Helmet Saftey Ratings. Some Suprising Results

[RogueWave]

I found this site where they test helmets and give each one a one to five rating. http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/

They also illustrate the various impact zones and how well they absorb shock.

There are some very expensive carbon fiber and fiberglass helmets that don't rate very high. In contrast, there are also some cheat polycarb helmets that did very well. I am not sure why.

This is a UK site. So many of these helmets are not sold or are renamed for the US market. I wonder if there is a US site that shows these kind of detailed results.

[RED RUNNER]

Not really, but I believe former Motorcyclist editor Dexter Ford did an amazing article entitled, "Blowing the Lid Off," that really took the US approach to safety and turned it upside down. The Snell M2005 standard used in the US was shown as very flawed. Ford's article suggested that some cheaper, lighter helmets from off brands faired far better in real world scenarios than the expensive lids from Shoei and Arai. I think the SHARP tests are looked at in the US by those in the know as a standard less influenced by the big name brands.

As a caveat, SNELL renewed their standard in 2010, and made changes reflecting many of Ford's concerns.

I certainly check out the SHARP scores on helmets. Some models in the UK are the same as their US counterpart -- they've just got different names.

[RogueWave]

Snell is very 'Black Box'. I can't find there test, not even on there site. They just say, "Pass or Fail" with no details of how each helmet scores. It would be good to know. 'Pass' to what degree? There can be a wide range form one that barely passed to one that exceeds the standers greatly.

I do find them useful since I will be in the market for a new helmet come Spring. I have a Shoei RF 700. So I naturally looked at the new RF1200 first (Not yet tested by Sharp). But they can run over $500. So I am looking else ware for an equivalent that is more reasonably priced.

[FJ12Ryder]

And Dexter Ford was fired from Motorcyclist shortly after that article was printed. He said it was due to pressure exerted by loss of advertising revenue by the helmet companies.

[JZH]

And Dexter Ford was fired from Motorcyclist shortly after that article was printed. He said it was due to pressure exerted by loss of advertising revenue by the helmet companies.

A magazine commissions, edits and publishes an article on a controversial subject. And then "fires" the author for causing advertising revenues to drop? That doesn't make sense...

Ciao,

[V4 Rosso]

There are some very expensive carbon fiber and fiberglass helmets that don't rate very high. In contrast, there are also some cheat polycarb helmets that did very well. I am not sure why.

Yes, I was a bit disappointed when I found my Shuberth S1Pro is only rated two stars.

Btw, check out the VFRD links section, lots of usefull links to be found there including the one to the Sharp website

[FJ12Ryder]

And Dexter Ford was fired from Motorcyclist shortly after that article was printed. He said it was due to pressure exerted by loss of advertising revenue by the helmet companies.

A magazine commissions, edits and publishes an article on a controversial subject. And then "fires" the author for causing advertising revenues to drop? That doesn't make sense...

Ciao,

Clarification from me: I'm in error about Dexter Ford and the Motorcyclist article. He supposedly was fired due to an article he wrote for the New York Times that was critical of the Snell Foundation.

[JZH]

Ah, okay. It would be an almost comically spiteful thing to do for a magazine to fire an author for writing a controversial article that they willingly published!

Ciao,

[RogueWave]

I really like the Bell helmets. They all have consistently high ratings. The only problem is the helmet names and graphics are all UK specific.

Does anyone know the US names for these helmets?

Look at the Bell M4R. All the impact areas are in the green!

[kyojitsu]

The SHARP test is controversial in the UK mainly because the tests do not simulate or represent the most likely forms of impact eg random and oblique angles or multiple impacts. It's also a very limited representation of how a helmet can be shown to perform. It's alleged that some manufacturers of cheaper helmets will deliberately create stronger areas to specifically withstand the SHARP test points leaving the rest of head more vulnerable.

I've only ever worn Arai and Schuberth and have no problem with either brand despite their poor showing in SHARP. I'm convinced their R&D is worth more.

I do wish there was a higher, more sophisticated standard that could be agreed by all manufacturers though. It's not helpful to any of us having this doubt and uncertainty - not that any helmet provides that in an accident.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[V4 Rosso]

Does anyone know the US names for these helmets?

