Helmets: Are cheap ones cheap or dangerous?

[johnakay]

One time when I was going to buy a helmet, the sales person ask me this question "how much is your head worth"

you'll be alright there Rocker with a cheap one!!

 

[yticolev]

Happy, I think you are correct that one can find products that perform similarly or equally well, or sometimes even better, for a lower price. I think the businessman or salesman tries to insinuate that only expensive things could possibly be any good, and that only the stupid would try to spend less than what he's asking for whatever item he is making or selling. However, even a simple person can see through this false sales tactic if they apply themselves for a moment.

Personally, I demand Snell certification and comfort. From there, I choose features, price, and so forth.



I agree that it was an interesting article. Nevertheless, Snell did not change their certification criteria in response to it. That article's entire argument (and it sounded like the axe that the driving force/person behind the article was grinding) was, in essence, that helmets should be made to _only_ protect people's heads in low-speed accidents such as driveway tip-overs. Further, it basically said that protection for higher-speed accidents precludes protection for low-speed accidents. They then went on to suggest, as I recall it, that DOT-certified helmets were 'safer' than Snell-certified helmets based upon their preconception of what helmets 'should' protect against. The logical fallacy of their premise is that all Snell-certified helmets are also DOT-certified helmets. So, then, one can easily see that the article was advocating that head protection be held to _less than_ a certain amount. Or, in other words, one might say that they were advocating that only people who tip over in their driveways should have head protection; everyone else deserves brain damage or death. That's a little harsh, but it's the logical extension of their argument.

When Snell _did_ change their standard/procedure for certain of their helmet sizes (only XL and larger, as I recall right now), it was in response to European regulators' refusal to modify their particular standards and procedures. ECE helmet certification is similar to somewhat lower in protection than DOT, but the particulars are such that Snell had to modify the way they address very large helmets in order to be able to have their certification continue to be accepted in Europe. So, basically, European regulators said 'Regardless of everything, you'll do it our way or we'll effectively lock you out of the continent.' With this ultimatum, Snell pretty well had to modify a couple of things. The Motorcyclist article fed a great deal of the 'we don't want to wear helmets! helmets are bad!' people's emotions and fed in to the whole anti-Snell campaign.

At this point, since a helmet can be simultaneously DOT-, ECE-, and Snell-certified, I think one must look rather carefully, and perhaps skeptically, at the Motorcyclist article's claims and motives.

Well, thanks for bringing this up. I found some interesting reading online related to this. It turns out that Snell did not change their protocol because of the Dexter Ford article in 2005, but because of a 2009 article that he wrote for the NY Times (which led directly to his termination by Motorcyclist Magazine). This resulted in a 2010 change in Snell's protocol, but confusingly enough, they retained 2005 certification standards for a number of helmets without limit. So it depends on which Snell helmet you buy and you have to examine the sticker inside the helmet very carefully.

The 2009 NY Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/automobiles/27SNELL.html?_r=0

Both these articles are highly technical:
2005 Motorcyclist Magazine article: Blowing the Lid Off http://www.westcoastweasels.com/archives/PDF/Blowing_the_Lid_Off.pdf
The testing lab report for the original article: http://www.msf-usa.org/imsc/proceedings/a-thom-comparisontestsofmotorcyclehelmets.pdf

This article on the firing of Dexter Ford has some really good background: Leaked docs show Motorcyclist caved to advertiser pressure, fired editor | Hell for Leather Hell for Leather

 

[MZ5]

No, really. The change to Snell M2010 was to be able to comply with ECE reg changes (in ECE 22-05), and thus have a 'world helmet.' That those changes are so similar to what was discussed/recommended in the article(s) is interesting.

In my realm, if you want something to happen/change but can't convince anyone on the merits you can articulate, a frequently-successful move is to try to get (usually pay, but not always) an academic type to do some research and then try to convince government/regulators to force the change you're looking for. That's not how things always work, of course.

Arguing for a change to _what_ we monitor/evaluate when addressing helmet protection is one thing. Grinding an axe is another, particularly when feeding the 'helmets are bad!' frenzy. Which, unfortunately, is the only thing that most people I'm acquainted with got from the article, even though there was more to it than that.

