Only Arai, Bell, Fly, HJC, Shoei, and TLD Offer Snell MX Helmets in 2018

Related:
Create New Tag

9/22/2018 4:36 PM

The Snell website has a list of all helmets certified to their current M2015 impact standard. There’s only six brands with current motocross models:

Arai: VX-Pro4
Bell: Moto-9 MIPS, Moto-9 Carbon Flex, Moto-9 Custom-Fit
Fly: F2 Carbon MIPS
HJC: CL-X7
Shoei: VFX-EVO
Troy Lee Designs: SE4 Carbon MIPS

Including old models back to 2015, there’s another 13 models from 11 brands:

Arai: V-Cross4
Bell: Moto-9
EVS: Vortek-T7
Fly: Formula
FXR: FX-3
Helmet Solutions: HMX-F1 (FXR)
HJC: CL-X6
LS2: MX456
O’Neal: 9 Series, 7 Series
Shoei: VFX-W
Troy Lee Designs: SE3 Carbon, Air

Plus these six current snowmobile helmets:

FXR: Blade
HJC: FG-MX, FG-X
Polaris: Demon 2.0
Ski-Doo (BRP): XP-3, XC-4

The Snell website has more information about their M2015 standard, comparisons to other standards, their test methods, and the science behind it. The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute has useful information about various test standards and what they mean in terms of speeds, concussions, brain injuries, etc. at helmets.org.

Also noteworthy: Leatt publishes independent impact test reports and 6D has some test information on their website that addresses concussions and traumatic brain injuries. But until the medical community can agree on performance parameters that prevent concussions/traumatic brain injuries, there won’t be certification test standards that address this. Current motorsport helmet certifications only evaluate brain accelerations with the goal of preventing death.

I hope consumers consider the impact performance data when deciding which helmet to wear.

|

9/22/2018 4:55 PM

Imo the "standard" ways of testing helmets (dot, snell) are kind of silly for a motocross helmet. Its great that the helmet can withstand an imact against a steel anvil, but how many times have I crashed into a steel anvil riding motocross?

|

9/22/2018 5:54 PM

A bit surprised 6D not on the list

|

9/22/2018 6:05 PM

Its possible track(s) or ama/mxsports/fim could only allow a certain certification, in the future.

|

9/22/2018 6:08 PM

ECE standard is now the primary “go to”

Since it costs big bucks to get tested - pass or fail - many companies are picking only one std to approve on (if they choose to be approved)


If you do a small amount of research in how most helmet testing is done for certification - and how some helmet manufactures “cheat” you realize we need a different test std as well as possibly no “certification” on a pass fail grade but rather a publishing of performance in various scenarious - so the consumer can make the most educated choice for their needs

Its a tough problem to solve, as each crash has its unique needs that contridict one another for design

|

9/22/2018 6:23 PM

Many off-road/motocross helmet brands are moving away from Snell to ECE by choice. The main thought behind this is Snell shells are too stiff due to the double impact test to work in low speed impacts. I’ve personally had four concussions from low speed style impacts in Snell shells that ended up with zero EPS compression due to the stiffness of the helmet. Personally from the data I’ve seen from each brand, talking to MIPS and other helmet companies I’m a believer in ECE over Snell and choose to primarily wear those shells for testing at Vital.

Fly’s 2019 F2 Carbon MIPS is another example as they’re only making the ECE version now, not the Snell model. Fox moved away from their Snell shell about a year or two ago on the V3.

|

9/22/2018 6:31 PM

I wouldn’t touch a smell helmet with a ten foot pole.

|

9/22/2018 7:49 PM

Be aware SNELL is an independent company - not a government requirement, yet DOT is a us Gov requirement. You often see helmets ECC and DOT approved. You have to pay to have your helmet Snell approved, and for off-road, it is not a big deal because most impacts aboard dirt bikes are lower speeds compared to street riding.

|

9/22/2018 7:57 PM

I would wear a Snell certified helmet on the street... dirt, not so much!

|

Don’t piss off the old people - the older they get the less “life in prison” is a deterrent for them!

2020.5 KTM 450 SXF FE
2006 KX250

9/22/2018 8:25 PM

There are a lot of variables in any MX crash, and a high speed, violent impact is very much a possibility.

