. Snell = 10ft dead drop. One impact.

One other thing to remember. A helmet does not provide any protection whatsoever for brain rotational injuries. The brain just floats around in your head on the brain stem so it can rotate very easily.