Did you know? - SHARP helmet testing.

Originally Posted by beabert

Well until there are tests to prove the above, if i was buying for safety then the sharp test is the only thing i have to differentiate between helmets currently.

I buy for comfort and cost myself.

Do you honestly think the manufacturer of a 50 quid lid will go to any great lengths to make their helmet safer than an Arai or Shoei? There just isn't enough profit in cheap helmets to fund that sort of development. They can make them to pass a certain safety test and still make money, but getting them to exceed that test standard by a huge margin like an Arai or Shoei does costs huge figures that they just can't afford.

The UK is the only market that uses the Sharp test and Europe is the only market that has ECER22-05 as their minimum standard. In USA they have Snell and DOT, with Snell being the higher standard. DOT approved helmets are basic and usually very cheap and this is the minimum standard a helmet must be approved to for use on the street in those US states that require one to be worn - The Snell Memorial Foundation is a voluntary non-profit organisation whose approved helmets are tested to much much higher levels. Cheap helmets in USA never manage to pass Snell standards, they can only reach DOT standards. Many other markets around the world have adopted the Snell standard as their country's legal minimum approval limit, it exceeds the old British Standard by a fair margin, and makes ECER22-05 look like a joke yet strangely enough helmets such as Arai and Shoei which exceed Snell safety standards don't score highly in Sharp tests. USA is the most litigious country in the world and where safety equipment is concerned they don't muck about because people over there will sue if they think a piece of safety equipment has failed and cost someone their life.

Manufacturers testing to ECER22-05 and DOT use the honour method of testing - this means they tell the authorities they've tested their own helmets and the authorities say "yes you can have a ECER22-05/DOT sticker on them". They don't even have to prove the helmet passed the tests and in many cases in USA they don't even have to keep records or reports, they just have to inform. Some testing is done by the authorities, but very little and most of that is done to try and eliminate the 'beanie' helmets that have become popular with some cruiser riders as a helmet law protest. I knew about this when I worked for Nitro, who do actually test all their shells/helmets at an independent lab in Britain... and they keep records and reports.

When it comes to buying a helmet I'd go for the tried and trusted well developed option every day, there's no way I'd take something as random and reputedly flawed as Sharp tests as a guideline to which is safer. Cost comes into it, so I'd rather buy the better manufacturer's entry level helmet than the top of the range from the budget manufacturer.

I've sold budget lids in their thousands for Nitro and I've retailed Arai and Shoei, you just cannot compare the cheaper lids with the quality of the more costly.

Have a look at these links for more info on testing and safety standards.

http://www.araihelmet-europe.com/200.../intro_01.html

http://www.smf.org/docs/articles/dot

Hope this clears some points up

Thanks for the Snell link, a very informative site.

It also provides this sig-worthy rule to live by:
"The Foundation recommends that if you are participating in an activity that requires that you wear a helmet, you avoid hitting stuff with your head."

[mikerj]

[QUOTE=Lozzo;2578432]Do you honestly think the manufacturer of a 50 quid lid will go to any great lengths to make their helmet safer than an Arai or Shoei? There just isn't enough profit in cheap helmets to fund that sort of development. They can make them to pass a certain safety test and still make money, but getting them to exceed that test standard by a huge margin like an Arai or Shoei does costs huge figures that they just can't afford.
[quote]

The quality of materials and definitely the price of the badge can go a long way to explaining the price difference. In many cases cheap helmets tend not to last as long as the more expensive ones, the liner falls apart, the visor mechanisms break etc. That doesn't mean the protection of a cheap helmet in good condition is any worse.

There are plenty of cheap helmets that score badly in the SHARP tests. People seem to get hung up on the fact that some of the more budget helmets score better than some of the more expensive options and then use this as evidence that the entire test invalid. IMO this is just as bad as suggesting the tests are perfect and completely representative of real life situations.

Lots of good info in this article which suggests that whilst Snell is a tough standard to pass, it may not result in particularly safe helmets.

[dizzyblonde]

Originally Posted by mikerj

Just because a more expensive helmet gets a worse score doesn't mean the test are dubious. If the test method was changed slightly and the more expensive helmet scored better, would the test still be dubious or would it suddenly be correct?

See below

Originally Posted by ophic

Test are just tests - simple and quantifiable. What may be dubious is how well the tests relate to real world crashes.

Thanks for putting my post better explained

Originally Posted by Lozzo

When it comes to buying a helmet I'd go for the tried and trusted well developed option every day, there's no way I'd take something as random and reputedly flawed as Sharp tests as a guideline to which is safer. Cost comes into it, so I'd rather buy the better manufacturer's entry level helmet than the top of the range from the budget manufacturer.

I've sold budget lids in their thousands for Nitro and I've retailed Arai and Shoei, you just cannot compare the cheaper lids with the quality of the more costly.

