Revised Snell standards coming

[FJRMGM]

some of you may remember that in mid-'05, Motorcyclist mag ran a helmet test in which they said the Snell standard made for helmets that are too "hard", that is, the material used in the helmet shell and lining allowed to much of the impact force to be transmitted to the users head.

Motorcyclist advocated the Euro standard because it used softer lining material and shell material. Basically, Motorcyclist said the high dollar helmets were not good and gave their best rating to a DOT-only approved $150 polycarbonate helmet.

This article cause a storm of controversy and several helmet manufacturers dropped advertising with Motorcylist.

But, Motorcyclist mag was right. I just got the latest edition and Snell is revising their standards to more conform with Euro and FIA helmet standards, which is good for all of us helmet wearers.

I applaud Snell for revising their standards.

 

[quicksilver]

I applaud Snell for revising their standards.

Golf clap.

Nice to see people driven by data and legitimate experts.

 

[Mike-H]

I applaud Snell for revising their standards.

Golf clap.

Nice to see people driven by data and legitimate experts.

And possibly & more then likely the drop in sales (the main reason for change in all business)

 

[FJRMGM]

"And possibly & more then likely the drop in sales (the main reason for change in all business) "

yes - sometimes the almight dollar does help to influence change.

 

[Mike-H]

"And possibly & more then likely the drop in sales (the main reason for change in all business) "
yes - sometimes the almight dollar does help to influence change.

It's another case of the right thing done (for us as riders) for the wrong reason.....& that can be scary can't it.... .....

 

[James Burleigh]

That's good news. As stated earlier here, I bought a non-SNELL helmet for just that reason. I wear a SUOMY British-certified now, with a SNELL back up sitting on the shelf in my garage.

After reading the article, it seemed like such a no-brainer (better than a smashed-brainer :glare: ) that there was a problem. But I bet you're right, MH--they responded to market pressure. But that's cool. That's why and how the market works.

Jb

 

[Toecutter]

I just got the latest edition and Snell is revising their standards to more conform with Euro and FIA helmet standards, which is good for all of us helmet wearers.

Got a link or some pasted text for the rest of us to read?

IMHO, it would be great if helmet manufacturers would primarily work toward a design that minimizes the amount of force transmitted to the brain (as the helmets were originally tested by Motorcyclist Mag), while maintaining enough rigidity to take the hard shots.

 

[Scythian]

From the Snell webpage under 'Draft Standards':

The change in drop mass specifications also imposes changes in impact testing. The 5.0 kg drop mass specification for all head sizes in previous Snell standards virtually assured that a helmet meeting impact requirements on the largest appropriate head form would also meet those requirements when tested on smaller head forms. The new mass specifications remove that assurance. For M2010, helmets which meet requirements on a particular head form may fail if tested on a different head form. Moving up to a larger, heavier head form will lead to greater stresses in the liner and shell and may cause the helmet to fail catastrophically, particularly against the hemispherical anvil.

Nah. The new 2-impacts standard is going to be based on different head forms forcing the Larger (normal adult) sized helmets to be as comparatively stiff as the small sizes thus guaranteeing that your nogging will fail before the helmet does.

It looks like the Snell standards are scientifically designed to leave a nice, unbroken helmet to pour your brains out of....

 

[FJRski]

I believe a reprint of the piece is posted here - - sorry - - no clicky

https://motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/hatz/

https://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/..._helmet_review/

 

[Clark Kent]

"And possibly & more then likely the drop in sales (the main reason for change in all business) "
yes - sometimes the almight dollar does help to influence change.

Is sure does. Now we will see all the "soft" "better" "cheaper" helmets go from $150.00 to $500.00+ because they are the better helmet!

Good and best is = to higher cost!

Remember: "You get what you pay for" You just usually get stuck paying too much. CK

 

[Clark Kent]

From the Snell webpage under 'Draft Standards':

The change in drop mass specifications also imposes changes in impact testing. The 5.0 kg drop mass specification for all head sizes in previous Snell standards virtually assured that a helmet meeting impact requirements on the largest appropriate head form would also meet those requirements when tested on smaller head forms. The new mass specifications remove that assurance. For M2010, helmets which meet requirements on a particular head form may fail if tested on a different head form. Moving up to a larger, heavier head form will lead to greater stresses in the liner and shell and may cause the helmet to fail catastrophically, particularly against the hemispherical anvil.

Nah. The new 2-impacts standard is going to be based on different head forms forcing the Larger (normal adult) sized helmets to be as comparatively stiff as the small sizes thus guaranteeing that your nogging will fail before the helmet does.

It looks like the Snell standards are scientifically designed to leave a nice, unbroken helmet to pour your brains out of....

WHAT BRAINS?????

I have always been told (by all who have never ridden a bike) that anyone who rides a motorcycle has NO brains!

CK

 

[Bounce]

I have always been told (by all who have never ridden a bike) that anyone who rides a motorcycle has NO brains!

you musta misunderstood them. they didn't mean everyone. they meant just you! :blink:

 

[Geezer]

The best thing to come out of this is the awareness of the different certifications and what they mean. I always assumed DOT was the minimum standard and that SNELL was the next step above DOT, therefore better under all conditions. Now I know that a SNELL helmet in not necessarily better than a DOT helmet and I can choose based on how I ride and the protection that I believe is best for me. I know I can't predict the circumstances and conditions of a crash, should it happen, but I can play the odds and buy the helmet that's best for my average ride.

 

[PauHana]

Agree with Geezer, always thought Snell should offer better protection than just plan DOT. Now I wonder if it's time to hang the Shoei RF-1000 on the wall and get another helmet. Looks like time for a little more investigation............

 

[PauHana]

Just looking at a Shoei Review on WebBikeworld.com. Noted the following comments

Shoei's AIM+ (Advanced Integrated Matrix plus Multiple Fibers) combines fiberglass, organic fibers and some proprietary "high performance fiber" (which looks a lot like carbon fiber) in a patented mixture that keeps the helmet light in weight while offering high levels of protection. The RF-1000 is both DOT and Snell approved in the U.S.A., and ECE 22.05 and ACU Gold approved in Europe.

So can this mean that the RF-1000 would meet all four standards or does Shoei make two different helmets, one for Euorpe and one for US markets in order to meet requried standards? One helmet to meet all standards would make manufacturing sense.

If it's one helmet with different names RF-1000 (US) and XF-1000 (Think that is Euro p/n) could this mean that other manfactures have helmets sold in the US that are rated for ECE and we just don't know it due to labeling requirements?

Just something to think about.

 

[Clark Kent]

I have always been told (by all who have never ridden a bike) that anyone who rides a motorcycle has NO brains!

you musta misunderstood them. they didn't mean everyone. they meant just you! :blink:

I GOT THAT! kind of makes your comment moot!

CK