The Snell Helmet Standard

[bornagainbiker]

 

[klx678]

One of FortNine's videos that isn't completely informative.   It is right on the Snell issues, but misses the fact that FIM is pulling the same thing in their standards they want.  He also misses that the DOT standard, how ever ancient it may be, has a dwell time for impact that nearly cuts the 400g in half, plus it does not specify where a hit must take place, like others do.

There is a better video from Moto Jitsu, an interview with Bob from 3D helmets.  The video is very informative about the standards, weaknesses and strengths.   His take on DOT is at around 2:50 minutes in and the problem with FIM at around 10:50 minutes in.

Right now without the boost in impact speeds the FIM wants, the ECE r 22.05 is best and the r 22.06 with the multidirectional impact standard will be better yet.   

Think about it, at one point if every standards group worked toward the goal of less injury independently they would eventually all converge on the same standards.   In other words Snell is no longer as relevant as ECE r 22.05 because they have not kept up with the reality of motorcycle accidents.  They keep hanging on to their "automobile think" with their double hit standard.  Great for drivers inside a roll cage, but the likelihood of a motorcyclist hitting their helmet twice in the same spot is about as likely as being struck by lightning during the crash... not by a very very long shot.

Problem is Snell keeps trying to "one-up" standards to stay relevant and collect the fees for helmet registration and now FIM is getting into something that they really don't know anything about, with what appears to be that same "one-upmanship", one-upmanship in a bad direction.   They seem to be ignoring the actual science pertaining to helmets in motorcycle crashes.  Now Dr. David Thom, who has a master's degree in helmet studies, worked with Dr. Hurt in the USC Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures (aka the Hurt Report), and led the study commissioned by Motorcyclist/Dexter Ford - Comparison Tests of Motorcycle Helmets Qualified to International Standards has that knowledge as did the late Dr. Hurt.  Read his work in the full study which can be found in the link in the following paragraph.

Here is a listing of some of the studies and reports along with some articles relating to helmet safety.   I will say the study by Motorcyclist was the one that shed the most light on the various standards, FIM not yet involved.  Click here   Most everything points to the softer standards of DOT (self regulated in the US) and ECE r 22.05 (UN supported EC standard that is tested) being better for the g forces to the brain.   The FIM standard is so high if the rider had that impact it would likely be fatal.   Just looks like they "one-upped" the standard that seemed to be about the max possible without fatal injury.  Why?  What good is that?

 

FWIW, I've been following the various helmet controversies since the Hurt Report, clearly showing helmets - any helmet - will save lives in accidents.  I was sold on that, plus the Snell standard up to 2005.  Then Dr. Thom's study funded by Motorcyclist proceded to knock the Snell standards for a loop, proving that the ECE standards and even the DOT standards put less impact to the brain than Snell in testing that actually replicated that of a motorcycle crash impact.   That made Snell irrelevant in the motorcycle arena.  They are still important in automobile racing.  Now the deal with multidirectional impacts and g forces from them is making the ECE standard the most relevant and best standard, even more so when they finally settle on the rotational standards.  One thing will hurt it - if they adopt the FIM standards that would have helmet makers making harder helmets...  what the Motorcyclist article was bringing to the forefront in the Snell standards versus DOT/ECE.  The standard has to be relevant and one that will still end up with a fatality isn't relevant.

Edited August 1, 2021 by klx678

[shinyribs]

Anyone cashing in on safety has something other than your best interests in mind. 

[klx678]

You do realize Snell is cashing in, as would be the FIM, not to mention Leatt and 3D.  You have to learn how to sort out the vital information.   The points in the video I posted are backed up by helmet experts, who, oddly enough are cashing in since it is their job.

Just sayin' you may be a bit jaded.   After all, your doctors and surgeons are cashing in too.   I'd not say that my doctors haven't had my best interests in mind.   In the same line of thought I think the researchers have rider best interests in mind, especially when they are riders too.