Helmet Safety - Standards and Ratings

[Twisties]

BMWGirl asked about sources of Schuberth C3 Helmets:

 

Schuberth Helmets - Where did you get yours?

 

I responded that the C3 got a scary rating from SHARP. fatboyjim says that SHARP is flawed and cites:

 

Critical Evaluation of SHARP, N.J. Mills

 

I don't want to hijack the where to buy issues with an in depth discussion of helmet safety. So here's a new thread. Been a while since we've had one on this topic, so it's likely about time. The question:

How should a rider evaluate helmets?

 

Very broad. Have it! Hoping some engineers chime in, and get this out of the gutter, where it is certainly starting.

 

I'll start with my very limited understanding:

 

There are several standards for helmets:

 

1. US DOT (self-certification followed by occasional government spot testing). By all accounts a pretty good standard, however, I know nothing about the technical details. Results of government spot testing HERE. Note that there is no correlation between price, reputation and pass rate. For instance Arai (Profile, 2006) and Nolan (N-102, 2006) have had fails and the Bell Zephyr sold at Walmart passes.

 

2. In the EU helmets are required to pass BS 6658 (1985) or ECE Regulation 22/05 (1999). I know nothing about the technical details. So far as I know there are no independent results of helmet testing published.

 

3. The Snell Memorial Foundation has provided standards for helmet certification. Long thought to be the gold standard, in the 2000's Snell standards were criticized for being too rigid, protecting against penetration at the expense of too much impact shock transmission. The Snell 2010 standard is supposed to have addressed this, but I heard that helmet labels don't tell you if the helmet was certified to 2010, or prior. Again, all I know is rumors. Just trying to provide some issues to discuss, not claiming it's all true.

 

4. Now along comes SHARP. Government testing by the UK that is supposed to go beyond the minimum standards and tell you who protects you the best! Great! A simple to use Star rating.

 

However, now SHARP is criticized by Mills. My take on the criticism: Mills is apparently a bona fide researcher. He claims to have submitted the paper to a bona fide peer reviewed journal, "Crashworthiness" over a year ago. However a search of that journal shows no record of the paper being published. Did it fail peer review? Where is the actual paper then? Mills claims that SHARP uses secret standards, but then goes on to say what they are and critique them? He seems to agree with SHARP's direct impact testing, but claims that the oblique impact testing is too conservative, using flawed mathematics to relate results to the real world, and may lead to non-reality based findings, as well as drive future helmet design in the wrong direction. I have no clue. I would like to hear from other experts and a response from SHARP before reaching any conclusions based on a paper that apparently can't be published in normal channels.

 

At the moment, SHARP is the only source for testing beyond the minimums, and I'm sticking with it until I hear more. Since I wear a modular, I appreciate that SHARP tests modulars and publishes the percent of chin bar failures. However I am concerned that the results for the AGV Longway (Miglia) and Lazer Granville, supposedly the same helmet but for details, have such different results. I like that SHARP tests so many impacts (32) on so many helmets (7), that the samples are store bought at retail, and that they use different sizes and test speeds.

 

So, How should a rider evaluate helmets, my approach:

 

1. Meets standards of EU or US DOT (Note, for about 30 US States, DOT is required).

2. SHARP 4-5 Star rating.

3. Web Bike World Reviews Web bike world review:

a. Weight

b. Vents

c. How it works

d. Noise

4. Search Web for other opinions

5. TRY IT ON. Minimum 30 minutes, or for mail order, Liberal Return Policy.

 

YMMV!

 

 

[Woodie]

I did actually read that SHARP criticism, and the thought that kept coming up was: Who does the author work for, and why did he write this?

 

Personally, I ignore those states that "require DOT"..if they let novelty helmets pass, I'm not going to worry about an ECE passed helmet.

 

Your post was the first I'd heard about SHARP--I'm inclined to give it about the same weight I give SNELL at this point, which is awareness, but not letting it decide.

 

My order is:

1. EU or US DOT

2. Type (Modular, unless I need a FF)

3. Noise

4. Fit

 

Search Web for other opinions (WebBike, BMWST, etc.), and to find out about various models. Browsing show-rooms is so last century.

 

 

[Twisties]

However, Snell does publish the list of Snell 2010 certified motorcycle helmets. However, the way their website works, I can't directly link you that page. Easy to find though.

 

There labels page does not have a 2010 label, supporting the criticism I had heard. But the list seems to fulfill the need.

[fatboyjim]

I did actually read that SHARP criticism, and the thought that kept coming up was: Who does the author work for, and why did he write this?

 

Dr Nigel J Mills

No axe to grind other then for the safety and survival of others.

