Motorcyclist Helmet Article

sheepofblue · 05-09-2005, 4:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by EDDIE110171

I am not arguing AFM's rules, just noting another organization's rules. The reason for the rule change, was because tech inspectors were disallowing helmets because of paint, stickers, and or scratches. Unfortunately now the final say is in the hands of the competitor with him being responsible for his own safety.

Seems to me that would be the sensible thing. Disallow use on the track where the organization has some responsibility but do not destroy something that does not belong to you. Instead it would make sense to disallow the helmet and EXPLAIN why with a recommendation of disposal of the helmet and maybe advice on how.

As a parallel consider when I was going to sledge a junk helmet folks recommended I instead donate it to a local fire dept. or emt for a practice helmet, the AFM rule would negate this worth while use of an old helmet

abtech · 05-09-2005, 4:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

Seems to me that would be the sensible thing. Disallow use on the track where the organization has some responsibility but do not destroy something that does not belong to you. Instead it would make sense to disallow the helmet and EXPLAIN why with a recommendation of disposal of the helmet and maybe advice on how.

As a parallel consider when I was going to sledge a junk helmet folks recommended I instead donate it to a local fire dept. or emt for a practice helmet, the AFM rule would negate this worth while use of an old helmet

Unfortunately, people have a tendancy to do very strange things. I had a teammate that crashed pretty hard and essentially totaled his X-11. He went and bondoed/painted the damn thing and then swiped a WERA helmet sticker from tech and used it for the rest of the season. When I found this out, I asked him what the hell was he thinking. His answer was "the helmet's fine, it only had a bunch of small cracks and one big dent. I'm not going to spend another 500 bucks just because this one's a "little beat up" ". No amount of explaining or arguing would change his point of view.

Had the tech inspector cut the chin strap, it could have saved this guy's life (not that he crashed after this happened, just that he easily could have and with a totally useless helmet).

I know, you can't make the horse drink, but damn, some people are pretty stupid.

luvtolean · 05-09-2005, 4:52 PM

Trackho and I talk about it frequently, and his working theory (that I agree with)is that motorcycle racing has all of the signs/symptoms of drug addiction.

Racers would paint, place stickers over, and anything else they could dream up to keep racing with it.

Unfortunately, in our litiguous society, if the dumbshit killed himself with the crap lid, the AFM (or SCCA as mentioned earlier)is going to be held directly responsible when the relative's lawyers come looking for money.

tbeemer · 05-12-2005, 2:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northy

"Bell, KBC, OGK, Shoei and Simpson were contacted repeatedly, but chose not to send helmets."

So what the hell stopped MC from going out and getting some of those helmets to test? Is it a legit comparo if they leave out some of the most popular models just because the company didn't send them one?

For a bit on something as critical as helmets, wouldn't it justify the expense of getting a bunch of those helmets? In my eyes that just invalidated the whole piece. It's pretty much just a fluff piece for the mfg's that played along and sent some freebies. Guess Boehm and the boys need some new lids.

This is one reason why the US glossies get so freakin' hammered by their readership for being overblown manufacturer ad copy. They won't test a product unless it's given to them. Undermines the integrity of the "test" doesn't it? If you give 'em a bad rating, you might not get another freebie the next time. But then they've never had a problem with half-a$$ed "journalism" before, so why does it still even bother me?

Tom

Latebraking · 05-20-2005, 7:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abtech

That would be a Fastrax date and they didn't even check helmets at any of the races I ran.

Regarding "Suomy U.S.A. elected to bring in its helmets under both the D.O.T. and
the B.S.I. 6658 Type A Certifications suomy-usa.com ", I certainly don't know, but it could be that they didn't pass the Snell certifications and that may explain why they "elected" not to use Snell. This is the case for at least 300 new helmet models every year.

Looks like the Grattan event for some of the .Org members got a few hundred $$$ more expensive.

abtech · 05-21-2005, 8:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latebraking

Looks like the Grattan event for some of the .Org members got a few hundred $$$ more expensive.

Haven't heard anyone mention that it was a problem yet . . .

abtech · 05-21-2005, 8:12 AM

After reading the info on the Suomy site, they admit that their helmets will NOT pass the current Snell certification due to their lightweight design. They are designed to withstand only 1 hit at a slightly higher force (than the first hit in the Snell test) without being able to sustain the second hit at the required level of G transfer.

This may be fine for some people, but every crash I have been in that involved helmet to asphalt (or other hard object) contact has seen multiple hits to the helmet.

davef · 05-21-2005, 9:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abtech

This may be fine for some people, but every crash I have been in that involved helmet to asphalt (or other hard object) contact has seen multiple hits to the helmet.

No doubt but IIRC 2 hits to the exact same place is the Snell test and I may have mis read the article but I remember them specifying that 2 hits to the exact same place almost never occurs in a crash.

It does seem that the odds are low of hitting the same place on the helmet twice.

sheepofblue · 05-21-2005, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davef

No doubt but IIRC 2 hits to the exact same place is the Snell test and I may have mis read the article but I remember them specifying that 2 hits to the exact same place almost never occurs in a crash.

It does seem that the odds are low of hitting the same place on the helmet twice.

But would you rather have a helmet that exceeds the most common case or just meets the need in the most common case? I prefer a margin for error and the cost of a helmet that exceeds the spec is not that great. Darn instead of flashy graphics on a Suomy you might have to ride in a white Shoei

Northy · 05-21-2005, 2:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

But would you rather have a helmet that exceeds the most common case or just meets the need in the most common case? I prefer a margin for error and the cost of a helmet that exceeds the spec is not that great. Darn instead of flashy graphics on a Suomy you might have to ride in a white Shoei

But to argue that point, by exceeding the most common case, the helmet has to transfer more G's to your head.

