Updated Government Run Helmet Testing And Evaluation Websites

[RedLdr1]

When looking at a new helmet there are resources outside of the USA that provide full test results of various helmets. Unfortunately since they are "off shore" not all helmet brands or models sold in the USA may be tested overseas. But the big helmet companies like Arai, HJC, Shoei, etc are listed with most of their models... And sometimes the model names vary by country so with a little research you may find a specific helmet is listed under a different name.

The first is the UK Website SHARP.

The second, and newest one, is the Aussie website CRASH.

One of the nice features about these test sites over US DOT, or SNELL, testing is they tend to test more features. SHARP for example lists just how well the chin bar stays closed during an accident on a modular helmet. That info isn't usually found on a US website as DOT doesn't require it. As an example the HJC IS Max chin bar only remained fully locked 40% of the time in SHARP tests... Other brand helmets scored much higher. For me that is good info that you won't find in US based resources or most magazine / e-zine reviews.

EDIT: The list of Snell Approved Motorcycle Helmets can be found Here.

Anyway this is just a couple more resources for you to use when shopping for a new "lid".

Please keep this thread limited to resources that members may use when researching helmets rather than discussions about a specific helmet. If you want to discuss a specific helmet please start a new thread in this sub forum.

 

[charlie b]

Just curious.

Why is an unlatched chinbar a really bad thing? Thinking about this a little bit since my next helmet will be a modular. The testing did not say which impacts the bar unlatched. I suspect it happened when the impact was on the forehead. So, you smack something with your face and the chinbar comes unlatched. You continue to slide on your face, the forces being such that the chinbar is still protecting the face. If something does manage to 'grab' the chinbar and it slides up, isn't it better that the chinbar 'lets go' rather than have your head jerked?

Yep, you can dream up some scenario where it might be an issue, like bouncing off of something, rolling around and then sliding, but, I think that's a bit of a stretch. And most modulars, with the chinbar up it adds additional protection for the forehead, maybe even keeping the face further from the pavement.

The missing data is does the chinbar flip up or just come unlatched? And which impacts cause it to unlatch and does that really result in a loss of protection?

I also wonder why, if a chinbar is important for crash protection, that neither of the agencies test chinbar impacts? I suspect it is simply because the chinbar is there to prevent "road rash" type injuries to the face and the forehead of the helmet absorbs the major impact.

I do like their certification process, especially since DOT is done by the mfg and not an independent outfit. And we can thank the Snell group for all this since they began the independent testing process after his death.

 

[charlie b]

"Naturally, a one-piece construction where the chin bar is part of the overall helmet (like on a full face non-modular) will probably provide more overall protection than a modular chin bar that might come "loose" in an impact"

Why do you assume this? And why would coming "loose" affect the performance of the chinbar?

I still find it interesting that neither of those seem to test the chinbars for impact. Especially when the studies I have seen show that a lot of injuries are to the chin and nose area. Maybe someone determined that those injuries were mostly road rash type and so would not be subject to the impact loads of other parts of the helmet?

Also interesting is that Snell does test the chinbar as well as the face shield. Up to now only one (or maybe two now) modular helmets have passed their tests. Maybe not a big check right now as they have only allowed modular testing in the last couple of years and some mfgs have not submitted samples for testing. FWIW, they don't test chinbar retention either, only impact. But, they do test retention of the helmet on the head and penetration testing.

So far, chinbar latches are probably the last part that I would care about for crash testing.

 

[charlie b]

Please excuse my nit picking on testing. Most of my career has been as a test engineer.

 

[charlie b]

Yep. Same here.

That's why I was happy when Snell revised some of their test standards in 2010. They still seem to have the best mix of all of a helmet's performance parameters.

But, the Brit and Aussie tests are just as valid.

 

[charlie b]

Great examples and neither support the idea that an unlatched chin bar would not have provided adequate protection. So, I still ask why that particular bit of information is important.

And Snell remains the only group to test chin bar impact.

From what I can tell the SHARP series is the only one to test glancing blows, ie scraping. But, they seem to do it only on the side of the helmet and it isn't a test of a long slide on the face like I have seen from some crashes.

