Modern Vespa

This has been discussed before, but I found new information on the sense (or better: non-sense) of SNELL-certified helmets.

This NYT article covers it.

Unfortunately, I could not find helmets without SNELL cert that fit me. Darned SNELL!

Hmmm, most interesting.

I think when I am next in the EU, I shall look for a helmet with that standard.

Good read, thanks Arno.

Last I checked, Shark helmets were deliberately un-Snell.

EDIT: Oh, you wanted it to FIT? Nevermind.

I don't know. I can't see myself specifically *avoiding* a helmet that has SNELL certification just because of this article. I've heard both sides of the argument, I "get it" - it's just not something I can bring myself to lose sleep over. Having a helmet that fits properly means having a helmet you will wear - and correctly - all the time. If that means a SNELL sticker is on the back, so be it.

Sharp UK brings another rating system that I find of interest.

http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/

Totally agree Masala! I could care less about who's sticker is on my helmet! Provided it fits properly, is comfortable and it saves my bean from being split in two, that's all that matters. If it's also cool enough (temperature wise) for me to wear, then I would thank the helmet God's.

This article looks like the article that discussed the testing but it has new conent and dicussion on the new Snell testing. I findi it interesting that the only way you can confirm which Snell standard is being met is to dig deep into the helmet, under the pads, to check the polystyrene for the M2005 or M2010 rating. Was this done to make it hard for the consumer to shop for one standard over another? I think the last line of the article sums it up.

Masala and TJ,

I'm a bit lost with what I think you are saying. If you read that article and have followed this discussion earlier, you should agree that there seem to be different standards on how to protect our head (brain) from impact, and that the SNELL standard(s) want to expose our brains to more gs than other standards. More gs means more severe concussion. Do you want that, or do you not care?

It is rhethoric to say 'wear the helmet that fits and don't worry about the sticker that's on it'. If you follow the reasoning why SNELL's standards are NOT good for our brains in case of an impact, then you would want to have a well fitting helmet without SNELL conformity.

My point is to bring this to your (all) attention, so that the fortunate of you, who can find more than one helmet that fits, can select the one that hopefully has a 'healthier' impact standard built-in. Thank you.

Sorry if my response seemed flip ... but I truly believe that the various ratings are very self serving and the true value of a helmet depends entirely upon one's comfort level. If you aren't comfortable with it, what is the point?

I don't even want to think about how much money I have spent on helmets in the past year! In my quest to find even ONE helmet I am comfortable with, I have read more than I care to remember on the subject. I know the ideal helmet (for me) exists ... I just haven't found it yet!

I have been through several helmets which sit on my shelf in the spare bedroom unused or which have been sold or given away for one reason or another. Mostly, they were retired because they are uncomfortable, too heavy, too hot or just bloody terrible all around. Each of them has DOT stickers on them.

I don't have any Snell rated helmets (yet) but plan to within the next week or two. You can bring all the scientists and their "opinions" you want, but in the end, I am looking for "the" helmet which is going to do the job for me, my head shape, my head size, my riding conditions and my personal comfort.

Yes, I read the article but it is all more of the same stuff I have been reading for the past year. Mostly, none of the scientists opinions matter if I can't or won't wear it!

I think the helmet industry is about to go through a MAJOR metamorphosis because it is the one area that is sadly lacking in truly excellent engineering. I mean, most of us are wearing styrofoam balls wrapped in fiberglass, or some other type of shell. Is that the best the engineers can do? I don't think so!

I think we will soon see some really innovative helmet designs which will make all these discussions quite moot. In fact, the only point in that article that I agree with was: I don't think the helmets we wear today are much good for anything ... but they are much better than nothing. Technology needs to advance a lot in this area.

I'm curious, if a helmet had a DOT rating and no others, would you ever know if it had identical properties to a helmet that was Snell rated. I think it could be beneficial if the consumer also knew the pass or fail rating of all helmet tests to make an informed decision.

I think there is some value to the Snell standards. Here is some info that I found on Wikipedia.

"However, the DOT standard does not test the chin bar of helmets with them,[6] while the Snell (and ECE) standards do."

