When can we start buying and using EURO spec helmets here in the US?

FIREfish148 wrote:

What helmet company makes helmets to euro spec? Shark?

crewshin wrote:

There are quite a few over there... but the UFO's are sick. I'm a Shoei guy and they look just like Shoei's. But liiiiight and apparently...

There are quite a few over there... but the UFO's are sick. I'm a Shoei guy and they look just like Shoei's. But liiiiight and apparently amazing to crash in.

http://www.ufoplast.com/en/product-details/mx-enduro/helmets-mx-enduro/…

Now if only Shoei would make a VFX in euro spec... and I could race with it at pro events (in the US), that would be a nice solution. Until then... even being able to wear a UFO at a US Supercross would be nice eh.

500guy wrote:

Everyone needs to quit expecting the sanctioning bodies to legislate every detail, rules equal more problems. if you know a Helmet is not as safe as...

Everyone needs to quit expecting the sanctioning bodies to legislate every detail, rules equal more problems.

if you know a Helmet is not as safe as another, go buy one and wear it and quit expecting to get your ass wiped everytime you take a shit, Be responsible for your self.

crewshin wrote:

Wow. What the heck. This has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about.

crewshin wrote:

There are quite a few over there... but the UFO's are sick. I'm a Shoei guy and they look just like Shoei's. But liiiiight and apparently...

There are quite a few over there... but the UFO's are sick. I'm a Shoei guy and they look just like Shoei's. But liiiiight and apparently amazing to crash in.

http://www.ufoplast.com/en/product-details/mx-enduro/helmets-mx-enduro/…

Now if only Shoei would make a VFX in euro spec... and I could race with it at pro events (in the US), that would be a nice solution. Until then... even being able to wear a UFO at a US Supercross would be nice eh.

scott_nz wrote:

they do, I own one,

crewshin wrote:

But... did you buy it here in the states? And if you did, have you raced a pro event with it here?

crewshin wrote:

Wait... Because people dont get concussions when they are not on jumps? I dont doubt the jumps are a bit more dangerous than they were in...

Wait... Because people dont get concussions when they are not on jumps? I dont doubt the jumps are a bit more dangerous than they were in the 70's... But what I'm asking about wouldn't drastically change the sport that is growing so well lately. Your proposed change would have huge repercussions as far as fan base IMO.

Do the Euro's also use the DOT spec? I dont think so which might explain why helmets are soo different over there from here.

What I do know is that the euro speced helmets are far safer for motocross. Technicalities aside.

EmDub425 wrote:

there are basically three types of helmets sold in the U.S. DOT only Dot/ ECE and DOT/Snell Helmets such as the Thor Force like RV wears...

there are basically three types of helmets sold in the U.S.

DOT only

Dot/ ECE

and DOT/Snell

Helmets such as the Thor Force like RV wears, the UFO and some AGV's and well as some Scorpions are all DOT/ECE.

helmet manufactures can make a helmet that passes both DOT/ECE or both DOT/SNELL. But not both ECE and SNELL.

Most companies that plan to sell their helmet in both the US and Europe will go the DOT/ECE route since those two tests pass street legal standards in their respective regions.

Shenzi wrote:

This is my new ECE/DOT/SNELL/BSI certified lid, very light. [img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2012/05/25/bread_head_toast_helmet_protection_rerun_stupid_human_1298682174_385829.jpg[/img]

This is my new ECE/DOT/SNELL/BSI certified lid, very light.

Shenzi wrote:

This is my new ECE/DOT/SNELL/BSI certified lid, very light. [img]https://p.vitalmx.com/photos/forums/2012/05/25/bread_head_toast_helmet_protection_rerun_stupid_human_1298682174_385829.jpg[/img]

This is my new ECE/DOT/SNELL/BSI certified lid, very light.

jamma10 wrote:

Hmmmmmm.

The vents look pretty good, does it come in Wholemeal?

The Rock wrote:

[i]I have just e mailed Snell to get their input. I interviewed them twice over a three year period for MXA awhile back. Will let you...

I have just e mailed Snell to get their input. I interviewed them twice over a three year period for MXA awhile back. Will let you know what they responds with.

Here it is:

I’m unaware of any fakery with Snell labels for competition motorcycle events. If you know of any, I’d be grateful for a heads up. As nearly as I know, a DOT qualified helmet is sufficient for events here in the US so faking a Snell label might not be necessary in any event. The European spec is definitely intended for street riding. FIM in Europe allows ECE 22-05, the European spec, in competition but they allow non ECE alternatives as well. Since ECE 22-05 is not very demanding, it allows lighter, sleeker headgear which may appeal to some motocross riders but that is purely incidental. My best impression is that DOT calls for slightly more impact management than ECE 22-05 which along with the DOT shell penetration test demands a stronger more rigid shell. More rigid implies more layers of fiberglass and, therefore a slightly heavier helmet. Far lighter may be an exaggeration though. I’ve been looking at some helmet weights and find at least a few ECE helmets up in the 1400 gram range and beyond. Some ECE modular helmets are even heavier. I’ve heard of one in the 1900 gram range.

