What’s the best/safest helmet you can get, and are there any tests to prove it?

Johnny Depp
Posts
6435
Joined
10/16/2014
Location
Buda, TX, USA
12/11/2019 12:30pm Edited Date/Time 12/11/2019 12:33pm
Lots of bullshit and marketing in this space, which is scary. TLD just spent another 30k buying Every helmet on the market to be tested by...
Lots of bullshit and marketing in this space, which is scary. TLD just spent another 30k buying Every helmet on the market to be tested by a third party testing company in LA. I’m doing my best to get these results posted. The last test showed the SE4, Bell Flex 9 and Fox’s high end helmet as the best three and very close in numbers. The stunning part, for me, was some of the “premium” brands who scored very low.
Got a link to that last test?

IMO motorcycle helmet testing is flawed in one basic premise, striking each helmet only once in each spot.

The other thing is, when manufacturer's have to become the testing standard, that is like the Fox watching the hen house. It's a confusing mess of an issue, with every country in the world using different standards and much crossover between styles such as mountain bike and downhill and adventure as well as MX. At this time there is no defined "best" desired result, some excel in some areas and some in others.
2
1
O&GDriller
Posts
553
Joined
7/16/2019
Location
Chattanooga, TN, USA
12/11/2019 12:39pm Edited Date/Time 12/11/2019 1:17pm
As a professional accident analyst/investigator I've always found it comical seeing so many jump on the "new" 6D type helmet technology without ANY scientific evidence supporting their "improved" protection effectiveness. Some non-technical guys sit around drinking adult beverages and draw up a new helmet design on a bar napkin. They then get someone to manufacture them and charge outrageous sums for their "newfound protection" As someone who deals with this stuff for a living the unsubstantiated claims by these manufacturers is nothing short of criminal. The consumers who drank/drink their Kool Aid by buying this unproven technology are buying insurance policies based upon some marketing guys.

Please note, I'm not trolling or trying to start shit with this post. I'm a degreed engineer specializing in qualitative and quantitative failure analysis and I've searched long and hard for a true "unbiased, technical scientific study/analysis" on this new found anti-rotational helmet design. My research indicates the technology was "created/invented" by some marketing guys. I'll also mention they seem to have succeeded as they've convinced
a lot of people that they need to throw away perfectly fine helmets and buy one of THEIR new, "technologically advanced" helmets and if you don't you should feel guilty because they we don't care about our brains.

This thread has too many armchair scientists commenting on that to which they know nothing....
7
6
aeffertz
Posts
12660
Joined
7/16/2015
Location
La Crosse, WI, USA
12/11/2019 4:31pm
O&GDriller wrote:
As a professional accident analyst/investigator I've always found it comical seeing so many jump on the "new" 6D type helmet technology without ANY scientific evidence supporting...
As a professional accident analyst/investigator I've always found it comical seeing so many jump on the "new" 6D type helmet technology without ANY scientific evidence supporting their "improved" protection effectiveness. Some non-technical guys sit around drinking adult beverages and draw up a new helmet design on a bar napkin. They then get someone to manufacture them and charge outrageous sums for their "newfound protection" As someone who deals with this stuff for a living the unsubstantiated claims by these manufacturers is nothing short of criminal. The consumers who drank/drink their Kool Aid by buying this unproven technology are buying insurance policies based upon some marketing guys.

Please note, I'm not trolling or trying to start shit with this post. I'm a degreed engineer specializing in qualitative and quantitative failure analysis and I've searched long and hard for a true "unbiased, technical scientific study/analysis" on this new found anti-rotational helmet design. My research indicates the technology was "created/invented" by some marketing guys. I'll also mention they seem to have succeeded as they've convinced
a lot of people that they need to throw away perfectly fine helmets and buy one of THEIR new, "technologically advanced" helmets and if you don't you should feel guilty because they we don't care about our brains.

This thread has too many armchair scientists commenting on that to which they know nothing....
So you think we’ve developed the maximum amount of protection and safety features in helmets 30 years ago? Don’t you think it’s possible that years of research and testing and development has yielded a better/safer design?

