Modern Vespa

I searched through a number of old helmet threads first, so don't flame me if this has been posted before - i atttempted some posting due dilligence


Anyways, POC Phil and i were having a lengthy discussion a couple months ago about helmets, and whether or not SNELL ratings were a bad thing. He had just read this article and was citing all sorts of data and experiments from it, so i went and googled the article up to repost here for your reading.

It's a VERY lengthy article, and i'll post what i consider to be an important exceprt at the bottom of this post, along with the link to the complete article, but the main fact i find very important is the following:

SNELL helmets have much stiffer padding inside the helmet, to comply with the standard set forth. Unfortunately it's TOO hard for the most typical type of accident ( ~25mph ) and as such doesn't cushion the softer blows enough. A number of SNELL approved helmets were run through the ECE ( european standard ) testing, and only a handful actually passed because the majority of them are just too hard.

Here's the segment i found most informative:

The COST 327 study investigated 253 motorcycle accidents in Finland, Germany and the United Kingdom, from '95-'98. Of these, the investigators selected 20 well-documented crashes and replicated the impact from those crashes by doing drop tests on identical helmets in the lab until they got the same helmet damage. This allowed them to find out how hard the helmet in the accident had been hit, and to correlate the impact with the injuries actually suffered by the rider or passenger. The COST 327 results showed that some very serious and potentially fatal head injuries can occur at impact levels that stiffer current helmet standards-such as Snell M2000 and M2005-allow helmets to exceed.

And remember, these guys are investigating crashes in Europe, where Snell-rated helmets are a rarity because they can't generally pass the softer ECE standard required there.

In other words, the latest relevant study, which used state-of-the-art methods and covered accidents in countries where there are plenty of 10-second, 160-mph superbikes running around, concluded that current standards-even the relatively soft ECE standards-are allowing riders' heads to be routinely subjected to forces that can severely injure or kill them. The COST study estimated that better, more energy-absorbent helmets could reduce motorcycle fatalities up to 20 percent. If that estimate is legitimate and was applied in the U.S., it would mean saving about 700 American riders' lives a year.


Here's the link to the article in full.

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/

I think SNELL ratings are stupid and anyone that says their helmet is better because it has a SNELL rating doesn't know what they're talking about. I know you need a SNELL rated helmet to race, but I've also noticed flip-up helmets and open face helmets that are SNELL approved. Go figure.
I wish there was just one approved system to determine the safety of helmets. If that were in use today, I'd be wearing a very expensive Roof helmet today instead of my Icon.

It's just interesting because if you go to any motorcycle helmet store, they push SNELL rated helmets as much safer... ( granted, they typically cost more, so this might be a sales tactic as well ) ... so all it seems to me is a misguided or misinformed organization, pushing a non-mandatory rating system that is ultimately flawed ...potentially KILLING people who might have otherwise lived. ( though to level that final point seems extreme )

-Eric

Just a reminder to future posters on this thread to keep things civil, as helmet discussions have a pretty strong reputation for turning ugly. Please set emotion and rhetoric aside and stick to the facts.

I've read this before. SNELL helmets may be too stiff, etc.

But I stand by the SNELL rating because those helmets have actually met some standard, whereas DOT helmets may or may not.

Sorry - i'm trying to keep personal opinion out of this ( honestly, i don't really have much of one other than the fact i have two SNELL rated helmets i have purchased over the years ) ...

Just putting out the information for the masses to digest, because it does speak out against what most people accept as gospel ( SNELL = SAFER )

-Eric

No, I understand where you were coming from, and I even appreciate the gist of the argument. We as humans seem to love ferreting out the non-intuitive, and this is one of those things. Whether Snell is safer or not, I cannot say.

I just wanted to remind people, as they debate this particular topic, to stay civil.

It's not so much that "snell is BAD" as much as "you CAN do better in the majority of accidents".

It's like setting public policy, there is no perfect answer. There are trade offs that you make to try to pick the best option for what is most likely to happen.

Find a helmet that fits well and doesn't distract you, then worry about the rating. DOT, SNELL, ECE will all protect you most of the time. Then it gets into the corner cases of multiple impacts, very high speed impacts, how often you replace your helmet...

