[smoothrideronli]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

They were all pretty annoyed, and one of the salesguys snidely remarked, "They're good from 5 years after you purchase not after it's made."

What an idiot.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by smoothrideronli

What an idiot.

Had I not:

1. Been riding on an expired helmet
2. Going to a trackday in a couple of days
3. got a decent deal
4. been able to check it in person

I would've voted stupidity with my wallet and walked out. But I needed the helmet, and it was exactly what I wanted...

[smoothrideronli]

Hey you cant win them all...but you got what you needed so it worked out.

[abtech]

Originally Posted by smoothrideronli

Well no...there will still be a difference in allowable G's.

ummm no. Snell doesn't allow more Gs than the DOT spec does. It just so happened that some of the DOT helmets "randomly selected" for this test transferred slightly less energy to the headform in Motorcyclist's testing.

One thing to consider: The helmets with the smaller viewports had a larger total surface area (obviously). Since the larger surface area transfers more energy throughout the structure, these helmets perform better in the impact tests (as mentioned in some of Snell's documentation). Unfortunately, as one Snell tester noted about a particular model of helmet "having a bucket over your head with a slit for your eyes may have cut it during the crusades, but not for vehicle use in the 21st century . . ."

[smoothrideronli]

I have to go back to the article but I thought that it stated that DOT had a lower allowable G's...I could be wrong though...

[slowpoke]

Originally Posted by abtech

I purchased a new Scorpion EXO-700 recently, as my XVent was stale dated and after checking all my available resources, I couldn't find anyone that would guarantee a "Fresh" helmet. I have been sponsored by AGV for years and have had excellent results with their products, but they didn't have anything in stock with a manufacturing date beyond mid 2003. That means I would be buying a helmet that only had 2 years of racing use left. After several calls to various internet resellers, it became apparent that no one would actually open a helmet and check the date (same at the 3 dealerships I went to. They let me check all the display models obviously, but wouldn't check or let me check their other stock).

During all of this I found that the average age for helmets (even the newer models) on the dealers shelf was around 4 to 4.5 years. When I talked to HelmetHarbor, they commented that the Scorpion models were all new and guaranteed a "this year" manufacturing date. The one I ordered was manufactured less than a month before I received it.

Nice helmet and as light as my XVent . . .

This makes me feel better about the 2 new EXO-700's I bought last nite for for my wife and I.

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by smoothrideronli

I have to go back to the article but I thought that it stated that DOT had a lower allowable G's...I could be wrong though...

They lied....sort of, it's one of the really shitty parts about that article and an obvious hint of bias, on top of the two lines given to Snell explanations.

The DOT test allows a higher peak G level than any other standard--400G
But it also limits the time that the acceleration event sustains levels over 150G for .4sec and 200G for .2sec. The time limits are controversial, you can read about that on the Snell website, the info aobut that is in an older essay by Ed Becker about the history and development of helmet standards. Basically, the trime criteria was suspect at the inception of the DOT standard, as it was taken from an old version of the ASTM standard that was changed before the DOT standard was finalized, but the change made it into the DOT standard. So on top of there being so little evidence available for which to base peak numbers on, the use of the hemi anvil impactor, or the impact energies used, the appropriate time limts are also of great contention, though there is no argument that the time of an acceleration on the head is important at those levels.

Snell's M2005 standard allows 290
BSI allows 300
ECE allows 275 with a duration criteria, the HIC(Head Injury Calculation) of 2400, it's a more complicated formula for evaluating accelaration forces and time, intiallydeveloped for car accident victims. It's of course another highly controversial measurement, since the levels that are injurious are not clearly defined in the research and those accepted for vehicle passengers is a much lower value of 1000, rather than the 2400 used by ECE, which sounds like it was instituted as a huge concession to ensure passing for all current designs, rather than the actual human tolerance data.

