R
Royson
·Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
I learned a bit from it...maybe you will too ;D
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/
Interesting article on Helmets
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
yeah it says what they always find out when they test US helmets- the Snell rating is too hard and Snell rated helmets transmit more G's to the brain then plain DOT helmets. Snell's double tap in the same spot test is stupid and ends up with a too heavily built helmet.
Notice how the cheap $89 helmet did better then the $500 Arai? Over 50 more g's to the brain in the same test with the Arai on....
Notice how the cheap $89 helmet did better then the $500 Arai? Over 50 more g's to the brain in the same test with the Arai on....
Joined
·
577 Posts
I was quite frustrated with that article when it came out. It seemed to show data that would be the exact opposite of what I would have expected. I was disappointed with where the Scorpion EX-700 came out. It had the highest Gs transmission of all the helmets tested. This helmet is so popular; great features and comfort at a reasonable price. I was also disappointed that they didn't test a Shoei RF-1000.
Joined
·
103 Posts
for those who read the article, which helmets show to be the best, manufacture/model? I had a crash and i need to get a new one, might as well get one that scientifically shows is better then others.
Joined
·
181 Posts
Oh Jesus, this article again?
People.... this article is biased.... I can't remember the exact details, but a person involved in this "study" basically had it out for one of the major players in the industry. The tests & results are skewed. It's become the #1 most controvercial helmet "test" in the history of helmet tests. I wouldn't trust a word it says. I remember some kind of press release/response coming out, I think from SNELL that was pretty well worded.
People.... this article is biased.... I can't remember the exact details, but a person involved in this "study" basically had it out for one of the major players in the industry. The tests & results are skewed. It's become the #1 most controvercial helmet "test" in the history of helmet tests. I wouldn't trust a word it says. I remember some kind of press release/response coming out, I think from SNELL that was pretty well worded.
I'd agree except everytime i read a test the DOT only helmets are softer and safer, the Snells rating is just too extreme for the most likely street crashes..
Although i use a Snell, its just a habit from racing days and the nicer top end helmets are all Snell it seems...
Although i use a Snell, its just a habit from racing days and the nicer top end helmets are all Snell it seems...
Joined
·
181 Posts
I know w/ your experience you already know this, but for the sake of playing Devil's Advocate, racers (usually) have run-off... street riders have guardrails, trees, curbs, big huge rocks, other vehicles etc etc etc.... I'd say street riders have plenty of potential for hard impact to endure.
The only crash i've had where a big gouge was carved out of my helmet was a 20mph get-off on the street when i hit some road-kill on an off ramp, jumped the curb, went down & slid head first into a nice little boulder. All 4 of my on-track crashes have been rather uneventful slides, even my highside & the time i hit a tire barrier after getting low-sided into by a ducati.
The only crash i've had where a big gouge was carved out of my helmet was a 20mph get-off on the street when i hit some road-kill on an off ramp, jumped the curb, went down & slid head first into a nice little boulder. All 4 of my on-track crashes have been rather uneventful slides, even my highside & the time i hit a tire barrier after getting low-sided into by a ducati.
Joined
·
200 Posts
here is my opinion on it. yes i was disappointed in the exo-700 also, but i look at it this way.. any helmet will protect your head better then not wearing one. get one that fits your noggin and your buget. plus this test shows that prices don't automatically mean a better helmet (for protection) they do tend to mean lighter material, better venting and yes cooler styles
lol, yeah except at Daytona where there is a dam wall around the ENTIRE track on the outside....lolOreoGaborio said:
and Rd Atlanta has that wall at the bottom of the hill before the front straight on the outside...even Mososo with almost no walls, i was 20 feet behind a buddy on a Duck, we lapped a damned yellow tag 1st time squid who decides he wants to pit at the last 2nd, goes from the far left of the track, dosen't raise his arm, and darts for the pits on the right...except we were going about 115mph and he was going about 70mph, the Duck (a most beautiful built Ducati 750 with un-obtainium everywhere) glances off him right into the track/pit divider tire/guard rail end piece, basicly a 90 degree hit....WOW, it was an explosion of Ducati parts and i figured he was dead but he was out of the hospital in a few mere months... I was lucky to not be involved as I rode thru a shower of bike parts...(red flag came out)
Sebring has a ton of stupid car walls too.... Roebing Road just a pit divider wall, pretty safe there...
