My next helmet will cost $80!

[wncbmw]

I read the article before shopping for my new lid. And ended up with another Arai Signet. The cheaper helmets simply did not fit and that was the bottom line. I tried a nice KBC that was obviously way too big (wobbled on my head!) and it still hurt my forehead after 5 minutes!

Fit, features and comfort determined the purchase. The tests obviously test for different types of crashes and that is something we can't predict.

[darthrider]

Unless you get lucky you will find a direct corelation between fit & cost.
Most cheap helmets accomodate only one head shape.
Arai uses 3 different head shape shells and a subset of one, total 4. The US is the only country where they offer all these...great melting pot and all that with some serious "head diversity" here. They only sell one shape in Japan.

A minor oversimplification in "fit" is that size = safety while head shape = comfort. Going up one size to avoid that forehead hurt is a serious safety compromise.

The various makers also have to use different shell sizes to accomodate different head sizes. Arai generally uses 3 shell sizes across a model line, sometimes 4, and "fine tunes" them for specific sizing with slightly different thicknesses of padding.

Another contributor to cost in high end helmets, in addition to better venting systems, is aerodynamics...how they behave in high velocity airflow. My Arai "lifts" slightly between 90 and 100 MPH then goes neutral again. Some helmets will wobble, even if sized correctly. Some whistle, some are just unacceptably loud and cause fatigue on long rides as well as ringing of the ears.

Cheaper helmets generally use only 1 or 2 shell sizes and make larger adjustments by adding thickness in the foam impact absorbtion layer, then fine tune with padding thickness. They will still "fit"...sort of, but there is always an optimal foam thickness (for safety) which is compromised. Ever see a helmet that was visually just "too big" for the head it was on?

This is also part of the difference in cost...making sure they fit (safety & comfort).

Another is some cheap helmets use water soluble glue in constructing the helmets and rarely have removable liners. If you wash them they fall apart. If you do not wash them they stink and deteriorate, reducing their useful (safe) life dramatically.

Many think that the 5 year life that helmet makers recommend for helmets is just so they can sell you a helmet every 5 years. Not so. There is some slight shell deterioration from ozone, UV radiation, hydrocarbon fumes, etc. but the important one is deterioration of the padding-liner, and foam inner liner. This comes from the above factors plus skin oils, sweat, soap & shampoo residue, dirt, etc. Arai's stated warranty is 5 years. If the helmet shows good care, including cleaning, they will extend it to 6 years. This no bunk, it's real.

Another factor in the 5 year life is that helmet technology is on a ~5 year cycle. Your 6 year old Nolan is not the same as the one on your dealer's shelf.

Interior deformation is important too. NEVER put your helmet over a mirror for instance where it is resting with a "hard spot" pressing on the liner. This causes minor deformations in the foam. Don't let others wear your helmet. Same thing...different head shapes will slightly deform the foam liner, just as your head did while your helmet was "breaking in". Arai will scrap a pro racer's helmet if they see someone else put it on - once. That's how serious they are about foam deformation.

By the way, Arai is the only racing helmet maker we know of who takes the race helmets directly from the production line. They get exactly the same helmets you and I get. The only exception is they get special paint & graphics, nothing else. Many makers produce race helmet "specials" in a different facility with special materials & techniques. This means something to me and many others. And explains even more of the cost of the Arai.

Snell: An interesting tidbit. Makers like Arai & Shoei have noted that even the low end helmets have mastered the basic engineering to meet minimum Snell standards. They are not at all happy with Snell either. Anyone can get a Snell rating and it is becoming not as easy, but as common, as getting a DOT rating. Niether of those companies (and other companies who are serious safety companies, not just some Chinese factory pumping out skid lids and other DOT helmets) build to the minimum Snell standard. They significantly exceed that standard in "building the best & safest helmets they can". They have been actively campaigning Snell to go to a multi-level rating system for years...Snell 1, Snell2, etc. The serious manufacturers do not want to have the same sticker on their helmets that a KMart helmet does.

