| Author | Message | ||
     Hmartin |
I just got back from the latest meeting of the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in Washington DC, where Federal research dollars are courted and the results of previous years' research are presented. One of the presentations I attended was called "Which Helmet Should I Buy? Motorcycle Helmet Price, Standard Certification, and Laboratory Impact Test Performance (09-0642)." Commenting on the DOT vs. Snell debate, the author writes, "The answer a rider gets to that simple question – especially about protection – is likely to reflect a varied mix of facts, ignorance, opinion and personal preference – the sort of thing that blossoms in the absence of hard data." So true. He continues, "Riders could be forgiven for thinking that the more a helmet costs, the better the protection, whether it’s true or not. It is remarkable that 35 years after the introduction of the DOT standard and 50 years after the first Snell standard, no published research exists to show one helmet brand – or even one helmet certification standard – does a better job of preventing brain injuries and death better than another." The folks at Snell I'm sure would disagree, but research is research. His basic conclusion? "...test results showed that DOT-only helmets performed better than DOT+Snell helmets, again at less than half the price. Helmets certified to both DOT and a European standard (either BSI 6658, Type A or ECE 22-05) performed as well as DOT-only helmets...but cost, on average, more than five times as much. If these test results reasonably reflect crash performance, spending more money on a helmet may not buy added crash protection. In fact, in the case of Snell-certified helmets, higher cost was associated with worse performance, not better." In a pitch to persuade American and European government entities to adopt a single standard (the DOT standard), the author goes on to state, "Since no accident investigation research exists to show that helmets certified to one standard prevent death or brain injuries more effectively than helmets certified to another standard, it might be more favorable to helmet buyers if governments allowed the sale of helmets that meet any single one of a number of different national or international standards." The jist? More money buys better fit, comfort, and cooler designs, but not safety. For the record, mine is a DOT-only helmet. Plenty comfortable, IMHO. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
So if I bought a DOT and SNELL certified helmet that was also cheap, am I screwed? Better trade it in for a pumpkin. | ||
| Teddagreek |
The Snell standard is changing or might have already.. | ||
| J2blue |
"...no published research exists to show one helmet brand – or even one helmet certification standard – does a better job of preventing brain injuries and death better than another." The folks at Snell I'm sure would disagree, but research is research. His basic conclusion? "...test results showed that "..." Did he find there was no research to support any conclusion, or that there was research to support a conclusion? I'm confused.} | ||
| Pkforbes87 |
SWEET! this makes me feel better about wearing my KBC Airborne complete with pinup girl art, while the Shoei picote sits at home!  | ||
| Preybird1 |
Well i have an icon decay helmet and it is both DOT and SNELL And i bought it because of the lightweight composite and the strength ability it has. But Icon has test video and test figures of there product thats why i bought it. I like the video where they test the lens and shoot it with a gun and in slow mo watch the bullet just bounce off. | ||
| Edgydrifter |
Actually, there has been research done on this, and the conclusions were the same--helmets built to the DOT were judged to be more protective than Snell-standard lids in "likely impact" scenarios. Also, though there was a rough association between price and comfort/features, price was not very predictive of protection within groups of helmets certified under either standard. A cheap full-face DOT lid was just as likely to perform well in impacts as an expensive one. On the other hand, if the lid is so uncomfortable it always sits in your closet, it isn't going to do its job. With that in mind, I'm OK with spending a little more to get a helmet that has a comfy liner and good ventilation. Here's a link to a Motorcyclist article from 2005 that looked into both standards: http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcyc le_helmet_review/index.html A good read, and it has a feisty response from the Snell foundation. | ||
| Dongalonga |
I will stick with my Euro Spec AGV Stealth Arabesque http://www.extremesupply.com/agvhelmets/agvhelmets stealth.htm | ||
| Hmartin |
