SHARP helmet ratings released

[cs363]

You didn't read that link you posted, did you?

If you did, your comprehension skills need some work.

That's a pretty wide open statement - did YOU read the link? Did you just want an argument or are you adding something to the debate?There are many differences depending on what standard the helmet has been tested to - what are you actually referring to?

The point I was trying to make is that whatever article people are referring to it needs to be taken in context - is the helmet tested approved to Snell, ECE, BS, AS, JIS standard etc as they are all different, what is the intended use of your helmet etc etc.

I'm just saying there are a hell of a lot of variables involved and no one test or article is the be all and end all.

[NordieBoy]

The point I was trying to make is that whatever article people are referring to it needs to be taken in context - is the helmet tested approved to Snell, ECE, BS, AS, JIS standard etc as they are all different, what is the intended use of your helmet etc etc.

I'm just saying there are a hell of a lot of variables involved and no one test or article is the be all and end all.

I think the point was that the old Bell ad is crap.

[Tank]

fuck - my KBC VR2R only got 2 stars.

That dosnt make me happy at all!

[CHOPPA]

That's a pretty wide open statement - did YOU read the link? Did you just want an argument or are you adding something to the debate?There are many differences depending on what standard the helmet has been tested to - what are you actually referring to?

The point I was trying to make is that whatever article people are referring to it needs to be taken in context - is the helmet tested approved to Snell, ECE, BS, AS, JIS standard etc as they are all different, what is the intended use of your helmet etc etc.

I'm just saying there are a hell of a lot of variables involved and no one test or article is the be all and end all.

I fully agree! Specially cause my rx7 only got 3 stars..... Its cool ive been doing my own testing and there f*&ken great! I worked in a bike shop in oz and apparently the shark rsr won the safest helmet or something in 2000 (a while ago now) but it was so uncomfortable for my head i think it would be 3 times as likely to make me crash and only twice as safe so my helmet must be better! hahaha

[cs363]

I fully agree! Specially cause my rx7 only got 3 stars..... Its cool ive been doing my own testing and there f*&ken great! I worked in a bike shop in oz and apparently the shark rsr won the safest helmet or something in 2000 (a while ago now) but it was so uncomfortable for my head i think it would be 3 times as likely to make me crash and only twice as safe so my helmet must be better! hahaha

You make a good point - and one that has been raised in several articles concerning helmet safety. 'Safety' encompasses far more than impact tests - is the world's safest helmet (whatever it F'ing well is...) still safe with a badly scratched visor? Or if it's too loud, or too quiet and any other number of variables you could throw in. What if it's got a really safe shell but a crap retention system?
Even the experts can't agree on what makes the safest helmet as evidenced by that article.

[scracha]

I'll take government sponsored scientific tests over "my mate bubba crashed his and was OK" type stories any day.
http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/about-sharp/test-protocols/

Incidentally, I crashed my Shoei Syncrotech and my Shark S500 and was OK so they must be great

[jrandom]

http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/about-sharp/test-protocols/

That's more like it. They didn't have that info up to start with.

[CHOPPA]

there test seem a bit hairy to me, we dropped helmet on an anvil to test it...... We got rodger to hit the helmet as hard as he could with a hammer.....

Im never gonna like this test cause they dont like my helmet hahaha, also the fact that this unknown company can say that a company like agvs top of the line helmet is not as good as there mid range one im sure if thats the case they wouldnt piss around developing something and they would just put some vents on there cheap helmets?

As i previously said i worked in a shop bla bla but i went to a helmet seminar bullshit thing and they explained how diff materials worked better at diff speeds like a plastic helmet was better then fibreglass etc at impacts of less then 80ks there abouts and diff materials at diff impact speeds etc etc I wonder how fast the helmets were travelling when they hit the anvill.....?

[scracha]

also the fact that this unknown company can say that a company like agvs top of the line helmet is not as good as there

"unknown company"...oh... you mean the UK Department of Transport. Can't see why they'd be biased, especially as none of the 5 star rated helmet manufacturers are British.
Arai - Japanese
AGV - Italian
Bell - American
HJC - Dunno but it aint British.
Laser - Belgian (I think)
Shark - French

It's a bit like the arguments Addidas and Nike used to give for expensive trainers (gah...sneakers....runners...whatever you colonials call them). Anyways...was found to be total $hite.

[CHOPPA]

sill i read all there test procedures and they dont test the total package of the helmet like other tests do they only test the most common head injury aspect of the helmet not every aspect, so that pretty much sums up that this isnt a comprehensive test....

[CHOPPA]

and i would rather wear adidas or nike sneakers then these f*&ken uncomfortable things im wearing i got from the warehouse......