Latebraking · 05-21-2005, 3:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abtech

Haven't heard anyone mention that it was a problem yet . . .

I don't know that it would be a problem for any of the members who might have a non-snell helmet, but it (the event) *will* be a bit more expensive for them, since they will be forced to go purchase a snell-rated helmet to pass tech inspection. That's all I was saying.

CBR929RE · 05-21-2005, 5:42 PM

well I guess if I had been going to grattan I would have had to use my old HJC (3 years old I think but Snell certified) instead of my Suomy which I feel a lot more comfortable wearing (safety and comfort). I was thinking of either an Arai or being different and getting an AGV or maybe another Suomy but a Spec1R Extreme this time for my next helmet but that wouldn't be till next year I think.

davef · 05-21-2005, 8:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northy

But to argue that point, by exceeding the most common case, the helmet has to transfer more G's to your head.

Exactly!

abtech · 05-21-2005, 10:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davef

No doubt but IIRC 2 hits to the exact same place is the Snell test and I may have mis read the article but I remember them specifying that 2 hits to the exact same place almost never occurs in a crash.

It does seem that the odds are low of hitting the same place on the helmet twice.

This just isn't true. They perform multiple hits on at least 4 group areas on each helmet tested.

Quote from the Official Snell Testing documentation for M2000 and M2005:

"The impact site for the first impact within a group is the target for all successive impacts in the same group. However, if an impact group is sited closer than 120 mm to any previous impact group, the later impacts shall be declared invalid. "

abtech · 05-21-2005, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Latebraking

I don't know that it would be a problem for any of the members who might have a non-snell helmet, but it (the event) *will* be a bit more expensive for them, since they will be forced to go purchase a snell-rated helmet to pass tech inspection. That's all I was saying.

What I mean is that no one has mentioned NOT having a Snell approved helmet for the event. We have had the exact same rules for 3 years now and since they are plainly stated in the FAQ regarding the event, it would seem that there isn't (and hasn't) been a problem. The helmets are checked for a Snell sticker and date of manufacturer at tech and so far I haven't seen anyone fail (to the best of my knowledge).

I believe I would have heard about it by now if it was a problem.

abtech · 05-21-2005, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Northy

But to argue that point, by exceeding the most common case, the helmet has to transfer more G's to your head.

While that may be true, is isn't necessarily true in all cases. Several Snell approved helmets in fact exceed the Snell standard as well as the BSI standard by a fair amount. The AGV X-Vent passes both and according to Snell transmits less than 180G in multiple hits while BSI rates it at 184 in it's single test. These are well below anyone's "safe" definition for G transfer.

RRWANTR · 08-16-2005, 6:11 PM

Updated...Motrcyclists response to Snell

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

Scout · 04-12-2006, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abtech

While that may be true, is isn't necessarily true in all cases. Several Snell approved helmets in fact exceed the Snell standard as well as the BSI standard by a fair amount. The AGV X-Vent passes both and according to Snell transmits less than 180G in multiple hits while BSI rates it at 184 in it's single test. These are well below anyone's "safe" definition for G transfer.

BTW, in time for Grattan, if your head is BIG, you can get an AGV X-Vent for about $180 right here:

http://www.genuineaccessories.com/Closeout/COAGVFF.htm

and for even less ching-ching (Snell & DOT):
http://www.helmetharbor.com/estore/p...XO-400+Helmets
http://www.scorpionusa.com/pdf/scorp...eet_manual.pdf

rb1 · 04-12-2006, 10:25 AM

Wow! This thread brings up memories.

When Motorcyclist first published their attack on Snell, I wrote to them, explaining some of the weaknesses of their experimental design. Their response to me was extremely snarky, to say the least, and it utterly failed to address any of the points I had raised. I concluded that they had some ulterior motive for publishing "Blowing the lid off".

Kudos to abtech for his well-reasoned responses.

abtech · 04-12-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rb1

Wow! This thread brings up memories.

When Motorcyclist first published their attack on Snell, I wrote to them, explaining some of the weaknesses of their experimental design. Their response to me was extremely snarky, to say the least, and it utterly failed to address any of the points I had raised. I concluded that they had some ulterior motive for publishing "Blowing the lid off".

Kudos to abtech for his well-reasoned responses.

Thanks.

As an unintentional professional impact tester and general helmet destroyer, I did a bit of homework on the subject

.

smoothrideronli · 04-12-2006, 11:37 AM

I read the entire thread and I may have missed something...but I believe that the Motorcyclists article states that less G's to the head are better and the DOT helmets that they tested transmitted less G's to the headform than the Snell helmets. Is that a true statement?

abtech · 04-12-2006, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smoothrideronli

I read the entire thread and I may have missed something...but I believe that the Motorcyclists article states that less G's to the head are better and the DOT helmets that they tested transmitted less G's to the headform than the Snell helmets. Is that a true statement?

Less Gs are better. That statement is true.

Some DOT approved helmets transmitted less Gs than some Snell helmets.
That statement is true.

Some of the DOT helmets that transmitted less Gs were rejected by Snell because they failed the helmet strap retention test and some were rejected because they failed the basic viewport peripheral angle design limits.

These statements are true. Without regard to basic functionality, the Motorcyclists article indirectly endorsed helmets that would fly off your head in a crash or wouldn't allow you to notice a vehicle directly next to you.

Motorcyclist also only tested a small percentage of more than 300 different models available with only DOT certification and a similarly small fraction of the Snell certified helmets.