Did he find there was no research to support any conclusion, or that there was research to support a conclusion? I'm confused. I confused you by pulled from two different parts of the paper and not telling you; one part was from the abstract, where they point out the inadequacy of existing research, attempting to make the case for the study, and the other came from the summary, where they draw conclusions from the data they've collected and from their own research. Edgydrifter mentioned the Motorcyclist tests; this paper references those as well as some others. The TRB sponsoring committee is ANF30 - Motorcycle and Scooter Safety. I think the real point of this paper is to attract some Federal dollars to the problem rather than draw any firm conclusions, but based on the research that's already out there, I'm with them: "no published research exists to show one helmet brand – or even one helmet certification standard – does a better job of preventing brain injuries and death better than another." That's a pretty bold statement. There were some other interesting papers presented there, too. Another one that amused me was one that investigated motorcycle accidents at busy intersections and concluded that (besides the need for more research  ) red light cameras would cut down on motorcycle accidents at intersections.  | ||
| J2blue |
Thanks for the clarification. I'm really big on the need to research and learn more about what goes wrong, what helps, and what needs to change. Perhaps the upshot is that any helmet, even a hockey helmet, will probably protect your brain better than no helmet at all. I know there is research roughly to that effect, though hockey helmets were not included in the data. | ||
| Hmartin |
I forgot to mention: They said that they were only comparing full-face helmets, saying that it's a forgone conclusion that a full face helmet will give you greater protection than an open face helmet. | ||
| Mark61 |
Before any conclusions are made tell us WHO WRITES THAT GUYS PAYCHECK? I bet it is DOT or NHTS. Unless he is truly independent I wouldn't trust the report. mark61 | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
I believe the helmet benefit/cost question is really one of placebo. If spending $600 on a helmet makes you feel "safer" than a $119 Scorpion, great. I don't believe there is any appreciable benefit of the $600 helmet over the Scorpion. In fact, I'd be willing to bet that there are far more variances in helmet fitment than in real quantifiable benefits in protection due to construction. Most folks wear helmets that are too large for their heads negating much of the benefits of construction. I'd bet we would be having the same debate if we independently bought seat belt and air bag systems for our car. There would be some company that produced great belts at a low price and would be shunned because there is a fancier, more expensive belt system from someone else. We don't have that discussion because seat belts and airbags come standard. Why don't we worry that the seat belts in a Hyundai are not as safe as those in a BMW? Do they not meet DOT standards? What about NHTSI standards? Are these enough? What if these standards are not correct? Never again will I be seduced by a helmet's name or status over one that is a good value and delivers good features and fit at a good price. | ||
| 4cammer |
"Never again will I be seduced by a helmet's name or status over one that is a good value and delivers good features and fit at a good price." +1 | ||
| Blake |
Y'all say that now, but then along comes a helmet named "Nicole". | ||
| Court |
I remain of a mind that any GOOD helmet that fits properly and is worn all the time will fill the bill. I watched some poor 55 year old HD rider, in the intersection right in front of my Mom's house in Topeka, fall victim to the classic "blue hair turned left in front of him". If he'd had a helmet, he'd have been pissed about the damage to his paint. He didn't, Kansas doesn't have a helmet law, and they spent about 20 minutes gathering up the various parts of his brain and putting them in evidence bags after he splattered like a tomato on the curb. The best helmet is the one you wear. | ||
| Gentleman_jon |
Thanks for the info, Hugh. I always love another story on why LESS GOV'T IS BETTER GOV'T. In this case, the author of the report wasn't TOTALLY wrong, but close enough for government work. Actually there IS some recent and excellent research on helmets published in a recent series in Motorcyclist magazine: http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcyc le_helmet_review/index.html The bottom line: Snell helmets provide significantly LESS protection than DOT or Euro helmets for the simple reason that they are too stiff, and therefore transmit more g's to the brain than softer helmets that absorb the impact rather than transmitting it to the noggin. Hope that helps. Know it won't.  | ||
| Dongalonga |
"The bottom line: Snell helmets provide significantly LESS protection than DOT or Euro helmets for the simple reason that they are too stiff, and therefore transmit more g's to the brain than softer helmets that absorb the impact rather than transmitting it to the noggin. " I read about this about a couple of years ago when I was buying a new helmet. That was one of the big reasons I went with AGV they do not do SNELL only Euro and DOT.} | ||
| Firebolt020283 |
