Will the SNELL Certification Get You Killed?

[James Burleigh]

Some of you know that I crashed my FJR, creating a lively debate around the video that had been posted on YouTube.

My Crash Discusson Thread--video no longer available.

Well, I was wearing an Arai SNELL-approved helmet, and it saved my life. The helmet strike was extremely violent, as evidenced by the scuff marks on the TOP of the shoulder of my leather jacket (where did my head have to go for THAT to happen) and my lingering hung-over feeling three months later.

But I've concluded that if I had not been wearing a SNELL-approved helmet I would not have had the concussion and lingering side effects.

As we Boomers age, we can tolerate fewer G-forces being transferred to our brains. I'm not making all this up. It comes from this manifesto published in Motorcyclist magazine earlier this year:

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

My accident it turns out is what 99% of motorcycle helmet-strike accidents are like: No, not hitting a brick wall at 90 MPH. The typical stike is equivalent to sitting on your bike, stationary, and falling over. Even if you are going 90 MPH and skid half a mile, the strike force is equivalent; the rest is scraping.

The problem, in summary, is that to pass the SNELL test the helmet has to have a RIGID outer shell. Well, it turns out that you actually want to have a more brittle outer shell to absorb some of the impact. What doesn't get absorbed by a more brittle shell goes to your cranium and then your brain.

Since reading this article and having my accident, I have changed my helmet-buying behavior. I originally replaced my damaged Arai with another Arai, but tomorrow am going down to Cycle Gear to exchange it for a European-only certified SUOMY. Also, I bought an ICON that is at the lower range of G-force transferance for SNELL-certified helmets (see table in article).

If you're over 50 you may want to consider the amount of G's your helmet will transfer to your brain in the event of a crash.

JB

 

[Toecutter]

If you're over 50 you may want to consider the amount of G's your helmet will transfer to your brain in the event of a crash.

Well, that may explain a lot toward the debilitating brain injury recently suffered by a friend of mine after hitting a deer at 30mph. He also got a broken jaw out of the deal. Not sure what brand of helmet he was wearing, but he had a penchant for the best money could buy in all aspects of his toy collection.
Thanks for the info. Interesting reading.

 

[Mike-H]

Ok....rap your mind around this....Shoei RF1000 meets both snell & EC certifications.....so explain that one?.....

 

[painman]

Good read Hans. Very interesting as this is something that needs to be highly considered when purchasing a helmet brand. PM. <>< <_<

 

[chornbe]

Don't know how much stock you put in such things, but there was a guy from the Snell foundation on an interview on the MotoCast Podcast a few months back dicussing (and refuting) claims that the Snell spec was creating helmets that are too rigid. He was definitely passionate in his beliefs, I'll say that much. There was also a guy from, I believe, the MSF, downing the Snell spec, so they did both sides of the subject.

The MotoCast podcast is often fun and silly, but they do tend to be impartial and get some good information out there. It's run by "Prubert" from ST.N and a few other people.

I wouldn't call it the end-all, be-all of motorcycle information, but the more tools in the toolbox, the better, right?

At the end of all of it, I felt like I could put some amount of belief in the "Snell is too rigid" argument.

 

[BrunDog]

But I've concluded that if I had not been wearing a SNELL-approved helmet I would not have had the concussion and lingering side effects.

How in good scientific conscience did you conclude that? One sample with no control(s)?

Give me a break. I read both of those M/C articles when they published. Definately raised a brow and created some healthy debate. But I think forsaking your SNELL lid for a non-SNELL one (let alone a $99 Pep boys special) is premature and foolish.

The SNELL foundation is a not-for profit that has little motivation to create an unsafe standard. Their standard was developed through a testing methodology they believe would lead to the safest helmets. Certainly it may not be representative of the average of real world conditions. Listen to their commentaries on the topic - they rebut with sensible science in mind.

The testing agency in the articles chose a different standard. Fine. But again, this is one view and may not be representative of real-world conditions. Their model was formed on the suppostition of a normal, vertical height fall. Maybe they are on the wrong side of the safest average.

The bottom line is that more testing from more agencies and more scientists is required to develop the safest helmet. I think the Europeans are on track and their newest standards will be the best.

-BD

 

[Bounce]

The problem, in summary, is that to pass the SNELL test the helmet has to have a RIGID outer shell. Well, it turns out that you actually want to have a more brittle outer shell to absorb some of the impact. What doesn't get absorbed by a more brittle shell goes to your cranium and then your brain.

While I don't disagree with your observations (or those of Harry Hurt who's been saying this for years), I wonder about the use of the term "brittle". In the world of machinists certain terms have specific meanings. "Brittle" is such a term and indicates a material that is the opposite of "Tough". Brittle being something that easily sepparates from itself under force (think or how peanut brittle snaps when bent). A material is "tough" when it tries to hold onto itself under force (think of taffy being bent the same way as the peanut brittle).