I don't believe that Snell is a flawed standard and prefer helmets that meet the certification.

|

9/22/2018 9:43 PM

Going away from snell is a good thing. I had one concussion with a snell helmet and threw it in the trash. Street maybe. Dirt, no way.

|

9/23/2018 9:06 AM

ML512 wrote:

Many off-road/motocross helmet brands are moving away from Snell to ECE by choice. The main thought behind this is Snell shells are too stiff due to the double impact test to work in low speed impacts. I’ve personally had four concussions from low speed style impacts in Snell shells that ended up with zero EPS compression due to the stiffness of the helmet. Personally from the data I’ve seen from each brand, talking to MIPS and other helmet companies I’m a believer in ECE over Snell and choose to primarily wear those shells for testing at Vital.

Fly’s 2019 F2 Carbon MIPS is another example as they’re only making the ECE version now, not the Snell model. Fox moved away from their Snell shell about a year or two ago on the V3.

I can understand the theory of choosing a 6D or a Leatt over Snell because they design for 60g or 120g (respectively) acceleration thresholds. But without data that shows how any given helmet limits to these acceleration limits, I see no reason to choose another helmet. Furthermore, as I mentioned, the medical community needs to direct what the acceleration thresholds should be to prevent concussions/traumatic brain injuries.

I don't see how ECE is better than Snell in any way. The acceleration thresholds are 275g for both, and the impact is 17.3 mph for Snell vs 16.8 mph for ECE. Achieving these impact ratings does not prove the same helmet would fail a lesser acceleration threshold at a slower impact. Passing a 275g test does not mean the helmet doesn’t also prevent concussions.

Show me the data.

|

9/23/2018 9:18 AM

Derek Harris wrote:

ECE standard is now the primary “go to”

Since it costs big bucks to get tested - pass or fail - many companies are picking only one std to approve on (if they choose to be approved)


If you do a small amount of research in how most helmet testing is done for certification - and how some helmet manufactures “cheat” you realize we need a different test std as well as possibly no “certification” on a pass fail grade but rather a publishing of performance in various scenarious - so the consumer can make the most educated choice for their needs

Its a tough problem to solve, as each crash has its unique needs that contridict one another for design

Helmets that pass Snell also pass ECE as the acceleration thresholds are the same with the impact speed faster for Snell. I would love to see data for a lower threshold test, but without an established medical value for preventing TBI, there's no way to evaluate helmets this way.

Manufacturer's cannot "cheat" the test as it is an independent evaluation. And I wouldn't say the design needs "contradict one another." Every motorsport helmet is designed for preventing death. Adding a second goal of preventing TBI doesn't have to contradict preventing death at a faster impact.

As far as testing costs- there's a 2018 Snell MX helmet that retails for $140. IMO Snell certification cost is not an issue.

|

9/23/2018 10:27 AM

In my opinion, the second strike test of Snell to the same area is what turned me away. To get a shell to pass the second stroke test, it has to be quite a bit stiffer in that region. In the case that many helmets that have a ECE spec and Snell see a 1/4-1/3 of a pound difference between the two shells (the Snell being heavier). This test by some is considered to be the reason that a ECE helmet could be considered superior for a motocross situation. I’d rather have the helmet give more the first time and go get another one then need one that does alright twice. By example, some helmet brands have shipped in ECE spec helmets for their US athletes over the past few years, instead of giving them the Snell spec. It’s been a combination of these helmet brands putting their riders in what they consider better for them and even requests from the riders themselves.

The first brand to really push that Snell might be overkill was Kali, since then 6D joined that conversation (I don’t believe any of their helmets have been Snell certified), and moving into Fox and Fly dropping their Snell shell order as well. They all have the ability to pass it and have, but choose not to due to what they believe is better for the consumer. Some brands, like Shoei and Arai, have shells that pass Snell, ECE and the Japanese certification (can’t remember the tag name) but choose to ship each model to what the corresponding area is interested in. They continue to ship Snell to US as that’s what consumers are used to buying while they sell ECE in most other regions.

I have no data on hand to go over this, just what I’ve seen visually on graphs and have been explained to by engineers at 6D, Bell, Fox, Shoei, Kali, etc...along with people from MIPS. Further more my opinion was also weighed off personal head injury experiences in each shell type and comparing this versus what I see at our local tracks for concussion rates along with most of us media test riders comparing what we’ve been knocked out in the most...

As I stated above, this is my opinion, and this is how I’ve come to this conclusion. Some will trust one standard over the other and in my case I’m going to stick with ECE certified shells when possible for photo shoots and in my personal days on the bike I’ll always choose one.

|

9/23/2018 11:33 AM

DOT specs are more aligned for a moto crash than Snell from what I've read.

