[Author Index] [Date Index] [Thread Index]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: [ST] RE : Junk helmets, was Helmet Recommendation

The problem isn't meeting or exceeding the standards. The problem is
with the standards themselves. Testing for all of the standards (Snell,
DOT, BSI, ECE22-05) involve dropping various parts of the helmet from
various heights onto various objects with a human head facsimile inside.
To make a really long story really short, the Snell 2000, BSI, and ECE
22-05 standards force the construction of the helmet to be too stiff.
This stiff construction does not dissipate the energy of a collision as
effectively as the more flexible construction possible when building to
pass the DOT test. The stiffer helmets cause the head (and therefore the
brain) of the wearer to experience MORE ACCELERATION ( measured in "G"
or gravities ) than it would experience in a more flexible helmet during
any given impact. There is a direct correlation between the G
experienced by the brain and the likelihood of brain damage. More G,
more probability of brain damage. 

A happy consequence of this is that the cheaper to produce DOT certified
helmets end up providing better real world protection, and doing it at
lower cost to the rider. 

I did A LOT of research before buying a helmet, and budget was NOT an
issue for me. I bought the HJC Sy-max. 

The most concise article that I have found that is readily available is
in the June '05 Motorcyclist. I suggest reading it. I dug a lot deeper,
but this article explains things very well, and does not conflict with
any of the other data I was able to dig up. 

'06 ST
Seattle WA

-----Original Message-----
From: st-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:st-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 7:36 AM
To: ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ST] RE : Junk helmets, was Helmet Recommendation

Marc is right. It is important to remember that MEETING the minimum
standard is not the same as EXCEEDING that standard. Pricing is another
discussion altogether. 

Ed Mallett
Tillamook, OR

------- Original Message -------
>From : Marc Van Est[mailto:MarcVE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent : 8/8/2006 12:06:08 AM
To : ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc : 
Subject : RE : [ST] Junk helmets, was Helmet Recommendation

I have to throw in my two cents:
> A good friend had a low speed off last year.
>She was wearing a "budget" helmet, quite a well known brand but not an
>Arai/ Shoei/ HJC/ Shark etc. I wont mention which one, but if someone
>wants to know ping me off line.
>The helmet split when her head hit the ground, resulting in injuries to
>her jaw and severe concussion.
>We looked at the helmet, and could only conclude is was just not well
>manufactured. There's no way it should have split for the type of
>I think there is more to ....$10 head... Than we give credit. Buy a
>premium helmet and there is just that much more chance that the quality
>control is better.
>Cape Town
>-----Original Message-----
>From: st-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:st-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Emile Nossin
>Sent: Tuesday, August 08, 2006 3:50 AM
>To: ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ST] Helmet Recommendations for Headset
>>From: Kevin.Dicks@xxxxxxx
>>Once a helmet has passed all the applicable tests, any extra expense
>>only paying for comfort/fit/service etc. - you pay extra not for more 
>>protection, but for other factors.
>Well, you'd think so. But an extensive test I have here of 10 flip-up
>helmets suggests otherwise. They tested every aspect of the helmet,
>including crash tests. Some helmets did do better than others, the
>cheapest usually doing worse than the more expensive ones. The worst
>the Vemar helmet, that appeaered to have significant weak spots with
>multiple bump tests. Also the chin section on that helmet only closes
>after a lot of effort and there's even a risc that parts of the
>construction bend or break.
>The best (in terms of safety, rated "good") helmets were the Schuberth
>C2 and Shoei Synchrotec II (Caberg Justissimo 3rd in safety, middle of
>the pack in total score, BMW (= Schuberth) helmet performed bad when
>testing the damping of the chin section, but BMW said it was a
>production error which is now solved). Worst helmets were the HJC
>CL-MAX, Nolan N102, MTR K10 and Vemar VXD Dual Evo (rated good, good,
>sufficient and the last one barely sufficient).
>So there is a difference in safety and it seems that it usually (in
>case at least, except for the BMW production error) also correlated
>If someone wants to see the total results table of these 10 helmets
>(test in Dutch again, sorry), let me know.
>Triumph Sprint ST/RS mailing list
>Send list posts to ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Change your list options at www.Triumphnet.com
>Triumph Sprint ST/RS mailing list
>Send list posts to ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Change your list options at www.Triumphnet.com

Triumph Sprint ST/RS mailing list
Send list posts to ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Change your list options at www.Triumphnet.com
Triumph Sprint ST/RS mailing list
Send list posts to ST@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Change your list options at www.Triumphnet.com