Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
Interesting chart. Anyone know why it seems bell is only offering the moto 9s flex and not really the normal moto 9 flex? The only difference I know of is the non "s" version is a carbon shell, and it is definitely lighter. Not sure how much lighter though.
Updated with an ECE 22.06 column. When you said Fox was 22.06 certified, I assumed that it was the V3, but I couldn't find any evidence that V3 has gone through that test. However, the new V1 is 22.06 certified. While not a "premium" helmet, I've added it to the list.
I've added Airoh to the chart. I could not find evidence that it is DOT certified. If it is, please let me know.
The weights shown in the chart are representative of the data available online, and not real world testing.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Free shipping: VITALMX
There is some conflicting information online, but it seems that the most popular weight listed is 1350g. I've updated the chart to reflect that.
Most of the manufacturer provided weights are of medium helmets. It should state the shell size they used for the weight somewhere on the manufacturer's website. Sometimes it is also in the information for each model helmet too. And the higher end helmets often have a shell for XS and S, M gets its own, L gets its own, then XL and 2 XL share a shell. But that info can also be found on each manufacturer's website as well. Sometimes the models that share a shell will also share the same EPS so you can change the size by changing out the liner , but I have seen some that have fewer shells and they change the EPS and liner to change the size. So if you compare the actual weights make sure you compare the same sizes. And most of the time if a helmet is lighter in the smaller size than another model, it will also be lighter in the bigger sizes when comparing the same models in a larger size. Maybe some of the models that share shells may have less of a weight change as they go up or down in sizes. And used helmets can gain weight as sweat and dirt is absorbed .
Fox V1 gang!
We’ve got someone that’s an Impressive data collector.
Nice!
Thanks for adding the ECE 22.06 info. ECE 22.06 is the only standard with a low speed impact requirement.
Helmets with ECE 22.06 certification are Leatt 9.5 $600, Leatt 8.5 $500, Leatt 7.5 $290, Airoh Av 3 $570, Klim F3 Pro $500, Klim F3 Carbon $400 (not regular F3), and Fox V1 $210 (not the V1 Core). There will be others soon because the standard is supposed to be required to be sold in Europe next year.
With 7 choices - 2 under $300 - why consider anything that doesn't have the certification?
ECE 22.06 (not 22.05) and Snell are the only relevant standards IMO. Road helmets are starting to have both certifications but I have not seen a dirt helmet that has ECE 22.06 and Snell. (Arai, Bell, and Shoei are the only current models that have Snell, source: https://smf.org/certlist/std_M2020D.php)
The 6D still does not have the ECE 22.06 certification. The sticker on the back of the helmet only lists 22.05. Source: https://www.6dhelmets.com/atr-2/
Klim F5 also does not have it. Again, the manufacturer website has photos that clearly show the sticker on the back.
I hope this helps. Demand the certification!
FLY Formula Carbon is 1290 grams (2.8 lbs)
FLY Formula CC is 1340 grams (2.95 lbs)
Revzilla’s website says that the 6D ATR-2 exceeds 22.06 standards. I guess that could be true, but maybe it hasn’t been tested?
https://www.revzilla.com/dirt-bike/6d-atr-2-phase-helmet
From the 6D website link I posted. No 22.06, only 22.05.
Only 6D model certified to 22.06 is the road helmet.
Advertising a low speed impact certification apparently doesn't mean they have it. Some companies use crash test dummies to make safer helmets and some companies sell The Emperor's New Clothes to crash test dummies on Vital. Beware!
The issue with those types of tests is the medical conclusion. What does a score of 22.7 mean? Is that a concussion? Traumatic Brain Injury? Permanent damage? And that score is only for one speed, one head size/weight. What about different speeds? Different speeds will give different scores - again does that mean concussion?
Only certifications have the medical authority behind it. These are objective, measurable performance standards with medical significance. If the certification is inadequate, then change it and let every manufacturer test it.