Just my Opinion based on common sense, I will say, I think these NON round helmets are bad news. They look cool, but Edges grab edges and twist the neck. A round design isn't going to grab anything and try and twist the head.

Think of watching a brick tumble compared to a ball bouncing and see what gets more twist.
A round helmet will hit and slide along the ground.

Maybe thats why they need MIPS, because these helmets are just not designed to really hit the ground.
Even if they hit pavement, those edges are going to want to twist the head.

Also why football helmets are round, and facemask grabbing is a penalty. They routinely hit the ground and slide.

|

My post is my opinion. If you don't agree with it, I'm OK with it.

9/23/2018 12:56 PM

Moto96 wrote:

DOT specs are more aligned for a moto crash than Snell from what I've read.

Just my Opinion based on common sense, I will say, I think these NON round helmets are bad news. They look cool, but Edges grab edges and twist the neck. A round design isn't going to grab anything and try and twist the head.

Think of watching a brick tumble compared to a ball bouncing and see what gets more twist.
A round helmet will hit and slide along the ground.

Maybe thats why they need MIPS, because these helmets are just not designed to really hit the ground.
Even if they hit pavement, those edges are going to want to twist the head.

Also why football helmets are round, and facemask grabbing is a penalty. They routinely hit the ground and slide.

While I agree that raised ridges can grab, a totally round helmet can have some drawbacks due to the direct point of energy. Helmets that go flatter in certain impact areas allow more surface area during contact and better energy dispersion compared to a small area being contacted (at least the way it’s been explained to me and with data graphs).

|

9/23/2018 1:08 PM

ML512 wrote:

In my opinion, the second strike test of Snell to the same area is what turned me away. To get a shell to pass the second stroke test, it has to be quite a bit stiffer in that region. In the case that many helmets that have a ECE spec and Snell see a 1/4-1/3 of a pound difference between the two shells (the Snell being heavier). This test by some is considered to be the reason that a ECE helmet could be considered superior for a motocross situation. I’d rather have the helmet give more the first time and go get another one then need one that does alright twice. By example, some helmet brands have shipped in ECE spec helmets for their US athletes over the past few years, instead of giving them the Snell spec. It’s been a combination of these helmet brands putting their riders in what they consider better for them and even requests from the riders themselves.

The first brand to really push that Snell might be overkill was Kali, since then 6D joined that conversation (I don’t believe any of their helmets have been Snell certified), and moving into Fox and Fly dropping their Snell shell order as well. They all have the ability to pass it and have, but choose not to due to what they believe is better for the consumer. Some brands, like Shoei and Arai, have shells that pass Snell, ECE and the Japanese certification (can’t remember the tag name) but choose to ship each model to what the corresponding area is interested in. They continue to ship Snell to US as that’s what consumers are used to buying while they sell ECE in most other regions.

I have no data on hand to go over this, just what I’ve seen visually on graphs and have been explained to by engineers at 6D, Bell, Fox, Shoei, Kali, etc...along with people from MIPS. Further more my opinion was also weighed off personal head injury experiences in each shell type and comparing this versus what I see at our local tracks for concussion rates along with most of us media test riders comparing what we’ve been knocked out in the most...

As I stated above, this is my opinion, and this is how I’ve come to this conclusion. Some will trust one standard over the other and in my case I’m going to stick with ECE certified shells when possible for photo shoots and in my personal days on the bike I’ll always choose one.

I understand the desire to have a less "stiff" helmet to prevent concussions/TBI. But the "stiffness" is not constant or proportional to impact speed and the helmet thickness is not constant between helmets. A helmet that fails Snell is not necessarily less stiff than a helmet that passes Snell. It's not that simple.

We need a medical-driven standard that establishes a lower acceleration threshold for concussions/TBI in addition to the threshold for preventing death. Until then, the existing standards for preventing death provide the best data available to the general public.