The point is most street accidents are in the 30-50mph range where a softer DOT helmet shines, while many track wipes are 120mph+in the Snell range.
If you go 120mph allot on the street just leave the helmet off 'cause you will die from at least 3 other major injuries when the car pulls out in front of you...
Which reminds me of the guy who blew past me in practice but blew the rear tire at 140+ on the banks at Daytona and slid for like 300-400 feet around the banks on a nice line while bikes dodged him, yes he burned thru his leathers.. ouchie but fun to watch...
Joined
·
181 Posts
my point wasn't that all race crashes are easy or that all tracks have run-off.... God knows Loudon doesn't...why do you think the AMA doesn't even wanna [email protected]!#ing race there?
My point is, there's plenty of scenarios where your every-day run-of-the-mill street rider traveling at legal speeds can find themselves in an accident that involve impact forces that would rival any crash at any race track.
Bottom line, street or track, buy the best damn protection you can afford. The only helmet I'd put on my head that doesn't have a SNELL approval is one that has an ECE badge on the back or other race approved test rating. If all it has is a DOT rating, as far as I'm concerned, it's an oversized paperweight. You won't find it on my head or that of any one of my friends or family.
My point is, there's plenty of scenarios where your every-day run-of-the-mill street rider traveling at legal speeds can find themselves in an accident that involve impact forces that would rival any crash at any race track.
Bottom line, street or track, buy the best damn protection you can afford. The only helmet I'd put on my head that doesn't have a SNELL approval is one that has an ECE badge on the back or other race approved test rating. If all it has is a DOT rating, as far as I'm concerned, it's an oversized paperweight. You won't find it on my head or that of any one of my friends or family.
OreoGaborio wrote: If all it has is a DOT rating, as far as I'm concerned, it's an oversized paperweight. You won't find it on my head or that of any one of my friends or family.
It's your head OreoGaborio, so do what you want...however, 99%+ of those who read the article agreed with the results. I did not detect any bias or agenda by the writer. The data is the data. Read it and weep. The reason that some helmets were not represented in the article is they would not submit samples to MC magazine for testing...hmm? What's wrong with this picture? Snell sent a snide and biased response to the MC article which made a lot of people(I'm recalling from letters to magazines which have been printed since the article) say they lost a lot of respect for the Snell organization. At any rate, I bought a Z1R after reading the article...great timing since I am a new rider and I wanted the best protection available...not the most expensive or the most fashionable. It has been very comfortable and, thank goodness, has not been tested via a get off over about 3000 miles. So let us know why the data is skewed and biased? ninjamon
It's your head OreoGaborio, so do what you want...however, 99%+ of those who read the article agreed with the results. I did not detect any bias or agenda by the writer. The data is the data. Read it and weep. The reason that some helmets were not represented in the article is they would not submit samples to MC magazine for testing...hmm? What's wrong with this picture? Snell sent a snide and biased response to the MC article which made a lot of people(I'm recalling from letters to magazines which have been printed since the article) say they lost a lot of respect for the Snell organization. At any rate, I bought a Z1R after reading the article...great timing since I am a new rider and I wanted the best protection available...not the most expensive or the most fashionable. It has been very comfortable and, thank goodness, has not been tested via a get off over about 3000 miles. So let us know why the data is skewed and biased? ninjamon
Joined
·
181 Posts
99%+ of those who read the article agreed with the results because they can't differentiate between a scientific study and one done by a hack at an online motorcycle magazine. The Motorcyclist's article posted above was not properly reviewed scientific research. They fail to mention the actual DOT limit allows a higher force to hit your head then any of the others. The other factor that Snell and others put forward was that the DOT helmets give you less shock in a low impact crash, but all the standards keep you below the limit for injury in those crashes. Whereas the harder helmets stay below the limit in harder crashes whereas the DOT helmets will fail and give you major injuries.