Snell M2010 does not imply ECE 22-05 compliance. It is still possible to build a helmet which meets M2010 but which does not meet ECE 22-05. However, M2010 was intended to allow manufacturers to build a single helmet which would meet M2010, ECE 22-05 and DOT. This kind of compatibility had not been the case for M2005. The ECE 22-05 test head forms for the smaller sizes were progressively lighter than the corresponding Snell head forms which complicated design problems. However, larger sized Snell helmets seemed to have had few difficulties meeting ECE requirements. ECE 22-05 actually allows harder helmets than Snell for the largest sizes. Once we determined that the ECE head form mass breakout was actually a better representation of the human head mass versus size relationship, we took up that same breakout for our test head forms. This move opened the door to Snell/ECE compatibility. The changes for M2010 effectively demands softer helmets for the smaller sizes but leaves the larger sizes just as they were.

Snell certification is effectively a 2nd tier above mandatory levels like DOT or ECE 22-05. In North America, helmets must meet DOT and in Europe, ECE 22-05. Snell certification is strictly a value-added option and Snell’s added value is a significant increase in impact energy management. DOT and ECE 22-05 essentially dictate helmet hardness and softness for all but the largest sizes but neither tests the helmets very severely. However, we figure that riders should have all the impact energy management they can reasonably wear on their heads. Accelerating to cruising speed effectively pumps kinetic energy into every part of a rider’s body but especially his head. Before he comes to a stop, he’s got to get rid of all that kinetic energy. The preferred way is to gently slow bike and rider with a controlled application of the brakes but in the event of a crash, the rider may have to get rid of that head kinetic energy in a big hurry. We recommend dumping that energy into a good helmet. Of course, in some crashes a good chunk of that energy might be scrubbed off sliding along the pavement but in others, the helmet must carry the brunt if the rider is to survive. If it cannot, the remainder must be managed by the rider’s head, often with disastrous results. The kicker is that a medium sized head at 30 mph is carrying more than twice the kinetic energy Snell certification demands. Hence the advice on the Snell stickers, “Some reasonably foreseeable crashes may exceed this helmet’s capability to protect against severe injury or death.” Don’t ever worry that you’re wearing more helmet than you might need. However much you’ve got may not be enough.

My take away:

1) I'm glad I got a M2010 refresher but I'm going to need more time than I have now to process Snell M2010 does not imply ECE 22-05 compliance. It is still possible to build a helmet which meets M2010 but which does not meet ECE 22-05. However, M2010 was intended to allow manufacturers to build a single helmet which would meet M2010, ECE 22-05 and DOT. This kind of compatibility had not been the case for M2005. but maybe when I'm not going out the door in a rush I'll understand it.
2) Snell is not a closed minded entity but one open to new information and incorporating other's findings in the quest for safety.
3) Very nice of Snell to provide this much information.
4) Best way to avoid a head injury is to not crash.

DrSweden wrote:

Introduction When a motorcyclist goes into a shop to buy a helmet and starts reading the stickers and labels on the helmets for sale, he or...

Introduction
When a motorcyclist goes into a shop to buy a helmet and starts reading the stickers and labels on the helmets for sale, he or she is likely to have some questions.

This is due to several reasons. In spite of interest and lip service to international harmonization, there are still numerous performance standards for motorcycle helmets.

Some are government standards and others issued by private organizations. These standards differ in many ways but are similar in that they measure a helmet’s ability to absorb impact. The effectiveness of the retention system that keeps the helmet on the head is also tested as are accessories such as face shields.

Equally important, although not directly addressed by helmet standards, are wearability issues such as comfort, ventilation, weight, fit, cost, appearance, and availability.

There are two ageless helmet maxims that the reader should be aware of. First is that if you can tell the helmet designers exactly what your crash will be, they can make you the best possible helmet for that particular crash. Second is that the best helmet possible won’t protect you if you’re not wearing it.


Motorcycle helmets are designed, manufactured, and tested to meet performance standards. These performance tests drive the helmet design and the measured performance of the helmets in laboratory testing, and therefore accident performance as well.

In spite of the similarity of purpose, the methods and requirements vary dramatically from standard to standard.

Some are relatively simple, and others are far more complex. It is important to note that none of the standards are meant to precisely replicate the threats that a motorcyclist may see in a crash. This is primarily due to the need for reliability and repeatability in the testing environment, to say nothing of the variability of actual crashes.

