Making an informed decision is important, which is why it is good that the UK and AUS have come up with their own testing agencies.
The Snell 2005 standards were incredibly strict, again, targeted at racing, not street use. The standards they set meant that the helmet had to be made of fiberglass and be heavier than some others. Even carbon fiber would fail the double impact test. But, helmets could meet the standard and still be competitive in weight. My Shoei RF-1000 is a good example of that (Snell 2005 certified). It is still lighter than most of the modular helmets out there today and is lighter than many FF helmets, some of which don't meet the Snell standards.
The 2010 standards have changed to reflect more of the street needs. The testing of modular helmets is a perfect example of that. Current Snell certified helmets aren't that much different weight wise than any others
I just wish there was better crash data on which to base these tests. That is what caused the big rift between the folks at Snell and resulted in the big changes from 2005 to 2010. How hard should the helmets be hit and how many times. What shapes should be used. Is penetration testing important at all? Is face shield testing important?
Bottom line is that a helmet that is tested by any of these independent agencies is better than what we used to be able to get. Until ECE and the European testing I would not accept anything except a Snell certificate.
The Snell 2005 standards were incredibly strict, again, targeted at racing, not street use. The standards they set meant that the helmet had to be made of fiberglass and be heavier than some others. Even carbon fiber would fail the double impact test. But, helmets could meet the standard and still be competitive in weight. My Shoei RF-1000 is a good example of that (Snell 2005 certified). It is still lighter than most of the modular helmets out there today and is lighter than many FF helmets, some of which don't meet the Snell standards.
The 2010 standards have changed to reflect more of the street needs. The testing of modular helmets is a perfect example of that. Current Snell certified helmets aren't that much different weight wise than any others
I just wish there was better crash data on which to base these tests. That is what caused the big rift between the folks at Snell and resulted in the big changes from 2005 to 2010. How hard should the helmets be hit and how many times. What shapes should be used. Is penetration testing important at all? Is face shield testing important?
Bottom line is that a helmet that is tested by any of these independent agencies is better than what we used to be able to get. Until ECE and the European testing I would not accept anything except a Snell certificate.