Leatt is the only manufacturer that publishes independent test data for all their helmets. I hope other manufacturers do the same so we can at least evaluate data rather than wear the Emperor's New Clothes.

|

9/23/2018 1:59 PM

Derek Harris wrote:

ECE standard is now the primary “go to”

Since it costs big bucks to get tested - pass or fail - many companies are picking only one std to approve on (if they choose to be approved)


If you do a small amount of research in how most helmet testing is done for certification - and how some helmet manufactures “cheat” you realize we need a different test std as well as possibly no “certification” on a pass fail grade but rather a publishing of performance in various scenarious - so the consumer can make the most educated choice for their needs

Its a tough problem to solve, as each crash has its unique needs that contridict one another for design

msp332 wrote:

Helmets that pass Snell also pass ECE as the acceleration thresholds are the same with the impact speed faster for Snell. I would love to see data for a lower threshold test, but without an established medical value for preventing TBI, there's no way to evaluate helmets this way.

Manufacturer's cannot "cheat" the test as it is an independent evaluation. And I wouldn't say the design needs "contradict one another." Every motorsport helmet is designed for preventing death. Adding a second goal of preventing TBI doesn't have to contradict preventing death at a faster impact.

As far as testing costs- there's a 2018 Snell MX helmet that retails for $140. IMO Snell certification cost is not an issue.

Incorrect

I wont name names - but a prominent helmet from Europe has additional foam placed where the impact testing is done - then the rest of the helmet has foam removed for weight - it passes the "test" and is one of the lightest helmets you can buy - but because it is missing EPS in other areas it's certainly lighter - but will fail the test if tested on those spots

If this isnt' a "cheat" please explain to me what is.


Any standardized test with a "set test procedure" allows a smart person to design for the test - and not the crash - if they so chose.

The GOOD news is helmet companies ARE passionate about head safety - and and INCREASING their in house testing requirements and technology.

6D IMHO pushed this forward - bell followed suit - and the new FLY helmet is a direct result of market competition and passionate individuals who are innovating AHEAD of regulatory requirements.

Sadly there is NO ONE design that is perfect. Basic physics CAN NOT be cheated. At a set velocity of impact - with a set helmet thickness - there is only so much time you have to slow down the brain. Ideally helmets would be HUGE with a large crushable area that absorbed massive energy over a long time - but we cant do that - size has negative effects on weight, rotational influence - and visibility etc...

The latest stuff from 6d, bell, fly, leatt are finally addressing MORE of the low speed concerns - but trying like hell to keep their high speed puncture testing requirements. I hope we see more and more of this - and if consumers truly would educate themselves OUTSIDE of perception - they could make smarter buying choices.

Cut open a Fly Mips, Bell Mips, TLD, Fox, Shoeii, etc...and really see whats going on.... it's not "rocket appliances" on helmet technology of old - EPS of certain thickness, hard thin shell, inner liner of sweat wicking material. All made very similarly - some are made in the same factory.



|

9/23/2018 2:35 PM

Years ago Cycle World or similar magazine did a test on helmets and how DOT and Snell etc tests are done.
Basically, everyone knows where the tests are done, and how, and they make the helmets withstand the tests in those areas. Basically its cheating as mentioned above.

All I know is concussions seem to be more prevalent today than in the say Pre- Moto5 or 6 time frame.

I'm not sure but I've seen guys completely destroy late 80s early 90s helmets and heads were fine. And by destroy, I mean fiberglass shards sticking out everywhere and face bars cracked or broken.

They were also heavier, and I'm not sure thats bad. My old Moto 4 for example "Feels" like a more stout lid than anything I've had in the last 10 years. It feels less "Flimsy" Especially the face part.

|

My post is my opinion. If you don't agree with it, I'm OK with it.

9/23/2018 2:54 PM

Snell is a private company. It's not a "US standard", not a "DOT require" standard. Purely a private profit-making company.

They have zero in depth research done for off-road/MX helmets. Their penetration protection requirements make for heavier shells which are more dangerous in most crashes but especially in dirtbike/mx. The heavier the shell, the more G's your brain will take on impact.

But, yeah, if there's that 1 Seminole spear coming your way, the Snell hard shells could help stop it.

|

"What are you waiting for? You're faster than this. Don't think you are, know you are. Come on."

9/23/2018 3:25 PM
Edited Date/Time: 9/23/2018 10:11 PM

I’m more interested in getting the best tech and available protection for MOTOCROSS based crashes and I don’t see how that’s addressed by striking the helmet in the same place -twice- to some form of ballistic standard that I’ve never experienced in a Moto/off road fall. The new tests that I see being conducted by act-lab are more along the lines of what I care about. I want to “decelerate” the impact that my brain is taking when I hit the ground.

My SE4 does that nicely.
I know this.
I tested it the hard way.
That was in an SE4 Carbon in 2017.
That Helmet was destroyed.
My brain wasn’t.