[Bob]

"unknown company"...oh... you mean the UK Department of Transport. Can't see why they'd be biased, especially as none of the 5 star rated helmet manufacturers are British.
Arai - Japanese
AGV - Italian
Bell - American
HJC - Dunno but it aint British.
Laser - Belgian (I think)
Shark - French

Scratcha - Thanks for adding the above. It really does help clarify.

Choppa - if it is not clear, it is an attempt by the UK government to make sure riders are given a good rating system, above and beyond the EU standard (from what I can understand, the Dept of Transport claim they have looked at the main sets of tests and taken the toughest elements of them into their own test criteria).

The Department of Transport do not make crash helmets, they have no bias. I'm sorry if you did not pick up on that from the original news item.

Of course, if a helmet is not comfortable, then it is not going to be a good helmet for you. The SHARP ratings are based on protection. That said, no matter how good an HJC helmet rates, I find them uncomfortable and they press against my forehead. On the other hand, my Arai rates a 3 - but it is comfortable and fits correctly.

Overall, a helmet has to be (a) comfortable (b) fit correctly and (c) provide protection. Then of course there are things like the quality of venting to consider. To buy a helmet just because of one thing is not going to get you the best helmet for you.

There are people out there riding in ill-fitting helmets (for them) just because it is the right colour/race rep graphic.

What the SHARP rating system shows is that you cannot simply think "It costs lots of money, so it must be the best protection." From that aspect, it makes for interesting reading. But can only be an element of your decision making when buying a helmet.

Hope this little lot helps.... I shall now put away my soapbox....

Bob

[cs363]

Scratcha - Thanks for adding the above. It really does help clarify.

Choppa - if it is not clear, it is an attempt by the UK government to make sure riders are given a good rating system, above and beyond the EU standard (from what I can understand, the Dept of Transport claim they have looked at the main sets of tests and taken the toughest elements of them into their own test criteria).

The Department of Transport do not make crash helmets, they have no bias. I'm sorry if you did not pick up on that from the original news item.

Of course, if a helmet is not comfortable, then it is not going to be a good helmet for you. The SHARP ratings are based on protection. That said, no matter how good an HJC helmet rates, I find them uncomfortable and they press against my forehead. On the other hand, my Arai rates a 3 - but it is comfortable and fits correctly.

Overall, a helmet has to be (a) comfortable (b) fit correctly and (c) provide protection. Then of course there are things like the quality of venting to consider. To buy a helmet just because of one thing is not going to get you the best helmet for you.

There are people out there riding in ill-fitting helmets (for them) just because it is the right colour/race rep graphic.

What the SHARP rating system shows is that you cannot simply think "It costs lots of money, so it must be the best protection." From that aspect, it makes for interesting reading. But can only be an element of your decision making when buying a helmet.

Hope this little lot helps.... I shall now put away my soapbox....

Bob

Very eloquently put! I couldn't agree more

Just to add to Scracha's post - yes Lazer are made in Belgium and HJC are Korean, though most of their helmets are made in China now.

[Ocean1]

Why is that Jim? Carbon is immensely stronger than steel and eminently suitable.

Depends on what you mean by "strong".

Also depends on what you mean by steel. And carbon fibre.

Too hard & brittle, therefore decelerating the helmet contents at higher G-Forces than fibreglass or polycarbonate helmets. Apparently not.

Hard and brittle are common attributes of high strength materials in general. For some structures the need for a high strength/mass ratio justifies that choice, for some malleability might be more important.

In the case of helmet shells my purely subjectively based opinion is that, if the primary structural design criteria is to optimise rigidity up to a point of impact force exceeding that required to kill by deceleration alone then CF would be a good choice. This, because even minor deformation in the shell can reduce the impact area on the skull, increasing stress in direct proportion. Correctly spec’d CF would meet that criteria with less mass than almost any other commercially viable alternative. So, while pic’s of a CF helmet reduced to bloody, lethally sharp shards would put most people off, it’s likely that any impact heavy enough to do that would’ve jellified the contents anyway.

I see SHARP use an oblique impact test. It occurs to me that coefficient of friction is a very important variable there, yet I’m not aware of any helmet with low-friction coatings…

Regardless, helmets tested by SHARP have all passed different but arguably sufficiently rigid test criteria. Compared to early helmet test results they would likely all be represented in the top few percent of any material/design performance curve. So even if SHARP test criteria could be considered simply as more stringent or broader in scope we’re talking about differences in risk between any modern helmet of miniscule proportions. And compared to what constituted legal requirements when I first started on the road…

[alanzs]

And compared to what constituted legal requirements when I first started on the road…

Were wool caps really considered helmets back then? Damn, things HAVE changed.