Well when it came time to buy my motorcycle, I did a lot of research on motorcycle helmets. After digging up a bunch of information last year, I concluded that SNELL helmets were just too hard. I'm more likely to go down at 45 than 95, as I don't commonly ride that fast.

Well it seems more attention has been brought to SNELL's certification standards being too rigid, at least for street riding.

Sadly even when SNELL updates their helmet certification, the current certification will still be on shelves until 2012.

The good part still stands, a SNELL approved helmet is still very likely to protect you.

http://www.autoblog.com/2009/09/28/nyt-straps-on-its-helmet-and-wades-into-the-brain-bucket-controv/

Thats an interesting article for sure. I have always held SNELL above DOT for 2 reasons. 1 - when I raced MX the sanctioning body required SNELL, 2 - do I trust the government when it comes to helmet testing? I don't know. I know it is the federal DOT. I wouldn't trust my state DOT to fill a pot hole.

I'm of the same mindset, Nick. Even though I won't dismiss the Snell rating (as you say, the approved lids will still protect you), I do think that the European standards are a little more realistic in their testing methods. I typically refer to the Sharp testing results whenever I consider a helmet:

http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/

We've talked a bit about this before, here are some relevant threads:

Thread 1 (http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=15803)
Thread 2 (http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=26669)
Thread 3 (http://www.ninjette.org/forums/showthread.php?t=14970)

Well snell is finally updating their standards. Compared to their past stance that "In one e-mail, to a member of the Norton Owners List, Snell's Executive Director called our article "an attack," perpetrated by "malcontents." " link (http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html)

Thats an interesting article for sure. I have always held SNELL above DOT for 2 reasons. 1 - when I raced MX the sanctioning body required SNELL, 2 - do I trust the government when it comes to helmet testing? I don't know. I know it is the federal DOT. I wouldn't trust my state DOT to fill a pot hole.

Amen, POTHOLEs in Michigan are Crazy! :crazyloco:

Ive watched the workers just 'toss a shovel load into a pothole, then just move onward to the next". No tamping it down, adding more to Level of the road or such. Lazy Overpaid workers! How many times have you michigan ppl rode past such workers and yet ONLY see 1 man acutally Working , while the other 4-5 guys just stand with shovels in hand WATCHING the 1 guy work? :mad:

side note: I have 2 scorpion helmets... ummm their DOT tested, but arent they also SNELL certified?

Also i do mostly city riding, some highway at 65MPH. Different testing vs if i were to Wipe and Fall, Smacking my head onto a Wall or Road at 100+ MPH at the Track!

Amen, POTHOLEs in Michigan are Crazy! :crazyloco:

Ive watched the workers just 'toss a shovel load into a pothole, then just move onward to the next". No tamping it down, adding more to Level of the road or such. Lazy Overpaid workers! How many times have you michigan ppl rode past such workers and yet ONLY see 1 man acutally Working , while the other 4-5 guys just stand with shovels in hand WATCHING the 1 guy work? :mad:

side note: I have 2 scorpion helmets... ummm their DOT tested, but arent they also SNELL certified?

Also i do mostly city riding, some highway at 65MPH. Different testing vs if i were to Wipe and Fall, Smacking my head onto a Wall or Road at 100+ MPH at the Track!


SOUNDS LIKE RHODE ISLAND TOO!.

I think for off road riding where speeds are lower but you stand a chance of hitting something like a rock or tree with the bike hitting you as well SNELL makes sense.

BTW my HJC is SNELL.

My Schubert Helme (Old Concept) is not SNELL, but then again the chin section opens and SNELL will not approve that type of helmet.

I'm having trouble interpreting why this is bad.

According to The New York Times, in order to attain the SNELL M2005 certification, a helmet needs to be able to withstand that impact of a small steel sphere, twice, with the headform inside the helmet experiencing less than 300 times the force of gravity (300 g's).

As the article says, that is a huge amount of accelerative force. The DOT standard allows at most 400 g's. So, technically, by that description, the Snell standard requires a helmet transfer less force on a headform than a DOT-only helmet would. Furthermore, critics also cite the 2-impact test. Again, I'm having trouble seeing how this is bad compared to DOT-only. The Snell helmet is guaranteed to transmit less than 300 g's to a headform over 2 hits in the same spot. A typical DOT-only helmet can transmit up to 400 g's (more than a Snell), AND it doesn't have any requirements on a second impact. That means it can transmit as much as the full unimpeded force of impact the second time around, and still be DOT certified.

