Helmets M2010 Snell's new tests for 2010

[sennister]

I haven't seen anything about this posted here yet but I may have missed it.

I guess there have been some big changes in the Snell Testing of helmets for 2010. I first read of it in the current issue of Motorcyclist Magazine. From what I got from the article Snell had always used the same weight for a head no matter what the helmet size where the other tests DOT and ECE used a head of varied weight with the smallest being the lightest and getting heavier as the size went up. That kind of seems like it makes sense. Being all heads are made of basically the same stuff, if you have more stuff (bigger head) it is going to weigh more. It isn't like someone with a small head is going to have a skull made from something heavier than someone with a big head. Well a study was done with frozen cadaver heads and it was determined that the head weights were in line with what the DOT and ECE Standards used for the head weight. Snell adopted this and will begin testing with different head weights.

So what does this really mean??? What I got from the story is that helmet manufaturers were forced to make different helmets for different markets based on what they wanted for a certification. If they were going for the Snell Cert they had to make a helmet that was much harder for the small size models than what they would for getting certified for DOT or ECE. The article made it sound like this additional hardness is a bad thing. So this being said it may not be a great thing if you wear a small helmet or you have a child that has a small helmet to have that Snell rating.

It is interesting that Snell is going to start testing in a manner that will be more inline (note: not the same) with what other certification processes use. This should make it cheaper for helmet manufacturers as they will not have to create all these different helmets but rather focus on creating something that will pass all tests no matter what the helmet size is and may make things safer in the long run.

Helmets will become available with the new M2010 Snell Standard on 1 Oct 2009.

I did a quick search and found this article.

Web Bike World

They stated in there that for those of us in North America it won't mean much change. I would think there would be a change though if you are purchasing a helmet that is in the small size ranges.

Here is a link to Snell's site that talks about the changes.

Snell Site

 

[sherob]

I've always felt the Snell standard was a bit off... you don't want the hardest thing in the world protecting your noggin... you want the most impact energy absorbing stuff around it.... think crumple zones or airbags.

 

[wjbertrand]

Being all heads are made of basically the same stuff, if you have more stuff (bigger head) it is going to weigh more. It isn't like someone with a small head is going to have a skull made from something heavier than someone with a big head.

Good stuff, thanks for the "heads" up. Having met some pretty dense headed people in the past, I'm not sure the above statement is true though.

 

[st1300r]

From Snell site
"For the first time in years, they may be able to choose helmets which satisfy all the local regulations and provide a premium of protective capability over and above local requirements."

There's some info that suggests meeting snell is worse than not meeting it. A softer shell subjecting your noodle to less G forces (important) than a harder shell protecting against penetration (unlikely).

I tend to think fit is the biggest factor in protecting your walnut, not the test standard passed.

There's a marketing desire to say your product passes a standard that is not invoked by regulation and imply this extra testing proves the helmet is superior to those that chose to not pay for the test.

 

[sennister]

There's some info that suggests meeting snell is worse than not meeting it. A softer shell subjecting your noodle to less G forces (important) than a harder shell protecting against penetration (unlikely).

This is what I got from the Motorcyclist Magazine article. Basically a Snell certified helmet in the smaller sizes are too hard and may not offer enough flex and subect you to too many G forces. It isn't as big of a deal with the larger helmets because the weight used was closer to the other standards.

I will look up the page number and the issue of the magazine. It is the one I just got in the mail this week so it is probably the September issue. Yeah I know it is still July but it seems like they are well over a month ahead.