I realize none of this addresses the fundamental question of DOT VS Snell standards...which is best? I didn't intend to as I am not qualified to do so. I am qualified to discuss the above. I'll give you my personal - unqualified - opinion though: It depends. What are you testing for? What do you want the results to be? Who do you let write up the results for public consumption...magazine editors or safety engineers? I think both Snell and DOT are way behind the curve in assessing helmet safety and need to be totally revamped. The European standards are way ahead. Maybe too much politics here. In the meantime I will continue to recommend - and use - the best helmet I can find, regardless of the sticker. They just all happen to say "Snell" for now.

Believe what you like. Magazine articles, your Federal Government, the helmet manufacturers, what you read on the internet, your buddy down the block, the 17 year old parts guy at the dealer, the high volume/low overhead/low service internet sellers. Just realize that helmet safety is a very complex issue and a very important one.

Please don't just think with your wallet when choosing a helmet.

[Optimus Prime]

P.S. The cheap helmet in the article was also very light....

And, the statement about 'make sure you have the sort of crash the helmet was made for' speaks to the key point of the article that some of you didn't bother to read before responding... the fact that the snell tests are NOT representitive of real-life motorcycle crashes, and meeting the snell standards of heavy force repetitive drops onto a small object make those helmets less able to 'absorb' enough energy, through crushing the inside material, to keep the force from your brain. The point of the article was that the 'softer' / cheaper helmet's insides allow less force to reach the brain, which ought to be the idea.

The snell standards, the article says, are based on flawed models of real motorcycle accidents, and old science regarding how much force to the brain should be allowed.

Our expensive helmets will crush less in real-life accidents, allow more damage to your brain, but will withstand a second crash if someone picks up your dead body and tosses you off a bridge.

That's my three cents.

A few things I'd like to point out.

*While the more expensive helmets allow a slightly higher magnitude of deceleration at lower impacts than the cheaper helmets, this really means less than Motorcyclist would have you believe. Your head can withstand a certain magnitude of acceleration without injury, and anything over that threshold will cause damage appropriate to the magnitude over that threshold. If your threshold is 300g's and for a given impact the cheaper helmet allows 220g's and the more expensive one allows 280g's, it doesn't matter. No head trauma results. Any number under the threshold is good, 100 isn't twice as good as 200. They're equal in the sense that neither will result in injury. However, for a higher impact the cheaper helmet may fail and allow a 1000g deceleration while the more expensive one allows only 298g's. So the protection at a lower impact didn't really have an additional benifit, but the lack of protection at higher impact will kill you. Not very reassuring.

*While a cheaper helmet may allow a lower magnitude of deceleration to your head at a given impact within it's "impact range". If you go over that range, it's game over. While Motorcyclist tried to rationalize this by saying you're more than likely dead anyways from other injuries, I'm not sure I'm willing to take their word for it. I also wonder why most of their rider's personal helmets are high end, if low end helmets were so much better...

If you're wearing a cheap helmet, chances are you aren't wearing $700 worth of armor. So a higher impact may kill you either way. However, for those that spend a good chunk of money on armor then it is very likely that other injuries will not kill you in a high impact accident, and the cheap helmet will be the only chink in your armor.

*Where do you think the cheaper helmets got all of the R&D? If it weren't for the expensive helmet's money going directly to R&D, there wouldn't be cheap and relatively safe helmets. The conspiracy theory part of that article is complete crap.

*Motorcyclists had some valid points. However, their testing and presentation of information was more skewed than Snells. Motorcyclist made a bunch of sensationalist accusations, that on the surface seem rational, but really don't hold water. They created a large buzz, and they sold one metric f*ckton of magazines because of it. If you think that Snell is just out there to make a buck, you need to understand that Motorcyclist wrote this article for the same reason.

[darthrider]

Great points Mr. Prime.
You are correctimundo that the R&D and engineering comes from the high end manufacturers, not the low end makers.

