The Snell Foundation takes another shot to the chin

[Fred W]

So then, Toe, you've convinced me to Gutter Ride and now this, a marshmellow soft helmet. I need one that's modular. Too much PBJ stuff where it doesn't belong when doing CBA rides and eating on the run.

Anyone have a favorite modular that is DOT approved?

Ummm... I didn't think any modular helmets would pass the old Snell tests, and all real helmets sold in the US are DOT. So (if that is true) that would mean that all Modulars are DOT only.

 

[N_Lindz]

Thanks for the links TC. I'll have to keep this in mind as the liner on the ol' Shoei RF-9000 is starting to show its age.

 

[Toecutter]

So (if that is true) that would mean that all Modulars are DOT only.

True, but DOT-only is not by any means a yardstick to go by to select a helmet that will provide the highest level of protection possible. Think skid lids...

To sell a helmet in the US legally, the manufacturer must attain DOT certification. They do not have to submit to Snell, but attaining a Snell cert allows them to ask more money for the helmet, according to this article.

The numbers produced by the tests performed by Motorcyclist Online put measurable effectiveness to impact absorption. Although the tests are somewhat dated, they are the most recent I have found and the Z1R performed better than more expensive helmets. Why wouldn't their modular offering be as good in comparison to other brands' modulars as their full-face model is to the others?

So then, Toe, you've convinced me to Gutter Ride and now this, a marshmellow soft helmet.I need one that's modular. Too much PBJ stuff where it doesn't belong when doing CBA rides and eating on the run

Well, knowing of your superior riding skilz, I have no doubt that you'll be easily able to get the helmet latched shut in time for any impact you might receive and, quite frankly, I even wonder why you bother worrying about an impact to your head, taking into account the previously-mentioned superior riding skilz.

As for myself, I love the idea of modular helmets, but I see peeps riding all the time with them open. Unless it's latched closed, there's no more protection than a 3/4 helmet. Knowing myself fairly well, I'd only open it to allow more distractions, such as eating, etc...so, I choose not to wear one, thereby forcing myself to ride while distracted less, knowing I probably wouldn't have time to get it closed in a crash situation. YMMV

I spoke to a guy the other day who rides with one, and he said he usually leaves it un-latched and mostly closed, in order to let more air in when it's hot out. :blink: Again, I'd rather sweat than bleed, so I'll stick with a onesie. I can't afford to lose any of the meager good looks I already have, and I really would not want to be a disabled burden to anybody else. My neighbor across the street is one, confined to a wheelchair since a car crash, due to a brain injury. Coincidentally, he also shares my first name, so I have plenty of opportunity to regularly remind myself of one possible future Bob, that this Bob would rather avoid if at all possible....

 

[TILAM]

Couple of things to add to this debate.

First a modular helmet will never meet Snell as it can't pass the forward impact test. There are no 3/4 helmets that meet Snell requirements. This fact is beyond the impact intensity question.

Second is that DOT is a volantary test by the manufacturer. Other than DOT setting the standard it does not police it. It is up to the manufacturers to do the tests and "say" they meet it. (Think about lead paint in kid's toys and melamine in baby formula, helmets will be coming from China soon if not already). I know that there will be a "Liabilty" debate but those can be long and drawn out and the one with the deepest pockets can hold out the longest.

Snell will go to stores and pick helmets at random and test them. I like the fact that an independant source is testing them.

So is a DOT safer than a Snell? I think the difference is marginal in the real world and when M2010 filters through it will be a mute point. The most comfortable, quiet and best vented hemets are typically the more expensive Snell ones and those features are some of the reasons I don't mind wearing a helmet to ride.

 

[chrisflock]

Also, keep in mind, there are non-DOT helmets out there, they are just required to be labeled as 'not for street use' or some such.

I don't believe that there are any completely non-approved modular helmets, though, as the 'not for street use' are either real cheap kids dirtbike helmets or novelty helmets...

 

[squeezer]

To be honest, seems much ado about not much at this point since all the bitching is about Snell M2005. The new Snell M2010 seems to line up pretty nicely with what the critics were asking for in the first place. Thanks, NYT, for jumping on the bandwagon after the parade had already passed.

Of course, then again, I guess all current Snell certified helmets on the market are M2005...

 

[Jack Flack]

Of course, then again, I guess all current Snell certified helmets on the market are M2005...

This is the crux of the matter. Those M2005 Snell helmets will be on the market for several years. So I don't think the parade has mostly passed. This is still a timely issue.

What I'm not clear about is how the M2010 standard compares to DOT or the Eurpean standard. I look for the latter two, because IIRC anything that meets the European stanrd will not meet M2005.

 

[Bokerfork]

It's not who started this thread but who started the original thread questioning Snell standards. Thanks to that thread I've replaced both mine and Anne Marie's hemets with ECE 22-05 certified Shark Brand helmets.

I hate (love) you Toecutter.

Thanks. (I think)

Mark

 

[03silverbullet]

A response from Snell regarding the new standards:

Thanks for your query. Although the Snell 2010 standards represent a break with previous Snell requirements, they continue, rather than improve upon,

Snell demands for protection. The real difference is that Snell M2010 is

compatible with the European mandatory ECE 22-05. Larger sized Snell M2005 helmets might meet ECE 22-05 but the smaller sizes did not. Since no manufacturer wanted to market the larger sized half of a model line over there, M2005 was effectively locked out. Manufacturers and riders might choose to go with Snell certification but they are compelled to use DOT in the US and ECE 22-05 in Europe.

M2010 helmets in all sizes will look and weigh pretty much the same as their

M2005 counterparts. The larger sizes, 60 cm head circumference and up should hardly change at all. But as head sizes go below 60 cm, M2010 helmets will be progressively softer. At least one Snell critic has leapt to the conclusion that therefore these helmets must be safer. In fact though, there is no data supporting the idea that helmets any softer than current Snell M2005 units are any more protective. The M2005 peak G criterion is conservatively set below our best estimate of the threshold of injury.

The advantage of Snell standards is that they demand protection in bigger hits than either DOT or ECE 22-05. The helmet must limit the peak G's but it must be able to do so until the impact event is over and done. If a helmet gives out before then, it doesn't matter how soft it was at the start, by the end, it's become like concrete passing the remaining impact straight through to the rider. Just like Snell M2005, M2010 demands protection from bigger hits. And now riders in Europe will have access to this bigger hit protection just as riders in the US have had for many years.

Thanks for your interest.

Ed Becker

 

[Toecutter]

It's not who started this thread but who started the original thread questioning Snell standards. Thanks to that thread I've replaced both mine and Anne Marie's hemets with ECE 22-05 certified Shark Brand helmets.

My new Z1R Venom (2010 model) is ECE 22-05 certified, and a local dealer (after letting me ride-test it) sold it to me for $130 out the door (149.95 retail).