blah blah blah. Just put a helmet on and don't worry about all this stuff. My personal unintentional experiences is that my DOT only helmet gave me a head ache for a day or two when I wrecked in it. When I wrecked in a snell, DOT helmet I did not. Yes I did hit my head on the ground both times. Is that an accurate test? Probably not but never the less that was Enough to stick to helmets certified by both. Now granted I don't buy the most expensive ones out there either. | ||
| Alii1959 |
Court, I agree with your assessment. The need to wear a full-faced, at the least 3/4, helmet is so important that it cannot be overstated. If you recall the motivational poster that says its better to walk away in disgust than to ride away in an ambulance, ATGATT. I cannot believe that so many of the cruiser riders think that the fact that their going slow makes a difference in the amount of protection they need.....see that among squids too. Funny thing, those of us debating this stuff are almost always geared up....its the folks that don't ever come here that really need to hear this discussion but never will. | ||
| Jaimec |
The best advice I'd seen for Snell is to stop raising the height they drop the helmet every five years and instead drop from the SAME height, but reduce the amount of impact transmitted to the head form. Makes perfect sense to me. | ||
| Bandm |
| ||
| Babired |
I have to disagree on the UK and Snell differences. I have worn DOT and Snell DOT helmets and just bought a AGV Stealth S-4 helmet. Knowing that I would eventually bring the AGV helmet to class and students would ask about it, I did some research on them and found that some of the UK helmet lab tests mirror some Snell lab tests. Buell has a AGV Stealth helmet for sale now in HD shops pull it out and look at the tags attached. One of the differences I have noticed with the impact absorbing liner is the AGV actually have groves in it next to the comfort padding, this puzzes me because I've always told my students not to dent the inside of their helmets by placing them on the mirrors. AGV was actually cheaper than a DOT Snell helmet as well. My other helmet is the Shoei DS Hornet and just going onto the Shoei web-site you will see this helmet and the engineering that went into it. I will always ride with Shoei. I had a friend who crashed on VIR when Inside pass came to Buell for the first year and the rider was wearing a Shoei RF 1000, as a teacher I wanted to see the Snell lab work so I contacted them and sent the helmet in. I got the results back with the helmet not taken apart, and I learned some of the crash dynamics, like tire transfer across facesheild. The first thing they said was good pick of a helmet they say the RF 1000 is one of the best out there on the market. Then gave me the results for the rest of the lab findings. I bring the damaged helmet and the letter to class with me now. I think its great we have DOT, Snell and the UK standards out there because we as a customer have more to look at before we buy. K | ||
| Teddagreek |
From the May 2007 Motorcyclist: New Helmet Standard for 2010 Snell sees the light Sometimes it's hard to be humble. The Snell Foundation recently announced major changes to its proposed M2010 motorcycle helmet standard that would bring it more in line with the U.S. DOT and European ECE 22-05 standards. Snell is now acknowledging the fact that smaller heads weigh less than bigger ones—and that the helmets we put on those heads shoujld be designed around that fact. Practically speaking, this means smaller-sized Snell 2010 helmets will likely be designed using less-rigid shells and softer Styrofoam liners, because the head forms they will be tested with will be considerably lighter, reducing the total energy of the test impacts. This is a very good thing. It also means a smaller helmet designed to meet Snell M2010 might not pass Snell 2005. Which would we pick? The 2010 helmet, every time. We questioned Snell's position that "one weight fits all" in our "Blowing the Lid Off" helmet-impact-test story (Motorcyclist, June 2005). Snell's recent reversal of its position acknowledges that the respected head-injury scientists who have been arguing with the Foundation about this for years were right. SNELL M2010 Standard Draft... http://www.smf.org/standards/m/2010/m2010_cover.ht m What are the proposed changes for M2010 Draft 02-07 The Changes Most all the differences between the draft M2010 and the current M2005 standard flow from one basic change in test philosophy: the drop masses in the impact testing will depend on head form circumference. The significant changes are: 1. Drop masses are taken from ECE 22-05 2. Impacts are specified in terms of velocity 1. All first impacts to be at a nominal 7.75 m/sec, comparable to current M2005 first impact velocities. 2. Second impact velocities depend on head form circumference 3. Impact testing to be performed using the largest and smallest head forms appropriate to a helmet model. 4. Helmets must be labeled with the range of head circumferences for which it is intended. 