When the model name contains a number, multiply by 100 or 1000

[Switchblade]

I guess it depends on how valuable your head is .

[grond1234]

One of the issues with helmet testing is that different standards are based on different ideas of what generally occurs in a crash. The SNELL standard looks at two impacts in the same area as part of its testing amongst other things. This leads to a much stiffer helmet which subsequently leads to much higher G load transmission to the head - which is a very bad thing. The ECE and DOT standards have a one impact rule and as a result have shown much less G load transmission to the head - good thing. SNELL's recent changes were to bring it more in-line with ECE standards.

As a collision reconstructionist I have dealt with numerous m/c fatalities and serious collisions. I have only ever seen one double impact (same location) per sae and in that case no helmet was going to save the person as the were DRT from the first impact. Usually crashed riders have one hard impact from first contact with the road or object - followed by second smaller impact/slide damage in different area from sliding on road with their head. For example from my most serious crash at the track at about 100mph - first impact at front right temple area - then secondary rashing near right ear area then secondary impact left middle from tumbling and lastly some sliding/rashing near left behind ear area as slid on that side ( was not a lot of fun )

On a personnel note I prefer the ECE standard which is why I wear Bell and Shark helmets - both have done their job for me in a couple of nasty get off's and the Bell saved my life when I went down at 2011 TMac in my opinion - class 4 (IIIb) concussion - any more G load transmission and I likely would have had permanent brain damage (hold the snickers please) or be dead.

I agree that all testing sites should be looked at with some scepticism but I also like the British site - they buy their helmets from stores so the tests are based on what you are wearing. But at least all the VFRD folks I have met wear a helmet - the skull as a helmet usually results in shovel work at my scenes.

[Duc2V4]

I agree that all testing sites should be looked at with some scepticism but I also like the British site - they buy their helmets from stores so the tests are based on what you are wearing.

When I spoke with one of the SNELL test technicians at the recent motorcycle show, she indicated the same thing was done by SNELL. Not only does the helmet manufacturer have to provide the helmet for testing, they have to buy the stickers that go on the helmets that are sold. Once the helmet Is on the shelf, SNELL will do a random purchase of helmets and retest them. I don't recall what happened if they failed but I imagine it was a revocation of the certification, if not more.

[FJ12Ryder]

Snell must have changed their process. I'd never heard that Snell did anonymous/random testing.

[RogueWave]

One of the issues with helmet testing is that different standards are based on different ideas of what generally occurs in a crash. The SNELL standard looks at two impacts in the same area as part of its testing amongst other things. This leads to a much stiffer helmet which subsequently leads to much higher G load transmission to the head - which is a very bad thing. The ECE and DOT standards have a one impact rule and as a result have shown much less G load transmission to the head - good thing. SNELL's recent changes were to bring it more in-line with ECE standards.

As a collision reconstructionist I have dealt with numerous m/c fatalities and serious collisions. I have only ever seen one double impact (same location) per sae and in that case no helmet was going to save the person as the were DRT from the first impact. Usually crashed riders have one hard impact from first contact with the road or object - followed by second smaller impact/slide damage in different area from sliding on road with their head. For example from my most serious crash at the track at about 100mph - first impact at front right temple area - then secondary rashing near right ear area then secondary impact left middle from tumbling and lastly some sliding/rashing near left behind ear area as slid on that side ( was not a lot of fun )

On a personnel note I prefer the ECE standard which is why I wear Bell and Shark helmets - both have done their job for me in a couple of nasty get off's and the Bell saved my life when I went down at 2011 TMac in my opinion - class 4 (IIIb) concussion - any more G load transmission and I likely would have had permanent brain damage (hold the snickers please) or be dead.

I agree that all testing sites should be looked at with some scepticism but I also like the British site - they buy their helmets from stores so the tests are based on what you are wearing. But at least all the VFRD folks I have met wear a helmet - the skull as a helmet usually results in shovel work at my scenes.

'I am impressed with the Bell helmets. I am likely going to get the Vortex. I don't know how the stateside Bells compare to the European made. I would love to get my hands on an M4, M5 or M6. All earned five stars.