Your post just seems very tinfoil hat-esque.
6
2
Moto520
Posts
3641
Joined
2/4/2013
Location
Schaumburg, IL, USA
12/11/2019 4:38pm
Pick one of these: Alpinestar, fly, Bell, 6D, TLD.

I’ve been knocked out too easily in Arai imo. The styofoam in the shell is not enough. The shell is too stiff.
2
1

The Shop

RPM68
Posts
1595
Joined
11/18/2006
Location
DFW, TX, USA
12/11/2019 5:04pm
Fly racing Formula.

Helmet is so good it’s worth buying the gear to match it if you wear something else.

Ping, I agree with you regarding the “Premium Helmets” scoring low, but you too are biased with TLD.

Best Regards.

4
nascarnate326
Posts
3008
Joined
11/3/2014
Location
Charlotte, MI, USA
12/11/2019 5:48pm
O&GDriller wrote:
As a professional accident analyst/investigator I've always found it comical seeing so many jump on the "new" 6D type helmet technology without ANY scientific evidence supporting...
As a professional accident analyst/investigator I've always found it comical seeing so many jump on the "new" 6D type helmet technology without ANY scientific evidence supporting their "improved" protection effectiveness. Some non-technical guys sit around drinking adult beverages and draw up a new helmet design on a bar napkin. They then get someone to manufacture them and charge outrageous sums for their "newfound protection" As someone who deals with this stuff for a living the unsubstantiated claims by these manufacturers is nothing short of criminal. The consumers who drank/drink their Kool Aid by buying this unproven technology are buying insurance policies based upon some marketing guys.

Please note, I'm not trolling or trying to start shit with this post. I'm a degreed engineer specializing in qualitative and quantitative failure analysis and I've searched long and hard for a true "unbiased, technical scientific study/analysis" on this new found anti-rotational helmet design. My research indicates the technology was "created/invented" by some marketing guys. I'll also mention they seem to have succeeded as they've convinced
a lot of people that they need to throw away perfectly fine helmets and buy one of THEIR new, "technologically advanced" helmets and if you don't you should feel guilty because they we don't care about our brains.

This thread has too many armchair scientists commenting on that to which they know nothing....
The NFL picked 6D out of many possible companies. Is that worth anything ?
5
1
nascarnate326
Posts
3008
Joined
11/3/2014
Location
Charlotte, MI, USA
12/11/2019 5:49pm
Also I love how everyone is on board with having safe helmets but half the people at the track don’t have a chest protector or kidney belt. Moto on.
1
1
752dad
Posts
601
Joined
11/24/2014
Location
Hartland, MI, USA
12/11/2019 6:44pm Edited Date/Time 12/11/2019 7:35pm
Never mind
MxKing809
Posts
6374
Joined
10/13/2013
Location
Big Sand Whoops, MI, USA
Fantasy
12/11/2019 6:50pm
Also I love how everyone is on board with having safe helmets but half the people at the track don’t have a chest protector or kidney...
Also I love how everyone is on board with having safe helmets but half the people at the track don’t have a chest protector or kidney belt. Moto on.
Kidney belt? What are you queer?
12
3
dpingree101
Posts
551
Joined
10/16/2009
Location
Temecula, CA, USA
12/11/2019 8:07pm
RPM68 wrote:
Fly racing Formula. Helmet is so good it’s worth buying the gear to match it if you wear something else. Ping, I agree with you regarding...
Fly racing Formula.

Helmet is so good it’s worth buying the gear to match it if you wear something else.

Ping, I agree with you regarding the “Premium Helmets” scoring low, but you too are biased with TLD.

Best Regards.

I’m just going off third party testing results. Yours is an opinion based off of sheer marketing, apparently.
4
mx510
Posts
1993
Joined
2/26/2011
Location
Gig Harbor, WA, USA
12/11/2019 9:00pm
RPM68 wrote:
Fly racing Formula. Helmet is so good it’s worth buying the gear to match it if you wear something else. Ping, I agree with you regarding...
Fly racing Formula.