5. The ISO C head form, circumference 62 cm and 3.6 kg, has been added to fill a gap between the ISO A, 50 cm and 3.1 kg., and ISO E, 54 cm and 4.1 kg. Data provided by Dr. Ching of the University of Washington suggest that head mass correlates well with the cube of head circumference. The impact masses specified in ECE 22-05 follow such a relationship and these head forms are geometrically identical to the ISO head forms currently in use at Snell. Since the changes in head form mass will affect the kinetic specifications, the impact severities in the draft M2010 standard have been restated in terms of velocity. The velocity for first impacts has been set to 7.75 m/sec which is, effectively, the same as the current M2005 first impact velocity. However, current helmet materials and technology indicate that smaller helmets, when tested on lighter head forms will be able to withstand substantially greater second impact velocities than larger helmets tested on heavier head forms. For this reason, the second impact velocities set for smaller head forms are appreciably greater than those set for the larger head forms. M2010 seeks to demand all the protective performance reasonably possible for each different head size rather than select a single, uniform second impact velocity and, by doing so, limit helmet protection for all sizes to that achievable for the largest helmet sizes. The change in drop mass specifications also imposes changes in impact testing. The 5.0 kg drop mass specification for all head sizes in previous Snell standards virtually assured that a helmet meeting impact requirements on the largest appropriate head form would also meet those requirements when tested on smaller head forms. The new mass specifications remove that assurance. For M2010, helmets which meet requirements on a particular head form may fail if tested on a different head form. Moving up to a larger, heavier head form will lead to greater stresses in the liner and shell and may cause the helmet to fail catastrophically, particularly against the hemispherical anvil. And moving down to a smaller, lighter head form will lead to increased peak accelerations and may cause the helmet to fail by exceeding the peak criterion, particularly against the flat anvil. Therefore, any helmet model submitted for certification must reasonably meet requirements on every head form appropriate to its intended size range. Testing on the largest and smallest appropriate head forms should provide a reasonable demonstration of a helmet’s capabilities to meet requirements on all intermediate head forms sizes. The Snell lab currently has an objective procedure to determine the largest head form appropriate to a particular helmet but I know of no reliable method to determine the smallest appropriate head form. Instead, we will require manufacturers to declare the intended range of head circumferences for each helmet configuration submitted for certification and to label each unit distributed for sale with the maximum and minimum head circumferences for which that helmet is deemed suitable. It is permissible to label the helmet with a narrower range of circumferences than that declared for certification but the minimum circumference on the label must never be less than the minimum declared originally and the largest never larger than the original certification. The ISO C head form has been added to the A, E, J, M and O head forms currently in use. This head form bridges the large gap in circumference and head form mass between the A and E head forms. Other Changes – Curiosities The mass of the anvil support block in Snell standards had previously been required to be no less than 135 kg. In fact, the blocks at the California lab and at HPE and at just about every other helmet test lab in existence has always been much greater. This M2010 standard bumps the requirement up to 500 kg. Although this draft calls out impact velocity rather than energy, some adjustments may be necessary to allow for variances in the mass of the drop assembly. Equipment breaks under testing stresses and must be repaired or replaced. The total mass of our assemblies fluctuates with every repair and with every component change. Informed opinion here has it that we cannot conduct an efficient helmet test operation if we require that drop assembly mass tolerances be any tighter than plus or minus 100 grams. Senior personnel at other test facilities agree. This 100 gram tolerance amounts to plus or minus 3.2% for the A head form which implies that without some adjustment for drop mass, some helmets could conceivably be impacted 6% more severely than others tested on a different day. However, since we can measure this mass much more accurately than we can control it, this standard requires that impact velocity be “adjusted” to allow for the difference between the measured mass of the head form assembly and the ideal mass. Potential Problems M2005 helmets sized for the ISO J head form may continue to meet the requirements set forth in this draft M2010 but helmets intended for smaller head sizes may have difficulty in flat impact testing and helmets for larger head sizes may have difficulty with hemispherical impact testing. The lighter test head form masses imply higher peak accelerations and may lead to problems with