Is this helmet test reliable?

[Luca]

Hi all,

I'm here to ask you stars and striped people if NHTSA is a credible organization, to understand if I can trust the following test:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/comply/fmvss218/2006s218.pdf

Thank you!

[lightfighter]

thats your goverment. and they wear white lab coats. how could they be wrong!?!

seriously, the tests they do are administered reliably(im sure some folks will argue exact structure of the tests and wether or not they are meaningful, but alot of those folks will be seen wearing chrome beanies IMHO), and they detail the tests right there in that site. some helmets they fail strictly due to labeling. but it is Information, and its probably worth considering.

thanks for posting that by the way, never seen it before....

[Luca]

Thank you Lightfighter for your reply.

I'm a bit surprised about the Arai result, it seems it failed the impact test at low temperature.

[PFFOG]

Here ia a test done by one of the major publications here. A lot of discussion over the results.

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/

I may be wrong, but I think most use a single density foam, seems that a variable density would allow the head to decelerate better, thus reducing the G forces.

[captainasty]

Well, I guess I will have to go down on my left side in the snow. I have the profile because it's the only thing that fit my large noggin. I ride at freezing temps but not to much below that.

[Steve Carlton]

There's an article in the latest Motorcyclist that says Snell has admitted they need to modify their standards and they now agree with many of the experts that they didn't with before. I think their new standards are coming out in 2010.

[lightfighter]

that impact failure when cold is exactly where the detractors of this kind of testing come on, much like the dirt track racers and the ongoing debate about the hardness of the lining for their specific needs, there is some question about overly broad useage of a given standard. that said, i dont really have enough info to make an informed decision, at my riding level, i just trust it to the DOT and Snell labels and figure im better off with SOMETHING on my nugget.

anyone know the short version of what snell is agreeing to that they didnt before?

[Steve Carlton]

On page 14 of the May issue it says Snell announced "major changes to its proposed M2010 motorcycle helmet standard that would bring in more in line with the US DOT and European ECE 22-05 standards." Smaller helmets with lighter heads inside would use less rigid shells and liners. They're also developing two new youth standards for ages 6-11 and 12-15.

[squall_line]

lightfighter-

To go along with what Steve said, if you hadn't read the Motorcyclist report last fall, they strung up Snell for using the same head weight and drop height no matter the size of the helmet, even though it can be scientifically proven that someone wearing an XS helmet has a much lighter head than someone that wears, say, a 3XL.

Snell also used some rather questionable "two drops on the same point onto an orange-shaped object" tests, and made claims that harder helmets were better, even though ECE and DOT studies clearly showed that a lining with more "give" to it actually decelerated the head (and brain) at a more reasonable pace, which reduced overall injuries.

I think Snell was more concerned with penetration of the shell than with the actual protection of the brain.

Hopefully someone can get alumifoam out to the market sooner, rather than later, as it is shown to provide 2-3 times the benefit of styrofoam liners at the same thickness, leading to either safer or thinner helmets (and better crash protection on cars, etc).

[Steve Carlton]

Here's the original Motorcyclist article we're talking about. An interesting read:
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html

[lightfighter]

thanks guys, now im briefly obsessed with helmet research. since im due for a new one soon anyway, i guess this as good a time as any.