I’m now wearing the poly version. It tests very well, too. Thankfully, I’ve only whacked the ground with it once...during the shootout. It, too, did it’s job.

|

I ripped a start from Egypt and I was happy about that.

9/23/2018 6:57 PM

Derek Harris wrote:

ECE standard is now the primary “go to”

Since it costs big bucks to get tested - pass or fail - many companies are picking only one std to approve on (if they choose to be approved)


If you do a small amount of research in how most helmet testing is done for certification - and how some helmet manufactures “cheat” you realize we need a different test std as well as possibly no “certification” on a pass fail grade but rather a publishing of performance in various scenarious - so the consumer can make the most educated choice for their needs

Its a tough problem to solve, as each crash has its unique needs that contridict one another for design

msp332 wrote:

Helmets that pass Snell also pass ECE as the acceleration thresholds are the same with the impact speed faster for Snell. I would love to see data for a lower threshold test, but without an established medical value for preventing TBI, there's no way to evaluate helmets this way.

Manufacturer's cannot "cheat" the test as it is an independent evaluation. And I wouldn't say the design needs "contradict one another." Every motorsport helmet is designed for preventing death. Adding a second goal of preventing TBI doesn't have to contradict preventing death at a faster impact.

As far as testing costs- there's a 2018 Snell MX helmet that retails for $140. IMO Snell certification cost is not an issue.

Derek Harris wrote:

Incorrect

I wont name names - but a prominent helmet from Europe has additional foam placed where the impact testing is done - then the rest of the helmet has foam removed for weight - it passes the "test" and is one of the lightest helmets you can buy - but because it is missing EPS in other areas it's certainly lighter - but will fail the test if tested on those spots

If this isnt' a "cheat" please explain to me what is.


Any standardized test with a "set test procedure" allows a smart person to design for the test - and not the crash - if they so chose.

The GOOD news is helmet companies ARE passionate about head safety - and and INCREASING their in house testing requirements and technology.

6D IMHO pushed this forward - bell followed suit - and the new FLY helmet is a direct result of market competition and passionate individuals who are innovating AHEAD of regulatory requirements.

Sadly there is NO ONE design that is perfect. Basic physics CAN NOT be cheated. At a set velocity of impact - with a set helmet thickness - there is only so much time you have to slow down the brain. Ideally helmets would be HUGE with a large crushable area that absorbed massive energy over a long time - but we cant do that - size has negative effects on weight, rotational influence - and visibility etc...

The latest stuff from 6d, bell, fly, leatt are finally addressing MORE of the low speed concerns - but trying like hell to keep their high speed puncture testing requirements. I hope we see more and more of this - and if consumers truly would educate themselves OUTSIDE of perception - they could make smarter buying choices.

Cut open a Fly Mips, Bell Mips, TLD, Fox, Shoeii, etc...and really see whats going on.... it's not "rocket appliances" on helmet technology of old - EPS of certain thickness, hard thin shell, inner liner of sweat wicking material. All made very similarly - some are made in the same factory.



Source?

The Snell test technician can choose any impact point on the helmet. "In all cases the technician may impact any site on the helmet surface on or within the test lines as drawn for any of the head forms considered appropriate for that helmet." Source: https://www.smf.org/standards/m/2015/M2015FinalFinal

Plus they test random samples within stocks for distribution. Source: https://www.smf.org/rst

There is no way to "cheat" the certification.

|

9/23/2018 8:10 PM

I guess I stand corrected

Intriguing the helmet I saw cut away - was reinforced for the puncture test in a clearly visible area. In the shell - as well as foam quantity

If snell did indeed test helmets everywhere - where the large air vent channels were - no way it passes

Why would that helmet manufacturer woukd spend the extra money in the specific area is an interesting question if they knew it were to be tested elsewhere

|

9/23/2018 10:08 PM

Im not helmet expert. But if you can find a snell helmet that also has the MIPS or similar technology i dont understand why you wouldnt use it. Theres a reason every road course requires them. Theres a reason they put effort into designing them to pass snell and Dot. That doesnt happen by accident.

I recall watching a snell video on youtube, and there were quite a bit more tests done on the helmets than 2 impacts in the same area. As a matter of fact i want to recall snell takes dot and ece standards and elevates them more along with additional testing.

|

9/24/2018 11:10 AM

What about the info on their site about MIPS?

|

My post is my opinion. If you don't agree with it, I'm OK with it.