 

http://www.eng.bham.ac.uk/metallurgy/staff/mills.shtml

 

 

[TestPilot]

Snell got beat up pretty bad by Motorcyclist Magazine in 2005 for the inflexibility of their position on helmet standards. See the magazine's web site for details. Search for the series titled "Blowing the Lid Off." When the M2010 standard was released, Motorcyclist basically said "We told you so."

 

Regarding new labels, FIA List 25, available on their web site, shows the M2010 label.

[Matts_12GS]

Snell got beat up pretty bad by Motorcyclist Magazine in 2005 for the inflexibility of their position on helmet standards. See the magazine's web site for details. Search for the series titled "Blowing the Lid Off." When the M2010 standard was released, Motorcyclist basically said "We told you so."

 

Regarding new labels, FIA List 25, available on their web site, shows the M2010 label.

Here's the article from motorcyclist I found it pretty enlightening.

 

I bought my last 2 helmets from Cycle Gear in large part because of the knowledge of the store staff on fitment and their 7 day ride test policy.

 

They also didn't try to gouge me to special order a model they didn't stock. I was pleased.

[EddyQ]

Snell got beat up pretty bad by Motorcyclist Magazine in 2005 for the inflexibility of their position on helmet standards. See the magazine's web site for details. Search for the series titled "Blowing the Lid Off." When the M2010 standard was released, Motorcyclist basically said "We told you so."

 

Regarding new labels, FIA List 25, available on their web site, shows the M2010 label.

Here's the article from motorcyclist I found it pretty enlightening.

 

That article was like reading an bad oil thread. I don't think Jim Brown(author)has a good understanding of physics, but sure can throw some punches. The article does have lots of interesting info. The only point that was clearly made was a cheaper helmet can result with lower Gs in a certain test. But, I own an Arai Profile helmet and don't feel at all less protected than any other helmets out there.

 

The fact that a helmet is DOT and/or SNELL and/or whatever simply means that some testing was done and it passed. Much better than a non-approved helmet. If a helmet is approved by other standards, even better.

 

One thing that you can do when picking a helmet is visit NHTSA Here and have a look at real DOT test data for a particular helmet. See if that DOT and SNELL approved helmet really is much stiffer than a non-SNELL helmet with the same exact test. But, don't take the data too seriously. Your head may not fit the best performing helmet the same as a magnesium head that some expert dreamed up. What I found interesting is brands do matter. Look at the "brands" that often fail testing. Would you trust this brand if by chance they got one approved?

 

I picked my Arai for fit and reputation. I also like that the internal padding was something you can adjust and get replacements for. Most safety folks agree, if it doesn't fit properly, then it won't be safe. I liked the price of an HJC, but I could not get it to properly fit my noggin. So, it was likely unsafe and uncomfortable for me.

 

So why would a half helmet gets full DOT and SNELL approval just like my Arai full face? Is it just as safe? I think not . . . So the testing has room for improvements. Hopefully, with all the added competition for the best testing standard(s), we get safer helmets and better clearer ratings. But, I haven't seen any evidance of testing that really makes one helmet clearly top of the industry safe. And, you probably never will.

[Matts_12GS]

So, is your issue with his interpretation of the tests or the tests themselves?

[Twisties]

Snell got beat up pretty bad by Motorcyclist Magazine in 2005 for the inflexibility of their position on helmet standards. See the magazine's web site for details. Search for the series titled "Blowing the Lid Off." When the M2010 standard was released, Motorcyclist basically said "We told you so."

 

Regarding new labels, FIA List 25, available on their web site, shows the M2010 label.

Here's the article from motorcyclist I found it pretty enlightening.

 

I bought my last 2 helmets from Cycle Gear in large part because of the knowledge of the store staff on fitment and their 7 day ride test policy.

 

They also didn't try to gouge me to special order a model they didn't stock. I was pleased.

 

Thanks Matt. Excellent article. Far beyond what I expect to see in a motorcycling magazine and well supported.

 

I'd like to see them do an update now that Snell M2010 is out and SHARP is in place. Most concerning to me was the statement that the EU helmets and the US market helmets of the same name are not the same. This means that SHARP has no applicability to helmets purchased in the US.

 

Sounds like the US DOT standard is pretty good.

[hopz]

My comments are not a challenge to Twisties research or questions nor to any comments made already so... I ask:

 

Is there any real world evidence, even anecdotal, that the various rating/non-ratings make any difference? After the crash all I hear is "the motorcycle rider was (or was not) wearing a helmet". I have never heard someone say "Well, he was wearing a helmet but it was only DOT rated, and not Snell so there you go".

 

 

[Paul Mihalka]

My comments are not a challenge to Twisties research or questions nor to any comments made already so... I ask:

 

Is there any real world evidence, even anecdotal, that the various rating/non-ratings make any difference? After the crash all I hear is "the motorcycle rider was (or was not) wearing a helmet". I have never heard someone say "Well, he was wearing a helmet but it was only DOT rated, and not Snell so there you go".

