helmets with internal tinted visors

[rictus01]

Originally Posted by New Leaf

lol - what a gullable ****.

who, those relying on the sharp test or the quoted poster

Originally Posted by New Leaf

lol - what a gullable ****.

Please keep it polite...
The sharp tests may not be the be all and end all to all your helmet decisions but its a step in the right direction. Nor is picking only helmets that races use as those companies pay for that privilege of having there helmet in the race series. The races helmets are not the same as the one your see on the road, mealy mass produced mock-ups.
I've never been one to stick to one brand, and while I am driven by price, I am also drive by my own safety. So over the years I have had expensive AVG race reps to cheaper Cabergs and all have protected my head and now make lovely hanging baskets.
So just read everything, take it all in and go to a shop with a mate if you can and see what you like as they will all do there job.

sorry was a bit rude.

I was just thinking that Sharp is the only objective test we have that grades helmets by and gives them a rating rather than just pass or fail.

I see it as a bit gullible, to be taken in by the marketing and assume a £400 lid is better than a £100 lid when the only independent scientific test available to us say otherwise. I can't see why anyone would say that a lid is better cos it costs more and Rossi wears it. First off Rossi doesn't wear it - it just has the same badge, and second the fact Rossi wears it and they have to pay him a fortune to do so is what makes it expensive - not the fact that its better.

Also it seems silly to assume that you can decide that you know better than the sharp testers, when all your going on is marketing, counting the logos on Motogp, and whatever u can read on the web. The sharp guys have gone about it in a scientific way and whilst it may not be a perfect test, it is the best indication we have about the safety of a helmet.

If anyone wants to use price as your indicator of quality rather than an independent scientific test - then they don't really have a head worth protecting so i guess its not an issue.

Originally Posted by rictus01

who, those relying on the sharp test or the quoted poster

the quoted poster

[glang]

I sometimes think its all academic cos if the accident was so bad that a cheapy helmet fails then maybe it would be better if I didnt survive! Does that make sense or is it just me?

[appollo1]

I have a Caberg with an internal visor. I got it as I wear specs and can't be bothered swapping sunglasses etc etc.

I find it a lot heavier than my AGV which doesn't have an internal visor and a lot noisier. I have noticed as well that it steams up very easily and most of the time i end up riding with the visor open slightly.

Buy anti-mist and earplugs... £5 for a pack of 40 pairs of disposables....I've been using the same pair of 3 or so "disposables" for months..

Originally Posted by New Leaf

If anyone wants to use price as your indicator of quality rather than an independent scientific test - then they don't really have a head worth protecting so i guess its not an issue.

You can make a cheap helmet achieve 5* on the sharp test, it doesn't make it a 5* helmet in the real world, just on paper.

A more expensive helmet should perform better than a cheaper helmet, much like everything else in life, you get what you pay for, I have personally never found the best items to be the cheapest or even "cheap".

I would rank helmet manufacturers (the top brands) as knowing (and having the equipment to test helmets) far higher than an independent government "test", especially if the more expensive helmets within a particular brand out perform the lower end.

Originally Posted by hob

You can make a cheap helmet achieve 5* on the sharp test, it doesn't make it a 5* helmet in the real world, just on paper.

A more expensive helmet should perform better than a cheaper helmet, much like everything else in life, you get what you pay for, I have personally never found the best items to be the cheapest or even "cheap".

Indeed.. I must agree..

Tbh optimum price for a helmet is about £220.. after that you won't get any more "saftey"... just blingy power ranger paint jobs... which often cost £150 over a plain version!

[rictus01]

Originally Posted by New Leaf

the quoted poster

Hmmmmm, having looked into the tests "sharp" do and the reaction of even the manufactuer who done well it them, it is almost universally excepted within the industy to be seriously flawed to the point where it's misleading as to real world safety.

whilst I full except with the top line race rep lids; you're paying over the odds for it, and many a "cheap" lid will offer enough protection and a great many carry the ACU GOLD standard (which I'd trust more than the sharp test rating by the way), I wouldn't expect the durability in either construction or wear from them, as an owner of both types, I'm expecting to replace the cheaper one far sooner as I'm sure it'll become a compromised fit (the biggest safty factor by the way) way before the Arai's & shoei's will.

each to their own I suppose, but just standing by the Sharp test, without considering what those that develop helmets say is as narrow minded IMHO.

Cheers Mark.