Example:
Moderate hit - DOT helmet 150G, SNELL/ECE helmet 200G. (Both fine, no injury)
Hard Hit - inside Snell/ECE requirements but outside DOT requriements. DOT helmet 1000G, Snell helmet 200G (DOT rider is a vegetable, SNELL/ECE rider walks away)
Additionally, the DOT standard is OLD. When was the last time it was updated? The other standards are all current and very similar to one another. Look at all the helmets out there that have ONLY a DOT approval... there are THOUSANDS of helmet models w/ a DOT rating that make that DOT rating look like a total joke.
SNELL replied the way they did because they're in the business of safety and someone wanted to get back at them and did. I'd be pissed too.
Something else I'd like to mention, alot of racing organizations are banning helmets with polycarbonate shells. HJC even came right out & told us that their polycarbonate shelled CL and CS helmet line-up were never inteded to be used on a race track.... and like I said in my post above, when you look at the big picture, crashes on the race track are often no worse than those on the street.... Yes, the potential for servere impact is higher on the track, but the shere number of crashes on the street will show you you're just as likely to be involved in a servere impact on the street. That alone has gotta tell you something.
In conclusion, I'd much sooner trust a SNELL only, British standard (BSI) only or Euro (ECE) only helmet than a DOT only helmet.... Ya, the DOT helmet will "protect" you better in a soft hit, but it'll fail when it encounters a heavy impact. But don't take my word for it, do your own research, or hell, just use your good common sense & think for yourself. Not everything you read on the internet is true.
Example:
Moderate hit - DOT helmet 150G, SNELL/ECE helmet 200G. (Both fine, no injury)
Hard Hit - inside Snell/ECE requirements but outside DOT requriements. DOT helmet 1000G, Snell helmet 200G (DOT rider is a vegetable, SNELL/ECE rider walks away)
Additionally, the DOT standard is OLD. When was the last time it was updated? The other standards are all current and very similar to one another. Look at all the helmets out there that have ONLY a DOT approval... there are THOUSANDS of helmet models w/ a DOT rating that make that DOT rating look like a total joke.
SNELL replied the way they did because they're in the business of safety and someone wanted to get back at them and did. I'd be pissed too.
Something else I'd like to mention, alot of racing organizations are banning helmets with polycarbonate shells. HJC even came right out & told us that their polycarbonate shelled CL and CS helmet line-up were never inteded to be used on a race track.... and like I said in my post above, when you look at the big picture, crashes on the race track are often no worse than those on the street.... Yes, the potential for servere impact is higher on the track, but the shere number of crashes on the street will show you you're just as likely to be involved in a servere impact on the street. That alone has gotta tell you something.
In conclusion, I'd much sooner trust a SNELL only, British standard (BSI) only or Euro (ECE) only helmet than a DOT only helmet.... Ya, the DOT helmet will "protect" you better in a soft hit, but it'll fail when it encounters a heavy impact. But don't take my word for it, do your own research, or hell, just use your good common sense & think for yourself. Not everything you read on the internet is true.
Joined
·
181 Posts
Just a note, i made a number of additions to my post above to help clarify some things.
Well explained OreoGaborio. I read your post very carefully. What I'm wondering is where did the data come from about the hard hit...the one where the DOT helmet gives the head 1000 G's and the Snell only 200. That is truly a huge difference and I'm wondering about the science and peer review on that study. ninjamon
Further to my last post, what is the reason/science behind helmet makers shifting away from plastic shells, as you stated? Isn't that primarily because they're interested in the Snell rating, rather than reducing G forces to the noggin? Also, how do you respond to the conclusion that 99% of accidents cited in the Hurt report, and other reports mentioned in the Motorcyclist article, indicated that better head protection would have been afforded by a DOT standard, rather than Snell. Finally, what do other readers of this post think? Thanks. ninjamon
Joined
·
181 Posts
Polycarbonate vs Composite has nothing to do w/ getting the SNELL rating because there are Polycarb shelled helmets that have the SNELL rating. It's for shell integrity and weight. The Polycarb helmets can crack & shatter under hard impact, the composite ones are lighter and have more strength and hold together better.