How does absorbing more impact result in a helmet being too rigid? The more rigid a helmet, the higher the amount of g's it would transmit, right? The biggest criticism of Snell that I can agree with is that they didn't lower the amount of g's transmittable by a helmet in their last revision. Instead, they simply said it had to withstand two impacts instead of one. That's my understanding of what I've read. Either way though, the headform is probably in better shape after testing than the DOT-only certification.

Anyways, also remember that Snell is certified by Snell testers. DOT standards are met on the good 'ol fashioned honor system.

- Dr. Joe Schmoe, PhD

side note: I have 2 scorpion helmets... ummm their DOT tested, but arent they also SNELL certified?

All helmets sold in the US must be DOT certified. Not all helmets sold in the US must be Snell certified. Therefore, if you've got a Snell helmet, it is also DOT certified. The reverse is not necessarily true.

FWIW, the Snell foundation revises their standards every five years. AFAIK the latest standards are designed to align more closely with the European standards.

I'm having trouble interpreting why this is bad.



How does absorbing more impact result in a helmet being too rigid? The more rigid a helmet, the higher the amount of g's it would transmit, right?


It shows how devilishly complex these things are. The standards include the specification of how the test is run. DOT and Snell are measuring different kinds of impacts using different testing rigs, so the results are going to be different. And the manufacturers, of course, have to build the helmet specifically to pass the tests.

So it's an apples/oranges problem. The pertinent question becomes, "How well does the test relate to the real world?" This is precisely why Snell updates its standards every five years... in order to incorporate lessons learned over the previous five-year period.

I don't know if DOT standards have ever been revised.

I believe that the basic issue with the Snell thing is that, theoretically, when you build a helmet specifically to pass the Snell testing regimen, then you wind up with a stiffer shell than is allowable under DOT standards, which means you might get a sharper deceleration to the head because the shell isn't shedding energy by deforming or breaking. The cheaper polycarbonate shells might deform more, therefore shedding some of the energy that a Snell helmet would transmit.

The problem is, none of this is real-world. All tests must, in order to be repeatable, use some kind of analog of real-world conditions. There are too many variables to really make a realistic test.

For example, polycarbonate gets pretty darned brittle when it's cold. Fiberglass does too, but perhaps not as much. So the same two helmets (one fiberglass and one polycarbonate) that might give a certain result if it's 80 degrees out might give a very different result if it's near freezing.

Or what about road surface? If you get a sideways, scuffing impact against abrasive asphalt, will the helmet slide or grab? An impact like that has a very different profile from one where the helmet hits the surface perpendicular to it.

I personally do choose to wear a Snell helmet because the Snell Foundation is a non-profit specifically established to promote safety and certify helmets. I also recognize the nature and complexity of the issues involved, though I am not qualified to properly evaluate them myself. An ad hoc test by a motorcycle magazine is not enough for me... it's too easy to get a misleading result.

One huge glaring difference that no one has bothered to point out is that helmet manufacturers actually have to EARN a Snell certification by submitting helmets and having them tested. DOT is literally a standard that helmets are "required" to adhere to and helmet manufacturers are literally on the honor code when it comes to putting the stickers on their helmets.

So have fun with your honor code stickered DOT helmet that is not subject to any real testing. I'll stick with my actual test-approved Snells that haven't let me down in one and a half decades of use.

You guys wear helmets!

You guys wear helmets!
:lol:

You guys wear helmets!

Yes.

http://hoboken411.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/hoboken-crushed-watermelon-victim.jpg

At least for a while, from Motorcyclist Magazine.

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/sch/01/snell/index.html

I don't know if there's an agenda here. It is an interesting read.

Any helmet is better than none, and some are surely better than others...then it becomes a matter of circumstances and and degrees.

I am curious if anyone knows where the funding for Snell does come from, a surface search didn't reveal much. A non-profit usually has some benefactors.

At least for a while, from Motorcyclist Magazine.

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/sch/01/snell/index.html

I don't know if there's an agenda here. It is an interesting read.

Any helmet is better than none, and some are surely better than others...then it becomes a matter of circumstances and and degrees.