Being in the motorcycle aftermarket industry I see first hand how effective Chinese and other "off-shore" factories are at reverse-engineering good products that come from reputable manufacturers who actually employ engineers & designers...and understand what they are doing.

If it's a light switch for a Harley I might have a certain level of concern about that. If it is a helmet for me, my wife, my son...or you...I would have quite another.

Most people are not concerned where the basic and advanced research and engineering comes from, and rightfully so. But I just can't believe that a company who only copies rather than engineers & innovates will be as consistent and effective in their manufacturing processes as the company who does it all.

How many extra copies would Motorcyclist have sold if their article had concluded that "Yep, Snell is better than DOT!"? Some are quick to jump to the conclusion that helmet makers are screwing the public to make more $$. Do you really trust a company like Arai less than a magazine? I deal with motomags a lot. Ad space and other "considerations" will buy a lot of good will and "editorial space" as they call it.

[154mph]

Helmet tests are great because they provide a LITTLE useful
information and get us thinking.

One thing that I have never seen in a helmet test is testing
The helmet at different temperatures. A plastic helmet might
test good at room temp but the colder plastic gets the more
brittle it becomes. I just wonder if 45 degrees is cold enough to
cause it to fail before it does its job.

[scottybooj]

Dave, don't get defensive over this. The cheaper helmets only absorb energy better because they're made cheaper, which translates into 'less rigid'.

Think of this...All cars now have lightweight alloys that 'crumple' to dissipate energy. Snell helmets follow the old thinking of stronger is better. Only if you want to stop a skull from cracking.

Keeping a bag of jello in the same mold is A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROPOSITION. The answer is to have the 'expensive' helmet companies come up with foams, etc...to combat this.

Snell tests their helmets at a strange oblique angle, right? that definitely isn't real world, but heck, their namesake died from a head injury so we know they started off in the right direction. It seems that bureaucracy has taken hold and it will be hard to break free of the old thinking.

Trust me, if the TUV has a different idea and validates a different way of cushioning my noggin, I have NO problem buying a non-dot/non snell helmet.

Snell tests are EXPENSIVE. Something that is worth it IF it's scientifically valid. And based on what I know on neuroanatomy, stopping a brain with a hard substance just ain't good.

[darthrider]

Scotty -
Sorry if I came across as defensive, I didn't intend that and I really don't feel defensive on this subject. I tend to overstate things on subjects I am "passionate" about. In all honesty, more than one boss has counseled me on this.
A better way of stating my opinion would have been to just say "consider everything on this complex subject before making your own decisions".

But I have a job where I am exposed to a lot of information on subjects of interest to riders and I like to share that as much as I can. I try to always label facts as "facts" and opinions as "opinions" but I certainly do get carried away from time to time.

Hopefully, I've provided some relevant information. I think it is *very* useful to also hear from guys like you and Optimus Prime (Jason) who are experts in related fields but not in the helmet or motorcycle business. I am likely more biased about this subject than either of you.

Edit: "Oblique angle testing"...not real world? I don't know how relevant this is but in my time riding I've been involved in three collisions with cars. One a direct head-on, two at oblique angles. Head/helmet contact was not involved in any of them.

[Optimus Prime]

Dave, don't get defensive over this. The cheaper helmets only absorb energy better because they're made cheaper, which translates into 'less rigid'.

I'm not sure this is a valid assumption, or the real argument from the article. Here's what I took the scientific argument (and counter argument) to be:

Basic information:
-The main impact protection comes from the plastic deformation of the Styrofoam like, I'll call it foam from now on, material inside the helmet.
-Since we can't make practical helmets that are 4 feet in diameter, we have to work with a fixed thickness of foam.
-Once the foam has completely compressed and reached its maximum plastic deformation it offers zero protection.
-As the foam deforms it absorbs a percentage of the shock load, thus saving your noodle.

