kingprawnokay
Maybe this has already been posted...Motorcyclist magazine has now posted a follow-up to its fantastic, "Blowing the Lid Off" article, so this is a good time to discuss the original.
The original article may be found here:
www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/hatz/
I will summarize some of the article here.
The question: Which is safer, a stiff helmet, a soft helmet, a combination? What's the right combination of materials to best protect your brain in a collision?
The magazine begins by complementing the work of the Snell Memorial Foundation:
"If you think moving quickly over the surface of the planet is fun and you enjoy using your brain, you should be grateful to the Snell Memorial Foundation. The SMF has helped create standards that have raised the bar in head protection in nearly every pursuit in which humans hit their heads..."
Motorcyclist then goes on to quote, Dr. Jim Newman (a rocket scientist), and Dr. Hurt (the Hurt Report) who both state the belief that Snell is going about things in a backward fashion by creating more complex and unrealistic helmet tests.
Coming up with more outrageous testing may not be practical states Dr. Newman. He suggests, rather insightfully, that Snell, "Tell the manufacturers, "OK, 300 Gs is not going to cut it anymore. Next year you're going to have to get down to 250. And the next year, 200. And the year after that, 185." He continues by saying, "The Snell sticker has become a marketing gimmick. By spending 60 cents [paid to the Snell foundation], a manufacturer puts that sticker in his helmet and he can increase the price by $30 or $40. Or even $60 or $100.
After contacting scientists around the world the belief appeared to be held by all that current standards (Snell included) allow helmets that are too stiff.
The following was taken from an extensive helmet study called COST 327, which involved close study of 253 recent motorcycle accidents in Germany, Finland and the U.K.
"Current designs are too stiff and too resilient, and energy is absorbed efficiently only at values of HIC [Head Injury Criteria: a measure of G force over time] well above those which are survivable."
Anyway, this is getting long, but the results of the independent testing found in the article were surprising. When tested, the Snell approved helmets measured higher average g-forces to the accelerometer than any of the other helmets that met other standards (DOT, ECE-22-05, BSI), with the exception of the Suomy Spec 1R.
Motorcyclist lost significant advertising money due to the printing of this objective piece of quality journalism.
Snell resonded with a scathing letter. It can be found at the bottom of the article.
Why did I write this post? Motorcyclist magazine wrote an article with the hopes of educating the motorcycling community. They also hoped to begin a dialogue with the end result being safer helmets for all. Snell has responded in a highly unprofessional and innapropriate manner, and I implore you each to write letters to Snell condemning their disappointing conduct.
BTW, "Mitch" Arai recently flew to Los Angeles to amiably discuss this article with Motorcyclist and is currently preparing a statement to argue their side of the issue. So you can disagree with an article and remain professional.
Tell me what you think of the situation.
The original article may be found here:
www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/hatz/
I will summarize some of the article here.
The question: Which is safer, a stiff helmet, a soft helmet, a combination? What's the right combination of materials to best protect your brain in a collision?
The magazine begins by complementing the work of the Snell Memorial Foundation:
"If you think moving quickly over the surface of the planet is fun and you enjoy using your brain, you should be grateful to the Snell Memorial Foundation. The SMF has helped create standards that have raised the bar in head protection in nearly every pursuit in which humans hit their heads..."
Motorcyclist then goes on to quote, Dr. Jim Newman (a rocket scientist), and Dr. Hurt (the Hurt Report) who both state the belief that Snell is going about things in a backward fashion by creating more complex and unrealistic helmet tests.
Coming up with more outrageous testing may not be practical states Dr. Newman. He suggests, rather insightfully, that Snell, "Tell the manufacturers, "OK, 300 Gs is not going to cut it anymore. Next year you're going to have to get down to 250. And the next year, 200. And the year after that, 185." He continues by saying, "The Snell sticker has become a marketing gimmick. By spending 60 cents [paid to the Snell foundation], a manufacturer puts that sticker in his helmet and he can increase the price by $30 or $40. Or even $60 or $100.
After contacting scientists around the world the belief appeared to be held by all that current standards (Snell included) allow helmets that are too stiff.
The following was taken from an extensive helmet study called COST 327, which involved close study of 253 recent motorcycle accidents in Germany, Finland and the U.K.
"Current designs are too stiff and too resilient, and energy is absorbed efficiently only at values of HIC [Head Injury Criteria: a measure of G force over time] well above those which are survivable."
Anyway, this is getting long, but the results of the independent testing found in the article were surprising. When tested, the Snell approved helmets measured higher average g-forces to the accelerometer than any of the other helmets that met other standards (DOT, ECE-22-05, BSI), with the exception of the Suomy Spec 1R.
Motorcyclist lost significant advertising money due to the printing of this objective piece of quality journalism.
Snell resonded with a scathing letter. It can be found at the bottom of the article.
Why did I write this post? Motorcyclist magazine wrote an article with the hopes of educating the motorcycling community. They also hoped to begin a dialogue with the end result being safer helmets for all. Snell has responded in a highly unprofessional and innapropriate manner, and I implore you each to write letters to Snell condemning their disappointing conduct.
BTW, "Mitch" Arai recently flew to Los Angeles to amiably discuss this article with Motorcyclist and is currently preparing a statement to argue their side of the issue. So you can disagree with an article and remain professional.
Tell me what you think of the situation.
.
Yeah, still have that one showing up even though there isn't much in there that interests me.. I do like the pictures.... 
It has to have run out but I just keep getting them...