As I've said I've always gone for Sharks, as they are exceptionally 'safe' for the price, and my bonce has bounced tarmac in one. I pay -£150. I only went for HJC, as I needed a lid that day for £150, as the chin piece internals had come unstuck in my Shark, and all the polystrene had decided to disintegrate.
Pete wears Shoei's, and hes quite impressed with the HJC for such a cheap lid, wether it compares further in our relationship......we shall see!
It was said during the inspection of the HJC, the bloke said they were one of the best selling in the US, don't know if that makes a difference, but it fit my head, so it was bought! I didn't know how low in the Sharp test they came until I got home.
Funy enough my first lid was a Nitro, bloody weighed a tonne.

[timwilky]

I have had two friends killed because of helmet failures. ~One led directly to the banning of chin cups when his helmet left his head as he slid down the road. The second was found at the side of the road his bike still running, his helmet on his head but with severe brain injuries.

This meant I always wear the best helmet I can afford. In the 70s when there were no real purpose designed motorcycle helmets, I used my Bell that I had for testing cars. I have woke up wearing a Shoei with massive impact damage to the back/top where I hit the pavement having been taken out from behind. (Not your typical accident).

After that I needed a new helmet to test ride a couple of bikes and not being confident that I ever would return bought a cheap box helmet for £50.

Terrible it didn't last a year before the lining disintegrated. rain would run down the inside of the visor. Thank god I got another Shoei.

Do I trust the Sharp tests. No. They are useful but fail to tell the whole story. Do your own research and decide. I know what i would prefer on my bonce when things go tits up.

The information that I regurgitated at the start of this thread came the police crash investigators who run the Performance plus riding day at Cadwell Park (Lincolnshire Road Safety Partnership)

Their view was that the SHARP rating is total dump! I'll bullet pint their views:

-The manufactures of the cheaper helmets build their products for the test. As in they, know where the test points are on the helmet and they re-inforce those few areas, while the rest of the helmet is pretty much forgotten about.

-The SHARP system tests at 1 impact of 18 mph, but we don't crash at 18 mph. And the helmet take more than one impact.

-The outer shell of the cheaper lids are made of thermoplastic. Brilliant, they pass the test at 1 impact of 18mph. But what happens to plastic under heavy impact? It cracks! So after this 1 impact the helmet has lost all of its structural integrity and any successive impacts cause the helmet to quite literally fall apart and come away from your head. You may as well build your own helmet out of lego.

-They showed us a picture of one of these thermoplastic lids after a real world crash. I only wish I could find another if only to show people. It was horrific. The helmet was in pieces after a 30 mph off. The man died!

-If he were wearing a better constructed helmet, where the shell would have been a fibre composite. He probably would have survived. Yes the hard plastic shell my still crack but the multitude of fibres keep the helmet in tact...

I will never buy a cheapo helmet again. Yes there's certain instances where no matter what helmet you wear, you probably wont walk away but to massively reduce your chances of survival for the sake of money... ludicrous.

If you don't want to spend the amount of money it costs to buy an arai or something like that, at the very least, please do not buy a thermoplastic helmet. Ask the guy selling it to you. And if he can't tell you the answer, walk away.


Another point they made is massively reduced in price helmets you can buy form the big shows.

They say don't bother. These helmets are rejects for some reason, and somewhere in some horrible small print it will say not for road use!

[andrewsmith]

Originally Posted by mikerj

AFAIK all the helmets used in the SHARP test are bought via retail outlets to prevent any "special" ones being supplied by manufacturers.

stand corrected on that point!

My point is same as lozzos TBH, but not in that much detail.

Mods any chance of stick for this one!!!

[dizzyblonde]

Originally Posted by Chris Bird

Another point they made is massively reduced in price helmets you can buy form the big shows.

They say don't bother. These helmets are rejects for some reason, and somewhere in some horrible small print it will say not for road use!

Thats a bit of a bold statement there, on what experience have they got this knowledge? Theres an awful lot of big companies whose reputations are at stake, selling helmets at shows. I somehow doubt this statement has true clout IMO.

Now if you were to say, don't buy off the net, because by the time Parcel Farce has got it to you, it won't be suitable for road use.....I could understand!

Petes bought two Shoei's from the NEC, and have been brand spanking new, never out of the box. I somehow doubt that the company whose stand he purchased from would dare to sell an inadequate helmet IMO.

Road safety partnership or not, slanderous comments like that, can get folk into trouble.....and at the same time, no matter how safe they want you to be, can also talk a lot of bullcarp inbetween the good points.

Ahhh so it was you who was on Cadwell with me. Thought I recognised the bike but never thought to say anything! I was the short **** on the Aprilia falco.

[Bibio]

i don't look at ratings or badges when buying lids. i buy one that fits.