One of the issues with the Snell 2005 standard was that it required surviving two major impacts at the same location. It seems from the description that SHARP tests the helmet using three impacts of varying heights at the same spot but it is not clear if they do each test on a new helmet or hit the same one three times. I suspect it is one hit per helmet.

One of the Guzzi riders is alive today thanks to his helmet and probably the chinbar. He rear ended a truck at fairly high speed. Several days after the accident he woke up and the police showed him a picture of the back of the truck and the 3" deep dent made by his helmet.

So, testing remains an interesting and not all conclusive measure of real world performance. But, maybe those guys have compiled more crash information than you and I have access to and test accordingly. Like the Snell test that includes "car" helmets and impact on roll bars.

 

[charlie b]

PS After looking back to the test procedures it is not clear that Snell tests the chinbar on modulars. Their description says they test the chinbar on full face helmets. The thing I don't like about the Snell results is they don't show helmets that 'fail' their testing or are marginal like the SHARP results.

PPS Another interesting tidbit. The 300G standard is applied by Snell and SHARP. But, SHARP approves a helmet that meets that standard in ANY of the tests, not all of them. Snell fails a helmet if it does not meet that standard in EVERY impact. The advantage is that SHARP shows the test results in detail, so if you are interested you can see where a helmet may be approved, yet, 'fail' in one or more zones. SHARP also shows a 250G test level (their green rating) which some argue should be the standard for street helmets.

 

[RedLdr1]

Great examples and neither support the idea that an unlatched chin bar would not have provided adequate protection. So, I still ask why that particular bit of information is important.

Why is chin bar retention important? The diagram below, from a German study, shows you have roughly a 45% chance of impacting on your chin or face. The chance of impacting on your forehead rates about the same as your right face alone. That is not when I need a piece of my helmet unlatching, due to a hardware failure or poor design, so I can potentially finish sliding on my face. If the chin bar working correctly, at least most of the time, to protect you on a modular helmet is irrelevant I would take the next leap, of some what faulty logic , and say chin bars are then irrelevant so why buy a modular or full face helmet?


helmetDamage_previewhttp://www.flickr.com/people/wecnwise/

As far as standards the newer 2010 Snell "M" class for Motorcycles changed the multiple impact test the old standard required that caused issues for motorcyclists. Even with the revised Snell standards after doing a bit of research I believe the European ECE Standard REG 22.05 is just as good as Snell and is much better than DOT. Several race sanctioning bodies recognize the ECE standard as well as Snell. My personal biases and opinion does come in to play here as the DOT standards will allow some pretty sorry excuses for helmets, like skid lids, to be on the market.

The key is to be an informed buyer and these resources are designed to help you evaluate the options that are available for you....

 

[charlie b]

Sorry, but a chinbar being latched or unlatched would not change anything related to that diagram.

Heck, do a test with the chinbar unlatched and see how it works. Sliding on your face I am sure you won't car if the bar is unlatched or not, it is still there.

NOTE and important one. The SHARP tests just say whether or not the chinbar came UNLATCHED, not that if flipped up out of the way.

I do like the ECE standards and won't buy a helmet that doesn't meet their standards or Snell. DOT standards are almost a joke and allowing mfgs to test and apply their own ratings is just stupid.

I also like that ECE has clothing standards.

 

[RedLdr1]

Heck, do a test with the chinbar unlatched and see how it works. Sliding on your face I am sure you won't car if the bar is unlatched or not, it is still there.

How do you know it will still be there if it came unlatched? I should not have to "assume" it will still be there or even accept a high latch failure rate that puts it being there at risk. It should stay latched as designed and advertised if the design and materials are adequate for the helmet. Edit: Anything can fail, lets make that requirement at least 90% of the time...

DOT standards are almost a joke and allowing mfgs to test and apply their own ratings is just stupid.

Yep, go to any motorcycle show and take a look at what is being sold with a DOT label...

 

[charlie b]

Sorry, but, I see no valid reason why a chin bar coming unlatched on a forehead impact would cause me to not consider it. The bar is still there and is still doing it's job, ie, keeping the face from scraping on the pavement. Not an assumption. The bar comes UNLATCHED, it doesn't come off the helmet.

Maybe that's why no other testing orgs mention it?