the 300 g criterion. Although the heavier head forms imply lower peak accelerations for some impacts they also imply significantly higher impact energies suggesting problems in testing against the hemispherical anvil. Many current helmet configurations are intended for a range of head circumferences and could reasonably tested on two or more different head forms. But the constant 5.00 kg drop mass specified in M2005 demands the same energy management and approximately the same shock attenuation regardless of head form size. M2010, however, demands significantly greater levels of energy management for larger head forms and greater shock attenuation for smaller head forms. Helmets subject to testing on two or more head forms must provide the energy attenuation demanded by the largest head form in its range and the shock attenuation demanded by the smallest. For this reason, helmets intended for broader ranges of head circumference may have to be bulkier, heavier and, ultimately, less appealing than helmet intended for narrower ranges. Potential Advantages This draft M2010 may be much more compatible with the requirements of DOT and ECE 22-05. Although testing suggests that larger sized Snell M2005 helmets might do well in ECE 22-05 type testing. Smaller sizes could not simultaneously satisfy the attenuations demanded by ECE and the energy management demanded by Snell. Since M2010 will call out head forms with a cubic relationship between circumference and drop mass just as do DOT and ECE 22-05, the impact attenuations demanded are much more similar. It is expected that manufacturers will be able to qualify their Snell certified models to DOT and to ECE 22-05 readily and demonstrate compliance with European and United States requirements. Furthermore, the fact of Snell compliance will demonstrate a substantial protective benefit over and above that demanded by either US or European authorities. Request to All Interested Parties Please review the details of this standard carefully. Although I have done my best to estimate reasonable impact severities, particularly for second impacts, my confidence in these estimates is far from absolute. For this and for every other aspect of the draft, I will be grateful for all constructive advice and criticism. | ||
| Buckinfubba |
Court is correct speaking from my point. head on with a drunk driver ina ford f 150. my head flung like a bullet at the windsheild, took that impact flew up in the air a good 10 to 15 feet. came down to earth on the asphalt and said helmet with said head inside bounced a good lick. this was a;most eight years ago. broken back,wrist, collapsed lungs, blown out knee. ruptured spleen. but...... said head is alright and good to go.... it was a cheap $100 full face helmet, yest it was a dot but alas a cheap black one with no graphics. it worked just wear the dang thing hopefully you never need it but just in case you might | ||
| Danny_h__jesternut |
Ha, Ha, Ha, This realy cracks me up. It's all a moot point and none of it is relavent. You can buy/use the best, most expancive gear ya want, ya can not buy or use any gear at all, the fact is no one knows the hour when the grim-reaper will come for you. You are not in controle of this fact. When it is your turn to go, you will go, no matter what you think you have done to prevent it. bye bye.  | ||
| Doz |
I'll choose to piss off that grip reaper and cheat him if I can help it. So the info is helpful. However I'd prefer to be totally splattered than to be critically injured for the rest of my life. | ||
| 2008xb12scg |
Maybe, but I aint planning on making it any easier for Johnny Death to come get me. Besides that, I'm more worried about becoming a vegetable than death. | ||
| 2008xb12scg |
BandM I don't know what that guy was saying, but The demo said it all. | ||
| Aesquire |
If you hit your head in a crash, and you almost certainly will, since it hangs on a floppy hinge on top of the torso, a helmet will greatly reduce the probability of injury or death. Period. If you experience too many g's and internal injuries kill you, it's still a better looking ( well in my case maybe not ) corpse. If you are impaled & all the crazy leaks out, the helmet may make the clean up easier. If you are run over by a train, My Suomy won't protect me better than my HJC. So what? What that means is the "when it's my time, it's time" guys will die, become vegetables, and lose control sooner & possibly hurt me, or someone else in a crash more often than the "good judgment calls for protective gear" guys. Head injuries cripple & kill more than body or limb injuries do. I'm not a helmet law nazi, but I wear one in a couple of sports. It's not magic but it helps. The last time I looked at Snell specs, ( the 2005 ones ) It seemed to me that Snell helmets were better at multiple impacts, and harder impacts for penetration than DOT only lids. Snell lids also transmitted more energy to the head than a DOT lid. Some race venues require Snell, so that's what you use. I have a DOT only helmet ( HJC ) and an English spec lid, ( Suomy ) I'm not worried about either doing the job. Great video!  |