There have been several studies of motorcycle crashes over the last 25 years that have attempted to evaluate any protective advantage or disadvantage of helmets meeting one standard or another (Hurt, 1981; tte, 1991). No advantage has ever been shown in these field studies for any particular standard, so the helmet industry and individual riders are left comparing theoretical pros and cons of the various standards.

That is not to say that research has not shown important differences in helmets. Since helmets protect best what they cover most, additional coverage has always been found to provide additional protection: a full-facial coverage helmet has more protection than an open-face which has more coverage and protection than a shorty (partial coverage) helmet.

Research in California (Hurt, et al, 1981) showed that 90% of real life crash impacts are at or below the impact requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, performance standard for motorcycle helmets (also known as FMVSS 218 or DOT).



It is critical to note that helmets have been continually shown to be effective in reducing head injury, regardless of what standard they might meet. The only noteworthy exception is the novelty helmet worn in protest of mandatory helmet use laws. These “helmets” do not meet any standard and cannot be expected to provide meaningful head protection.

In the United States, there have historically been two helmet standards applicable to motorcycle helmets. The FMVSS 218 or DOT is the mandatory U.S. government standard that all motorcycle helmets must meet to be legal for sale and use on public roads and highways.

This standard was first issued in 1974 and was updated in 1980 and again in 1988. Much work has been done toward another update in the near future. The second standard is issued by the Snell Memorial Foundation, a private organization that issues its own motorcycle helmet standard.

A third helmet standard from the Economic Community of Europe (ECE) is actually the most commonly used internationally, the ECE 22.05, required by over 50 countries worldwide. While helmet standards all have the goal of regulating helmet performance for protection of riders’ heads, some performance requirements conflict between standards.

An advantage of the ECE 22.05 standard is the requirement for mandatory batch testing of helmets before they are released to the riding public. What this means to the consumer is the quality of the helmet in meeting the ECE 22.05 standard is assured by a mandatory sample testing of every production of helmets before they leave the factory, not with random testing performed after thousands of helmets with unknown quality are delivered to the dealers.

No one helmet designed to a particular standard or standards can provide the maximum protection in all types of crashes and no helmet can protect the wearer against all foreseeable impacts. Helmets can be designed to provide additional protection, for example, full-face helmets compared to the open-face types, but added protection comes with a weight penalty.

HHow much weight are you willing to wear? If you reject helmets with less coverage, you will end up with a helmet that covers most of your head and weighs about three pounds. By choosing a helmet meeting a performance standard such as ECE 22.05, you can minimize that weight while maximizing protection.

Summary
If you’re not comfortable with a helmet that only meets the US Government DOT standard, what do you look for? Historically, American riders have looked for a Snell label but the world is getting smaller and we now have other viable alternatives. The ECE 22.05 standard is used in over 50 European countries, including Germany, a country known for taking a hard line on personal protection.

Helmets certified to the ECE 22.05 standard are approved for competition events by AMA, CCS, FIM, Formula-USA and WERA and are chosen by nearly every professional motorcycle racers competing in world championship road racing, motocross and off road events, including the ultimate sport of Moto GP. Helmets that are certified to both DOT and ECE 22.05 offer the highest level of realistic protection with the added benefit of light weight for day-long comfort and rider performance.

TeamGreen wrote:

Didn't MA800 get a nice "Head-Ache" while wearing one of these Ubber-Cool-Black-Sweater-House-Music-style helmets?

crewshin wrote:

Are you implying that we're saying it's impossible to get a concussion with a helmet?

DrSweden wrote:

Introduction When a motorcyclist goes into a shop to buy a helmet and starts reading the stickers and labels on the helmets for sale, he or...

Introduction
When a motorcyclist goes into a shop to buy a helmet and starts reading the stickers and labels on the helmets for sale, he or she is likely to have some questions.

This is due to several reasons. In spite of interest and lip service to international harmonization, there are still numerous performance standards for motorcycle helmets.

Some are government standards and others issued by private organizations. These standards differ in many ways but are similar in that they measure a helmet’s ability to absorb impact. The effectiveness of the retention system that keeps the helmet on the head is also tested as are accessories such as face shields.

Equally important, although not directly addressed by helmet standards, are wearability issues such as comfort, ventilation, weight, fit, cost, appearance, and availability.

There are two ageless helmet maxims that the reader should be aware of. First is that if you can tell the helmet designers exactly what your crash will be, they can make you the best possible helmet for that particular crash. Second is that the best helmet possible won’t protect you if you’re not wearing it.


Motorcycle helmets are designed, manufactured, and tested to meet performance standards. These performance tests drive the helmet design and the measured performance of the helmets in laboratory testing, and therefore accident performance as well.

In spite of the similarity of purpose, the methods and requirements vary dramatically from standard to standard.