So, the chin bar is kind of important to me. That's the main reason that I wear a full-face helmet. If the DOT standard doesn't even bother testing it, then it may not work.

Also, the DOT standard is voluntary. It's on the honor system. It's up to the manufacturer to do the testing and then they slap the sticker on. There is no checks in the system. So, if a helmet has the Snell certification, then at least you know it really has met some standard, albeit maybe not the perfect standard.

For a long time, there were no standards for bicycle helmets. So I have always bought Snell bicycle helmets, so that I knew the helmet had been tested to some reasonable standard.

After reading this article though, I am very disappointed that the Snell Foundation has not been as prudent as they should. With all of the modern knowledge about deformable structures and crush zones, I am surprised that they did not adapt their standard earlier.

I think Bluebell mentioned getting an ECE helmet. If it doesn't say DOT, then most states won't allow you to wear it. The police were actually pulling people over this summer in Austin to verify that their helmets were DOT approved.

Thank you, because that is exactly the point.

I agree with you that better have a helmet that fits well and you wear it (but it knocks you with 300gs) than a helmet that is softer but you won't wear it because it doesn't fit. That's why I was hoping to have more choices between grades of softness, of helmets that all fit perfectly.

One can dream, no?

They had different priorities. They were trying to achieve an outer shell that couldn't be punctured by random objects. In doing so, they inadvertently were requiring very stiff outer shells that happen not to absorb much of the impact that a motorcycle rider is far more likely to encounter. It's a classic case of good intentions gone wrong.

Sadly, some people have to suffer with lifelong brain injuries because they bought into the Snell hype.

I realize that they were trying to prevent punctures, but I still don't think they were thinking straight.

I wonder if they use the same standard for the SA (auto racing) helmets. Most auto racing organizations require that your helmet be Snell approved. So, my husband doesn't really have a choice. However, he is probably more likely to hit his head in the same spot twice. He's seat belted into a car and should pretty much stay in about the same place. Maybe they need different standards for auto racing and motorcycles.

DOT isn't voluntary, it's mandatory but it is up to the manufacturers to test their own helmets and decide if they're compliant. There are checks in the system. The NHTSA tests a sampling of helmets every year:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/comply/fmvss218/

Not that I'm defending the way DOT compliance is tested. They don't test all helmets for sale and helmets are only tested after they're on the market. Helmets that fail NHTSA testing will undergo either a voluntary or mandatory recall, but again it's up to the manufacturer to conduct this. Unlike, say, a car, manufacturers (and even most retailers) have no idea who bought their helmets.

I appreciate the personal mention, as since you went so far, I'll respond. Perhaps I didn't read the article closely enough, or perhaps I just didn't comprehend what I read. What I got re: G's from the article was that a helmet must be able to withstand (2) 300G (now 275) impacts to earn the SNELL certification. I did not infer that a SNELL helmet will impart 300G to my head in the event of an impact whereas a DOT-only certified helmet will not.

I get the "soft, soft, soft" bit, but if my recollection of physics classes is still correct,

Force = Mass x Acceleration (F=MA)

In this case, "M" is the mass of your head + helmet, and A (or (-A), as it were) is the negative acceleration of your head hitting a moving or stationary object - a car, the pavement, etc. The Force in that equation won't change much - emphasis on much - with a change in hardness of a 2" thick styrofoam cocoon for your head.

I'm not a physicist, and I haven't tested this theory. On paper, it makes sense to me. In reality, it may not, but I don't want to ever find out.

I'm more confused then ever on this subject now. but I guess some helmet is better then none.

Here is the original article that the NYT refers to. It gives a complete explanation of g-forces transmitted to the head, the difference between DOT and Snell standards, helmet design and construction, and an actual test of the differences. It clearly states that the g-force in the standard is transmitted to the head.

This article is a must read if you are interested in this topic.

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

All a SNELL sticker tells you is that the helmet was tested by Snell, passed their test and the manufacturer then paid a royalty to SNELL for every helmet bearing the sticker. A no-name Chinese import could be made to the very same standards, and to save money, not bear a SNELL sticker.

