Helmet standards

[SaferRides]

I bought a new helmet recently and noticed that it meets the updated ECE standard, 22.06. I was reading some reviews as I had a problem with the visor, and found out that Shoei make two quite different models for the US and the rest of the world, the RF1400 and NXR2.

So it all comes down to a difference between the Snell foundation and what seems like everyone else. Fortnine did a video on this a while ago and there's been quite a few articles as well.

In addition, the FIM decided that they should update their standard, which is similar to ECE 22.06 but has lower maximum G forces.

I am trying to find a reasonably brief summary of all of this, but it is complicated.

My interest in all of this started after suffering a rotational concussion about 10 years ago. No one who treated me seemed to know there was such a a thing back then.



Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[F5 Dave]

The UK sharp ratings seem well thought out but probably superceded by ECE. I dont know if so

Snell and dot are very old and do dumb things.

I keep seeing people riding with their flip helmet in up position.

That would make for a very nasty accident and or break your neck as you don't roll easily with a sticky out thing on your face.

[BMWST?]

are the rsults of said studies,and F9 video clear cut that one is better then the other??

Buy a well known helmet that is the best fit/most comfortable/features you want. I truly believe that the actual differences in such stds are so small that in the real world the outcome of an head impact would be no different.

[SaferRides]

are the rsults of said studies,and F9 video clear cut that one is better then the other??

The research supports the ECE/FIM position, which is what started this debate in the first place. The majority of head impacts are low energy, basically falling off and hitting the road, and it is more important to reduce G forces on the brain and rotational injuries.



Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[Gremlin]

I keep seeing people riding with their flip helmet in up position.

That would make for a very nasty accident and or break your neck as you don't roll easily with a sticky out thing on your face.

True, but also depends on the helmet. Some are dual homologated (P and J) where flip up or down, it's allowed. Some however, aren't, so using in that position actually means it's not legal.

[F5 Dave]

It's "allowed". What BS, surely? Imagine a crash where you roll, just a bit, doesn't have to be like a ragdoll.
But your helmet has a protruding bit out the front? Where you have a reasonable chance of your head following your body with a normal helmet. Having the front part up cannot help but greatly increase the risk of rotational damage as it rolls badly and unlike a ball shaped object that a normal helmet (or closed flip) is closer to.

[SaferRides]

Where Ryan really puts the boot into Snell.

Source: YouTube https://share.google/ipxe468jaDzX74Vk8

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[pritch]

From memory (so no reference to the new standards) the Snell system requires a very stiff shell. Some people felt too stiff. The more flexible European helmets had some cushioning effect in an impact.

The Sharp testing appeared to be designed by people who were wizards on testing but knew nowt about helmets. Arai (who fared comparatively badly) complained that the point on the side where the helmets were tested would not normally be impacted as it would be protected by the shoulder.

So you pays your money and you makes your choice.

[pete376403]

Peter Snell, the guy whose helmet failed and thus became the subject of the Snell Foundation, was a sports car driver and the testing was originally concerned with things in car that a helmet might impact, eg roll cages, so in this respect Snells testing of a side impact is relevant

[SaferRides]

Peter Snell, the guy whose helmet failed and thus became the subject of the Snell Foundation, was a sports car driver and the testing was originally concerned with things in car that a helmet might impact, eg roll cages, so in this respect Snells testing of a side impact is relevant

I've seen that argument before. But Snell has different standards for car and motorbike helmets, so there must be a reason why they have left the double hit test in the motorbike standard.

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[SaferRides]

Peter Snell, the guy whose helmet failed and thus became the subject of the Snell Foundation, was a sports car driver and the testing was originally concerned with things in car that a helmet might impact, eg roll cages, so in this respect Snells testing of a side impact is relevant

Pete Snell.

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[SaferRides]

From memory (so no reference to the new standards) the Snell system requires a very stiff shell. Some people felt too stiff. The more flexible European helmets had some cushioning effect in an impact.

The Sharp testing appeared to be designed by people who were wizards on testing but knew nowt about helmets. Arai (who fared comparatively badly) complained that the point on the side where the helmets were tested would not normally be impacted as it would be protected by the shoulder.

So you pays your money and you makes your choice.

SHARP test to the old British standard but use ECE anvils. They claim to test at positions on the helmet where the majority of impacts happen in accidents. The side impacts are meant to represent the temples, which are a weak point of the head, but their graphics look like they test further back, above the ears.

All of the Arai helmets that pass ECE 22.06 are SHARP 4 or 5 star, so make of that what you will. Every 22.06 Shoei, including the Glamster(!), is 5 stars.

The new ECE standard seems very comprehensive and if a helmet passes that, then it should be safe enough.

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[rambaldi]

SHARP test to the old British standard but use ECE anvils. They claim to test at positions on the helmet where the majority of impacts happen in accidents. The side impacts are meant to represent the temples, which are a weak point of the head, but their graphics look like they test further back, above the ears.

All of the Arai helmets that pass ECE 22.06 are SHARP 4 or 5 star, so make of that what you will. Every 22.06 Shoei, including the Glamster(!), is 5 stars.

The new ECE standard seems very comprehensive and if a helmet passes that, then it should be safe enough.

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

In the past I have relied on the SHARP testing, but these days I am looking to 22.06. Most of the SHARP database seems a bit out of date, helmets etc. that aren't on the market anymore. As you said, the new standard does seem very comprehensive. Now if only were a site I could use to narrow down the range of helmets available based on feature set - in my experiance things sufficient rear vents, internal sunshield, detents and pinlock all help me be comfortable and therefore safer. I don't make good decisions if I am, for example, too hot.

[SaferRides]

In the past I have relied on the SHARP testing, but these days I am looking to 22.06. Most of the SHARP database seems a bit out of date, helmets etc. that aren't on the market anymore. As you said, the new standard does seem very comprehensive. Now if only were a site I could use to narrow down the range of helmets available based on feature set - in my experiance things sufficient rear vents, internal sunshield, detents and pinlock all help me be comfortable and therefore safer. I don't make good decisions if I am, for example, too hot.

You could try somewhere like sportsbikeshop.co.uk. They have a list of filters you can select to narrow down the choice. Champion Helmets is another option.

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

[rambaldi]

You could try somewhere like sportsbikeshop.co.uk. They have a list of filters you can select to narrow down the choice. Champion Helmets is another option.

Sent from my SM-S938B using Tapatalk

Thanks, those get most of the way to what I want. There are only a couple features missing e.g. proper detents. Now if only sites would properly stack different colour options so I don't have to scroll through 20 copies of the same helmet.