Some are relatively simple, and others are far more complex. It is important to note that none of the standards are meant to precisely replicate the threats that a motorcyclist may see in a crash. This is primarily due to the need for reliability and repeatability in the testing environment, to say nothing of the variability of actual crashes.

There have been several studies of motorcycle crashes over the last 25 years that have attempted to evaluate any protective advantage or disadvantage of helmets meeting one standard or another (Hurt, 1981; tte, 1991). No advantage has ever been shown in these field studies for any particular standard, so the helmet industry and individual riders are left comparing theoretical pros and cons of the various standards.

That is not to say that research has not shown important differences in helmets. Since helmets protect best what they cover most, additional coverage has always been found to provide additional protection: a full-facial coverage helmet has more protection than an open-face which has more coverage and protection than a shorty (partial coverage) helmet.

Research in California (Hurt, et al, 1981) showed that 90% of real life crash impacts are at or below the impact requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, performance standard for motorcycle helmets (also known as FMVSS 218 or DOT).



It is critical to note that helmets have been continually shown to be effective in reducing head injury, regardless of what standard they might meet. The only noteworthy exception is the novelty helmet worn in protest of mandatory helmet use laws. These “helmets” do not meet any standard and cannot be expected to provide meaningful head protection.

In the United States, there have historically been two helmet standards applicable to motorcycle helmets. The FMVSS 218 or DOT is the mandatory U.S. government standard that all motorcycle helmets must meet to be legal for sale and use on public roads and highways.

This standard was first issued in 1974 and was updated in 1980 and again in 1988. Much work has been done toward another update in the near future. The second standard is issued by the Snell Memorial Foundation, a private organization that issues its own motorcycle helmet standard.

A third helmet standard from the Economic Community of Europe (ECE) is actually the most commonly used internationally, the ECE 22.05, required by over 50 countries worldwide. While helmet standards all have the goal of regulating helmet performance for protection of riders’ heads, some performance requirements conflict between standards.

An advantage of the ECE 22.05 standard is the requirement for mandatory batch testing of helmets before they are released to the riding public. What this means to the consumer is the quality of the helmet in meeting the ECE 22.05 standard is assured by a mandatory sample testing of every production of helmets before they leave the factory, not with random testing performed after thousands of helmets with unknown quality are delivered to the dealers.

No one helmet designed to a particular standard or standards can provide the maximum protection in all types of crashes and no helmet can protect the wearer against all foreseeable impacts. Helmets can be designed to provide additional protection, for example, full-face helmets compared to the open-face types, but added protection comes with a weight penalty.

HHow much weight are you willing to wear? If you reject helmets with less coverage, you will end up with a helmet that covers most of your head and weighs about three pounds. By choosing a helmet meeting a performance standard such as ECE 22.05, you can minimize that weight while maximizing protection.

Summary
If you’re not comfortable with a helmet that only meets the US Government DOT standard, what do you look for? Historically, American riders have looked for a Snell label but the world is getting smaller and we now have other viable alternatives. The ECE 22.05 standard is used in over 50 European countries, including Germany, a country known for taking a hard line on personal protection.

Helmets certified to the ECE 22.05 standard are approved for competition events by AMA, CCS, FIM, Formula-USA and WERA and are chosen by nearly every professional motorcycle racers competing in world championship road racing, motocross and off road events, including the ultimate sport of Moto GP. Helmets that are certified to both DOT and ECE 22.05 offer the highest level of realistic protection with the added benefit of light weight for day-long comfort and rider performance.

xnationalwrench wrote:

The simple fact is you can't buy a helmet without a DOT sticker in the U.S.. This is ruled by the government.,and not by the AMA...

The simple fact is you can't buy a helmet without a DOT sticker in the U.S.. This is ruled by the government.,and not by the AMA or FIM or anybody else. The only way to get some of the Euros helmets is by buying them from overseas and shipping them here. But if you have a tech inspection at the race it would not pass here.

crewshin wrote:

Annnnd this is why [b]nothing[/b] ever gets done in this industry. It's full of people like 500guy and shenzi posting pics of bread helmets. Good job...

Annnnd this is why nothing ever gets done in this industry. It's full of people like 500guy and shenzi posting pics of bread helmets. Good job on helping the sport men. Good job.

crewshin wrote:

Annnnd this is why [b]nothing[/b] ever gets done in this industry. It's full of people like 500guy and shenzi posting pics of bread helmets. Good job...

Annnnd this is why nothing ever gets done in this industry. It's full of people like 500guy and shenzi posting pics of bread helmets. Good job on helping the sport men. Good job.

TeamGreen wrote:

I believe you might be mistaken...

If it's FIM legal it's Suppose to Be AMA legal under the latest agreements between the 2 org's.

crewshin wrote:

That was DrSweden that quoted that site though. Maybe I missed your point with the link?