Total Motorcycle Community Forums

I own an HJC helmet and while I have been fairly pleased with it I must confess the article made me think twice about "brand" names. The helmet I have is now discontinued, it was called Spyder, and the foam was pretty good all over the helmet except the very top, where it is probably 1/4" thick if that.

I actually have the Fulmer listed in the article - funny that I originally bought it because it was the cheapest full-face in the store that fit me. I think it was $80. Ventilation isn't great, but it's ok. It's too bad for the Snell folks - I'm certain they are well intentioned and that they do good testing. But in the end from everything I've read it seems like some of their specs are based on bad science. I think this is the beginning of the end for them. Somewhere along the line it got to be more about selling stickers than safety. That's my .02 so take it for what it's worth. I'm sure I don't have to note here that I am NOT a helmet safety expert but I find this whole deal interesting.

The Snell people probably thought that doing a more stressful test was a good idea, which it would be for those few people who encounter that particular impact type.

But a helmet is a statistical prophylactic which is almost as likely to give you massive neck trauma as it is to save you from massive head trauma. If Snell's ratings make the helmet safer in 2% of impacts and less safe in 50% of impacts, then they've done their goals a disservice.

I think the best thing would be for the helmet industry and DOT (and maybe Snell if they'll stop sucking their thumb long enough) should create a real standard designed to reduce head trauma the most for the most people, accounting for current technological capabilities in materials and designs, and the known statistical distribution of crashes and injuries.

I mean, the fact that any two helmets are 50% apart in performance is ludicrous. The only reason to put a giant plastic knob on your head is to protect it, they might as well all protect it nearly as much as the best of them does.

It sounds like the euro tests are on the right track. Did I read that correctly - that it might actually be advantageous for the shell to be a bit softer and not so rigid?

cb360 wrote:Did I read that correctly - that it might actually be advantageous for the shell to be a bit softer and not so rigid?

Yes, that is correct.

A softer shell flexes more, absorbing more of the impact energy and also spreading the rest of the energy over a larger area. This reduces the amount of G-forces that your brain is subjected to in an impact, lessening the chance that it is going to ricochet around inside your skull with generally bad results.

Sounds good to me. I suppose the SNELL folks feel they have to be different in some way to justify the high costs of those stickers. If they just duplicated the DOT and european standards, what would be the point?

I have a Snell SA2000 rated helmet which I originally bought for car racing use. After taking a brief look at the standards on the SMF website, the only difference I can see between the M2000 and SA2000 ratings is the fire resistance test on the SA one. Does anyone know if there are any other differences?

Jacob

Did you read the article? I think they did a decent job of listing their methodology - biggest difference was in the hardness of the shell required to get a Snell rating.

blair wrote:Bottom line: If you see "snell" on the box, find another box.

The article proved it, and the Snell foundation's petulant rant nailed it to their own tree.

Unfortunately, my HJC AC-3 is Snell rated. But I have one of the sizes that uses a larger shell and thicker liner, so maybe I have a chance of surviving bumping into a doorjamb in this thing. Maybe.

Maybe you over read the article.

n analyzing the accident-involved helmets, the Hurt researchers also addressed whether helmets certified to different standards actually performed differently in real crashes; that is, did a Snell-certified helmet work better at protecting a person in the real world than a plain old DOT-certified or equivalent helmet? The answer was no. In real street conditions, the DOT or equivalent helmets worked just as well as the Snell-certified helmets.

So at worst, the Snell is about the same.

Did anyone read the other article in the News and updates section?

Eight Helmets Failed 2004 DOT Tests
Last year eight motorcycle helmets failed National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) performance testing for compliance with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 (FMVSS 218), commonly referred to as the D.O.T. standard...

Every Snell certified helmet model is tested. A DOT labeled helmet is not usually tested. The DOT does about 40 tests a year and checks random samples.

So a Snell is a Tested model, a DOT probably isn't. Which means your DOT model may be cheaper and "better" than a Snell. But of course, you may have the model that doesn't really meet DOT and have it fall apart or worse.

Since ALL Snell Helmets have a DOT sticker, they all meet the DOT Spec.
Snell is a subset of DOT. If fact, unless you have a DOT only helemt that was tested by Motorcyclist, you may a a DOT model that is harder than the Snell spec and, if tested, might mot even meet the DOT spec.

Since the difference is not really that great, as a the end of the article says:

All Helmets Are Great. We Investigate.

The good news in all this is that helmets—all helmets—are getting better. The last time we did an impact test on helmets was back in '91, in the November issue if you're rummaging through that pile in the garage next to your 1929 Scott Flying Squirrel....

Back in '91, both DOT and Snell/DOT helmets routinely exceeded 250 Gs in the 7-foot drop, and often spiked past 300 Gs in the 10-foot drop. Ouch.

In our new results, no helmet exceeded 250 Gs in the 10-foot drop, and the vast majority of the 7-foot drops stayed well below 200 Gs. So falling at a 10-foot energy level today—a 99th-percentile crash—is like falling at a 7-foot energy level was back in '91. That means more and more people are being protected better and better. It also means that in well over 90 percent of the impacts we did, the rider would probably have come out with no more than an AIS 3—or serious—brain injury.

I personnaly will stick with Snell as I know the helmet has actually met some standard. A DOT label only means the mfg. says it meets DOT, and as the arrticle in the News and Update sections showed, that DOT label may not be worth the ink that printed it.

You somehow drew a completely different conclusion than Motorcyclist did. Not that it matters much. Hell if I had a Snell rated helmet that I liked, I sure as hell wouldn't toss it. But I would never buy a new one either, given that I can get a safer helmet for less. Snell is basing their ratings on bad science and I think that is unequivocal based on the info I've seen. The manufacturer's random tests are fine for me - they are in business to sell helmets. One recall or big lawsuit judgement could put them out of business. I think you might have 'underread' the article - you selected a paragraph that said the DOT was 'just as good' as the Snell rating, but didn't include any of the passages where they definitively proved the rating was faulty.