I am curious if anyone knows where the funding for Snell does come from, a surface search didn't reveal much. A non-profit usually has some benefactors.


That article is an interesting read now I have to think Snell vs DOT as well as synthetic vs conventional, hard break in vs easy break in, trail braking vs scrubbing all excess speed before the corner, Coke vs Pepsi, Ginger vs Maryann.

That article is an interesting read now I have to think Snell vs DOT as well as synthetic vs conventional, hard break in vs easy break in, trail braking vs scrubbing all excess speed before the corner, Coke vs Pepsi, Ginger vs Maryann.

:whathesaid:

I wasn't aware that there was that big of a difference in the different endorsements, I will have to do more research the next time I go shopping for a helmet, but I will still not buy one at Pep boys.

I, too, may have to re think Coke vs. Pepsi vs. RC, American ales vs. British Ales, Starbucks vs Seattles Best

nb

Forget RC cola - man haven't had that since like Carter was in office.

You are kidding, right? Mary Ann all the way!

http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/blurbex/files/2008/03/mary-ann.jpg

What were we talking about?

Oh, yeah... helmets.....

Forget RC cola - man haven't had that since like Carter was in office.

Dude, I'm from the South, RC is ALWAYS in the running, esp. with Moonpies. :D

You are kidding, right? Mary Ann all the way!

http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/blurbex/files/2008/03/mary-ann.jpg

:whathesaid:

thats why i get a helmet with both DOT and SNELL approved lol

lol.

SNELL/SMELLS, DOT/SNOT...wear what fits comfortably and all those other things you like.

Don't make this bigger than not.

I know what I will do. I will wear a DOT helmet for the first 600 miles while I drink Pepsi, use conventional oil, and not over rev the bike that much. At 3000 miles I will switch to a SNELL helmet, drink Mountain Dew, go full syn oil.

While I agree that it must fit properly to give best protection. I don't think anyone is making things bigger than they are. Certain topics bring up alot of debate (break in, oils, etc). When spending one's hard earned money on costly and important safety gear it is worthwile to see different articles, opinions, etc. Good to have these boards to bounce things out there back and forth. I have only crashed with SNELL helmets (in the dirt) and had one concussion, so I have always leaned toward SNELL helmets. However the "softening" of helments also has some valid points.

I'm of the same mindset, Nick. Even though I won't dismiss the Snell rating (as you say, the approved lids will still protect you), I do think that the European standards are a little more realistic in their testing methods. I typically refer to the Sharp testing results whenever I consider a helmet:

http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/
This is a terrific site - I'll be checking with them before I buy my next helmet. Thanks!

I don't disagree that DOT is probably a better standard for low speed collisions. However, it has some very serious problems that keep me from trusting a DOT sticker over a Snell sticker:

1. DOT does not "certify" helmets prior to their being sold. The helmet manufacturers indpendently determine if their product meets the standard and labels the helmets as such without prior approval from either the DOT or NHSTA.

2. Companies aren't good about actually testing before making claims they meet DOT standards. NHSTA, does do limited random sampling of some helmets that claim DOT, and about 1/4 of them fail (http://www.nhtsa.gov/cars/testing/comply/fmvss218/index.html). I have personally verified that at least one major Chinese helmet factory lies about their helmets being DOT certified. Here is a partial list of companies that have failed random NHSTA testing and put DOT stickers on helmets that didn't actually pass DOT standards:

Sparx
AGV
Eagle
HCI
Jixiang
AFX
Akuma
ICON
Fulmer
Zamp
Scorpion

Given the above, I choose to buy helmets that carry an additional standard, like Snell or ECE, which require the helmet design be actually tested by someone other than the manufacturer before the helmet can be marketed as safety compliant.

Snell, while perhaps too hard, at least requires that the manufacturer submit to testing, by Snell, for a certification that actually means something. Even better, imho, is the ECE standard, which requires actual testing and is probably a better low speed standard than Snell. Regardless, ECE and/or Snell is the way to go, not DOT alone. (Just to reemphasize, the DOT standard is a good one, but it is not enforced and is therefore close to worthless.)