The Motorcyclist journalists kindly did some sort of extrapolation of those DOT time limits and creatively came up with the 250G peak limit number. In other words, they pretty much pulled it out of their ass. It is probably safe to say though, that any helmet approaching 250G in the DOT tests will likely fail the duration period limits, as was shown best by the Scorpion EXO-700 in it's failed DOT test and similar numbers in the Motorcyclist mag demonstration.

That Scorpion failure is what I think prompted this revisit of what is an old argument. Parts Unlimited, distributor of Icon and Z1R, and the heaviest advertiser in Motorcyclist Mag isn't too appreciative of the new competition in the low-end helmet biz, and it was a perfect oppurtunity to point out the Z1R name, which are all just rebadged versions of existing low-end Korean/Chinese helmets, made by J-Tech and HJC, and maybe a couple other manufacturers.

One of the funny parts of the article is where they quote the Icon rep about building a safe helmet. They don't build helmets at all. Those helmets have "bling" vents attatched and graphics added to make them officiailly Icon products. That quote and line of thought is obviously a veiled cough towards Scorpion. One other funny thing about that is that the Icon Alliance failed a DOT test a couple of years ago. It was tested twice that year and passed the second, so no action was taken. NHTSA decided only to test the Scorpion again as part of next year's testing as well.

The issues boil down to a range of impact scenarios within the ranges of known brain injury mechanisms. It is silly to point out that injuries to other parts of the body may complicate severe head trauma and say that we should compromise the usefulness of a helmet because of it, and not look to reduce the other injuries instead, which is an easily attainable and worthwhile issue to address. Facing reality is that if you have a severe chest injury, you should address that possiblity every bit as much as trying to address less severe head impacts, especially if the two complicate each other. There was no explanation of the relevance or efficacy of the severity indexes refered to in that article within the medical community either. For all we know those numbers are not widely used or accurate. It was one researcher they quoted using those examples. Wanna guess that there is major contention within the use of those numbers as well outside of the motorcycling helmet debate?

Either way, more research needs to be done on human tolerance and helmets need to continue to provide a larger range of usefulness. There's lots of better info floating arounf the net on the subject. I've emailed Ed Becker numerous times and received pages of replies that I have posted on various boards at one time or another, and the Snell webstie has a lot more info for background and counterpoint to the Motorcyclist article, including a rebuttal of some of their facts. While the Snell standard kind of got in the way of a nother score to settle, there is mounting pressure from the European helmet manufacturers that would like to manufacture a single spec of helmet and make a splash in the North American market. Since the ECE standard and the Snell standard are sort of divergent, it's harder to do that, and more costly. The ECE standard is much eaier to build helmets to and they will easily pass the similar DOT impact severity levels. So you will probably see more and more propoganda popping up in favor of a single standard. This same thing happened in the bicycle helmet industry in the 90's, as their was no mandatory US standard, and Snell approval meant extra cost, so Bell, in particular pushed for the government to allow an inhouse test standard that mandated levels equivalent to an inferior standard of 10 years prior to be adopted. The entire industry dropped the more costly Snell approval in favor of the unregulated CPSC standard, which made business and profit much easier to come by in a time when bicycle sales were slumping. Consumers didn't know, and even were told it was better that they had this mandatory label for their protection now that was some great step in the direction of safety. It wasn't.

Snell gives us a good leg of power to stand on, and we should realize that and do everything we can to uphold the postive influence that type of consumer powerbase can achieve. That's not to say we should let them off the hook for incorrect info or actions, but that article and the current level of debate doesn't point to them not interpreting the same information correctly. None of these issues are new and there is more than one expert on the Snell board of directors, and more than just motorcycle helmet crash data to look at in determining the proper direction of these issues. Quite frankly, we should get with the program and demand sometihng similar for the other aspects of proteciotn and other types of protective gear, not just helmets. There is zero standardization in the US for other gear, and the only leg we have for helmets is being ripped at, and we have become willing participants in it. ECE is not enforcable in the US, it means nothing, any manfuacturer can sell a helmet with those letters on the back here, and they can self-certify DOT all day long with only a few random tests done each year. It's good thing to have and understand a voluntary label and a noon-profit organiziation on our side providing us a little power as consumers to have better options. I wonder how many riders reading the Motorcyclist aritcle ahve actually written Snell for their side or for clarity? or even read part of their website? Seems like the next step in finding the right interpretation in all of these numbers that are supposed to mean something to us.