One also has to wonder, with all the research that has been done in terms of head protection, why SNELL has just recently "seen the light" and adopted testing regimes in use since the 80's. It would be different to me if the new SNELL standard was some kind of new, pioneering approach, but it isn't. SNELL was 20+ years late coming to the table with their "new" (for them - old for everyone else) testing standards, which I don't find impressive. That they stuck to 300 Gs for years after science and medicine clamored for lower G force standards is not a jewel in their crown.

But, I'm just a cynic.

Al

1st edit: Physics edited out by popular demand

2nd edit: Never mind

3rd edit: Silliness deleted as well

Are you going to stay out this time or just stay ? L

So Snell will lower its standard to DOT and EU, and still charge more is that what is going on?

"The M2010 Snell standard will drop its maximum allowable g's from 300 to 275. It will also adopt graduated-weight headforms."

I guess I don't get what's "non-sense" about this. A new way of looking at how impacts really happen to a helmet is adopted by a safety group...seems fine by me.

Personally, I'll wear an Arai or a Shoei, Snell rating and all, over some of the Dot trash I see flooding the store shelves lately.

The main thing though, all arguments aside, is to wear the things. Dot or Snell.

Not that I'm defending SNELL, but they're simply reacting to increased criticism. I'm sure this has led to industry pressure from the companies paying them the royalties you mentioned. Then it took them a few years to come up with the new standard.

While I don't see much point in criticizing them for changing now (hey, good for them), SNELL definitely deserves criticism and increased scrutiny for failing to do so for so long. You're right to imply they have interests other then safety. Nope. SNELL M2010 is intended in part to allow helmets to pass all three standards. SNELL M2005 directly conflicted with ECE certification because of the contentious issue of hardness. ECE isn't a lower standard; it's considered to be more applicable to real-world conditions and forces. SNELL is basically admitting that critics have been right for years.

Interesting read, thanks Arno.

sharp.direct.gov.uk/ shows inconsistencies among brands. Some Arai are rated at the bottom of the pile and all but 1 system helmet has a chin failure rate!

I think this is the best thing in the whole article

at the end of the day most riders buy for looks, fit, comfort. a very small percent of riders do any safety research at all. I know I was looking for a helmet that was quiet. and thats all I cared about

louisq makes reference to the Sharp scheme for helmets.

It bothers me rather that the British Government introduced Sharp. While it is useful, bike shops rarely make reference to it, and it undermines ECE.

If the UK doesn't like ECE testing it should go back to the BSI standard and not have schemes like Sharp that very few know about.

"...[it is a] fact that the Snell Foundation will continue to certify helmets made under the Snell M2005 standard until March 31, 2012."

"Mr. Newman has estimated an impact of 200 to 250 g's to the head corresponds to a severe brain injury, that a 250 to 300g impact corresponds to a critical injury, and that a hit over 300 g's is often not survivable."

So, how would you like your outcome, should it happen? Just severe, critical, or even not survivable? By me too. If a bit late for Snell to change their thinking, and still not implementing it right away (see above). How do you know it is trash? By the price? Like that $79.95 helmet that bested them all?

Personally, I have to wear Arai helmets, because they are the only ones I could find that cater to oval head shapes, like mine. I'd rather have my $400 helmets made a bit safer, though. Without a non-sensical M2005 standard.

check this out on web bike world.... it is a nice supplement to the discussion here

http://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcycle-helmets/snell-2010-standard.htm

Plus, I think some of the acceleration graphs explain some of the stuff a little better.

One thing I have noticed about the more expensive helmets is the quality of materials and lighter weight. The padding on my Shoei is much better quality and is staying attached to the helmet better than my HJC did.

If a helmet is lighter weight, I would think that could be a positive in an accident. The more weight your whole head has, the more it will accelerate; the harder it is to stop. Maybe is it not very significant though. I know that I have less difficulty turning my head in high speed or windy conditions with my Shoei than I did with my HJC. Better seeing capability is always good.

Kate, me love-

ECE, as well as DOT and Snell is a "Pass/Fail" standard. SHARP takes helmets that meet the minimum ECE "Pass" standards and provides comparative ratings of them. Sort of "Good, Better, Best". No other rating scheme rank orders helmets for protection performance. It is not a refutation of ECE, but a refining of it.