I'm of the same mindset, Nick. Even though I won't dismiss the Snell rating (as you say, the approved lids will still protect you), I do think that the European standards are a little more realistic in their testing methods. I typically refer to the Sharp testing results whenever I consider a helmet:

http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/

I love the Sharp site. Only problem is that the impact points it tests (upper sides, top of head, forehead) aren't the most common points of impact, which tend to be lower on the helmet. So great to use as one reference, but with a grain of salt.

I usually crash at high speeds. Gimmie SNELL :thumbup:

I never trusted the DOT standard alone. The DOT standard is good but not enforced. When shopping for a helmet I look for the SNELL or ECE standard.

When it comes to secondary certs on helmets i prefer the euro standard over the snell. The only reason is the euro standard is production run tested to meet the standards. Snell only requires them to be tested once.

I love the Sharp site. Only problem is that the impact points it tests (upper sides, top of head, forehead) aren't the most common points of impact, which tend to be lower on the helmet. So great to use as one reference, but with a grain of salt.

My understanding is that SHARP tests all the same impact points as described in UN ECE Regulation 22.05 with the exception of impact site S, the chin guard area on full face helmets. Their reasoning is that the current ECE regulation 22.05 offers adequate testing in that area and thus, all the ECE certified helmets that SHARP tests offer appropriate protection in that area already. From what I've read, the SHARP tests are largely based of off the findings from the COST 327 report. There was no recommendation or findings in that report to justify or necessitate the need to improve or alter the current testing methods of the chin guard area presently used in ECE 22.05.

What the SHARP tests did implement from that report is that they followed the recommendations for a higher impact velocity than that currently used in the ECE regulation 22.05 testing and raised it from 7.5 m/s to 8.5 m/s. At the same time, to ensure that performance at lower velocities were not compromised in favour of the higher velocity test, SHARP also puts the helmet through the ECE standard 7.5 m/s velocity test and also a lower velocity test of 6.0 m/s. SHARP also claims that the twin wire guided test method which they use allows for more accurate test results compared to the free motion test apparatus used in the ECE tests.

At the end of the day I guess there's no such thing as a perfect certification standard. My opinion is that the SHARP standard, although not without its criticisms, offers value when viewed as a testing standard in addition to ECE regulation 22.

Snell only requires them to be tested once.

Although not the same as the batch testing done in the ECE standard, Snell does do random sample testing of previously certified helmets to ensure that the model still meets the certification standards. I may be wrong here, but I think Snell also does the test on multiple samples of the same model for the initial certification.

Some of your higher quality helmet companies do testing beyond the common cert requirements, sacrificing many helmets past the amount needed to meet the common certs.

My understanding is that SHARP tests all the same impact points as described in UN ECE Regulation 22.05 with the exception of impact site S, the chin guard area on full face helmets.

I may be missing something, but why not test the chin guard area since ECE does? And why would ECE limit chin guard area testing to full face helmets? Seems like a huge flaw in the Sharp testing and rating system. The chin guard is the most common impact area. They should give a flip up helmet a fail for that test and drop the star rating, and also make sure the full face helmets get rated based on that very important area also.

I understand most of the discussion that is taking place, but I have question. I haven't really been looking for another helmet but the ones that I have been looking at either have DOT alone or with the Snell. I haven't seen any of the helmets with any of the European standards in the US. Are they available here? Also, I really really really don't care to buy a helmet via mail order. I want to be able to try it on and wear it for a few before I buy.

nb

I may be missing something, but why not test the chin guard area since ECE does? And why would ECE limit chin guard area testing to full face helmets? Seems like a huge flaw in the Sharp testing and rating system. The chin guard is the most common impact area. They should give a flip up helmet a fail for that test and drop the star rating, and also make sure the full face helmets get rated based on that very important area also.

I agree that the chin guard area should be implemented as part of the overall testing. The COST 327 report found that the chin area, although still a frequent area of impact at 15.4%, was not the most common. Nevertheless, it also determined that a high proportion of fatalities sustained base of the skull fractures, which were almost always caused by direct impact to the chin area. The report stressed that certification standards should include a test of the chin area. Currently, ECE 22.05 and the British Standard includes the chin guard testing. The older ECE regulation 22.04 did not include a chin impact test or a test for rotation inducing forces and was largely considered as inferior to the British Standard BS 6658:1985.