Helmet is so good it’s worth buying the gear to match it if you wear something else.

Ping, I agree with you regarding the “Premium Helmets” scoring low, but you too are biased with TLD.

Best Regards.

I’m just going off third party testing results. Yours is an opinion based off of sheer marketing, apparently.
Are you saying the results and testing from FLY weren't done by independent labs? I thought I read that they were.
1
Markee
Posts
3664
Joined
4/15/2013
Location
Suffolk, VA, USA
12/11/2019 9:33pm Edited Date/Time 12/11/2019 9:35pm
Jt$ wrote:
If you only knew the ongoing internal battles about those logos haha
I get it, lived it for 10 years as free lance and employed graphic artist / creative director.. A lot of times in those "internal battles" come from a person that doesn't have a clue overshadowing what designers work on. I always had those battles because the less is more clean approach was something I preferred over a "more cow bell" approach.
1
Grenader26
Posts
239
Joined
5/17/2013
Location
Denton, TX, USA
12/11/2019 9:51pm
RPM68 wrote:
Fly racing Formula. Helmet is so good it’s worth buying the gear to match it if you wear something else. Ping, I agree with you regarding...
Fly racing Formula.

Helmet is so good it’s worth buying the gear to match it if you wear something else.

Ping, I agree with you regarding the “Premium Helmets” scoring low, but you too are biased with TLD.

Best Regards.

I’m just going off third party testing results. Yours is an opinion based off of sheer marketing, apparently.
Fun fact. Ryan here works for wps/fly as outside sales in Houston. Kinda funny him calling you biased Ping 😂
8
12/11/2019 10:03pm
crc245 wrote:
mx510 wrote:
That's what I thought, the Fly was independently tested as well. Still confused by Pings comment.
pretty sure JT has covered this before, they had an independent test done along side rheons test as well from memory. ping sounds like he just blowing smoke out his ass

JT > PING
2
6
Adam43
Posts
3311
Joined
8/16/2006
Location
WF
12/11/2019 10:24pm
Jt$ wrote:
Science would highly disagree with you. My opinion is that the overall speeds are MUCH higher today. A 450 has nearly 60 HP stock. A Bell...
Science would highly disagree with you.

My opinion is that the overall speeds are MUCH higher today. A 450 has nearly 60 HP stock. A Bell Moto 4 was what, mid 80's era? Those bikes had less than 30 HP in many cases (250 2 stroke). That's not apples to apples. The crashes today are much faster, much more violent, and much more dependent on impact protection.
One could suggest that with the increasing speeds of the sport, we should not be seeking to reduce high speed protection in the slightest.

Certainly there are benefits that come from a “softer” philosophy, but I believe the concept that high speed impacts are a lower concern for motocross use is highly flawed. It is a risky experiment to run.

The unfortunate truth may be that motocross crashes are so variable that one design will be optimal in a particular crash and totally inadequate in another.
1
McG194
Posts
4124
Joined
9/7/2017
Location
Palm Coast, FL, USA
12/12/2019 5:24am
O&GDriller wrote:
As a professional accident analyst/investigator I've always found it comical seeing so many jump on the "new" 6D type helmet technology without ANY scientific evidence supporting...
As a professional accident analyst/investigator I've always found it comical seeing so many jump on the "new" 6D type helmet technology without ANY scientific evidence supporting their "improved" protection effectiveness. Some non-technical guys sit around drinking adult beverages and draw up a new helmet design on a bar napkin. They then get someone to manufacture them and charge outrageous sums for their "newfound protection" As someone who deals with this stuff for a living the unsubstantiated claims by these manufacturers is nothing short of criminal. The consumers who drank/drink their Kool Aid by buying this unproven technology are buying insurance policies based upon some marketing guys.