Here's the other side of the story:
Snell Foundation - Motorcycle Standards Comparison Snell vs DOT
Snell Foundation - Motorcycle Helmet Standard Comparisons

If a person only rides, as my brother would say of many of his Harley-riding counterparts, down the street from bar to bar once a month, then a bicycle helmet is probably appropriate. For those riding at 80 mph in traffic, it is not. The bad part of that is that it invites fragmentation of the market. The 'best' reason to want to fragment the market is to extract a whole lot more money out of it.

 

[yticolev]

Snell is in business to make money. Yes, even non-profits want to make money. Fragmentation is otherwise known as competition. One of the links I provided had Snell's response to the 2005 brouhaha. So I do know their side, but their side has now changed as a result of the studies they didn't initially like. Possibly PR rather than science based, who knows. Based on what I read today, if I really cared about the controversy, I would go with a DOT rather than a Snell.

As far as crash protection at 80 mph, there is not a helmet made I would feel safe in. Not even those large helmets sometimes called a "car". A bit of abrasion protection, sure. Two weeks ago there was an NPR segment with prominent neurologists saying there was virtually zero evidence that helmets prevent concussions or brain damage with blunt trauma. (not that there was any evidence to the contrary either). A really good case can be made for designing helmets for low impact protection only. 300g protection is beyond silly.

I've fallen off a motorcycle several times with no head impact (and quite a few times off a bicycle). The fastest was at 55 mph with no helmet. Completely anecdotal I know, different people tend to hit different parts of the body during falls. The best use case I have had was a a beer bottle on a bicycle helmet. I felt nothing, but I was rather adrenalized at the time. The bicycle helmet had a big dent in the styrofoam. Great conversation piece and I admit to being quite happy I was wearing it. I tend to favor using helmets off road where your chances of hitting something relatively sharp and hard like a rock are higher than on the road. But I don't care what others do, and I work in healthcare.

 

[MZ5]

Having the government (European, in this case) outlaw your competition is a very effective strategy, no matter who you are. And you'll have to forgive me for observing that 'A "prominent" neurologist said...' is often referred to as advertizing.

Because of the many health-care professionals I've met riding, and what they've generally been wearing, I've concluded that health-care professionals are not good examples of how to protect oneself while riding.

I think the discussion that COULD have been presented by the article(s) referenced in this thread would be very beneficial. I wish that discussion WOULD have been presented. But as the saying goes: If wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

 

[yticolev]

Well, the neurologist interviewed on NPR was not selling a product or certification service. In fact he and the show were not directly commenting on such at all.

You have formed your own opinions, in part apparently because of what Snell says, and you believe it. I have formed other opinions based on a variety of sources. I only mention healthcare because there is a common perception (with some validity) that healthcare professionals have seen organ donors come in and disapprove of dangerous practices such as motorcycle riding, and on top of that, believe you must be nuts to ride without helmets (most organ donors wear helmets). I don't fit easily into that group and take everything I read and hear with a grain of salt i.e. I think about it and don't just accept any of it blindly.

But that is why I appreciated your take on it, it allowed me to explore this particular controversy more fully as I hadn't heard of it until today.

 

[johnakay]

well heres a comparison test on chinky helmet etc.
in case what is what marushin is japanese and RZO is chinese
[video=youtube_share;9LfEFhBelTY]http://youtu.be/9LfEFhBelTY[/video]

 

[mfb]

Sometimes a cheap one can turn out to be a good helmet and an expensive one can turn out to be a very "bad" (crash safety wise) helmet.

I find the british government helmet rating site ( SHARP Helmets - THE HELMET SAFETY SCHEME ) very useful whenever I am out to buy a new helmet. It may not list many models sold in SAE countries as well as the very recent models.

 

[hozabah]

I have a Shoie shaped head so I buy Shoie helmets... I have HJC and Nolans.. but they just don't fit the same....

buy a helmet that fits and is legal where you live....

A hard hat on a construction job might stop a hammer, but won't stop that falling I-beam... a MC helmet won't either

 

[Rocker66]

Sometimes a cheap one can turn out to be a good helmet and an expensive one can turn out to be a very "bad" (crash safety wise) helmet.

I find the british government helmet rating site ( SHARP Helmets - THE HELMET SAFETY SCHEME ) very useful whenever I am out to buy a new helmet. It may not list many models sold in SAE countries as well as the very recent models.

