Helmets: $ vs protection by SHARP

[erkishhorde]

Just ran into this today. Seems to be a recent evaluation of data.
http://blm.io/blog/motorcycle-helmet-safety-price/

[Buckethead]

Nice find.

[DarkMonster620]

Excellent . . .

Will print and have as reading material for customers here at shop

[danaid]

  I found simular data from SHARP some time ago and used it to select my newest helmet, Shark speed -R, which was on clearance at Revzilla for just under $300 and has a 4* sharp rating. By contrast, my previous helmet was a Arai Rx7 corsair with graffix cost $750 ( haggled the price to half with other services performed on my bike) and it had a 3* sharp rating with the sides of the helmet having a " poor", there lowest rating given by SHARP.
 Good to see an organization step up and show if you are getting what you are paying for.

[Triple J]

Very interesting. Seemingly proof that cost doesn't buy safety necessarily. It can buy lightness, aerodynamics, and comfort.

Glad to see Bells were some of the safest. I've been wearing Bell Stars for a while and love them. Surprising about Arai not doing as well.

[oldndumb]

Always good for new critical component evaluation/testing methods to evolve. Also beneficial to be a little skeptical and understand that one could probably look long enough and find a test/evaluation to prove just about anything.

I've had cheap and expensive helmets and have always found the expensive ones more to my liking. But, I do not go for the fancy ($$$) graphics and usually stick to the solids.

[Speeddog]

Is there any detailed info on how they're coming up with the ranking numbers?

Cause it seemed a little smoke/mirrors from that website.

[1.21GW]

Wow, surprise on the Schuberths. 

[DarkMonster620]

Is there any detailed info on how they're coming up with the ranking numbers?

Cause it seemed a little smoke/mirrors from that website.

Here is the link to SHARP

These are the brands and models of helmets I use/used(Nitro is Zox in the US)

[Howie]

Without knowing what their test standards are, how they compare to other test standards, how they gather data, so on and so forth I have to agree with Speeddog.

[Skybarney]

Initially I was a bit bummed to see the Arai not do all that well.  Did not see that they tested the model I have but was still a bit bummed.

Then it occured to me, if the criteria is safety alone I suppose a 4 inch thick ice chest would do pretty well (if strapped on) also.  Would I want to ride an ice chest around?  Nope.

There is a lot more to testing helmets than just judging which takes a beating the best.  IMO if someone with a million dollar head, racing motorcycles at speeds that make my wee wee shrivel is willing to wear an Arai, than so am I.  

[Triple J]

It's not just a matter of which takes a beating best. Their testing also looked at the magnitude of forces that are transmitted to the brain (the really important thing IMO).

It's interesting that the Arai didn't do well, as they're well built helmets. Maybe they use a different shell material, which could transmit more g forces to the brain but survive a hit better, or alternatively it may transmit less g forces but sustain damage. They also test oblique impact, and the Arai shield side pods may hurt performance on that test.

It would be very interesting to see how they break down and weight their results to come to a single digit rating, as they do a lot of tests. For instance, is shell survivability more important in their formula than g forces transmitted to the brain? Are the oblique test results weighted heavy or light? I'm sure it is fairly complex.

I considered digging deeper than their video last night...but then got bored and had some dinner instead.  As long as a helmet has a Snell 2010 or ECE rating I'm confident in it...beyond that it is about comfort and function (where price really does matter).

[Buckethead]

Cause it seemed a little smoke/mirrors from that website.

In what way?

32 impacts per helmet model.*

Front, left, right, back, and crown at 3 different speeds, versus 2 different impact anvils for a total of 30 impacts.

Aggregate score of accelerometer readings.

The only thing not really spelled out is how they would rank their oblique impact scores, but I could think of several ways to do that. 

Otherwise it's all a matter of statistical analysis.

Average impact energy for each impact zone gets 3 stars. Those that transmit more energy get fewer stars, and vice versa.

Add up all the stars for a helmet in all the impact zones and average it for that helmet's star rating.

All the ratings are simply relative to one another.

Without knowing what their test standards are, how they compare to other test standards, how they gather data, so on and so forth I have to agree with Speeddog.

Check the video on the SHARP website. They directly compare to the ECE 22.05 standard for each of the drop tests. They then do one faster and one slower.

*post edited for clarity and accuracy

[Triple J]

32 impacts per helmet.

Actually, it sounds like for each helmet model they run 32 tests on 7 helmets of various sizes.

That in itself could be a bit of a problem, as helmets are designed for one impact.

[Buckethead]

That in itself could be a bit of a problem, as helmets are designed for one impact.

Which is one of the issues with the Snell test brought up by the MotorCyclist magazine article several years ago. That and the different sized head forms having the same mass.