 

I was thinking the same thing. My only helmet test: Head-on collision, with my girl friend (now my wife). Car at 10 mph, we at 30 mph. We apparently fly over the car. No broken bones, everything in our bodies bruised but works. Both our helmets hit so hard that the paint popped/flaked off, not scratched off. She had a bit of a bump on her head, I nothing. No headaches, no concussions. Yes, we were lucky, but how much better can it get? Helmets Shoei full-face fiberglass, 30+ years ago.

[marcopolo]

...Most concerning to me was the statement that the EU helmets and the US market helmets of the same name are not the same. This means that SHARP has no applicability to helmets purchased in the US.

 

While that may be true for helmets that are sold in the U.S. with a SNELL approval rating, I'm not sure that's necessarily true for helmets sold in Europe with an ECE 22-05 rating and also sold in North America with a DOT/ECE 22-05 rating (but no SNELL rating). An example would be the Shark Evoline Series 2 modular helmet that I bought a couple of months ago. It's sold in Europe with an ECE 22-05 rating and in the U.S. and Canada with a DOT and ECE 22-05 rating. I think it has been the effort to obtain a SNELL rating that has resulted in helmets made differently for the North America market. When I received my Shark helmet, there was a sticker on the faceshield boldly declaring its SHARP 4-star rating.

[EddyQ]

So, is your issue with his interpretation of the tests or the tests themselves?

 

It's more an interpretation of the tests and jumbling up requirements. I cannot comment on the tests he and his expert performed, because he did not provide nearly enough details as to what he did do.

[EddyQ]

...Most concerning to me was the statement that the EU helmets and the US market helmets of the same name are not the same. This means that SHARP has no applicability to helmets purchased in the US.

 

While that may be true for helmets that are sold in the U.S. with a SNELL approval rating, I'm not sure that's necessarily true for helmets sold in Europe with an ECE 22-05 rating and also sold in North America with a DOT/ECE 22-05 rating (but no SNELL rating). An example would be the Shark Evoline Series 2 modular helmet that I bought a couple of months ago. It's sold in Europe with an ECE 22-05 rating and in the U.S. and Canada with a DOT and ECE 22-05 rating. I think it has been the effort to obtain a SNELL rating that has resulted in helmets made differently for the North America market. When I received my Shark helmet, there was a sticker on the faceshield boldly declaring its SHARP 4-star rating.

 

Yup. According to WebBikeWorld prior to SNELL 2010 standard, you could not have a helmet meet both SNELL and ECE 22-05. The older SNELL requirements conflict with certain head sizes. So, manufacturers pick DOT and ECE 22-05 or DOT and SNELL. If DOT and SNELL (older rating), then you likely would get a different helmet and not SHARP rated. But, that might change with the new SNELL 2010 rating.

[markgoodrich]

Snell got beat up pretty bad by Motorcyclist Magazine in 2005 for the inflexibility of their position on helmet standards. See the magazine's web site for details. Search for the series titled "Blowing the Lid Off." When the M2010 standard was released, Motorcyclist basically said "We told you so."

 

Regarding new labels, FIA List 25, available on their web site, shows the M2010 label.

Here's the article from motorcyclist I found it pretty enlightening.

 

I bought my last 2 helmets from Cycle Gear in large part because of the knowledge of the store staff on fitment and their 7 day ride test policy.

 

They also didn't try to gouge me to special order a model they didn't stock. I was pleased.

 

Thanks Matt. Excellent article. Far beyond what I expect to see in a motorcycling magazine and well supported.

 

I'd like to see them do an update now that Snell M2010 is out and SHARP is in place. Most concerning to me was the statement that the EU helmets and the US market helmets of the same name are not the same. This means that SHARP has no applicability to helmets purchased in the US.

 

Sounds like the US DOT standard is pretty good.

 

The article is out of date now, with the new Snell 2010 standards...Motorcyclist itself crowed about the Snell protocol changes just a few issues ago. The article was useful as far as it went, but I have always felt it was flawed (and self-righteous), primarily because they only tested helmets they got for free from the makers...as I recall, and it's been a while since I read it, for instance, no Shoei helmets were included in the MC setup.

 

But really, it's beside the point, now, with the Snell changes. I personally wish we could buy ECE-spec helmets here...and know we are doing so.

[marcopolo]

...I personally wish we could buy ECE-spec helmets here...and know we are doing so.

 

If you go to Revzilla's website (a U.S. online retailer with a bricks and mortar store in Philly), they say they have over 100 helmets for sale with ECE 22-05 certification:

 

http://www.revzilla.com/ece-2205-motorcycle-helmets