The SHARP test has been criticised by many experts

 

[backinsaddle]

Try to find the extensive article on helmets in cycle world several years back. It was great. They found the cheaper, polymer helmets were better at absorbing vs. the expensive fiberglass models. I think a brand called Z1R was priced very reasonable and handled skull impact test very well. I agree with comfort, but a good helmet does not have to cost $600 and in many cases, my not be as safe on impact as a helmet that absorbs the shock. Search and find out this article. Good luck.

 

[lipsee]

I have two helmets ,two cheap helmets,,,both bought from a german supermarket chain in the uk..I bought thinking they where TUV (german standard ) but it seems they are not ,,both fit ok but are not that comfy....the full face is very noisy,even with a windjammer fitted(windjammer cost more then the Lid),,,the other is a flip up,,That came with sound deading pads,,and winter and summer padding...its actaully quieter then the full face...I like the flip up aspect of this helmet,and is great around town..But I think I will splash out and buy myself a Schubert C3 (one extreme to another)the flip up cost me £40,,the c3 will probably cost me over £400,,,"Do the math" all the best

 

[Chris]

The SHARP test has been criticised by many experts

Any test can be criticised, especially one which is always going to be at most an approximation of reality. At least the SHARP test is reasonably objective and they are fairly open about the test method. .

At least it gives a basis for informed choice between different makes and models.

The range in performance is quite staggering for the high speed impact test - "Very Good" means peak acceleration of 275G whereas "poor" transmits in excess of 500G.



Chris

 

[happy]

I know that Shoei still is "handmade" and checked individually by the Japanese factory workers.
I do not think they have outsourced to cheap countries, and therefore their prices remain high.
I cannot speak for the rest of the helmets.

Where possible, I buy Shoei, also because the shape fits my big brains.

I bought a cheap helmet for my son/wife which has been used 3 times now?
It is cheap and therefore it also forces me to rethink twice when going out with a pillion.
Best bet is to ride safe and not ride.

Helmet tech has moved a lot since 1960s. Most manufacturers have reached a critical "ok" safety limit.

 

[kjang]

shoei and aria are both made in japan.
I chose aria xd4 because it fit me better.

I don't buy a lot of helmets, so I just want one or two that will protect my BRAIN.
I just feel more secure knowing it pass the DOT and SNELL ratings.

Ken

 

[mfb]

No matter how expensive or cheap the helmet you buy, one of the most critial issue is maintaining it.

Even a medium depth scratch can effect the performance of your helmet significantly. The liner also deteriorates with time and therefore I use a helmet at most 3 years.

Whenever I get a deep scrach, or drop the helmet on a hard floor from a considerable height such as stone stairs or higher than 1.5m, I replace the helmet as soon as possible. Although this only happened to only two of my helmets, it is better to be broke than dead or incapacitated.

 

[max cooper]

I have used bargain helmets for many years. None of them were very comfortable. After all these years, I finally purchased an Arai at over $500.00 . Why ? Because it is so much more comfortable and the overall quality, in my opinion , are superior to the bargain helmets. Years ago, I would have argued this issue. Not anymore. I spent way more on the bargain helmets over the years. Another thing I would like to share with you is this. In 2006 the love of my life purchased an Arai at $ 500.00. It was custom fitted by Arai techs at the International Motorcycle Show in Cleveland . A very high quality hemet and it gave her a lot of confidence. She was a very accomplished rider and very careful as well. On our way home from a friend's house, she T-boned a deer at 45 mph. Even with the helmet she sustained Blunt Trauma to her brain. No other serious injuries were sustained. She was removed from life support some days later . Then, almost to the day, the following year, my brother-in-law had a dim-wit turn left in front of him at the last second. He wore a bargain helmet that was DOT approved and it saved his life. But--he now is paralyzed from his breasts down. He is a quad and has limited use of his hands and arms. To make matters worse, he is also blind. The reason I share this with you is to make you aware that it can go more ways than you can imagine. Helmets are a crap shoot like most other things in life. But-that said, I will not ride without one no matter what. I feel , these days, that the better I can protect the most vital part of my body, the better chance I have of surviving a crash . So, I would do as MFB stated and check out the approval tags or stickers on your helmet. I also suggest trying on a couple high and medium price helmets at your dealer. You might be amazed at the comfort and attention to detail, that this price range can offer. A dear friend told me long ago -- If you feel you have a 5 dollar head, buy a 5 dollar helmet. Your prerogative . Just make sure it's approved. Hope this helps. Have fun.