I GUESS, but it seems like the SNELL helmet is designed for high-speed impacts - like if you lose the bike at 75mph+ then you're better protected in a SNELL helmet. The article states that over half of all motorcycle accidents occur under 25mph, within a mile from home, and typically when a car pulls out in front of you ( how my only serious accident occurred, incidentally).

I think they're stating that in the case of a lower speed impact, of which over half of the accidents reported happen at, you're better off with a NON-SNELL helmet ... since we all agree the DOT rating is dicey, the ECE rating seems to be the best bet.

At least, that's what i take away from the article.

I realize we're not in a perfect world, and ideally you wear a helmet that's best suited to the type of riding you're doing, that way you're best protected.

-Eric

i remember that article clearly. they're (snell) are supposed to be changing their rating standards this year for youth and smaller (xs and s) helmets because of that article because their testing didn't take into account for smaller shell sizes. it was one of the best articles i ever read and i actually went out and bought one of those $29 z1r helmets becaause of it. i ended up selling it to my roommate because it didn't feel to comfortable on my head.

Nothing wrong with the DOT rating as a spec, it's that there is no certification process so you are taking the company's word for it. If I recall DOT and ECE are close-ish as far as the spec goes.

My only concern with a softer helmet is how it holds up over time. I replace mine every two years and move my old one to the spare/loaner position so one is never more than 4 years old. I know people that will keep a helmet for 10 years or buy used ones off craigslist and in those cases I'm happy to see them in a Snell helmet.

Great article though. Very useful for making an informed decision.

I appreciate anything that challenges us to re-look at what we think. Only when we keep asking if we can do better, what's wrong with the way we are doing things now, are we able to do better. It is really the only way that we better ourselves. Especially when it comes to safety. Just look at the automobile industry over the years. Is there a perfect safety alternative, no, but things are constently getting better. 10 yrs ago the safety standards were nothing like they are now...

There is really no reason that helmet safety should be any different. Wasn't there a time when a leather cap was all you needed...

Maybe this will mean that we will be moving towards better alternatives. Alternatives that are maybe more specific to how a person rides as opposed to a 'one answer fits all' solution. Maybe we'll get something else...

It would be interesting to see what SNELL has to say about this kind of thing...

Kudos for a good article!

Read down to the bottom of the article - SNELL actually sent an angry letter, to which they debunked a bunch of the claims leveled by SNELL against their ( the magazine's ) own testing.


It's crazy stuff. Note that two prominent doctors involved in all this research were formerly employees or members of SNELL.

the scariest helmet i had was a little half shell helmet i let a friend borrow until she got one (which she said she was going to do that week). it was too big for her so she lined it with maxipads so it would fit better. and wore if like that for a couple of years because she couldn't find a helmet that "looked right" i can't even remember how many times i begged her to get a new helmet (it was already on it's last leg when i had it). she recently gave it to a friend to wear until he got a helmet and i told him that i was ready to throw that thing away 3 years ago. he didn't know about the maxipads either.

I had read that article a while ago, and similar ones. I seem to recall the the main jist of the discussion between the ECE and Snell standards concerned what goal should helmet manufacturers be aiming for: (1) make helmets that can sustain more impact forces or (2) make helmets that transmit less impact force to the head. This is the "bigger bumpers" or "better crumple zone" debate. I would prefer having less force being transmitted to my brain.

There is also the issue concerning whether a "single hit" or "double hit" standard is suitable. It would be nice if a universal standard was adopted (and which had ecological validity).

I honestly don't see how this little guy's going to survive any kind of crash, high-impact or not.




(Someone had to go there.)

It is an interesting article. Before I first read it half a year ago I was certain that it was Snell or nothing...now, well, I won't say I go out of my way to avoid Snell, but every time I see that little rating symbol on a prospective helmet buy, I instantly flashback to that article.

For me, what it all boils down to is what I ride, and what kind of crash I'm expecting. I think as scooter riders, very few of us expect to be thrown from our bikes at 90 miles an hour. That doesn't mean it won't happen (depending on the pipes, I guess ), and in that instance I'm sure the rider will wish she or he had a Snell lid on their noggin...but the majority of the time, especially for the types of bikes we ride, Snell just seems overkill to me.

