Unorthodox motorcycle helmet test shows cheap is bad

I doubt it will ever get the IRL testing needed at the track because of aerodynamics and that no one at the track wants to look like an astronaut/throwback :smile:

Iā€™m not familiar with DOT and SNELL for motorbike ratings, but they sound similar to bicycle helmets which I am familiar with and the testing definitely isnā€™t based around protecting you/your brain as much as stopping arbitrary object penetration.

1 Like

This oneā€™s a Snell: http://wingstuff.com/products/34892-ls2-modular-motorcycle-helmet-epic-black-snell-approved?sitesync=done

Are they less safe? Possibly. Iā€™d say a bigger problem is buying a cheap-ass crap helmet.

I assumed that was so you couldnā€™t re-paint the damage on a helmet that had already been in an accident.

Themā€™s fightinā€™ words, pal. Why I used to eat up the sportbike crowd on the 'ole /6 (with twin-sparked 100cc jugs/pistons, thankyouverymuch). That is, unless by ā€œstabilityā€ you mean ā€œthe ability to be crazier, and therefore faster, than anyone else on two wheelsā€ :wink:

ā€¦sorry, am I drooling again?

Heh, the video reminds me of one of the drinks they served at parties at one of the dorms at university: a regular tequila slammer, followed by putting on a motorcycle helmet and getting walloped with a fire extinguisher

While a 40 buck helmet is less protective than a nice one, itā€™s more protective than no helmet. And if someone is buying a 40 dollar bargain helmet, itā€™s because the runner up choice for them was riding without a helmet. Most of the people that the $40 model is an option theyā€™re considering are not also considering the $260 ones. Those are already way off the table. So Iā€™m thinking for most of the buyers, itā€™s still a DRASTIC improvement over their real alternative.

2 Likes

The stats on modular helmets popping open in a crash are scary. UKā€™s sharp lists how often they pop open in testing, and it varies wildly. The shark I looked at opened around 60% of the time. The BMW system 5 never opened, though later models are not as good.

1 Like

What the Snell advocates wonā€™t tell you is that when these same makers sell their helmets in Europe, Japan and the U.K., they are not the same helmets they sell here, and theyā€™re not Snell rated.

Wait. I bought mine because it fared well on SHARP/ECE tests as well as DOT/SNELL. According to this article, it may not have actually been the same helmet.

Itā€™s a SHOEI QWEST and was basically the only helmet to top all those rankings. Iā€™ll go check the markings later today.

Whoops, I forgot to mention that the article is from June 2005 (I thought it would say on the reprint, but it doesnā€™t), so that information might be out of date.

60% Cā€™maaahn, even the Shoei modulars? Show me some evidence and Iā€™m willing to believe. Otherwiseā€¦

OK I looked up Shoei Neotec modularsā€¦ Sharp says they stay closed 93% of the time. Also, Sharps doesnā€™t do chin bump tests.

Bottom line - donā€™t buy a cheap-ass helmet or one that you think ā€œlooks niceā€. Get a good one, like track-man says. oops cstatman.

1 Like

I always wondered what this guy did during the summerā€¦

2 Likes

A little of this, too, in between naps.

1 Like

60% was just the shark. But pop-open ratings can be surprising, with no at times weak correlation to price or brand quality.

When I started helmet shopping I looked high and low for a modular with built-in sun shades that did well on tests and came up empty handed.

Update:

My helmet only says DOT/SNELL 2010 on it. EU reviews cannot be used to evaluate helmets purchased in North America unless they are the ECE version, which are sometimes available in Canada.

Snell 2010 is more ECE-like. Both target < 275Gs, vs DOTā€™s 250. All the newer tests are starting to aim towards impact-absorbing helmets. Details here

However, reported weights of the US QWEST are 15%(.2kg) higher in North America. EU Version North America Version. I wonder what the affects of heavier/lighter helmets are on injury.

1 Like

Snell m2010 is at worst a match for ECE/DOT in terms of regulations.As far as I can tell from the standard, thereā€™s 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 Iā€™m 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. Iā€™ve seen cheap helmets show up with ECE stickers (Zoan and Kaos) that I do not trust as theyā€™re 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 Snellā€™s 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. Snellā€™s standards fail to encourage innovations, such as Lazerā€™s superskin or Reevuā€™s 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, Snellā€™s 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.

*Itā€™s hard to find a date for ECE 22.05. It appears to be from 2000/2002, however I canā€™t find anything thatā€™s clearly 22.05 on the UNECE website, with the latest documents showing revision 4

Edited to make links less offensive.

1 Like

Good post. A lot to chew on.

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.