Please note, I'm not trolling or trying to start shit with this post. I'm a degreed engineer specializing in qualitative and quantitative failure analysis and I've searched long and hard for a true "unbiased, technical scientific study/analysis" on this new found anti-rotational helmet design. My research indicates the technology was "created/invented" by some marketing guys. I'll also mention they seem to have succeeded as they've convinced
a lot of people that they need to throw away perfectly fine helmets and buy one of THEIR new, "technologically advanced" helmets and if you don't you should feel guilty because they we don't care about our brains.

This thread has too many armchair scientists commenting on that to which they know nothing....
The NFL picked 6D out of many possible companies. Is that worth anything ?
Yeah, I don't think the NFL is throwing around a half a million bucks because of some slick marketing. Facts are that the NFL has a vested interest in reducing head injuries and they seem to believe in the technology. Regular old EPS has been around for over 50 years, is anything other than that just marketing hype?
1
1
dpingree101
Posts
551
Joined
10/16/2009
Location
Temecula, CA, USA
12/12/2019 10:59am
O&GDriller wrote:
As a professional accident analyst/investigator I've always found it comical seeing so many jump on the "new" 6D type helmet technology without ANY scientific evidence supporting...
As a professional accident analyst/investigator I've always found it comical seeing so many jump on the "new" 6D type helmet technology without ANY scientific evidence supporting their "improved" protection effectiveness. Some non-technical guys sit around drinking adult beverages and draw up a new helmet design on a bar napkin. They then get someone to manufacture them and charge outrageous sums for their "newfound protection" As someone who deals with this stuff for a living the unsubstantiated claims by these manufacturers is nothing short of criminal. The consumers who drank/drink their Kool Aid by buying this unproven technology are buying insurance policies based upon some marketing guys.

Please note, I'm not trolling or trying to start shit with this post. I'm a degreed engineer specializing in qualitative and quantitative failure analysis and I've searched long and hard for a true "unbiased, technical scientific study/analysis" on this new found anti-rotational helmet design. My research indicates the technology was "created/invented" by some marketing guys. I'll also mention they seem to have succeeded as they've convinced
a lot of people that they need to throw away perfectly fine helmets and buy one of THEIR new, "technologically advanced" helmets and if you don't you should feel guilty because they we don't care about our brains.

This thread has too many armchair scientists commenting on that to which they know nothing....
The NFL picked 6D out of many possible companies. Is that worth anything ?
McG194 wrote:
Yeah, I don't think the NFL is throwing around a half a million bucks because of some slick marketing. Facts are that the NFL has a...
Yeah, I don't think the NFL is throwing around a half a million bucks because of some slick marketing. Facts are that the NFL has a vested interest in reducing head injuries and they seem to believe in the technology. Regular old EPS has been around for over 50 years, is anything other than that just marketing hype?
I'm not commenting further until I can get those test results posted. The guy calling me out is a FLY/WPS rep, and, in all fairness, their newest helmet wasn't out when the test I'm referencing was done. A new test was just conducted and I'm awaiting those results.
Regarding EPS... despite innovations in materials, military grade and otherwise, there still isn't a better material for one-time impacts. They tried a million different materials and variations and came back to this: More EPS equals less energy transferred to the brain. Anything that reduces EPS is a step backwards.
5
2
Derek216
Posts
9
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
USA
12/12/2019 11:08am
MxKing809 wrote:
I’m in the market as well. Looked at 6D and they have test graphics at 6 m/s. I knocked myself out this summer going somewhere close...
I’m in the market as well.

Looked at 6D and they have test graphics at 6 m/s. I knocked myself out this summer going somewhere close to 16 m/s..... so I think that it’s safe to assume that 6D looses their competitive advantage past 6 m/s.