[abtech]

Interesting first post .

I'm not quite certain whether or not you are saying that the Scorpion helmets are made by one of the trio of Chinese manufacturers you mentioned, but according to Eric Anderson, Scorpion owns their entire manufacturing/R&D/sales operation and they don't currently build helmets for any other manufacturers.

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by abtech

Interesting first post .

I'm not quite certain whether or not you are saying that the Scorpion helmets are made by one of the trio of Chinese manufacturers you mentioned, but according to Eric Anderson, Scorpion owns their entire manufacturing/R&D/sales operation and they don't currently build helmets for any other manufacturers.

No, I am actually saying that Parts Unlimited, distributor of Icon and Z1R, is simply rebadging existing cheap helmets, with different paint schemes and vent covers for their Icon and Z1R brand names. The Icons are specifically J-Tech(Xpeed) helmets that are "polished", and the Z1R's appear to be from various sources including Xpeed, HJC, and/or possibly another Chinese-based manufacturer. The Z1R Stance is a direct carryover of the Xpeed 503 or I think it's known as the XF or XG here, and the Stance is in fact even a few bucks less expensive than the Xpeed, same as the Icons, XF and/or XG's in fancier finishes. The Strike, the helmet that "won" that Motorcyclist comparison appears to be an older HJC design, the CL-10, I believe, it's still sold in Europe, the Z1R scooter helmet that failed DOT last year appears to be another HJC, the CS-22, or something like that, I think. The Duke, I'm not so sure about that one. Z1R claims that their helmets are made for North American headshapes, but it would make sense that they are actually just the same as the Euro head shape shells, and with the Strike being DOT-only it makes sense that it is just the same helmet made to ECE spec.

I think PU sensed some competitoin in the strategy of Scorpion for both of their lines, and used their relationship wiith Motorcyclist mag to get the ball rolling on the article and test after the Scorpion DOT failure became known. The whole Dr. Sloan gimmick and their intended markets, Scorpion has already taken a huge chunk of what may have become Icon helmet buyers. They somewhat did that the right way too, by designing and building their own helmets, which seems to have allowed them to upgrade certain aspects, despite the older, heavy, possibly more brittle shell materials they seem to have used to keep costs down with the higher-end comfort features. Whether that means either one is actually safer or not is a whole other story, but it's easy to point at numbers, skew them the right direction to a crowd you know is oblvious to their meaning, and give people jsut enough information to make a poor decision in a dfferent direction.

[seamus]

:Threadjack:

Ill, I notice it says you have a 211v. Is that true or is it simply the Repsol?

:Threadjack complete:

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by seamus

:Threadjack:

Ill, I notice it says you have a 211v. Is that true or is it simply the Repsol?

:Threadjack complete:

I musta had delusions that I was Nicky when reg'd on this site. Sorry, no such luck.

[abtech]

Originally Posted by license2ill

No, I am actually saying that Parts Unlimited, distributor of Icon and Z1R, is simply rebadging existing cheap helmets, with different paint schemes and vent covers for their Icon and Z1R brand names. The Icons are specifically J-Tech(Xpeed) helmets that are "polished", and the Z1R's appear to be from various sources including Xpeed, HJC, and/or possibly another Chinese-based manufacturer. The Z1R Stance is a direct carryover of the Xpeed 503 or I think it's known as the XF or XG here, and the Stance is in fact even a few bucks less expensive than the Xpeed, same as the Icons, XF and/or XG's in fancier finishes. The Strike, the helmet that "won" that Motorcyclist comparison appears to be an older HJC design, the CL-10, I believe, it's still sold in Europe, the Z1R scooter helmet that failed DOT last year appears to be another HJC, the CS-22, or something like that, I think. The Duke, I'm not so sure about that one. Z1R claims that their helmets are made for North American headshapes, but it would make sense that they are actually just the same as the Euro head shape shells, and with the Strike being DOT-only it makes sense that it is just the same helmet made to ECE spec.

