Sharp helmet test?

Originally Posted by bris

A lot of the price for the top helmets are to cover the sponsorship money paid to the top racers and all the advertising they do. The difference between a £400 helmet and a £100 one is not as big as you may think.
As many people have said buy the one that fits the best.

I don't want to rain on your parade, but, that is a load a b.s.!

I look at it the other way, if they are wearing it has to be safe.

But, at the end of the day, it is how much you are willing to pay to protect your head and what ever fits the best.

Fitting is very important, if a helmet doesn't fit, it doesn't matter what you pay for it, it isn't going to work

Originally Posted by Cymraeg_Atodeg

I look at it the other way, if they are wearing it has to be safe.

Racers tend to have different accidents to road riders. They don't collide with cars or street furniture, and a fair proportion of the time the helmet just slides along the ground.

Originally Posted by simesb

Racers tend to have different accidents to road riders. They don't collide with cars or street furniture, and a fair proportion of the time the helmet just slides along the ground.

When they high-side and hit the floor hard that is gonna be a bigger knock then anything I'll ever come up against

Originally Posted by Cymraeg_Atodeg

When they high-side and hit the floor hard that is gonna be a bigger knock then anything I'll ever come up against

Possibly, but an impact against a flat surface (the track) seems to be one of the easier accidents for a helmet to cater for. Look at the SHARP test (or CE 22.05) and there are many test for kerbs and pointed impacts. Motorcycle racing is fairly well controlled, and crashes don't come out of the blue so they are realatively well prepared for it physically - there is an element of knowing how to fall.

Tell me, when a racer changes his helmet supplier, is it because he suddenly decides that the new maker is "safer" than the old one or are they just offering him better sponsorship?

I agree they are sponsered, but, in the grand scheme of things there are that many helmets made and so few professional racers they can't just lump £200 on a helmet because fast Joe Bloggs wears one...

Yeah, the track is flat, but, the floor hitting a helmet hard is almost the same as in the SHARP test.

Arai test their helmets with a pointed weight were as the SHARP test uses blunt objects, so, Arai test their helmets to withstand a higher force of impact then the SHARP tests for. Arai shells don't crack too easily, that is why they score low on the SHARP test IIRC

[embee]

A couple of fundamental issues pop into my mind.

In the SHARP ratings, what is the difference between the stars? Eh? Is 5 stars equal to 100 and 1 star=0, or 5 stars=100 and one star=90?

Second, what is the sensitivity of the test set up? In other words, if you make a small difference in fit of the "head" in the helmet, how much difference does it make to the result?
Repeatability and sensitivity have a major influence on how you design experiments.

They seem to have gone to a lot of trouble to make measurements of accelerations, and so come up with real numbers, then gone to a lot more trouble to dumb it down to a level where it doesn't really mean anything useful.

While I applaud the principle of imroved protection for bikes, cars, all vehicles, the rating system needs to be trustworthy and understandable. I'm just not sure what the SHARP results really mean.

[mikerj]

I don't think Arais response really stands close scrutiny. In a simple fall onto a nice tidy bit of tarmac, the poor scoring areas of the helmet are less likely to contact the ground as they suggest. However, in real life you have other vehicles and bits of scenery involved (sign posts, armco etc.) and there is always a chance of getting a whack on the side of your helmet.

This particular test has shown these certain points are weaker than competitors helmets, but rather than accept that and make their helmets pass the tests they have just made an excuse. If a prestige car scores badly in some part of the NCAP tests, the manufacturer fixes it; they don't make an excuse even if the improvement in safety was negligible because they sell cars on the strength of these scores.

I thought that sharp even admitted their tests were flawed at one point.

In my opinion i would much rather have my Arai over a £50 lid, even if they both did fit exactly the same

Good to see a bit of debate on the forum, the old SHARP test does seem to divide opinion!

I've always found it strange that £50 helmets meet (or used to meet, pre-SHARP) the same regulations as far more expensive models.

I'd buy the best you can afford, obviously considering fit, comfort, wind noise etc.

i just got the helmet with the highest rating that i could afford that just happens to be DOT/ECE /ACU Gold and EC-2205 Approved and a 5* Sharp rating to top it off