9/24/2018 11:19 AM
Edited Date/Time: 9/24/2018 11:20 AM

ML512 wrote:

Many off-road/motocross helmet brands are moving away from Snell to ECE by choice. The main thought behind this is Snell shells are too stiff due to the double impact test to work in low speed impacts. I’ve personally had four concussions from low speed style impacts in Snell shells that ended up with zero EPS compression due to the stiffness of the helmet. Personally from the data I’ve seen from each brand, talking to MIPS and other helmet companies I’m a believer in ECE over Snell and choose to primarily wear those shells for testing at Vital.

Fly’s 2019 F2 Carbon MIPS is another example as they’re only making the ECE version now, not the Snell model. Fox moved away from their Snell shell about a year or two ago on the V3.

Well said..took a low speed hit on a fly snell helmet just falling off the downhill bike had a mild concussion. But unfortunately hard to judge concussion as they say you can get a concussion easier once you've had one.

|

9/24/2018 11:19 AM

Snell is not required on helmets for roadracing and hasn't for a very long time. And MIPS won't make the helmet 'softer', it just helps with rotational impacts. There is a new FIM test for roadracing that measures the forces in rotational impacts and I believe there will be on for MX coming too.

|

9/24/2018 3:54 PM

IIRC football helmets are going to a softer flexible shell to reduce concussions. It's not the big one, but the repetitive hits that have shown to cause damage. There is more research being done in football that is likely more applicable to Moto.

Photo



https://www.6dhelmets.com/6d-helmets-and-dynamic-research-win-grand-prize-award-in-prestigious-head-health-challenge-iii/

https://www.nj.com/rutgersfootball/index.ssf/2017/08/rutgers_guardian_cap_helmet_concussions.html

|

2015 Beta 500 RS, history: 99 KTM 300, 87 CR250, 84 KLR 600, 82 GPZ 550, 81 KX 250, 80 KX 250, 79 Montesa 414 VE, 78 250 VB, 77 360 VB, 76 360 VA, 75 YZ 125, 74 TM 125, 72 TS 125, 60's West Bend Go Boy Kart

5/25/2019 12:22 PM

I read most of the comments and shake my head. A plethora of opinions with no facts or data. And the “Oh I don’t need second impact protection in Moto.” Is the most idiotic thing I have read. That and Moto is low speed. Tell that to The top pros that they are “Low speed”. Sure we have all wrecked and bounced our heads off the ground. But how many have had their head landed on by a bike then crashed from that violently. Or crashed and been B@#*ch slapped by the bike or landed on. Or a foot peg into the helmet. Maybe a sharp impact from a snowmobile spindle in a snocross race. Hey we are landing on nice soft chewed up snow right. Why have a stiff helmet....... Small area impact high velocity. Technically ANY helmet should be replaced if it falls to the ground or you crash in it. How many do. None of us. If a big impact maybe some like I do.

I have the different perspective and training from my job and 25 years of experiences in said job to form my opinion. Which is an educated one. I am a traffic crash investigator. Plus former MX racer and Snocross team owner for my kids. They would not wear anything but a Snell helmet. Snocross rules dictate it as well.

Now for your DOT testing. It is not a test. It is a “Standard” that is certified on the “Honor” system. Yes the government does not test helmets. They come up with a standard which they think maybwork and the helmet manufacturers have to tell them they tested their own helmets to meet it. Like was posted previously. Smell Memorials foundation is an independent testing lab that does charge the manufacturers and they do grabbrandom helmets. Not ones sent to them to avoid “cheating.” ECE I have not studied or had training on yet. But that will be good research for a slow night at work.

Now for recent real world data a few years back. Unhandled a motorcycle crash in the roadway. Bike was stopped waiting to make a left turn. He was in a sport bike but wearing a Fly Moto helmet. Non Snell, appeared to be the typical Thermoplastic Alloy style shell. He got rear ended in a sideswipe Ryle manner flipping him off his bike and to the ground (Hit / Impact #1). His bike was pushed into oncoming traffic. (Two lane country road). A second car heading the opposite direction hit the BIKE. Not the rider. However. The bike was ping pinged for an easy term back across the road. When the bike came back across the road the front tire struck the rider in the head / helmet (Impact #2). This impact cracked the helmet shell in several locations and the rider suffered a serious TBI (or closed Head Injury). He is now seriously impaired. First impact technically a low speed impact. Another I saw was a Snocross Racer that crashed HARD in nice soft snow. However the race was immediately stopped and medical crews rushed to him hecause his helmet broke. And they saw that and were afraid he was dead. Luckily he was ok aside from a broken arm and mild concussion. I won’t mention the brand or where it occurred but the helmet broke through the giggle opening and the entire top of the helmet bead seperated from the lower half. NO ONE can ever predict what forces will be exerted on a helmet in every crash situation. Impossible. Wear what you feel is best for your head. But remember you only have one. Have a $10 head wear a $10 helmet. I have seen a lot of dead bikers over the years and a common theme was cheap helmets.

