Snell m2010 is at worst a match for ECE/DOT in terms of regulations.As far as I can tell from the standard, thereās no helmet that would pass m2010 and fail ECE. The link @morcheeba posted earlier is dated but lays out a pretty convincing argument that we should be aiming for more impact absorbent helmets, testing at the lower impacts usually seen in crashes while aiming for lower g forces. Snell has since adjusted their standard with m2010 to meet the more absorbent ECE standard, but Iām not convinced it goes far enough.
Snell M2010 Summary
Based on all the available information, Snell m2010 is the best standard to look for in motorcycle helmets today even if it has room for improvement. SHARP adds value with their statistics on how often modular/system helmets pop open.
The good:
- They test the helmets in areas, whereas ECE only requires impact points. This helps ensure the entire helmet meets the absorbance standard. Testing by SNELL have shown that areas untested by the ECE standards fail them.
- They do independent testing and random spot-checks to ensure consistency.
- You can validate on the snell site if a helmet has passed. Iāve seen cheap helmets show up with ECE stickers (Zoan and Kaos) that I do not trust as theyāre not actually sold in a country where ECE is actively enforced.
The Questionable: higher velocity impacts
- They test the helmets harder to meet the same impact absorbency. It could be argued that these harder hits are unnecessary as they rarely happen in crashes. At these velocities you would likely die from other injuries.
- The UK SHARP group actually tests at the highest velocity, 8.5m/s, with Snell the next highest at 7.75m/s. However, they seem to use a flat anvil which transfers less energy than Snellās hemi, and Snell tests the same spot twice yielding a higher estimated single-impact speed. Expect North American DOT/M2010 helmet versions to weigh more and outperform their european ECE versions.
The Unknown
Snell helmets weigh more. Historically weight has been correlated with greater protection, likely due to better helmet designs. Unclear how two helmets of different weight both meeting the same standard would compare in injury results. (e.g. carbon vs not)
The future
Snell has an opportunity to keep evolving helmet standards and safety. Snellās standards fail to encourage innovations, such as Lazerās superskin or Reevuās built in mirrors, for the types of dangers riders typically face.
SHARP already has modular/system reliability.
They even fell behind ECE. In a disgrace, Snellās M2005 standard, years older than ECE 22.05*, has been barred by the AMA for professional motorcycle racing since 2011. ECE 22.05 is still approved for all competition events by AMA, WERA, FIM, CCS, Formula USA and the big one ā MotoGP . M2010 corrected this by aligning more closely with ECE. (link)
I would love to see them leverage real-world crash and injury data to innovate. There are so many unknowns and weaknesses in existing standards. Wind noise has been shown to be hazardous from 60km/hr but has gotten little attention.
Snell M2010 is likely the best standard we have, but it is far from being the best it can be.
*Itās hard to find a date for ECE 22.05. It appears to be from 2000/2002, however I canāt find anything thatās clearly 22.05 on the UNECE website, with the latest documents showing revision 4
Edited to make links less offensive.