SHARP helmet ratings released

[Jonno.]

T
However, back to the helmets - I'll stick with Arai because they have built a reputation with actual helmet users, in the real world for being the best. (check out the RX7 on the Arai US website that was crashed in at very high speed, the guy survived albeit with a few bodily injuries, but no head trauma http://www.araiamericas.com/default.aspx?pageid=49 ) while you're there, check out the other testimonials.

This is also interesting: http://motorcycleinsider.wordpress.c...-helmet-tests/


I've always found the bush telegraph is the best source of information, Arai are almost universally acclaimed as the best with Shoei a close second - that's good enough for me. All of these tests and ratings etc., should be used in conjunction with your own common sense and needs/requirements when buying a helmet - everyone is different.

But, that is of course just my 2 cents worth, each to his own - buy whatever makes you happy - for instance no good having an Arai if it doesn't fit the shape of your head!

I read this type of reply a lot and I'll make a statement.

Saying "X brand is really good cause this guy crashed fast and is alright" doesn't mean squat because there's no comparitive evidence (ie same crash different helmet). For all you know you could have crashed in a 90 dollar oxford open face and be in a comparitive state in the same situation; yet because you've spend a lot more money on yours you can claim it's quality where as the oxford would be "lucky".
Most bikers don't spend a lot of time crashing. So to have them say hey my helmet is awesome doesn't really prove anything, especially when they had to sell a kidney to pay for their Arai, I think a lot of people would definitely talk themselve into the fact they've made an investment.

And I'm not saying Arais or Shoeis aren't safe, but it's naive to assert they're the be all and end all of helmets.

[NordieBoy]

For all you know you could have crashed in a 90 dollar oxford open face and be in a comparitive state in the same situation; yet because you've spend a lot more money on yours you can claim it's quality where as the oxford would be "lucky".

$90 Oxford open face helmets FTW!

[FastBikeGear]

Here's an interesting idea. A helmet with a rearview mirror builit in. And the reviewers seem to think it is more than a gimmick.

Reevu helmet


And no we aren't selling them, but we like to keep an eye on any new technology, especially safety stuff.

[NordieBoy]

Here's an interesting idea. A helmet with a rearview mirror builit in. And the reviewers seem to think it is more than a gimmick.

Reevu helmet


And no we aren't selling them, but we like to keep an eye on any new technology, especially safety stuff.

Tried one on last year but whilst the helmet was comfortable enough but my head shape meant I couldn't see the rear view bit at all.

[FastBikeGear]

How and where did you get to try one?
I note from the review I linked to that the earlier prototypes didn't allow adjustment of the screen, whereas the just released version allows you to move/adjust hte position of the screen.

[NordieBoy]

How and where did you get to try one?
I note from the review I linked to that the earlier prototypes didn't allow adjustment of the screen, whereas the just released version allows you to move/adjust hte position of the screen.

Local bike shop in Nelson (McLeans).

[R-Soul]

I read this type of reply a lot and I'll make a statement.

Saying "X brand is really good cause this guy crashed fast and is alright" doesn't mean squat because there's no comparitive evidence (ie same crash different helmet). For all you know you could have crashed in a 90 dollar oxford open face and be in a comparitive state in the same situation; yet because you've spend a lot more money on yours you can claim it's quality where as the oxford would be "lucky".
Most bikers don't spend a lot of time crashing. So to have them say hey my helmet is awesome doesn't really prove anything, especially when they had to sell a kidney to pay for their Arai, I think a lot of people would definitely talk themselve into the fact they've made an investment.

And I'm not saying Arais or Shoeis aren't safe, but it's naive to assert they're the be all and end all of helmets.

I have also read a bit about helmets and their safety ratings, and there has been a thought paradigm change in recent years similar to that of the car safety- the idea of energy absorbtion by being smashed as opposed to how rigid and "smash proof" the helmet is.

Also small subtle changes in testing can make a large amount of diference to the results. Obviously a helmet must have a certain amount of impact resitance (to prevent impacts with sharper objects coming through the helmet) but must also have a certain amount of energy absorbtion- normally by having the helmet "give".

There seems to be a broad range of opinions on what percentage give and what percentage rigidity- one article I read made a good case for the cheap moulded plastic ones being very efficient as they absorb a lot of energy in the buckling of the outer shell during impact. Obviously you dont want so much buckling that the thing being impacted actually penetrates your skull though...

The speeds and energy levels that the helmets are being testted at make a huge difference too. A helmet that may be optimised for energy absorbtion of crashes at lower speeds may be less than useful at higher speeds (and a helmet designed for high energy level impacts can be compromised at lower speeds and energy levels).

[Sensei]

Hey Jonno , out of interest what brand do you use ?

