[leason]

I always just assumed that certifications were certifications. Meaning that the US DOT standard was probably less than private standards like Snell. This article somewhat contradicts that and their research was very interesting to me. You guys might want to check this out if you are not familiar with the helmet safety debate:

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

Hope you find it beneficial. It has certainly made me rethink my desire to get a nice new Shoei with snell cert...

-Lee

 

[kevinwilly]

SEARCH BUTTON!

i am tired of having to comment every time i see this article....
If a helmet is SNELL approved, it'll probably be fine. Higher end helmets just have some better features.

This article uses somewhat skewed testing to make the Z1R helmets appear the best. Because Z1R paid for the testing (or something like that, i can't remember the exact circumstances). Search for my other comments on this, you'll see what i mean....

 

[leason]

Oh. I just got :urowned

Just trying to share something I thought was interesting. Will search more.

-Lee

 

[kevinwilly]

Oh. I just got :urowned

Just trying to share something I thought was interesting. Will search more.

-Lee

I don't mean to stop you from posting things, i'm just really passionate about helmet design, and while this article SEEMS very objective and informative, it's really easy to get the wrong idea about helmets from it.

DOT and SNELL testing is also kind of skewed, but i'm not getting into that right now...

 

[jim schmidt]

Like a bad penny...

 

[drfaulken]

SEARCH BUTTON!

i am tired of having to comment every time i see this article....
If a helmet is SNELL approved, it'll probably be fine. Higher end helmets just have some better features.

This article uses somewhat skewed testing to make the Z1R helmets appear the best. Because Z1R paid for the testing (or something like that, i can't remember the exact circumstances). Search for my other comments on this, you'll see what i mean....

If you can find any information about Z1R paying for the test I'd be interested to see that, as the article did guide my helmet buying purchase. I am extremely surprised that any "sponsorship" claims didn't come up from the SNELL foundation in their two rebuttals.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't think it makes sense for a magazine to piss off so many VERY rich advertisers such as Arai, etc to slam their SNELL helmets in favor of a DOT helmet manufacturer no one has ever heard of.

 

[kevinwilly]

If you can find any information about Z1R paying for the test I'd be interested to see that, as the article did guide my helmet buying purchase. I am extremely surprised that any "sponsorship" claims didn't come up from the SNELL foundation in their two rebuttals.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I just don't think it makes sense for a magazine to piss off so many VERY rich advertisers such as Arai, etc to slam their SNELL helmets in favor of a DOT helmet manufacturer no one has ever heard of.

They didn't PAY for the test... i originally researched this all about a year ago... maybe 9 months. I dont remember exactly what the deal was. I'm just saying they had a hand of some kind in making the testing happen.

The thing is: these helmets were tested in one way. That's it. Onto a flat surface. Shoei and Arai helmets, as well as many other of the more expensive brands, can withstand hits almost anywhere at lower G forces, and on any shaped surface.

Not to say that ANY helmet on the market today is unsafe. They are all excellent. But Shoei, Arai, Suomy, etc are a little bit better. This test is very inconclusive, and they won't admit their shortcomings at all. I just have problems with that.

Helmet testing numbers, in general, are VERY misleading. Just buy the helmet that fits you the best. End of story. You get points for having it look cool, also.

FYI, i have a scorpion. I have 100% faith in it. I paid 200 bucks for it, and would not trade it for a shoei or arai. It failed the DOT penetration test once last year. Whatever.

 

[pitts]

I read this article a while back when it came out in motorcyclist. They even have a second article a few issues later that answers a lot of questions that were brought up.

It says in the article "we also did an edge hit onto a scary-looking piece of upright steel bar." So I don't know why you think they only did it on flat surfaces. I know snell did it on a spherical surface, and a piece of barstock with the end cut off is technically a flat surface. When you think about it, the barstock is probably more dangerous, and more likely to emulate a collision that may occur in real life.

I thought the article was well written and very informative. You do have to keep in mind that they are a magazine, not a helmet safety foundation.