I have no idea what to do. Throw a blanket over Fly, Fox, 6D, Bell and Shoei. It’s all so crash dependent everyone is lying if they say theirs is the hands down best.
Helmets are tested at max velocities of 7.8 m/s (Snell) or 7.5 m/s (ECE), the drop tests are on to an immovable steel anvil. Impacts at these velocities are extremely violent and in a real world crash scenario an impact like this would likely result in death or a severe TBI. Crashing at 16 m/s in a comparable manner with an impact directly to the head to an immovable object i.e. a tree, bulldozer, large rock etc. would result in a fatality.
12/12/2019 11:23am
sgrimmxdad wrote:
I will only let my son ride with 6D, Bell, and the most recently the new Fly. The Fly has some very impressive advancements. As dealers...
I will only let my son ride with 6D, Bell, and the most recently the new Fly. The Fly has some very impressive advancements. As dealers they sent us a display that shows a cut out of the helmet with a little pad and a metal ball to bounce the off the cushion to feel how much dampening it has, pretty cool!
JT and our rep brought that to my shop as well. Cool shit.
McG194
Posts
4124
Joined
9/7/2017
Location
Palm Coast, FL, USA
12/12/2019 12:38pm
The NFL picked 6D out of many possible companies. Is that worth anything ?
McG194 wrote:
Yeah, I don't think the NFL is throwing around a half a million bucks because of some slick marketing. Facts are that the NFL has a...
Yeah, I don't think the NFL is throwing around a half a million bucks because of some slick marketing. Facts are that the NFL has a vested interest in reducing head injuries and they seem to believe in the technology. Regular old EPS has been around for over 50 years, is anything other than that just marketing hype?
I'm not commenting further until I can get those test results posted. The guy calling me out is a FLY/WPS rep, and, in all fairness, their...
I'm not commenting further until I can get those test results posted. The guy calling me out is a FLY/WPS rep, and, in all fairness, their newest helmet wasn't out when the test I'm referencing was done. A new test was just conducted and I'm awaiting those results.
Regarding EPS... despite innovations in materials, military grade and otherwise, there still isn't a better material for one-time impacts. They tried a million different materials and variations and came back to this: More EPS equals less energy transferred to the brain. Anything that reduces EPS is a step backwards.
In my first post I mentioned any helmet with MIPS and my personal choice came down to an SE4 and a Leatt and the only reason I picked the Leatt was because of the drinking tube holder that is integrated. I race Hare Scrambles and still struggle to drink at race pace. I think all of the new helmets with anti-rotational technology are worthy of purchase including the Fly or the 6D.

I agree with you that EPS is the best thing we have all things being equal but unfortunately nothing is equal and no two crashes are alike. I like that the Leatt can use a smaller shell so there is less leverage, same can be said for Fox's breakaway visor. The good news is that I believe all these companies are pouring money into helmet design and research for the right reasons.
1
12/12/2019 2:29pm
O&GDriller wrote:
As a professional accident analyst/investigator I've always found it comical seeing so many jump on the "new" 6D type helmet technology without ANY scientific evidence supporting...
As a professional accident analyst/investigator I've always found it comical seeing so many jump on the "new" 6D type helmet technology without ANY scientific evidence supporting their "improved" protection effectiveness. Some non-technical guys sit around drinking adult beverages and draw up a new helmet design on a bar napkin. They then get someone to manufacture them and charge outrageous sums for their "newfound protection" As someone who deals with this stuff for a living the unsubstantiated claims by these manufacturers is nothing short of criminal. The consumers who drank/drink their Kool Aid by buying this unproven technology are buying insurance policies based upon some marketing guys.

Please note, I'm not trolling or trying to start shit with this post. I'm a degreed engineer specializing in qualitative and quantitative failure analysis and I've searched long and hard for a true "unbiased, technical scientific study/analysis" on this new found anti-rotational helmet design. My research indicates the technology was "created/invented" by some marketing guys. I'll also mention they seem to have succeeded as they've convinced
a lot of people that they need to throw away perfectly fine helmets and buy one of THEIR new, "technologically advanced" helmets and if you don't you should feel guilty because they we don't care about our brains.

This thread has too many armchair scientists commenting on that to which they know nothing....
aeffertz wrote:
So you think we’ve developed the maximum amount of protection and safety features in helmets 30 years ago? Don’t you think it’s possible that years of...
So you think we’ve developed the maximum amount of protection and safety features in helmets 30 years ago? Don’t you think it’s possible that years of research and testing and development has yielded a better/safer design?