[R-Soul]

I guess it is just a matter of choosing what kind of helmet you want regarding impact protection and energy absorbtion (it seems like teh known racing helmets - Arai, Shoei, etc- are better at higher speeds), and then looking at additional safety aspects for other aspects of safety - like
- weight - the less weight the helmet has, the less force it will exert on your neck in an accident
- sliding contact - the Laser Superskins look awesome to protect your head from being jerked suddenly on contact from the ground.
- visibility - I like anything that allows better visibility for teh rider like the "reevu" brand.
- quietness - after all, nobody wants to be deaf in their old age...
- glare protection - if you can see past the glare, you can avoid the accident (eg a second internal sunvisor)
- visibility for surrounding cars - I see some helmets have built in LED's or phosphorescence to make them more visible at night

Its a pity that not all helmets have all of these aspects built in...

[tamarillo]

yrs ago US mag reported on official tests and concluded that 'buy new ones that fit really well' and that rest was down to quality of the thing, visors, features, venting, noise...the more you pay the better BUT all established helmets tested passed in broadly similar score - some better at one test but NONE shone.
Just bought a $250 LS-2 flip as I wanted flip front for local duties and it is reasonably well made, fogs up bad in rain, and is really noisy but that is because I did not pay $800. I THINK it isi just as safe in crash. bloody well hope so.

[KITCH]

Lets be honest here, it is a UK government project... the test criteria might well involve firing trained hedgehogs out of a large air gun at the helmets whilst the Ride of the Valkyries plays at full vollume. You have all seen Monty Python... that was a documentary, not a fictional humour progamme. Some years back the TRRL (Transport and Road Research Laboratory) here in the UK made it clear that the tests they were using at that time for motorcycle helmets were primarily focused on point impact resistance, not shock absporbtion or decelleration characteristics in a chaotic and rapidly moving environment. They also pointed out that as a control experiment, they tried 2 plastic pudding bowls, one inside the other... and found that this arrangement actually performed better in their tests than most helmets did. Says something about their testing methodology... These are the guys that ALMOST bought us compulsory leg protectors for all motorcycles, even after it was proven that they broke your legs off if you actually hit anything head on, and only had some minor benefit if you fell off sideways whilst stationary. I

[FastBikeGear]

Lets be honest here, it is a UK government project... the test criteria might well involve firing trained hedgehogs out of a large air gun at the helmets whilst the Ride of the Valkyries plays at full vollume. You have all seen Monty Python... that was a documentary, not a fictional humour progamme. Some years back the TRRL (Transport and Road Research Laboratory) here in the UK made it clear that the tests they were using at that time for motorcycle helmets were primarily focused on point impact resistance, not shock absporbtion or decelleration characteristics in a chaotic and rapidly moving environment. They also pointed out that as a control experiment, they tried 2 plastic pudding bowls, one inside the other... and found that this arrangement actually performed better in their tests than most helmets did. Says something about their testing methodology... These are the guys that ALMOST bought us compulsory leg protectors for all motorcycles, even after it was proven that they broke your legs off if you actually hit anything head on, and only had some minor benefit if you fell off sideways whilst stationary. I

There test procedures are published on their web site. No Hedgehogs were damaged in the testing of the helmets and John Cleese was only used as a crash test dummy.

"SHARP Testing

We run 32 impact tests on a helmet model before awarding a SHARP rating.

Because the world doesn’t operate at one speed, SHARP doesn’t either. Each crash is unique with its own unique set of variables, so we test at a much wider range of impact speeds than standard regulations.

What’s more, SHARP analyses national and international crash studies – helping us to select the test points that are most representative of ‘real world’ crashes.

For every helmet model, we run 32 tests on seven helmets across a range of sizes – assessing how well each helmet could protect the brain in the event of a crash. To ensure the validity of our assessment, we only test helmets that we ourselves have purchased from retail outlets. It is important that the helmets we test are the same as those you would buy yourself.

We then go to work, testing each helmet by impacting them against anvils to represent flat surfaces and kerbs. SHARP tests are carried out at three different speeds to ensure the helmet provides good protection during both high and low severity impacts. Despite the risk of injury being much lower during less severe crashes, even a small risk could result in riders being seriously or fatally injured."

A little more info on their test procedures is available on their web site.

[MrKiwi]

My view is it is a great website with loads of very helpful information to "inform" your decision on what helmet to buy. The old maxim of the 'better and safer helmets cost more' is no longer necessarily true.

[newhere]

Worth a look, its definately an eye opener!

[MrKiwi]

$90 Oxford open face helmets FTW!

You miss his point - the point being price and helmet safety are not necessarily correlated and the SHARP testing shows this very well.