2023 6D's are certified and exceed the ECE 22-06 standard. The helmet is identical to the previous 22-05 model just re-submitted and certified to the updated standard. The image referenced above is from 2022, because of the long lead times sample photos are often shot close to a year in advance, in this specific case the photos were taken before the helmet had the updated certification.
I appreciate that - but I'm not buying it if it doesn't have the sticker. Also, this is not stated on the 6D website (it is for the road helmet).
Not saying it's false, but this is important enough to require the documentation.
Edit: Long lead times for photos?
All 2023 6D helmets that meet the 22-06 requirement (ATR2, ATR2Y, ATS1R) have the updated labeling on the physical helmets.
Regarding the photo comment, like gear, helmet graphic and colors are chosen 12-18 months prior to public release, in the time frame between first samples and public release, the product is typically photographed (using the samples) in anticipation of the release. In this particular situation, the sample helmets were photographed before the updated certification was printed on the helmet. I hope this helps clarify things.
Did you go to the website? They explain how the testing is done and what the numbers all mean. They are a combination of Government and private labs that do the testing . Similar to the types of places that would do testing to make sure a helmet passes the certifications. I know its near impossible to do testing for every type of crash. Standards are only a minimum they have to meet. That doesn't mean that some helmets will not protect better than others with the same certifications .
The only reason I said anything about the numbers they used, was because the SM8 and SM10 are so similar ( only the material used in the shell is different) and that the 8 had a better number than the 10 when you would think that the better material would have worked better in a high speed impact , the type of impact that that set of numbers was for. I'm not sure exactly of what the number means, they say that the number accounts for a % of the total score. Maybe it is explained better in the testing procedures.
I thought that it would be another tool to help decide on a helmet. It is the only place I have seen any type of real testing , that names brands and models and is not a generic graph. I'm not saying it is the ultimate place to get info. Just another piece to the puzzle of picking a good helmet that helps weed out marketing BS and gives some real data.
I went back to the site and grabbed a copy of the rating system. They explain the ways they test in much more depth on the website. Below is a copy of how they explain the numbers. And if you want more info on what the tests are that they do, you can go to the website. I know clicking on links can be dangerous , but I have not had any issues with using this site. And I first went to it years ago when another Vital member posted a link to it. The site name has changed since then. They have pages of info and videos, a PDF with older helmet testing data. They removed the data that was from before 2017 because they changed the testing.
RATING SYSTEM
CRASH awards a star rating from 1 to 5 for each motorcycle helmet, following independent crash protection and comfort assessments by independent specialist laboratories.
The rating system has gone through several significant changes with the aim of improving the level and clarity of information provided to motorcyclists. The rating system now provides a five-star rating system that better reflects the comparative performance beyond that required by AS/NZS 1698 or UNECE 22.
In the crash protection assessments, the helmets were rated based on their individual performance test results. The results were ranked and weighted based on their importance in reducing the risk of head and brain injuries in a crash.
A new test component was introduced in 2017 to the crash protection assessments to measure a helmet’s oblique impact energy management capability. The rating system was reviewed and redistributed as a result.
The crash protection ratings for 2017 onwards are as follows:
Energy reduction in a higher speed crash on a flat surface (30 per cent)
Energy reduction in a higher speed crash on kerb surface (15 per cent)
Energy reduction in a lower speed crash on flat surface (15 per cent)
Helmet's ability to minimise the rotation of the helmet in a crash (15 per cent)
Helmet coverage (10 per cent)
Oblique impact energy management (15 per cent)
The crash protection ratings pre-2017 were as follows:
Energy reduction in a higher speed crash on a flat surface (30 per cent)
Energy reduction in a higher speed crash on kerb surface (25 per cent)
Energy reduction in a lower speed crash on flat surface (15 per cent)
Helmet's ability to minimise the rotation of the helmet in a crash (10 per cent)
Helmet coverage (10 per cent)
Helmet chin-strap's strength (5 per cent)
Helmet's ability to minimise rebound (5 per cent)
For the comfort level performance, the helmets were rated using comfort features which were considered important by motorcyclists. These features were ranked based on results from a 2010 survey conducted by the European project COST 357–PROHELM (Accident Prevention Options with Motorcycle Helmets) involving 598 motorcyclists. The study found 71 per cent of the riders wore a helmet that was not of the right size and 69 per cent of the respondents reported discomfort using the helmet.