Your post just seems very tinfoil hat-esque.
He's right. Look at radial tires invented over 100 years ago. What improvement was made in the first 50 years? Not much.
What improvements have been made in the last 50 years? Not much.
Same steel belts. Same nylon cords. Even the more premium brands still run nylon and some have Kevlar. Guess what? That nail still flats the tire.
1
MxKing809
Posts
6374
Joined
10/13/2013
Location
Big Sand Whoops, MI, USA
Fantasy
12/12/2019 3:32pm
MxKing809 wrote:
I’m in the market as well. Looked at 6D and they have test graphics at 6 m/s. I knocked myself out this summer going somewhere close...
I’m in the market as well.

Looked at 6D and they have test graphics at 6 m/s. I knocked myself out this summer going somewhere close to 16 m/s..... so I think that it’s safe to assume that 6D looses their competitive advantage past 6 m/s.

I have no idea what to do. Throw a blanket over Fly, Fox, 6D, Bell and Shoei. It’s all so crash dependent everyone is lying if they say theirs is the hands down best.
Derek216 wrote:
Helmets are tested at max velocities of 7.8 m/s (Snell) or 7.5 m/s (ECE), the drop tests are on to an immovable steel anvil. Impacts at...
Helmets are tested at max velocities of 7.8 m/s (Snell) or 7.5 m/s (ECE), the drop tests are on to an immovable steel anvil. Impacts at these velocities are extremely violent and in a real world crash scenario an impact like this would likely result in death or a severe TBI. Crashing at 16 m/s in a comparable manner with an impact directly to the head to an immovable object i.e. a tree, bulldozer, large rock etc. would result in a fatality.
Slammed the ground 3rd gear WFO - knocked myself out - cracked the shell of my Fox V3 ...... but as far as I know it wasn’t fatal.
3
O&GDriller
Posts
553
Joined
7/16/2019
Location
Chattanooga, TN, USA
12/12/2019 3:43pm Edited Date/Time 12/12/2019 3:47pm
O&GDriller wrote:
As a professional accident analyst/investigator I've always found it comical seeing so many jump on the "new" 6D type helmet technology without ANY scientific evidence supporting...
As a professional accident analyst/investigator I've always found it comical seeing so many jump on the "new" 6D type helmet technology without ANY scientific evidence supporting their "improved" protection effectiveness. Some non-technical guys sit around drinking adult beverages and draw up a new helmet design on a bar napkin. They then get someone to manufacture them and charge outrageous sums for their "newfound protection" As someone who deals with this stuff for a living the unsubstantiated claims by these manufacturers is nothing short of criminal. The consumers who drank/drink their Kool Aid by buying this unproven technology are buying insurance policies based upon some marketing guys.

Please note, I'm not trolling or trying to start shit with this post. I'm a degreed engineer specializing in qualitative and quantitative failure analysis and I've searched long and hard for a true "unbiased, technical scientific study/analysis" on this new found anti-rotational helmet design. My research indicates the technology was "created/invented" by some marketing guys. I'll also mention they seem to have succeeded as they've convinced
a lot of people that they need to throw away perfectly fine helmets and buy one of THEIR new, "technologically advanced" helmets and if you don't you should feel guilty because they we don't care about our brains.

This thread has too many armchair scientists commenting on that to which they know nothing....
aeffertz wrote:
So you think we’ve developed the maximum amount of protection and safety features in helmets 30 years ago? Don’t you think it’s possible that years of...
So you think we’ve developed the maximum amount of protection and safety features in helmets 30 years ago? Don’t you think it’s possible that years of research and testing and development has yielded a better/safer design?

Your post just seems very tinfoil hat-esque.
No, I'm saying there has been no "scientific" study that I've seen that researches if the "new" helmet designs provide additional protection. I'd love to see one as I've looked for hours with no success. I've read a lot of marketing material but no scientific study in a controlled environment to determine if there are realistic benefits. If somebody has one I'd appreciate a link. Remember, you don't ever get somethin' for nothin'. The laws of physics still have to be dealt with...