Arguments against Snell Helmets:
-Snell helmets use a "hard" foam that can withstand severe impact(s) before maximum plastic deformation has occurred. Because of the use of "hard" foam, the percentage of all shock loads actually transmitted to the head is higher. Cheaper helmets use "soft" foam that transmits a smaller percentage of this shock load to your head.

Argument for Snell:
-While the impact load transmitted to the head for a light to moderate helmet impact may be higher than if "soft" foam was used, the impact load is still under the "design" threshold for head trauma. Thus it is still effective. A severe impact with a helmet that uses "soft" foam WILL BE severe, since complete plastic deformation will happen quickly and no protection will be available to absorb the rest of the impact.


My opinion:
The level of protection in mild to moderate impacts is academic. Both helmets will keep you under the trauma threshold. The protection difference at severe impact loads is staggering. Which is why that is what Snell tests. DOT already covers the low impact stuff so why should Snell bother with it? Snell is testing for the severe impacts because it knows the mild to moderate impacts have already been tested and passed. This article was a witch-hunt to bump circulation.

But that's just my opinion.

[BMWChef]

All I know is that I have a Shoei head, so that's what I wear, always have. I have walked away from two serious accidents, the first a 70 mph crash after being knocked off my bike by an exploding trailer tire... landing head first on my RF 700 and the other recent low speed encounter with a woman and her car (The car won) in an X-11. According to those that know me best my brain is no less damaged than before the accidents.
Other helmets may protect me just as well if not better, but Shoei's have always been the most comfortable for this noggin regardless of price.

Aloha,
Chef

[Lance1150]

If your threshold is 300g's and for a given impact the cheaper helmet allows 220g's and the more expensive one allows 280g's, it doesn't matter. No head trauma results. Any number under the threshold is good, 100 isn't twice as good as 200. They're equal in the sense that neither will result in injury.

The article also pointed out, and I think it's reasonable to agree, that a 'threshold' number varies per brain... and that the threshold number, set long ago, is probably WAY too high... so, a smaller number DOES matter... at least for my brain.

I think the people who are defensive about that article are marching in line with a flawed standard that has become, the standard.

[Optimus Prime]

If your threshold is 300g's and for a given impact the cheaper helmet allows 220g's and the more expensive one allows 280g's, it doesn't matter. No head trauma results. Any number under the threshold is good, 100 isn't twice as good as 200. They're equal in the sense that neither will result in injury.

The article also pointed out, and I think it's reasonable to agree, that a 'threshold' number varies per brain

I completely agree, which is why I used an adjective denoting a variance based in the individual. I'm not arguing this point. If you'd like to argue that the threshold limit currently used is high, and you'd like to have research done to find a more appropriate threshold limit, I'm all for it.

... and that the threshold number, set long ago, is probably WAY too high... so, a smaller number DOES matter... at least for my brain.

The 400g threshold was much too high. However the current 300g threshold is more in line for most healthy riders, and is similar to the guidelines used for football players, race car drivers, etc. Perhaps lowering it is in order, but obviously you can not mass produce a helmet with a design that fits every individual

I think the people who are defensive about that article are marching in line with a flawed standard that has become, the standard.

There's a difference between being defensive about the article, and objectively looking at the article and it's flaws. I think companies like Shoei and Arai are trying to make products that will save our lives. I think the magazine didn't cover both sides of the argument. Instead they editorialized and offered half-baked science in order to vilify companies spending millions of dollars to design better helmets, while offering companies that rip-off designs and make cheap helmets up as the golden bullet.

Did they start off with some very valid points, I really think so. But they went way overboard with an agenda to witch-hunt the companies that have done most of the work to get helmets where they are today. And now there are a ton of riders, unable to think for themselves, who think an $80 helmet will cure cancer while a $500 helmet is going to smother them while they sleep. It's too bad people don't realize it's the companies charging $500 a helmet that have done all the R&D to make the $80 helmets possible.

I've worked in the design and engineering field long enough to know that they guy with the really cheap product making all the noise about how the big guy is out to steal your soul, is usually blowing more smoke up your tailpipe than you can handle.