 

[Old Can Ride]

Helmet Safety

Years ago I read an article in Rider Magazine that I really could not believe was true. This article went against everything I thought I knew about motorcycle helmets. Being at that time I was a Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, and Kymco dealer, I had the advantage of knowing the Fulmer helmet representative personally. John has been the Fulmer Representative sense about 1968. Being Fulmer is the oldest continuous manufacture of motorcycle helmets in the USA, and John is the oldest continuous motorcycle helmet representative, I figured if anyone knows motorcycle helmets better than John, I've never met that person. John confirmed to me that the Rider Magazine article was 100% correct.

At that time I would wear nothing but a Snell rated helmet... What the article stated and John confirmed is that Snell helmets are designed for auto racing. The impact of a driver's head against some auto part in a 150 mile per hour auto racing accident is almost curtain. So, Snell helmets were designed to be extremely rigid. Usually made from some form of fiberglass. Drivers all most always have bad brain bruising due to the brain impacting the skull very hard. As the article put it, there is no other protection than a rigid helmet for these high speed accidents.

However, most real world accidents are not in high speed racing accidents. Most real world accidents are under 50 miles per hour. Yes, the head still usually hits something, either the ground, curb or something from the vehicle. With the rigid Snell helmet on your head brain bruising occurs on impact ... Period...

DOT helmets act like a egg shell. They are designed on impact to give way and crack. This reduces the impact force. So, conclusion was less brain bruising with a DOT helmet than a Snell helmet in a street accident.

Two different kinds of helmets, for two different purposes. Helmet manufactures prefer selling the more expensive helmet for the higher speed impacts. Does your need require a Snell or a DOT helmet? All race tracks require a Snell helmet, but are you on a high speed track.

 

[kjang]

Years ago I read an article in Rider Magazine that I really could not believe was true. This article went against everything I thought I knew about motorcycle helmets. Being at that time I was a Honda, Yamaha, Suzuki, and Kymco dealer, I had the advantage of knowing the Fulmer helmet representative personally. John has been the Fulmer Representative sense about 1968. Being Fulmer is the oldest continuous manufacture of motorcycle helmets in the USA, and John is the oldest continuous motorcycle helmet representative, I figured if anyone knows motorcycle helmets better than John, I've never met that person. John confirmed to me that the Rider Magazine article was 100% correct.

At that time I would wear nothing but a Snell rated helmet... What the article stated and John confirmed is that Snell helmets are designed for auto racing. The impact of a driver's head against some auto part in a 150 mile per hour auto racing accident is almost curtain. So, Snell helmets were designed to be extremely rigid. Usually made from some form of fiberglass. Drivers all most always have bad brain bruising due to the brain impacting the skull very hard. As the article put it, there is no other protection than a rigid helmet for these high speed accidents.

However, most real world accidents are not in high speed racing accidents. Most real world accidents are under 50 miles per hour. Yes, the head still usually hits something, either the ground, curb or something from the vehicle. With the rigid Snell helmet on your head brain bruising occurs on impact ... Period...

DOT helmets act like a egg shell. They are designed on impact to give way and crack. This reduces the impact force. So, conclusion was less brain bruising with a DOT helmet than a Snell helmet in a street accident.

Two different kinds of helmets, for two different purposes. Helmet manufactures prefer selling the more expensive helmet for the higher speed impacts. Does your need require a Snell or a DOT helmet? All race tracks require a Snell helmet, but are you on a high speed track.

My commute is 80% on the Highway and 20% thru city streets. For me, a dot and Snell rating is important.

ken

 

[Chris]

Take the time to read and understand the previous posts in this string. There's a lot of interesting information on the Senll standards in particular. The stronger and more rigid the helmet doesn't always mean the more it protects. Then take a look at the UK SHARP site SHARP Helmets - THE HELMET SAFETY SCHEME to get some further information on crash protection.

It's a complicated subject, helmets can definitely protect, but some helmets protect more than others. And price is not the only factor.