Quote:
Originally Posted by Alex
It's a bit misleading for them to leave that article posted up there, and remove any date for when it was relevant. It's almost 10 years old at this point, is specifically critical of the Snell M2010 standard, which has been superceded for years. it shouldn't be used at this point to identify the safest helmets, and its conclusions may or may not have much merit compared to the current standards (either US, Europe, or Asia).
|
To me, Snell is nothing more than a marketing campaign. Put a $1 sticker on a helmet so it can sell for $50 more. That's pretty much it.
The old standards were bad, and the new standards aren't much better, Snell helmet testing still favors helmets that are too stiff.
There are more and newer studies than that 10 year old article, mostly in Europe. Most declare the Snell standards as dangerously too stiff. Snell has responded to some of these with damage control.
Even though Snell is a "non profit" company, the people there are highly paid and very defensive when serious valid concerns arise about their standards. Over the years I have come to the conclusion that Snell is generally a worthless company that should be disbanded in favor of much better European helmet standards. The reason they still exist is that the Snell sticker still has value as a marketing campaign.
Just my opinion.