I could be wrong, but a brittle helmet shell might not be as desirable as a semi-rigid, pliable material that is "tough" when exposed to various forces. Pliable and able to absorb impacts without shattering like something "brittle" would). I think Hurt calls them "soft" vs "hard" designs. Such a "soft" helmet would (theoretically) absorb the energy and diffuse the point of impact over a larger area while also increasing the moment of impact to reduce G forces that are transmitted to the intermediate layer (polystyrene).

 

[RTSR1/FJR]

Well, all crashes are different. You can have a more severe impact at 30 than at 90. Maybe, just maybe your here today with a hungover brain, instead of being dead, because of the Snell rating.

 

[tripletango]

Crashing your bike is what gets you killed. Harder or softer helmets are both good but neither will get you killed. If you wear one then you have nearly a 40% better chance of surviving.

Hell you can run into a brick wall at 10 mph and kill yourself. i saw an old lady get hit by the huge grill of an old bus which was hardly moving. Cracked her skull and she was dead in minutes.

My Buddies son in law was killed last week on his bike. He was not wearing a helmet. He still would not have survived if he had one on.

The brain turns to mush at around 30gs or whatever and it does not take much to do that to the head.

Sure Gs are reduced if you can slow the head down as you hit whatever. The more distance you use to decelerate your noggin the better off you are.

However don't forget that the accident you may have that causes your head to hit a sharper object like a curb. Then you will be really happy that your hard helmet did not crush in and kill you. A softer helmet may be better if you hit an object with a large surface area of your helmet but I still wear a hard helmet.

Just remember, dear friends, to ride safe then all of this is a moot point.

 

[James Burleigh]

Shoei RF1000 meets both snell & EC certifications.....so explain that one?.....

Challenge accepted:

All giraffes are animals, but not all animals are giraffes.
In other words, all SNELL-approved helmets can pass the EC certifications, but not all EC-certified helments can pass the SNELL certification.

Here's another logical model:

1. Socrates is a man
2. All men are mortal
3. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.
1. If a helmet can pass the SNELL tests, it can pass the EC tests.

2. The Shoei RF1000 passes the SNELL tests.

3. Therefore, the Shoei RF1000 can pass the EC tests.

Logical fallacy (thank you Woody Allen and Mike-H):

1. All men are motral.
2. Socrates is a man.
3. Therefore, all men are Socrates.
:glare:
1. If a helmet can pass the SNELL tests, it can pass the EC tests.

2. The Shoei RF1000 passes the SNELL tests.

3. Therefore, the EC test is equivalent to the SNELL test.

JB

Certified Philosopher

B.A., Berkeley, 19?? (that would be telling)

 

[teerex51]

Yawn... er..sorry folks, where were we?

Stef

 

[James Burleigh]

Yawn...

Stef

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

 

[Shadow King]

Yawn...

Stef

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Therefore a terrible mind is a thing to waste? :headbonk:

 

[James Burleigh]

Therefore a terrible mind is a thing to waste? :headbonk:

Touché!

 

[Toecutter]

The bottom line is that more testing from more agencies and more scientists is required to develop the safest helmet.

So should we all just park our bikes and wait until they figure it out? Not for me.
It only goes to follow that, in the light of all the latest and safest car designs (passenger and racing) with impact crumple zones, having a helmet that absorbs, rather than transmits, energy stands to be a better design. I'll wear what I think gives me the best chance of walking away from an impact until I change my mind. In the meantime, I won't be throwing away my RF-1000 either. YMMV

Next week I plan to go visit the guy with the recently acquired (6/17/06) brain injury. It's rumored that he's recovering, but not sure what that means in terms of how fully. Hopefully I'll get a chance to get a description of the accident details from his son, discuss what he was wearing and maybe even get a look at its condition.

 

[radman]

Then this magnificent

example would be the safest helmet by consensus?

Well, no chin guard, but you can't have everything......

 

[panthercity]

Therefore a terrible mind is a thing of waste. :headbonk:

Fixed...

 

[James Burleigh]

How in good scientific conscience did you conclude that? One sample with no control(s)?

We of course don't make decisions based on perfect information because we don't have perfect (i.e., complete) information. So we acquire as much evidence as we are willing to invest in with our time, and we make a decision. I"ve decided to stay away from SNELL.

JB

 

[James Burleigh]

He also got a broken jaw out of the deal.

Before starting to ride I was attracted to the half-helmets with exposed jaws. But then I saw in a motorcycle safety book results of tests by a German helmet manufacturer showing probability strike zones over all points of a helmet. (Probabilities in this case, of course, determined by percentage strikes in actual accident investigations.)

They showed two helmet profiles, left and right. And all across the profiles were numbers, which were the strike probabilities on those parts of your helmet.

Okay, here's the rub and why I only wear full-face helmets: There were only two locations that showed two-digit strike probabilities: the left chin area and the right chin area.

Conclusion: if you wear a half helmet you'll protect your brain, but you're gonna break your jaw. No thanks.

JB