I went down on a scooter in San Jose.. Go figure after riding Harleys for 25 years I reck on a freeken scooter.

I had a half face helmet on. No not a dorkey Vespa matching helmet a scorpion that looked cool. Before my head hit the ground I had to turn my body so my chin dident hit the pavement. Yea it was all in slow motion and on the way down I had the time to react and let my left shoulder and the side of my helmet take the force.

That was followed by sliding down the road with the scooter next to me.

So for now I have a flip up. I am more concerned with a long scraping of the helmet and a few little bumps on the road.

For that reason Snell testing dosent really matter to me. As I dont really plan on a few really really hard hits.

Plus riding a lot I like a lighter helmet. I did pick up a Used Nolan flip up that one of the Bastards owned and he was concerned that the flip up would flip up during inpact.


Its strange on Harleys I just used a half lid. I have gone down surfing a harley at highways speeds. When one leg got really hot you just turn to the other side. I guess seeing my friends hit objects like brick walls sides of cars. The helmets dident save their lives.

All that aside my next purchase will be a white full face. As I have learned on MV that white is one of the best colors. And I want a full face for Cannonball...

Lucky~

Yeah I only got through 1/2 of the article so far. I was going to finish the rest later. It is really long and the SNELL response is almost as long. Wow!

From what I scanned of the response SNELL didn't seem too happy. You would think they would take it as an opportunity. But what do I know...

I happen to work for a fairly large helmet manufacturer--which in the interest of non-commerciality shall remain nameless--and am quite familliar with this debate as we get asked about it all the time.

We had a design engineer that worked for us a while back who had a saying that put the whole debate in perspective--"Tell us what kind of crash you're going to have and we can build a helmet for it."

The truth is none of us know how or when or if. Or how fast or how far from home...or whether a so-called "softer" or "harder" helmet would perform better in any given impact. The best we can do is to come up with something that offers some protection in a wide variety potential impacts in a design that people are willing to wear. Hopefully, along the way it's comfortable, aesthetically appealing and has convienence features that work for the rider, but that's tertiary to this discussion.

Both the DOT and Snell M2005 motorcycle helmet standards are good standards. Which will perform better in any crash is dependent on a myriad of variables that nobody can predict.

The only thing negative (IMHO) about the DOT standard is that it is administered on the honor system. It is up to the manufacturer to determine compliance with the standard. There are and have been companies who have marketed helmets in the US as DOT-certified that have never been tested. Pretty scary...and a good reason to NOT buy a helmet from a company you've never heard of.

Snell has a decent apples-to-apples standard comparison here.

Don

They should take into consideration that scooterests tend to be a little more hard headed. Theirfore neading less head protection?

It is recommended here across the pond that you replace your ECE rated helmet after two to five years after you bought it (the recommendation depends on the manufacturer). Correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure that this is the same in the US.

When you finish with your helmet, I was told that you should cut the straps off to prevent someone else wearing or selling it as intact. Old helmets over five years old should not be worn, in my opinion.

A few things to point out about this article:

1. The Cost 327 article does not test test the success of different helmet standards. It is research that people can use to develop standards. It investigates the nature of head injuries, not the success of particular standards of stiffness.

2. Per the Cost 327 article, most accidents occur at slow speeds, but your probability of being injured and particularly severely injured is exponentially higher at speeds above 25mph. (See charts below)

In other words, the 25 mph statistic is meaningless. The statistics you want are a function of the probability wrecking at a certain speed and the probability that you will sustain each level of head injury at a given speed.

The COST 327 report actually suggests raising the median speed at which tests are conducted. This indicates that the probability of severe injury at high speeds outweighs the fact that they occur less often (i.e. you are overall more at risk in high speed rather than low speed accidents). And they suggest helmets might need to be stiffer in warning that the higher speed tests need to be supplemented with lower speed tests to make sure that the helmets don't get too stiff.

3. All the article can conclude is that SNELL helmets are no better; they are just equal. Not that they are worse.

What it comes down to, it appears, is that there is no conclusive evidence.

