Full-faced vs half-helmet - Safety stats

[Chuck 500]

This has been a very interesting thread, as are many on this forum. When I bought my last (first) helmet I bought Arai. Why? 25 years ago, 1983, my brother and I raced go-karts. We used an Arai helmet. It was that simple. Since then I have read several articles on the "controversy" between DOT and Snell standards. One of the most interesting was 2008 or so and dealt with an analysis of G-forces transmitted to the head in a crash. (Sorry, i don't have the specific reference, it was one of the major cycle magazines) the surprise was that all of the Snell helmets allowed more force to the head than most of the DOT helmets. The "winner" was, in fact, the LEAST expensive of the bunch. Price has a LOT to do with comfort and features, less with safety, which is highly regulated.

All of this means that I have a LOT ot consider next summer when my Aria ages out. That HJC modular or the Bilt (Cyclegear) may look more attractive.

BTW, enjoying a bit of Buffalo Trace bourbon as I type,

keep the shiny side up,

Chuck

 

[karl]

Enjoy life Chuck

 

[Phil Tarman]

The magazine Chuck500 mentions was Motorcyclist. There argument (which seemed to be based on some scientific analysis) was that the brain could withstand G-forces of 300 Gs or less. IIRC, Snell-approved helmets, which had to withstand a 2nd impact in the same place during the semi-standard pendulum test, almost always transmitted more than 300 Gs because they needed to have some reserve strength.

 

[DirtFlier]

There are lots of hi-grade helmets that will pass Snell but many mfgs chose not to apply for that certification since there is a fee for the test and for each helmet produced. It is generally held that Snell standards are more appropriate to race cars.

At least from my viewpoint, the half helmet (even a good one) only protects you if you land on the top of your head. Because of the shape of the shell and its straps, it is too easy to push the front or the back of a half-helmet and have it either move way out of position or even come completely off your head.

 

[Warren]

Perhaps I was too subtle, I fully agree that cost is often divorced from real utility; usually it tracks more closely to perceived value. I was speculating about the degree to which a more expensive helmet's cost reflects status, wealth, cultural norms, the impact of ads, or the opinions of our friends rather than the "true" safety potential of the product. I would go as far as to posit that most purchases, even $80 skull caps involve those same factors; "Professionals wear Arai, so I'll look like a racer if I have one," or "Only posers wear helmets, real men wear do-rags."

I'm highly over-educated, and I always seek to make the best choice, but if I am buying safety equipment that I hope will save my life and the thousands of education dollars I've invested in my brain, I have no definitive idea which of any two helmets is the best choice.

When I buy a car, safety is my main criteria. Fortunately there are several organizations, both private and governmental (in both America and Europe) that provide very specific safety information that I can read and compare before I choose. With a helmet, I can, at best, see which helmet has minimally met a standard that may or may not reflect a definable level of safety.. I'm not aware that anyone does the kind of destructive testing that results in a meaningful comparison of the maximum standard a helmet can meet. Without such testing, determining which of two helmets is the better choice is a crap-shoot.



That is a reasonable approach, given the lack of real information one would need to make the decision. But what is the level of this equal safety? I too am concerned with fit and finish, but I differ in that for me a helmet is a piece life-saving and life-sustaining emergency equipment. My rant is that it is unfortunate we lack the information provided to the purchasers of other safety equipment for activities like scuba, skydiving, or climbing.

So in the end we are left with the option of choosing the one we feel is "best." It's hard to have a meaningful discussion if that is the standard.

Ken

Another option is to look at the Sharp testing.

 

[Bear]

Working in an ER for quite a few years allowed me the luxury of firsthand observation. We saw a lot of car accidents---obviously fewer MC accidents. NY State has mandatory helmet usage. I have seen some real nasty injuries--lots of road rash. Only one fatality-a H-D rider wearing one of those beanie helmets. What killed him was massive trauma to the body--not the head. Saw quite a few concussions. The more trashed the helmet was, the least injury was present. The helmet takes up a lot of shock by destruction. They are designed that way.

 

[Lorien]

While we are at it I will mention a preference for fiberglass helmets. It was always told to me that they tend to destroy themselves in an impact a lot more effectively than the so called plastic helmets. The logic is reasonable.

 

[charlie b]

Since some have mentioned DOT, please research this. DOT STANDARDS are good. BUT, as far as my few years old information, DOT does NOT test helmets. It merely sets standards and it is up to the mfg to determine if they meet those standards. The mfg is not monitored by the DOT. So, any helmet mfg can stick on a DOT sticker and claim it meets the standard. The ONLY thing that causes them to not meet the standard is threat of lawsuit.

Snell is the only independent testing house in the US. BUT they test for racing conditions so the helmets are full face only and are heavier (they have to sustain multiple impacts to the same point). There are disagreements about the Snell standards for street use. They do destructive testing at the mfg's expense. Mfg's do not send Snell helmets to test, Snell takes random samples from the production line. And it costs a lot to get that Snell sticker. So, Snell certified helmets do tend to cost more.

I wish DOT did independently test helmets and for that matter riding gear as well. At least we would know what we were buying. Until then I will look on European sites to see if the products meet the Euro standards.

 

[RedLdr1]

I just found something I didn't think existed...a Snell approved 3/4 helmet. The Shoei RJ-Platinum R 3/4 helmet is Snell approved to the older M2005 standard. I have been wearing Shoei for a long time and never knew that...

Note: The M2005 standard is the older standard that caused Snell a lot of flack about being to biased towards automotive racing requirements. The newer M2010 supposedly addressed those concerns...

 

[Rich]

Anyone remember the Hurt Report? It's somewhat dated (data gathered in 1976-77, published in 1981). Gathered vast amounts of data. what's interesting is it satisfied no one, because many conclusions flew in the face of what each constituency "knew". Said conclusions are available here and are worth reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_findings_in_the_Hurt_Report

There has been no such study subsequently done.

 

[RedLdr1]

There has been no such study subsequently done.

There is a new study going on now with the cooperation of the AMA. The results are due out in 2013. See this article, in the last paragraph, for a little info in it...

 

[elizilla]

If you are near Virginia Tech you can be in it. They're still looking for bikes to install their stuff on.