I saw and read the Leatt white paper above but I have issues with the study as it was done/commissioned by Leatt. An unbiased, independent study is what I'd love to read.

If there's a better mousetrap out there I want to buy it, however, I'm not going to just take the "salesman's/marketers" word that the ware's he's hawking are better than the competition.
Moto_Geek
Posts
1826
Joined
6/26/2007
Location
Golden, CO, USA
12/12/2019 3:50pm Edited Date/Time 12/12/2019 3:51pm
Haven't see any votes yet for FOX. I love my Fox v3 Solids.The most comfortable helmet I've ever owned and it's to par with 6D now. The magnet visor works well. Has saved me a visor couple times now in crashes. Just pops back on. And I sweat a lot. Vents very well and feels very light.


https://www.foxracing.com/v3-solids-helmet/22177.html?dwvar_22177_color=255&dwvar_22177_size=S&cgid=moto-mens-helmets-v3#pdp_features


Fluid Inside™ is designed to help dissipate rotational and linear energy transmitted to the rider’s brain in the event of a crash
Magnetic Visor Release System (MVRS) allows the visor to detach during a crash
Dual-density Varizorb™ EPS liner is meant to provide improved protection by spreading the forces of impact across a wider surface area
Patent-pending chin bar/eye port CAGE™ is intended to improve energy management in the event of an impact
MCT (Multi Composite Technology) Shell construction that blends Carbon and FRP resins to provide a light yet rigid external shell
Injected Mesh vent screens provide superior ventilation and airflow, while maintaining protection from dirt and debris
Removable, washable X-Static® comfort liner and cheek pads are antimicrobial and manage odor while wicking moisture away from the head
4 shell and EPS sizes for best in class fit
crowe176
Posts
6613
Joined
9/8/2006
Location
Spring Lake, MI, USA
12/12/2019 4:11pm
Replace my Shoei, ya or na Unsure
1
RPM68
Posts
1595
Joined
11/18/2006
Location
DFW, TX, USA
12/12/2019 5:49pm Edited Date/Time 12/12/2019 5:52pm
RPM68 wrote:
Fly racing Formula. Helmet is so good it’s worth buying the gear to match it if you wear something else. Ping, I agree with you regarding...
Fly racing Formula.

Helmet is so good it’s worth buying the gear to match it if you wear something else.

Ping, I agree with you regarding the “Premium Helmets” scoring low, but you too are biased with TLD.

Best Regards.

I’m just going off third party testing results. Yours is an opinion based off of sheer marketing, apparently.
I too have done pretty intensive research and studied as much as I can find on the internet. It is easy to find supporting evidence towards any opinion you have. Fly’s testing was third party tested as well, using a total of 60 different helmets. From what I’ve read and hear, 6d, and Bell scores really well, and wouldn’t surprise me to see the SE4 score well. However, to ignore the technology that helps with broadening impact protection at different speeds, I think would be ignorant.


I always told my customers over the counter that helmets with single layer Eps liners are like an MX 52, it works well in 1 condition, hard pack. The goal is to increase the range in which the tire will work well. With a dual layer eps, you’re improving the range of speed in which you’re protected. So now you got an Mx33, works well in soft, mid, and tolerable in hard pack.

With cone head technology you’re broadening the range that much more, and like the SE4, the formula uses a higher volume than average foam, so you’re increasing the range EVEN MORE.

Then you add Rheon Impact energy cells. It absorbs an insane amount of energy at low speeds and assist in Angular impacts, so when comparing it to MIPS, which only concentrates on absorbing 7mm in any rotational direction, but not linear impacts. It just make sense.

Believe what you want, call it a marketing scam, I’m a huge believer that the very light weight Fly Formula, with its newer technology, is a better performing helmet than anything out there. Everyone will defend what they believe in.
2

Post a reply to: What’s the best/safest helmet you can get, and are there any tests to prove it?

The Latest