From what I've gathered, the only assumption I can make about why SHARP does not include a chin guard test is that the COST 327 report did not test impacts to the chin area as the 05 series of amendments to ECE regulation 22 includes the chin area tests. SHARP feels that any helmet conforming to ECE 22.05 already offers adequate chin guard protection. Again, like I said earlier, SHARP testing only offers some value when viewed as an additional rating to a helmet already conforming to ECE 22.05 standard. I do like the fact that SHARP conducts the testing at a velocity of 8.5 m/s and also at lower speeds of 6.0 m/s as per the recommendations of the COST 327 report. By itself, when viewed as an overall helmet safety scheme, the SHARP system is not thorough enough. In my opinion, ECE 22.05 is probably the most thorough and realistic standard at present.

Moving back to the original topic of this thread and Snell debate, the criticism here is that the shell penetration test and conducting multiple impacts to the same point creates "optimised" helmets that are too stiff and thus are not as effective as absorbing energy at lower impact speeds. COST 327 compared the stiffness of glass fibre helmets of ECE 22.04 standard to those of SNELL 95 type and found little difference in the mean rotational acceleration and mean tangential force measurements. Of course, we don't know if this relationship still holds true today for glass fibre helmets of ECE 22.05 standard compared to those of SNELL 2010 or 2005. At the same time, I've yet to see any findings that suggest a SNELL 2005 or 2010 standard helmet transmits more energy than a supposedly softer shell ECE 22.05 helmet. Obviously, the topic and theory of Snell helmets is still debatable for some. It's important to note though that aside from the shell penetration test and multiple impact test that Snell conducts, the linear impact velocities and peak acceleration criteria are similar with values found in ECE 22.05 testing. Snell 2010 conducts linear impact testing at a velocity of 7.75 m/s but deviation is allowed to 7.48 m/s whereas ECE conducts the tests at a minimum of 7.5 m/s and allowing a positive deviation of .15 m/s. Both testing standards specify a maximum peak force acceleration of 275 G.

If I've read the Snell 2010 standards correctly, then my biggest gripe against Snell is that it does not include a test made specifically to test for rotation inducing forces on the head. The impact tests are only done in a straight line/trajectory. In real life, we know that the head and helmet can strike a surface not just dead on but also at oblique angles resulting in significant brain and head injuries due to the rotational and frictional forces that are induced. Examples of injuries include subdural haematoma and intracerebral shearing. This was supported in the findings of the COST 327 report. Both ECE 22.05 and SHARP conduct oblique impact tests, although SHARP claims that their testing method is more stringent and the helmet is also dropped against a sandpaper surface to mimic the frictional forces of the helmet hitting pavement. Their hope is that manufacturers start to develop helmets that slide better and thereby reduce the amount of friction of the outer helmet surface. ECE includes a frictional test as well but allows the option for either impacting the helmet against an abrasive anvil or a carriage abrading the outer surface of the helmet.

Regarding the chin bar tests, Snell 2010 standards only conduct their chin bar tests for full faced helmets. It might be the same for ECE 22.05, but the difference is if the chin bar has not been tested under ECE 22.05, then it must be marked somewhere on the outer surface either with the words "Does not protect chin from impacts" or a symbol showing the helmet with an X across the chin bar. In my view, the chin bar test conducted in ECE 22.05 is also more stringent than that conducted in Snell. In ECE testing, the chin area is impacted at 5.5 m/s and the measured transmitted energy to the head must not exceed 275 g. In Snell testing, a 5 kg weight is dropped onto the chin at 3.5 m/s, however, Snell does not test the transmitted energy to the head but rather only the amount of downward deflection of the chin bar.

I understand most of the discussion that is taking place, but I have question. I haven't really been looking for another helmet but the ones that I have been looking at either have DOT alone or with the Snell. I haven't seen any of the helmets with any of the European standards in the US. Are they available here? Also, I really really really don't care to buy a helmet via mail order. I want to be able to try it on and wear it for a few before I buy.

nb

I purchased an Icon Alliance for this reason. To my understanding, many Icon helmets, Shark helmets, SparX helmets are all ECE certified.

Here is an article on ECE vs DOT (http://www.webbikeworld.com/eicma-2010/nolan-helmets/dot-vs-ece-helmet-safety-standards.htm)

RevZilla actually has categories for the standards on the helmets they sell.
ECE Helmets - RevZilla (http://www.revzilla.com/ece-2205-motorcycle-helmets)