Good Helmet Read

[ksjnx]

www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html

In case you havent read it.

Points

* Snell approved helmets foam is too stiff

*Plastic shell helmets transfer more energy to the liner over fiberglass
(plastic works better than fiberglass)

*Even the cheapest DOT approved helmets offer great protection.

[jimschmidt]

Let's just cut to the chase...

Since the article is five years old, I thought a fresh look might be useful.

Quote:
Jim,
I do recall that the Motorcyclist article had a Pep Boys helmet that did pretty well in the impact testing. Dexter Ford wrote a piece that contained some good and useful information and was written to keep the reader interested. I wrote a paper on the same data for the 2006 MSF conference without the flamboyance, attached FYI. Great impact performance doesn’t necessarily mean that the Pep Boys helmet is what I’d wear but if I did wear it, I now know the impact protection would be better than helmets costing far more. The bottom line is that the standard(s) the helmet meets determines how well it attenuates impact, not cost. The amenities of a nice helmet: good shield, comfortable interior, quiet, etc. are a separate issue and are often best on the more expensive helmets. However, they won’t protect your head any better than the Pep Boys special, at least in the type of realistic impacts we tested for Motorcyclist.

Snell 2010 incorporates some HUGE changes that I believe will improve future Snell approved helmets (Home). I know they’ll never admit it, but I have to believe that the research and testing we’ve done on this topic since the early 90s was not lost on the good folks at Snell. I hope we’ll do testing again with a new generation of M2010 helmets but I’m seeing a lot of helmets abandoning Snell and certifying to DOT and ECE, the prominent European standard. This is a great combination of standards that I often choose to use on my head, whether at the California Superbike School or riding my KLX450R in the desert. However, I don’t have any reservations about using a DOT only helmet such as the new HJC CS-10 or CS-MX.

Coverage is an equally important issue and encouraging riders to wear more coverage is a good thing. However, since we have so few states that require helmets, I fully support a rider’s choice to wear a shorty DOT lid rather than a bandana!

That’s all, I’ve got to get to work.

Ride Safe.
Dave

David Thom

Quote:
Jim,

Thanks for your message. Dave Thom and I have discussed our differences in helmet philosophy a number of times and, for me, they boil down to bigger hits versus lower G’s. At Snell, we look to maximize the level of impact a helmet can withstand while staying within conservative limits of human tolerance. Dave Thom, as I understand it, looked for helmets which would minimize the G loading while still satisfying DOT test severity levels. We think that extra capability to manage severe impacts is important. There’s hardly any limit to crash severity. DOT requires warnings that a helmet may not be sufficient for some serious crashes and we include a similar warning right on the certification label that goes inside the helmets. At the same, we doubt that lowering the G levels from the current conservative limits will yield any reduction in injury.

However, all the test results reported for that June 2005 Motorcyclist comparison were within the DOT standard’s requirements. [Becker points out that every helmet in the test met DOT standards.] If your students are willing to wear Pep Boys DOT compliant helmets, I wouldn’t want to discourage them. I think they can do better but a DOT-only helmet is still far-and-away better than a bogus helmet or riding bareheaded and can save a rider and his family a whole lot of grief.

Ed Becker

Quote:
The helmets received a more severe impact threat at the right front location. The test
surface was again asphalt pavement, but the drop height was increased to three meters
(10 ft.) for an impact velocity of 7.6m/sec (17mph). This is generally comparable to the
highest impact velocities required to meet some Snell, ECE and BSI requirements, see
Table 1. This impact velocity has also been equated to the 99th percentile motorcycle
crash impact (Hurt & Thom 1990).
Thom: Comparison Tests of Motorcycle Helmets Qualified to International Standards

This is not as slow as it seems at first blush. Elevation is the primary factor in helmet injury, not forward velocity, unless forward velocity ends abruptly. I’ve emailed someone I know at National Study Center for Trauma & EMS (here in Baltimore) to see if she can’t provide something more current than a twenty year old assumption. But the European MAIDS study has some useful information…

They found that over 80 percent of crashes were impacts with another vehicle. Over sixty percent were frontal. And they happened mostly at speeds under 50KPH (just over 30 MPH)

This table is instructive, both for information about BSI/ECE helmet performance (probably mostly BSI) and also for the impact speed distribution. Particularly notice the second and third bar.




Clearly both sides believe in their assumptions. It seems that most everyone (except me) is in agreement that you can wear a DOT-spec helmet for average crashes, like single vehicle crashes, and like lowsides. If you’ve had a crash, you can let your crash inform your thinking if you like.

I don’t really see why anyone would choose such a helmet when better options are available for a comparable cost. You’d have to believe that a helmet that protects better in more severe situations crosses a threshold of harmfulness in less severe ones, and there is no evidence to support that.

So I’m sticking with my previous advice and the advice I’ve been giving since the article was published: Put whatever you want on your own head, but don’t rely on Motorcyclist for the advice you give to others. Despite the take-away message some got from Motorcyclist, Thom didn’t make the claim that DOT helmets are generally superior, only that what he tested was. Perhaps this is the message without the “flamboyance.”

And the second part of my advice: DOT is a self-certification, essentially a promise, not a validation. If you choose a DOT helmet, make sure you buy it from one of the top-tier or mid-tier manufacturers. Other than trust, you have no way to know that it meets any helmet standard. Thom’s suggestions for DOT brand-models are consistent with this view. He recommends two helmets from the largest seller in the US, probably a safe choice. We did both agree that actual levels of compliance represent an interesting unresolved question.

Alternatively, if you like, you could just tell people who trust you that you know everything you need to know because you read a magazine article.

[ksjnx]

Just to set the record straight, I believe and get all of my factual
information from magazines, namely the national enquirer.

To be fair, maybe the term "great protection" is a little much. But overall the article IMO is pretty thorough in its analysis, doesn’t seem to be completely biased or one sided, and presents a strong argument. What I consider one if its strongest points are that besides encouraging its reader base, there certainly do not appear to be any ulterior motives out of the article. It didn’t include a coupon to pepboys for 10 percent off helmets, or endorse any particular flavor. I would be initially much more skeptical of a study endorsing a particular helmet brand or price range of helmets.

Your statements don’t necessarily seem to conflict with the article in most respects. I don't think one would argue with the benefits of a helmet with say, more features, or a better construction overall. Obviously more options can certainly play into a greater safety aspect. I know some shoei models have features like "emergency release", or something of that nature that eases an EMT's ability to remove a helmet.

Certainly this feature (and others) may mean reduced injury and greater survivability, but the term "Comparably Priced" is relative. Some of us do not have 500-700 dollars to spend on a helmet. While common sense would dictate "Spend what you can", It seems like the general consensus is to go out and spend a paycheck on a helmet, when in actuality a more affordable helmet may provide similar protection in real world conditions.

Finally, I have heard but have not done any looking myself, that 2010 snell standards are not significantly different from the m2005 standards.

[jimschmidt]

I'd describe the article as completely overstating the importance and relevance of it's small test, aggrandizingly referring to it as research. falsely claiming it was scientifically definitive, offering uninformed conclusions that promote bad advice, and a hyperbolic "bombshell" aimed simply to launch a redo of the magazine.

It's sole strength, I believe, was in being persuasively written.

I have no issue with you. And you seem like a perfectly reasonable guy. But the Motorcyclist article is like a bad penny that never goes away. Any annoyance you sense is directed toward them for using their big platform so irresponsibly.