 

[RedLdr1]

The bar is still there and is still doing it's job, ie, keeping the face from scraping on the pavement. Not an assumption.

Please show me where it states the bar would still be there and doing its job after unlatching. Much less in a real world accident with an impact followed by a tumbling slide...

Maybe that's why no other testing orgs mention it?

Someone has to be the first to look at issues. Before Snell there were No Standards...

 

[karl]

All that is perched up on top of http://www.visordown.com/features/neck-braces---the-future-of-road-riding/6398.html How many of us that talk ATGATT wear one.

 

[charlie b]

The rider that hit the back of the truck spent 6 weeks in the hospital after that accident. There was neck injury but it wasn't "broken". Several ribs were, along with one arm and I think there was a shoulder injury as well.

Like I said before, being a test engineer I tend to nit pick test results.

"Chinbar unlatched" doesn't mean squat. It's like saying I shot a hole in an airplane. So what? The hole could have gone through the airplane skin and just made two small holes....or....it could have hit the turbine blades and cause the engine to disintegrate(thee "golden BB effect"). As a test engineer I find including that bit of data misleading and irresponsible. I can't count the number of tests I have done where the object "failed" the test but still functioned at or beyond the object's original specs. Or...when the performance specs were lower than original but still would have met mission performance standards.

And that"unlatched" statement is made doubly irresponsible cause they don't even test the chin bars for impact. *** is up with that?

I do appreciate the presentation of the SHARP test results as it shows the weak spot of each helmet rather than just giving a pass/fail.

So, you can do with what you want from the test results. I will ignore the latched and unlatched portion until they explain their results better.

 

[RedNigel]

I found the website completely useless
All I got when I put ina helmet was a star rating
NO details no test results
What good is a website that only gives 1-5 stars and tells you nothing about th helmet

 

[Warren]

If you are talking about Sharp in the lower left it shows you impact areas to the head and how they rate each helmet in those areas by color code. On flip up helmets it also has the percentage of time the flip up portion stayed locked. I don't find it unless at all. I assume you are looking for some sort of write up like consumers reports might do.

 

[charlie b]

On the SHARP site you have to click on the helmet model and it will take you to a page with some more detail. No real writeup. Just which impact zones survived at what levels.

 

[Warren]

Charlie, regarding the Sharp testing and ratings it's interesting that it does not appear that the face guard remaining locked has a significant bearing on the rating which may mean that they are not saying it's necessarily a safety issue if the face guard comes unlocked in a crash which supports what you are stating. For example the Shark Evoline 3 has a 5 star rating and yet the face guard only remained locked 57% of the time while the Nolan 104 has four stars with 100% on the face guard. The Nolan however did not do as well on the side impact test. I would still prefer a helmet that the face guard remains locked in a crash but I am not sure that it means my face will be damaged if it does not.

 

[charlie b]

I agree, which is why I question them even putting that data on there.

I also find it interesting that some helmets with a Snell 2010 rating had side impact ratings from SHARP that were way below standard. Makes me wonder.

 

[charlie b]

The problem with DOT is that the govt does NOT do the testing. They just set the guidelines. Each mfg tests their helmets and puts the sticker on them. Horrible way to run the system. At least the Brits and Aussies test and approve the helmets independently.

The issue with Snell was the 2005 standards. Their was some disagreement over the max impact felt by the head. The main issue is that Snell was founded and existed to test helmets for racing. Their tests show that goal in the types of impacts tested as well as the retention tests. It also led to the second biggest issue, the double hit test. They required the helmet to withstand TWO full force hits at the same point. That meant the helmets were "stiffer" than what resulted from other tests and was why so many helmets did not meet their standards.

From what I can tell the 2010 standard removed the "double hit" and decreased the allowable force felt by the wearer.

The Snell standard is still the most comprehensive test certification for helmets.

Why aren't all helmets subjected to the Snell testing? Because the mfg has to pay for it. They provide all the helmets and a fee. And they have to do that for each size shell being sold. It is an expensive proposition for those who don't care if people use their helmets for racing.

I am really happy that other governments have taken on this task. It is something the US govt should do as well.

The same should also be done with motorcycle clothing testing. Impact and abrasion testing similar to the ECE.