I think PU sensed some competitoin in the strategy of Scorpion for both of their lines, and used their relationship wiith Motorcyclist mag to get the ball rolling on the article and test after the Scorpion DOT failure became known. The whole Dr. Sloan gimmick and their intended markets, Scorpion has already taken a huge chunk of what may have become Icon helmet buyers. They somewhat did that the right way too, by designing and building their own helmets, which seems to have allowed them to upgrade certain aspects, despite the older, heavy, possibly more brittle shell materials they seem to have used to keep costs down with the higher-end comfort features. Whether that means either one is actually safer or not is a whole other story, but it's easy to point at numbers, skew them the right direction to a crowd you know is oblvious to their meaning, and give people jsut enough information to make a poor decision in a dfferent direction.

I made a few calls before buying my latest helmet and evidently, since early 2005, Scorpion has updated their shell laminate formulations and the current offerings would easily pass the DOT test. Snell won't release the figures, but they are substantially better than implied in the Motorcyclist article. I don't know if you have had a chance to view our informal survey on helmet ownership, but interestingly, Motorcyclist didn't test a single model of the most popular (and most owned by .org members) helmets (namely Shoei).

BTW, welcome to the org, it's refreshing to see a new member roll up their sleeves and jump right in .

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by abtech

I made a few calls before buying my latest helmet and evidently, since early 2005, Scorpion has updated their shell laminate formulations and the current offerings would easily pass the DOT test. Snell won't release the figures, but they are substantially better than implied in the Motorcyclist article. I don't know if you have had a chance to view our informal survey on helmet ownership, but interestingly, Motorcyclist didn't test a single model of the most popular (and most owned by .org members) helmets (namely Shoei).

BTW, welcome to the org, it's refreshing to see a new member roll up their sleeves and jump right in .

Thanks.

Speaking of Shoei and tests, NHTSA tested a Shoei TZR for DOT compliance last year as well, here's the report, page 7 has the impact attenuation results, which are similar to other Snell-approved lids. Again, I don't think it's clear that the lower the number the better once down to levels conservatively below those known to cause profound injuries. If injuries will not change over the range, then the important issue becomes the amount of impact energy that can be absorbed down to those survivable injury levels.

http://199.79.180.163/prepos/files/A...38025-2005.pdf

[abtech]

Originally Posted by license2ill

Thanks.

Speaking of Shoei and tests, NHTSA tested a Shoei TZR for DOT compliance last year as well, here's the report, page 7 has the impact attenuation results, which are similar to other Snell-approved lids. Again, I don't think it's clear that the lower the number the better once down to levels conservatively below those known to cause profound injuries. If injuries will not change over the range, then the important issue becomes the amount of impact energy that can be absorbed down to those survivable injury levels.

http://199.79.180.163/prepos/files/A...38025-2005.pdf

FYI, my Scorpion is DOT certified, I hadn't even noticed, but it came with the standard NHTSA paperwork in addition to the Snell blurb. Guess they made a change or two since the article was written . . .

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by abtech

FYI, my Scorpion is DOT certified, I hadn't even noticed, but it came with the standard NHTSA paperwork in addition to the Snell blurb. Guess they made a change or two since the article was written . . .

