SHARP ratings

[Jonno.]

I always see people on here who think SHARP ratings are biased or not worth reading.
Why is word of mouth worth more then an independant test ((thread)?

Is it a British conspiricy against Arai and Shoei?
What do you think about SHARP.

[ital916]

I always see people on here who think SHARP ratings are biased or not worth reading.
Why is word of mouth worth more then an independant test ((thread)?

Is it a British conspiricy against Arai and Shoei?
What do you think about SHARP.

I don mind independant tests, its just that the ratings given seem to have some obvious flaws in them.

Not only that as an engineer, I excpect any independant test to be greater than just assigning star ratings. I want to know testing method, what technical difficulties there were, what erroneous or odd data that was culled, assumptions made and so on. In conjunction with this I want to know the stats behind it, standard deviations, data transformations etc.

Not that everyone needs to know it, I just want it to be made public. Till then I dont trust squat from them. Shoei and arai disclose their testing methods (if ya look for it!).

The fact that a 40 quid unknown cheapie out rates a performace race tested shoei or arai for safety has to raise ones eyebrows and suspiscions.

[RavenR44]

I don mind independant tests, its just that the ratings given seem to have some obvious flaws in them.

Not only that as an engineer, I excpect any independant test to be greater than just assigning star ratings. I want to know testing method, what technical difficulties there were, what erroneous or odd data that was culled, assumptions made and so on. In conjunction with this I want to know the stats behind it, standard deviations, data transformations etc.

Not that everyone needs to know it, I just want it to be made public. Till then I dont trust squat from them. Shoei and arai disclose their testing methods (if ya look for it!).

The fact that a 40 quid unknown cheapie out rates a performace race tested shoei or arai for safety has to raise ones eyebrows and suspiscions.

Just wondering how, as an engineer, you can claim that a helmet has been race "tested". Especially in light of this...

"I want to know testing method, what technical difficulties there were, what erroneous or odd data that was culled, assumptions made and so on. In conjunction with this I want to know the stats behind it, standard deviations, data transformations etc"

TIA.

Oh joy. I have graduated to Scooter Boy status. The beers are on me!

[steve_t]

SHARP ratings - Just another internet page of information that is to be considered but not taken as gospel

[p.dath]

I'm a road rider, so I look at helmets from that perspective.

I like the DOT standard.

I'm 50/50 on the SNELL standard. I think the double impact test is too tough, and causes the manufacturers to have to make really hard helmets for an impact your not very likely to have (being a double high speed hit to the helmet), and by making the helmets pass this test they compromise the helmet for more common low speed impacts. Basically you want the helmet to absorb as much impact energy as possible - you don't want the brain to be absorbing this energy.

For cars you have crash ratings. You can compare cars, and it gives manufacturers a reason to try and make safer cars. There are those amongst us that would say that all it does is cause manufacturers to make cars that are better at passing tests. But I'm less negative.

I am a fan of the SHARP ratings. This is because I prefer a "standard" (yes - I know it is not a standard) that allows comparitive measurements. The issue with DOT or SNELL is once a manufacturer has met the standard there really is no point in trying to make the helmet better. And even if you do, how do consumers tell, and how does the manufacturer tell the consumer?

So in the same way I like car crash ratings, I like helmet crash ratings.

[p.dath]

Not only that as an engineer, I excpect any independant test to be greater than just assigning star ratings. I want to know testing method, what technical difficulties there were, what erroneous or odd data that was culled, assumptions made and so on. In conjunction with this I want to know the stats behind it, standard deviations, data transformations etc.
...

They do list quite a bit of info on their web site about the type of tests they do. But playing devil's advocate, by not pandering to the helmet manufacturers desires to give them every little piece of information about the tests they effectively stop the manufacturers making a helmet designed to pass the test - and to concentrate on making safer helmets - unlike what happens with SNELL ...

I did say devil's advocate.