The most common complaints related to noise inside the helmet, followed by the visor fogging up, and the ventilation system not working adequately. The remaining features are ranked in the following order: Aerodynamics (neck loading), helmet weight, peripheral vision and visor's ability to seal out moisture.
In 2017 the comfort level rating system was also reviewed and redistributed. Due to these changes the test ratings from 2017 onwards cannot be compared to ratings pre-2017.
The comfort level ratings for 2017 onwards are as follows:
Visor’s ability to resist fogging up (10 per cent)
Ability to seal out weather (10 per cent)
Noise inside helmet (25 per cent)
Ventilation inside helmet (20 per cent)
Aerodynamic neck loading (15 per cent)
Helmet weight (10 per cent)
Peripheral view (10 per cent)
The comfort level ratings pre-2017 were as follows:
Operation and fit (20 per cent)
Visor’s ability to resist fogging up (10 per cent)
Ability to seal out weather (10 per cent)
Noise inside helmet (20 per cent)
Ventilation inside helmet (17.5 per cent)
Aerodynamic neck loading (10 per cent)
Helmet weight (5 per cent)
Peripheral view (7.5 per cent)
Yes I read through the website before I posted. There is no medical direction behind the test methods.
Every helmet system will have an optimum "stiffness" for rider's size/weight and impact speed. Test results will change with different head sizes and impact speeds. Each helmet model and size will have it's optimum impact speed. What is the test acceleration threshold and why? What are those acceleration effects on the brain? That study fails to address that question and implies meaning where there is none.
Pit Row
What are the thoughts on these helmets?
I do like it being a carbon helmet under $300 (on sale)
The part I do not like is the non breakaway visor
Shows ECE certification and DOT certification on all there helmets makes me a little suspicious of the ratings.
anyone have any feedback?
Great thread. Something to consider with the lightest helmets…I wonder what the noise dampening qualities are? My Leatt is so damn loud that I’m in the market for something else
Fly formula is pretty light and not very loud.
I've been an Arai customer for the last 20+ years but finally made the switch this winter to a helmet with the newest rotational energy dispersion technology. Was fortunate to try on all the latest Bell Moto 10, Fly, 6D, Alpinestars and TLD helmets and the Bell Moto 10 was the winner for me. Recently went on a first ride with it and I'm happy with the comfort and fit. As with all helmets though, head shape plays a big role!
I would actually argue that Arai's lack of innovation is not due to "good reason" and more so for maxing profits. Their build quality is fantastic, no doubt, but it's severely dated helmet technology. They're newest helmet boasts "all new design and features" yet every new feature they list is purely cosmetic or makes it easier to clean.. Their main selling point is it's round to reduce catching and twisting in the event of a crash but new technologies such as MIPs have countered that selling point. And now most other premium helmets also focus on reducing brain and neck injury vs only neck injury due to twisting.
I'd also mention that Ping is very biased towards his sponsors and the fact he wouldn't name high end which brand was severely lacking proved to me he doesn't actually have an interest in providing his listeners the safest product but rather pointing at his personal sponsor as "one of the good ones".
A 3rd party real-weight is the only way to go for actual 'weight' results.
For what it’s worth to anyone. I have severe compression/ herniated disc C3-C6 from years of taking head shots waterskiing. I had Bell Moto (don’t remember #) then switched to 6D ART-1 when it came out. The 6D always killed my neck due to weight and it was extremely hot. I had 2 diggers and one I lost feeling in my left arm from 4 days.
I tried other helmets at shops for fit/feel and when FLY came out with the Formula 12K carbon they had some independent testing done on various helmets but they removed brand name as to not be liable I believe. I never liked FLY, thought of them as cheap brand but after reading the independent test and saw how weight reduction compared to other I tried it. I’ve taken 2 hard hits with the FLY and no injury to speak of from either. It’s very light weight and airflow is great. I live it south west Florida where it’s an oven in the summer. I purchased a second one just because I thought two impacts at speed around 43 & 48 mph damaged the future impact resistance. I know the speeds because I use gps on my bike with tracks mapped.