And I didn't say helmet manufacturers are getting rid of polycarbonate shells, i said that some racing organizations and HJC (among others maybe?) do not want polycarbonate shelled helmets on the race track.
As for your Hurt report question, i'm in no position to answer that question, I can only share my opinion based on my personal experiences and those of my friends and fellow racers and I've already shared that opinon & told you why I have that opinon. For SOFT impacts, DOT standard your head will feel less of an impact than a DOT/SNELL/BSI/ECE helmet. For HARD impacts, from what i've seen, a DOT/SNELL/BSI/ECE helmet will protect you better.
I dunno about you, but i'd much rather wear a DOT/SNELL/BSI/ECE helmet & deal w/ having my bell rung a little more by a soft impact than wear a DOT helmet & be a vegitable after a hard impact. Because when you get into the nitty gritty of it, THAT is what this article is saying, only they don't tell you that.
And I didn't say helmet manufacturers are getting rid of polycarbonate shells, i said that some racing organizations and HJC (among others maybe?) do not want polycarbonate shelled helmets on the race track.
As for your Hurt report question, i'm in no position to answer that question, I can only share my opinion based on my personal experiences and those of my friends and fellow racers and I've already shared that opinon & told you why I have that opinon. For SOFT impacts, DOT standard your head will feel less of an impact than a DOT/SNELL/BSI/ECE helmet. For HARD impacts, from what i've seen, a DOT/SNELL/BSI/ECE helmet will protect you better.
I dunno about you, but i'd much rather wear a DOT/SNELL/BSI/ECE helmet & deal w/ having my bell rung a little more by a soft impact than wear a DOT helmet & be a vegitable after a hard impact. Because when you get into the nitty gritty of it, THAT is what this article is saying, only they don't tell you that.
Right now I have a snell m2000, and a DOT. It seems to me that the DOT helmet has much more thicker soft padding, and a thinner inside shell. The snell m2000 has less thicker soft padding, But a much better built and thicker inside shell, aswell as the outside shell is a better constructed thicker one than the DOT only helmet. I'd say the only reason the DOT passed the DOT test, was because of the inside soft padding. The helmet does offer O.K. protection. I crashed the helmet before, and hit my head. Not that hard, but my head had a lump on it, and I had a headache, and was dizzy for a day or 2. The same day, I saw a rider get tossed at 120mph, slide about 50ft on his ass, hit the grass, hook up and fly for about 20ft, and land head first. When he stopped moving, he got up, jumped on his bike, and finished the race in 3rd.
Point being, I hit the ground at 40mph on the dirt, Hit my head lightly in a DOT lid and get a concussion. He hits the ground head first at probably 70mph and jump up and finish the race 3rd, wearing a Snell m2000 lid.
Gotta be some difference there...
Brad
Point being, I hit the ground at 40mph on the dirt, Hit my head lightly in a DOT lid and get a concussion. He hits the ground head first at probably 70mph and jump up and finish the race 3rd, wearing a Snell m2000 lid.
Gotta be some difference there...
Brad
S
Splash
·Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Purposeful Neglect
I've noticed a lot more information on which cars are safer in a crash and which handgun cartridges are more effective, than which helmet make and model work best.
Don't start that tired argument "no two crashes are the same"; as with the first two noted studies there's plenty of data that can be had with very little effort and no two circumstances in the former two are the same either.
I say it's purposeful neglect on the part of the industry in order to protect themselves from competition/liability based on real outcomes of crashes and survivability of Brand A over Brand X.
I've noticed a lot more information on which cars are safer in a crash and which handgun cartridges are more effective, than which helmet make and model work best.
Don't start that tired argument "no two crashes are the same"; as with the first two noted studies there's plenty of data that can be had with very little effort and no two circumstances in the former two are the same either.
I say it's purposeful neglect on the part of the industry in order to protect themselves from competition/liability based on real outcomes of crashes and survivability of Brand A over Brand X.
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!