So I guess I think the people clutching the Motorcyclist's article as a holy grail aren't trying to look at the big picture. All I'm asking is that, just for a minute, they pretend the magazine might have an agenda too. And to look at it as if the magazine weren't the uber benevolent savior of the weak, but perhaps is a little more dishonest than we would like to believe. Then plug that equation into your world and see which set of puzzle pieces fit a little more tightly.

[ofrogg]

I think the people who are defensive about that article are marching in line with a flawed standard that has become, the standard.

Personally, I think you might just be looking for a little justification for being a cheap-o... when you get in an accident and your head is mangled, you'd like to point at a big group and say, "But they were getting cheap helmets, I thought it would be ok! It's their fault, not mine!"

[wncbmw]

lance old buddy, when it comes time to drop big $$ on a lid, I ain't drinking no one's Kool Aid! I read every word of the article but as I stated, the fit (and ventilation and comfort) resulted in another Arai on my bike gear shelf. Somehow, I also tended to believe scientists over journalists! (noRRmad would jump in on my on that one if we were in the Playhouse! )

[bakernks]

I'm wearing a new Arai, it fits me perfectly, I can remove the liner and wash it while you'll still be wearing the same stinkin piece of crap you threw $80 away on, I'll survive a crash, you won't, and that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[NoRRmad]

<=== Me in my big bright yellow Arai Quantum/f.

[darthrider]

Personally, I think you might just be looking for a little justification for being a cheap-o...

Now I don't care who you are...*that's* funny!
And all too true, methinks...

[Lance1150]

Personally, I think you might just be looking for a little justification for being a cheap-o... when you get in an accident and your head is mangled, you'd like to point at a big group and say, "But they were getting cheap helmets, I thought it would be ok! It's their fault, not mine!"

I certainly wouldn't blame anyone for 'my' choice of helmet, that assumption that I'd want to 'point to a big group and say... it's their fault' is very contrary to my main point here, a minority view, about the cheaper helmets... I'm not one to run with the lemmings.

When I bought my last helmet I had the $$$ to buy whatever helmet felt the best, 'that' was my criteria, since I figured the safety part of the equation was pretty equal.

I did find the article an eye-opener as far as cheap vs. safety... but my bottom line is still heavily in favor of COMFORT. No way I'd get the cheap, and perhaps safer, helmet if it didn't feel comfortable.

I bought a Shoei TZ-1... it fit me better and felt better than any Arai, or the more expensive Shoei...

[new2BMW]

I actually got Lance's point. I thought the article, and the test procedures were well made. Their description for why they chose the particular test methods made sense too. The only lashing out that I read seemed to be more of a lashing back against Snell for their inaccurate reference to the tests.

I suppose Lance's point is that you don't necessaily get what you pay for if a manufacturer uses a government mandated pass/fail test as a measurement of real world safety.

At the same time though, each manufacturer must pass the test if they want their helmets certified. If the buying public is buying based on the cert, you can't blame the maker for using it as a selling point.

At the end of the day, every accident will be different than the next. No organization can honestly say that their test is more real than the other guy's. Frankly, if this article helps to further improve the standards, we all win. If the cheapest helmets gain improvements, the companies selling the expensive models will find a way to improve even more.

[wncbmw]

NoRRmad -

Me in my big bright yellow Arai Quantum/f.

Hey - we agree on something - Arai! Amazing!

But I have a Signet head. Therein lies the difference!

[Acacia]

Lance is just being vintage Lance. Argumentative, opiniated, and sometime boarderline ... . Every hound needs its day in the sunshine.

The general discussion is good though. As I expressed in another thread - buy the best fitting and quality helment you can afford. How you arrive at that - it is called choice - and hopefully an informed one - once you have sifted through all the agendas.

You only have one eggshell that does not take much to crack. My Arai Signet GT fits like no other - and it is not the price that made my decision.