Well put.

interesting this came up today - ordered a Shoei Multitech helmet on Sat (need to gear up for the MN fall/winter and my 3/4 helmet and my watering eyes in the cool eve's makes for dangerous riding) anyways, the guy at the MC shop told me Snell isn't all that it is been talked up about or something like that. Take it for what it's worth - I have no worries with what I have coming (just a DOT rated helmet) and as far as sales pitches go I could have spent more $ on a Snell approved helmet granted the Shoei wasn't too cheap but felt really nice to wear - now I just have to wait a few weeks!

I would like to thank everyone who has participated in this thread, it was a well balanced discussion of a very important issue. Hopefully it will help or at least make me better informed, as I look for a FF helmet.

The rule of thumb I was told is that a helmet is good for three to five years or one use, whichever comes first.

I trust Snell further than DOT.

#1 DOT does no testing of its own; it's based on the "honor" system. Snell actually tests helmets.

Well said Don.

Dave

Most manufacturers recommend replacement after about 5 years due to the breakdown of the shock absorbing interior styrofoam.

Dave

My main helmet is DOT and ECE approved, not Snell. I specifically looked for an ECE certified helmet because, from what I understand, the standard requires that samples from every batch be tested... from a webBikeWorld article:

"Another advantage of the ECE 22.05 standard is the requirement for mandatory batch testing of helmets before they are released to the riding public. What this means to the consumer is the quality of the helmet in meeting the ECE 22.05 standard is assured by a mandatory sample testing of every production of helmets before they leave the factory, not with random testing performed after thousands of helmets with unknown quality are delivered to the dealers."

I think even this varies by state. In states that do not require a helmet, you can wear a helmet that is not agency approved at all, such as a WWI German helmet reproduction. I've never read a requirement for replacing helmets in Ohio. I know we used a pretty beat up old hand-me-down helmet as kids.

The Sports Car Club of America (SCCA) requires Snell helmets not older than two cycles. M rated or better for off-track racing and SA for on-track. So my Snell SA2000 rated helmet that I bought in 2003 will not be eligible for racing as of the end of 2010.

(I've also found it odd that I needed a $300 Snell approved Bell helmet for driving up to 50 MPH around a parking lot, in a fully enclosed car, while dodging little orange cones, yet I ride on two wheels in aggressive ignorant traffic at speeds up to 80 MPH in a $54 discontinued DOT approved helmet...)

BTW
The 'dorkey Vespa matching helmet' meets the ECE standard

Georgia law states head covering.
The helmets here are alot of the
"novelty" kind. Thats about all the
Harley guys wear.

geez i think i've posted a link to that article like 3 times here already, but it never generated this kinda buzz. i guess i'm no eric.


I think the article is VERY misunderstood. Even on its own terms, it doesn't say a Snell helmet is bad, but that Snell over-values a hard shell and doesn't value a deceleration (a soft interior). This does NOT mean Snell helmets don't do well on deceleration; just that you can't tell from the rating how well it decelerates.

well, if you suffer thru to the end of the article, they actually report their own test results of deceleration. a couple of Snell helmets actually did well on deceleration: a couple of Icons (including the Mainframe, IIRC) and the Scorpion 400. There you have it--you can have a hard Snell shell AND a "soft" interior. (this doesn't mean other Snell helmets aren't also good on deceleration--very few mfrs were willing to provide the authors with helmets to test)

Icon didn't fit me, so I got a Scorpion 400. it rocks, and the price was great.

Please DON'T just run out and buy a DOT helmet, since, as many posters have pointed out here, DOT certification is on the "honors system." At least buy one of the DOT lids that the article authors tested!

The fact that the Vespa helmet passes the ECE rating tells you that the system doesn't mean very much. The ECE system is not faultless, its just standard and doesn't tell you whether the helmet you buy is better than the one sitting next to it (since they must all pass the test in order to be sold here).

Britain used to have its own standards, and the plan is to have NCAP style testing here from 2008 so you will be able to know whether the Arai you want is really better than a Shoei, or one of those Momo Fighter helmets which look great but are like tinsel. I like this idea, since it means you can make a really informed decision about what safety level you want.

heh, i thought that was some BS too...
well, at least untill i went to the SCCA 12hrs at sebring....

needless to say, their stringent requirement for head protection is probably the sole reason for my current state. that being the ability to eat solid food and put together sentences...

it's a long story that ends with a porsche being reduced to a ball of scrap...

best,
-greasy

Tell us! Tell us!