Eric-

Sorry if I wasn't clear enough. My post wasn't criticizing them for changing now, but as you said, for "failing to do so for so long." Yes, they do have interests other then safety, and I, for one, wonder if protection of their franchise somewhat biased their "science". Reminds me of an old WWII ballad sung by a young soldier's mother watching a parade, "They were all out of step except my son, Jim".

Based on my experience in military aviation helmet evaluation and design, I wonder if perhaps SNELL was also excessively influenced by automotive cranial impact factors, which are significantly different from PTW cranial impacts. Cars, like military aircraft, have restraint systems, for example. The Snell Memorial Foundation was formed specifically in response to the auto racing death of William "Pete" Snell in 1956, which was attributed to the complete failure of his then state of the art helmet to adequately protect him.

Al

Your head cannot accelerate significantly more than your body. The major concern is deceleration forces and how well the helmet reduces those forces in a given impact. The goal is to slow down the deceleration as much as possible. The lower the deceleration G forces, the more survivable the impact. And a lot of this takes place INSIDE the helmet. Actually, the weight of your head is more of a factor than the weight of the helmet.

Al

For most people, the head weight is the important factor. However, I have a pretty small head, and some of the helmets out there are pretty heavy. I suspect for beany heads (aka small-headed people), the helmet is a fair portion of the total weight.

In any case, if you can see better, because you can actually turn your head with a lighter weight helmet, then that is pretty useful for me.

Also, your head can accelerate pretty quickly away from your body. It's called whiplash. That's why most auto racers wear head and neck restraints (Hans devices) these days. However, on a scooter/motorcycle, your body is more likely to follow your head, since your body is not restrained.

Maybe a lighter helmet won't help the head injury as much, but it might help neck/upper spine injuries.

This, I believe, hits the nail on the (unprotected) head.

Thanks for the article. I never knew this about Snell certifications and never came across the issue researching helmets.

Sonia

If the lighter helmet provides proper impact protection, then fatigue and "whiplash" minimization are good things. Keep in mind, however, that whiplash usually arises from the body being restrained and the head being free to move in a collision. That's why cars now have mandatory head rests. Specifically to minimize "whiplash" from a freely rearward moving head attached to a restrained body in a collision.

Windbreaker-

I pondered the "double impact" test, for example. In an automotive multiple rollover, the probability of the same point of the helmet striking something more than once is reasonably high. Higher than a PTW mishap. Similarly, the penetration issue is a bigger concern if the individual is restrained when striking something.

In all reality, Snell standards were more "different" than they were "Better".

Al

Thanks for that link. It is an overwhelmingly long article (particularly if you are hungry). So, I've taken the liberty to snip just one or two paragraphs that I find summarize it nicely:

"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.

There's no good reason to think things are different here in the States than in Germany, Britain and Finland, all modern, well-developed, superbike-rich countries. Heads are heads, asphalt is asphalt, and falling bodies operate under the same laws of physics there as they do here in America.

If you ask most head-impact scientists or the representatives of the European helmet manufacturers how they like the Snell M2000/M2005 standard, they will generally tell you it's unrealistic, based more on supposition than on science, and forces manufacturers to make helmets that are stiffer than they should be.

If you ask the representatives of many of the top Snell-approved helmet companies, they'll say the Snell standard is a wonderful thing, and they'll imply helmets certified to lower-energy standards-that would be any other standard in the world-are suspicious objects, like smoked clams from the 99 Cents Only store. And not as good at protecting you in an extremely high-energy mega-crash as a Snell-approved helmet is.

What the Snell advocates won't tell you is that when these same makers sell their helmets in Europe, Japan and the U.K., they are not the same helmets they sell here, and they're not Snell rated. They are built softer, tailored to conform to exactly the same ECE or BSI standards as the European makers.

If you get these two groups of folks in a room together and ask these questions, we'd suggest wearing a helmet yourself."

That said, don't trust my selection and do yourself a favor: read the whole damn thing.