Total Motorcycle Community Forums

There was not a major difference between the DOT only and SNELL helmets in the Motorcyclist test.

With the SNELL tag you at least get the knowledge that that particular model of helmet HAS been tested.

DOT only lids are only randomly tested. The manufacturer need only to calim that the helmet they are selling meets the standards.

Shiv wrote:What does it matter if they fell?

Helmets are designed to withstand one crash. A helmet that has been dropped (perhaps repeatedly) may be damaged in ways you can't see just by looking at it and thus may not protect you in your one crash. It might be okay, but I wouldn't put my head in it.

Ah, I didn't know they were designed to withstand only one crash.

I've never seen a motorcycle helmet in a crash but do they shatter or something?

It makes sense to me but then again it doesn't.

Why it makes sense is that it would absorb a hell of a lot more force (and wouldn't transfer near as much to you) if it shattered.

Why it doesn't make sense is I've never heard of it happening before, never seen it, and it would probably cause wounds to the wearer.


Why can it only withstand one crash?

Because the inside liner is designed to crumple and deform under impact. And it doesn't spring back into shape. Sort of like popping bubblewrap. It still has the same basic shape, but it cannot protect.

The ' drop your helmet in the parking lot - get a new helmet' maxim has been thoroughly debunked. If you drop your helmet from the top of a two story house onto the driveway, then, yeah, but your average two foot drop does not significantly damage the interior foam because the force isn't strong enough to substantially dent the shell and affect the foam inside. Now if I crashed and hit my head and lived to tell the tale, sure I'd get a new helmet. But if I knock it off the seat of my bike I'm not worried about it at all.

J Millheiser

"There was not a major difference between the DOT only and SNELL helmets in the Motorcyclist test. "

We've been over this many times in many threads. The test was concerning testing methodology. The conclusion reached was that in order to get the Snell sticker you had to have a shell more rigid than in the DOT tests and European agencies. The level of rigidity Snell requires has been proven to be too hard by people way more qualified to make such a judgement than you and I. Snell helmets are fine, but they aren't better and in one way they are demonstrably inferior. The only way I'd see a superiority advantage in the Snells is that they tested individual helmet models. But since I know my Fulmer was tested by Motorcyclist I'm unconcerned. Also, if there were a bunch of substandard DOT-only helmets out there, we'd have heard about it by now. It sounds damning to say that all the DOT helmets aren't tested.... but to my knowledge no one has ever uncovered a DOT approved helmet that doesn't meet the standards they say they do. Surely Motorcycle Consumer News or Motorcyclist or someone would have ratted out the manufacturer if something like that was occurring. All the rated helmets today are damn good. But I ain't paying extra for a snell until they revise their standards to reflect the current and widely accepted (by everyone except them) science on the subject.

cb360 wrote:The ' drop your helmet in the parking lot - get a new helmet' maxim has been thoroughly debunked. If you drop your helmet from the top of a two story house onto the driveway, then, yeah, but your average two foot drop does not significantly damage the interior foam because the force isn't strong enough to substantially dent the shell and affect the foam inside. Now if I crashed and hit my head and lived to tell the tale, sure I'd get a new helmet. But if I knock it off the seat of my bike I'm not worried about it at all.

That's a new one on me cb360. Thinking about it, I can see that it would be in the interests of the manufacturers and dealers to claim that helmets are 'one use only' in any circumstances.

Personally, I guess I've always taken the view that very minor knocks like lightly banging it on the top on my shed door ( ) regularly ( ) would probably not damage my lid to the extent that it would be useless. But applying the precautionary principle, I'd need the reassurance of some evidence on this before I reused a helmet that I'd dropped six feet onto a concrete floor. Any links you know of?

If I did drop it, the idea of saving £320 on a new Arai sounds appealing.

I'll see what I can find SV-Wolf. I think I originally saw the article on the forums here.

Snell, among other places, says,

"If you drop a helmet from a few feet, say the seat of a motorcycle, is it okay?
Basically, yes. It takes a lot to damage a helmet. If the helmet fell onto a hard surface and your head was in it, you should replace it."

The original motorcyclist article is here...

http://motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/hatz/

It's a good read. You can see their methodology. After reading it, it'll be pretty clear that a drop from your seat isn't going to render your helmet useless. Mainly because your helmet is empty when you drop it. If your head was in it and you passed out or fell and hit your head then I'd replace it, but a 3' drop of an empty helmet isn't going to ruin it. Ten feet and I might reconsider that opinion but I'm not sure - I sawa test on this very subject and I thought it was at this site but I'm getting too many hits to find it right now.

cb360 wrote:... but your average two foot drop does not significantly damage the interior foam because the force isn't strong enough to substantially dent the shell and affect the foam inside.

Maybe a Snell shell won't dent...

Snell helmets are fine, but they aren't better and in one way they are demonstrably inferior.

Snell may not make them better, but are there any nice helmets that aren't Snell? By nice I mean well-vented, anti-fog, comfy, removable foam, and other stuff like that. Of course, I'm only thinking of full-face as all beanies are pretty well vented.

Also, if there were a bunch of substandard DOT-only helmets out there, we'd have heard about it by now.

Same goes with Snell helmets being too hard in real accidents. No?

But I ain't paying extra for a snell until they revise their standards to reflect the current and widely accepted (by everyone except them) science on the subject.

If it's so widely accepted, why do helmet manufacturers not create more "nice" helmets that aren't Snell rated?

I'm not picking a fight, BTW; these are serious questions.

rbickers wrote:

cb360 wrote:... but your average two foot drop does not significantly damage the interior foam because the force isn't strong enough to substantially dent the shell and affect the foam inside.

Maybe a Snell shell won't dent...

That was funny.

Snell helmets are fine, but they aren't better and in one way they are demonstrably inferior.

Snell may not make them better, but are there any nice helmets that aren't Snell? By nice I mean well-vented, anti-fog, comfy, removable foam, and other stuff like that. Of course, I'm only thinking of full-face as all beanies are pretty well vented.

I'm sure there are. But I don't spend a lot of time researching them because I'm not paying more than $200 for a helmet I might if I raced or spent more time on my bike or rode in a ton of bad weather or was into graphics. Snell doesn't test for comfort or anti-fog or ventilation so who knows really?

Also, if there were a bunch of substandard DOT-only helmets out there, we'd have heard about it by now.

Same goes with Snell helmets being too hard in real accidents. No?

We didn't know that before but we do now. There's lots of independent physicists and engineers who agree with Motorcyclists' findings and none to speak of who are defending the Snell standards.

But I ain't paying extra for a snell until they revise their standards to reflect the current and widely accepted (by everyone except them) science on the subject.

If it's so widely accepted, why do helmet manufacturers not create more "nice" helmets that aren't Snell rated?

I don't know that they don't.

I'm not picking a fight, BTW; these are serious questions.

No worries here. A civil debate is a great way to get info on any subject. I've learned a ton on these forums from discussions like these.

PS: I think the Snell foundation started with a worthy goal and I don't think they are evil. I just wish they would update their testing methodology to reflect the latest research on brain injuries. I have heard there is a new hurt - type report coming finally. That could provides lots of good new data for everyone to work with.

Sorry I screwed up the html above - my responses are in italics

-cb360