I will only ever wear an ARAI personally as I was saved by mine. One of my Motorcycle crash investigation classes was also instructed by a professor on the east coast area. Can’t recall at the moment what school, but all he does is study Motorcycle crash helmet data and crashes. Smell helmet the best certification. ARAI #1 helmet made. SHOEI #2.

|

Current Bikes:
1974 Honda XL100
1983 Honda CR60R
1986 Honda CR125R
2002 Honda CR80R
1996 Kawasaki KX60
1996 Kawasaki KX 500

5/25/2019 12:29 PM
Edited Date/Time: 5/25/2019 6:18 PM

Lawdog800 wrote:

I read most of the comments and shake my head. A plethora of opinions with no facts or data. And the “Oh I don’t need second impact protection in Moto.” Is the most idiotic thing I have read. That and Moto is low speed. Tell that to The top pros that they are “Low speed”. Sure we have all wrecked and bounced our heads off the ground. But how many have had their head landed on by a bike then crashed from that violently. Or crashed and been B@#*ch slapped by the bike or landed on. Or a foot peg into the helmet. Maybe a sharp impact from a snowmobile spindle in a snocross race. Hey we are landing on nice soft chewed up snow right. Why have a stiff helmet....... Small area impact high velocity. Technically ANY helmet should be replaced if it falls to the ground or you crash in it. How many do. None of us. If a big impact maybe some like I do.

I have the different perspective and training from my job and 25 years of experiences in said job to form my opinion. Which is an educated one. I am a traffic crash investigator. Plus former MX racer and Snocross team owner for my kids. They would not wear anything but a Snell helmet. Snocross rules dictate it as well.

Now for your DOT testing. It is not a test. It is a “Standard” that is certified on the “Honor” system. Yes the government does not test helmets. They come up with a standard which they think maybwork and the helmet manufacturers have to tell them they tested their own helmets to meet it. Like was posted previously. Smell Memorials foundation is an independent testing lab that does charge the manufacturers and they do grabbrandom helmets. Not ones sent to them to avoid “cheating.” ECE I have not studied or had training on yet. But that will be good research for a slow night at work.

Now for recent real world data a few years back. Unhandled a motorcycle crash in the roadway. Bike was stopped waiting to make a left turn. He was in a sport bike but wearing a Fly Moto helmet. Non Snell, appeared to be the typical Thermoplastic Alloy style shell. He got rear ended in a sideswipe Ryle manner flipping him off his bike and to the ground (Hit / Impact #1). His bike was pushed into oncoming traffic. (Two lane country road). A second car heading the opposite direction hit the BIKE. Not the rider. However. The bike was ping pinged for an easy term back across the road. When the bike came back across the road the front tire struck the rider in the head / helmet (Impact #2). This impact cracked the helmet shell in several locations and the rider suffered a serious TBI (or closed Head Injury). He is now seriously impaired. First impact technically a low speed impact. Another I saw was a Snocross Racer that crashed HARD in nice soft snow. However the race was immediately stopped and medical crews rushed to him hecause his helmet broke. And they saw that and were afraid he was dead. Luckily he was ok aside from a broken arm and mild concussion. I won’t mention the brand or where it occurred but the helmet broke through the giggle opening and the entire top of the helmet bead seperated from the lower half. NO ONE can ever predict what forces will be exerted on a helmet in every crash situation. Impossible. Wear what you feel is best for your head. But remember you only have one. Have a $10 head wear a $10 helmet. I have seen a lot of dead bikers over the years and a common theme was cheap helmets.

I will only ever wear an ARAI personally as I was saved by mine. One of my Motorcycle crash investigation classes was also instructed by a professor on the east coast area. Can’t recall at the moment what school, but all he does is study Motorcycle crash helmet data and crashes. Smell helmet the best certification. ARAI #1 helmet made. SHOEI #2.

Deleted

|