Hope this helps someone in decision making.
I found the independent testing, it was two labs! hopefully you can open the link below. In fairness, I believe the testing was done before most all helmet companies started improving helmets except for 6D who I think really pioneered the movement to drastically improve helmet impact safety.
http://www.wpsstatic.com/miscimages/info/Formula-Benchmark-Data-Testing.pdf
One thing to note; ECE 2206 will have a rotational component that manufacturers will have to pass too. Snell will be updating their standards to include this aspect to its testing the Snell 2025 comes out. IMO 2206 is a game changer and some companies will have a difficult time reaching those standards.
FYI there is a new LS2 X-Force Moto helmet coming in May, that will pass 2206 as well, most of their street line already does.
Lots of great helmets to choose from!!!
FWIW.....Troy Lee Designs had an extensive, independent, test done of all the major players when they launched the SE4 line a few years ago and based on what I know about that testing, its TLD for the win for me!
I was just posting it to provide some more info on helmets. And like I had said many times over I wish there was an independant place that would test and name names to show which helmets performed better in different types of crashes for people to be able to go and see which helmet may be the best helmet for them with the type of riding they do and and have an idea of which would perform better for them. That was able to do it at the levels that it would take to be done and be very informative.
Of course every helmet will perform best in different conditions, that is why a test that names brands and models would be helpful. I assumed that a test that said that one helmet had a higher score than the other at higher speed impacts would be better at reducing the energy in that type of impact. For the tests they did . Of course no crash is going to be the same, as any testing. But it is some type of head to head. Why would I only want to know the results of a helmet tested in the conditions it performs best in ? If that has nothing to do with how I will use it.
Not just which helmets meet the minimum standards that were set. which is all a certification is. Even if the standard for the certification is pretty high, I would imagine that every helmet is not going to perform identical. So knowing which helmet is really the best at protecting from whatever types of crashes you may be more likely to have would be a good tool.
With all of the different ways helmets are absorbing energy, there has to be some that do it better than others right? I'm not saying that the link I posted is the info I wish was available. It was just the ONLY place that I saw some type of testing that named each brand helmet. And gave a way to compare some type of testing besides meeting a minimum.
I have a drivers lic, AKA I am certified to be able to drive. That doesn't make me an equally qualified driver to every other driver with the same license. Eli Tomac and the guy that gets lapped 2 times in a main event both have Pro SX licenses but one is a faster rider in SX. But just because he is one of the best in SX doesn't mean he would be any good in the woods.
I was hoping that by posting that link, that maybe somebody would know of another testing site and provide some more info on helmets . Maybe you could describe the ultimate independant testing methods . and explain how much energy reduction you can expect to get in which types of crashes with the newest ECE certification VS the older one and or others. Maybe you can explain why the SM8 would perform better in one of their higher speed impact tests than the SM10. Even if the tests are flawed .
Even if its not possible to do the perfect test. Wouldn't it be nice to know how all of the top helmets performed against each other and which just passed and which passed by a mile. If the certifications are the ultimate measure of a helmets safety, wouldn't it be helpful to see which passes by more in what areas?
Until there is one comprehensive, standardized and widely accepted test for all types of impacts (high speed, low speed, rotational, linear, etc), there will likely be a lot of disagreement on this topic. It's not that brands don't want to share data, it's just very problematic to do so without the above test. Many tests used today are proprietary and thus subject to anyone wanting to negate the results, point to bias, unproven methods, etc.
Exactly. The best we have is the certifications. ECE 22.06 has the most comprehensive standard.
A big hurdle is the medical direction. 6D designs to limit accelerations to about 60g. Leatt designed to 120g. ECE 22.06 has a higher limit. There is no other consensus from the medical side. All other certifications just focus on preventing death at 275g-400g.
Post a reply to: Premium Helmets: Weight & Certification Chart 2023