Test your helmet here!!

I'm not sure what you mean, to clarify I'd rather wear the OGK any day - they are pretty good helmets - yet they don't even get an appearance?

I've just advocated the point the sharp tests are rubbish, the complete opposite to the point you made??

I'm a little confused with how you came to that?

Originally Posted by simesb

Arais fail because one of the tests goes through the sidepods, so they are claiming poor methodology, OGK have a similar problem.

and the fact is the side pod is not a protective part of the helmet, it is there to help secure the visor on. these sharp tests are not accurate, there was another thread about this a long time ago which had an article pasted in stating the tests were flawed. This was openly admitted by the people behind the sharp tests, think it was something to do with mis-understand the results. have a search for the thread.

brands like agv, arai, shark, shoei have more racing development behind them, how long ago did you see a top class racer using a FM or Bieffe helmet?

i currently own a shark rsr, i don't care what its sharp rating is. the fact is the helmet fits my head perfectly, it is made by a highly recommended manufacturer, is built to a high standard and a high quality. in a crash it will protect me to its best ability, it is not guaranteed to prevent any head or neck injury.

I think I get it now - what I meant by the shark not being comparable - I didn't mean that in a good way (I'm not damning all sharks to make this clear).

I went from the 5* shark S500 (whichever the budget on that came out top was) to the OGK and the OGK was a far superior helmet to the apparently safer shark - I even tested it out when I was hit by a pheasant square on a 60 mph!

Flymo - the FF4 is good for a 1kg bird impact at 60!!!

[flymo]

Originally Posted by GavinD

Flymo - the FF4 is good for a 1kg bird impact at 60!!!

I'll bear that in mind if I ever come across one.

To be honest if a 1Kg object hit you squarely on the head at 60 mph I would be surprised if you didnt break your neck on a bike regardless of what you were wearing.

there was some pretty bad injuries but I'm still alive thanks to OGK!

Main problem was the front of the helmet is quite close to your chin and it pushed my jaw back and moved a few teeth around, and after all the problems I had with the visor it actually stayed intact and in place.

One hell of a concussion though, happened just outside bath near a place called lakock on a fast bypass, luckily had a pillion who was a rider and got hold of the bars and clutched it to the side of the road (I was old cold on the tank).

not nice

[flymo]

I think this supports the point though that there is a general good level of safety among the products of reputable helmet manufacturers. There is no specific test for 'pheasant impact' but then its just another example that accidents can be very unique in their specific circumstances.

I think the pheasant came off worse, wonder what helmet he was wearing?

If you flying you really should wear a helmet!

For a lid to go on the market, it's has to have one fundimental aspect in comon with all other lids on the market.. If you crash it's saves you.. Once! If you drop it it needs replacing and any brand at any price can provide you with the lid that was assembled last thing on a Friday afternoon I like HJC if it's good enough for speis it's good enough for me

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by lukemillar

I would, however, put money that more people hurt themselves in motorbike accidents from badly fitting helmets rather than wearing a 3 star lid instead of a 5 star.

+1

This is why the SHARP tests are worse than nothing. Because ill informed people will purchase a lid on the strength of a flawed test rather than on fit.

Also, even if the tests were a perfect representation of the quality and survivability of a lid, then they would still not represent the variability of fit. Which by the nature of peoples heads cannot be tested in any way!

A better way to me would be if every lid had to go through some sort of safety testing before it was legal to be used on the road. Oh, wait...

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

Also, even if the tests were a perfect representation of the quality and survivability of a lid, then they would still not represent the variability of fit. Which by the nature of peoples heads cannot be tested in any way!

A better way to me would be if every lid had to go through some sort of safety testing before it was legal to be used on the road. Oh, wait...

Don't get the argument here...

SHARP is a dangerous test because the helmet fit is a factor, but the ECE 22.05 test (where fit is surely a factor too) is okay?