Not sure what you mean. They've always been DOT-approved, it's a self-certifying process that is only upheld by random testing by NHTSA each year of only a few examples. No batches were ever recalled by NHTSA or Snell, though I did stumble upon the EXO-700 being removed from the Snell list of certified helmets for about a month or so. A friend enquired to Snell about it at the time, and funny enough, they said that it had nothing to with a failure, but that Scorpion was changing the name of the helmet. I guess they may have thought a name change, more than anything, was a good idea, but that never happened. Definitely not too keen on that Snell response, but they may not have known of the failure at the time either, as they are not responsible for DOT testing. They do their own random testing based on shelf sales numbers, in which the Scorpions apparently passed the penetration test, which is exactly the same as the DOT requirement, but Snell does not use the same impact energies or time limits for peak accelarations, which is where the EXO-700 also failed. I guess Scorpion thought the idea that changing the name might make it go away a little easier. That Motorcyclist article was written some time after the DOT random complaince test was performed earlier in the year.

[smoothrideronli]

Very well said. I have to admit I never thought of questioning the article and I wish there could be a debate with the folks from Motorcyclists and to hear their responses to your information. I just purchased another Snell helmet and I am very happy with it...I hope I dont have to ever test whether it is better than a DOT in impact resistance. License2ill is this topic somehoe related to your job or is this something that you independently researched?

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by smoothrideronli

Very well said. I have to admit I never thought of questioning the article and I wish there could be a debate with the folks from Motorcyclists and to hear their responses to your information. I just purchased another Snell helmet and I am very happy with it...I hope I dont have to ever test whether it is better than a DOT in impact resistance. License2ill is this topic somehoe related to your job or is this something that you independently researched?

I just find it interesting, and important. I think each and every rider should ahvethese same concerns and be looking for better information and better understandings when it comes to safety equipment.

[TraumaOne]

Unfortunately for motorcyclists, it seems the helmets are the only thing tested to any real standards. Please correct me if I am wrong but all other "safety" gear is independantly "researched" by the companies that make them and there is no real data to support that this set of leathers or back protector is better than another. The only other certification I can think of is the CE certified protectors in some suits/jackets.

[sheepofblue]

Originally Posted by TraumaOne

Unfortunately for motorcyclists, it seems the helmets are the only thing tested to any real standards. Please correct me if I am wrong but all other "safety" gear is independantly "researched" by the companies that make them and there is no real data to support that this set of leathers or back protector is better than another. The only other certification I can think of is the CE certified protectors in some suits/jackets.

Yep CE level one and two

[smoothrideronli]

Well I imagine helmets would be the most important safety device. I believe that helmets are the only thing that is mandatory in most states...everything else is optional (not for me....but by law).

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by TraumaOne

Unfortunately for motorcyclists, it seems the helmets are the only thing tested to any real standards. Please correct me if I am wrong but all other "safety" gear is independantly "researched" by the companies that make them and there is no real data to support that this set of leathers or back protector is better than another. The only other certification I can think of is the CE certified protectors in some suits/jackets.

Yep, just the set of CE standards the Euros have set-up. Those are being 'loosely" enforced as well. It's up to the public to challenge them, but regardless most of hte companies are just side-stepping them anyway, with everything but the impact protectors. It's a type-approval, with an initial test, then honor system after that.

There are a number of other standards that cover suits for approval as a whole, with zoning requirements for the stitching, tear strength, abrasion resistance, impact protection, and seam burst performance. For boots, and for gloves. There's a few examples of approved boots, but no gloves. I emailed Alpinestars after they started showing the CE label on their website for their boots recently to ask about it. I got a response that it meant Alpinestars were high-quality, and that's it. The other thing these companies are supposed to be doing when carrying that label is providing infomation about what it means with the purchase, something else they don't appear to be doing, which can only lead ot the conclusion that they are not complying even if they are stamping the label on their goods.

The only ones that seem to be complying with the suit standards are a few small British custom leather suit makers. Those are the same manufacturers that continually win the comparison tests performed by Ride Magazine each season.

Here's some info on those available standards, how the tests are performed, the history of their development and implementation, and compliance within the industry:

http://www.bmf.co.uk/briefing/bmfBri...rcyclists.html

Here's a list of the standards for motorcyclist ppe:

http://www.roadsafety.mccofnsw.org.au/a/93.html