Helmet testing !!

[ronboskz650sr]

I have two DOT helmets. One is a flip front I wear around for short trips when i have my glasses on. They positively will not fit inside my full face, even after the helmet is on...they are wide frames. I wear the full face on "real" rides at high speeds through the country, and for any ride to somewhere far away. I have to wear my contact lenses for this one to go on my head. I bought both based on fit, and can wear either one for hours without discomfort. I liked th article, and it confirmed what the bicycle helmet industry has been saying all along. More foam, less shell is better for your brain. Mine needs all the help it can get, I can't spare a drop.

[cb360]

Amen Ron - I wear the 'cheap' Fulmer cited in the article. I was short on cash when I bought it. I bought the cheapest all-black full-face they sold at the shop and put reflective stickers on it. I'm lucky it turns out to be a pretty safe lid.

[Forsaken]

I think I'm gonna start going without a helmet rather than wear my Snell approved HJC.

</sarcasm>

[cb360]

To appease any grumpy Snell purchasers with buyer's remorse it shouldn't be ignored that the article also pointed out that ALL the helmets they tested were pretty darn good and way better than they used to be. The crux of the matter to me is not that Snell stinks, just that it's not worth paying extra for because it in fact is an inferior rating rather than superior. But I certainly wouldn't toss my Snell helmet if I had one and it fit well. I'd wear it until it felt like time for a new one and then forego the snell rating on the next purchase. Even then i'd keep it for a spare or pillion use. I agree with the article, but it hardly said the Snell rating was a ticking timebomb... good helmets with a flawed testing theory in my opinion. They accomplished what they are shooting for - it's questionable though, whether they were aiming for the correct standard.