MZ5
Well-Known Member
I think it’s obvious why any person or organization _should_ expect the apparently-strong (based on visual appearance) chin bar of a modular to be as protective as a full-face helmet’s chin bar. If that chin bar isn’t particularly better than an extra-tall visor, why would a rider choose it? Again, I think the answer is obvious: its appearance makes a rider _think_ it’ll protect better. If it doesn’t deliver on that sales promise, if they aren’t what they appear to be, I think that’s a problem that needs to be made clear.
I am confident that helmet manufacturers have a very good idea ahead of time whether any model of their helmets can pass Snell (or DOT, or ECE) tests or not. They don’t submit them if they know or reasonably believe they won’t. I believe that’s the primary reason we don’t see more Snell-certified helmets than we do.
I’ve visited with the Snell people a fair amount, at motorcycle shows, over the phone, and via email. I also read the technical pieces on their site, crash data from Europe, Australia, the USA, and other people’s articles or pieces about helmet testing, both those who support Snell and those who oppose them. Looking at everything, I think Snell’s testing is by far the best available to us at this point.
I am confident that helmet manufacturers have a very good idea ahead of time whether any model of their helmets can pass Snell (or DOT, or ECE) tests or not. They don’t submit them if they know or reasonably believe they won’t. I believe that’s the primary reason we don’t see more Snell-certified helmets than we do.
I’ve visited with the Snell people a fair amount, at motorcycle shows, over the phone, and via email. I also read the technical pieces on their site, crash data from Europe, Australia, the USA, and other people’s articles or pieces about helmet testing, both those who support Snell and those who oppose them. Looking at everything, I think Snell’s testing is by far the best available to us at this point.