 

[Old2wheeler]

The last two helmets I bought (in 1999 & 2005) were both SNELL certified, the first a Shoei RF800 the second an Arai Signet GT. I would not have bought a non SNELL helmet at that time. Raven (Thank you, thank you, thank you, Raven!) started a thread entitled "Karen's crash got me thinking about helmets" and that took me to the article that has been mentioned here:
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html

I read the entire article and then re-read several parts. I started searching on line and looking for any and all helmet related thoughts. I needed a new helmet and it was important to me that I get it right as I won't be able to afford another for several years. I bought a Shark RSI. It is an ECE 22-05 certified helmet, as well as DOT, of course. Although I love Shoei's fit and quality, I will never buy another SNELL certified helmet. The Shark company's design philosophy matches perfectly the spirit of the article. The helmet is the lightest helmet I've ever worn (3lbs7oz in XL), has the best field of vision and visual quality (including lack of fogging) of my experience. For anyone interested here is a Web Bike World revue: http://www.webbikeworld.com/r2/motorcycle-helmet/shark-rsi/

I am not trying to push the Shark, though I am very happy with it. I wish to stress that for anyone who rides, but especially those over 45 and even more especially for those of us over 65, if you don't read the article you will, in my opinion, be risking death in the event of a, what could be less than fatal, crash.

The part that hit me as critical was the part that takes age into consideration as I've had a brain for 70 years and wish to use it for several more. I used my family to look at the age thing: Michael, my first grandchild, is 24 & his dad Dave, my firstborn, is 50, and I will be 70 in a few weeks.
Here is a quote from the article:

Begin quote: "How Hurt is Hurt?
Doctors and head-injury researchers use a simplified rating of injuries, called the Abbreviated Injury Scale, or AIS, to describe how severely a patient is hurt when they come into a trauma facility. AIS 1 means you've been barely injured. AIS 6 means you're dead, or sure to be dead very soon. Here's the entire AIS scale: 
AIS 1 = Minor
AIS 2 = Moderate
AIS 3 = Serious
AIS 4 = Severe
AIS 5 = Critical
AIS 6 = Unsurvivable

A patient's AIS score is determined separately for each different section of the body. So you could have an AIS 4 injury to your leg, an AIS 3 to your chest and an AIS 5 injury to your head. And you'd be one hurtin' puppy. Newman is quoted in the COST study on the impact levels likely to cause certain levels of injury. Back in the '80s he stated that, as a rough guideline, a peak linear impact—the kind we're measuring here & 151 of 200 to 250 Gs generally corresponds to a head injury of AIS 4, or severe; that a 250 G to 300 G impact corresponds to AIS 5, or critical; and that anything over 300 Gs corresponds to AIS 6. That is, unsurvivable.
The COST study was limited to people who had hit their helmets on the pavement in their accidents. Of these, 67 percent sustained some kind of head injury. Even more㭅 percent—sustained leg injuries, and 57 percent had thorax injuries. You can even calculate your odds using the Injury Severity Score, or ISS. Take the AIS scores for the worst three injuries you have. Square each of those scores—that is, multiply them by themselves. Add the three results and compare them with the ISS Scale of Doom below.

A score of 75 means you're dead. Sorry. Very few people with an ISS of 70 see tomorrow either.

If you're between 15 and 44 years old, an ISS score of 40 means you have a 50-50 chance of making it. If you're between 45 and 64 years old, ISS 29 is the 50-50 mark. And above 65 years old, the 50-50 level is an ISS of 20. For a 45- to 64-year old guy such as myself, an ISS over 29 means I'll probably die.

If I get two "serious," AIS 3 injuries—the aforementioned AIS 3 head hit and AIS 3 chest thump—and a "severe" AIS 4 leg injury, my ISS score is ... let's see, 3 times 3 is 9. Twice that is 18. 4 times 4 is 16. 18 and 16 is 34. Ooops. Gotta go.

Drop my AIS 3 head injury to an AIS 2 and my ISS score is 29. Now I've got a 50-50 shot." End quote.

Lets assume Michael, Dave, & I each crash our bikes and each sustain two serious and one severe injuries (Same as in the example above) for a total ISS SCORE = 34:
Grandson Michael: 15 - 44 Yrs: Walks, well, limps probably, away with 6 points to spare.
Son Dave: 45 - 64 Yrs: Yikes, he is 5 points over the 50/50 shot... He could die!
Me 65 - ??? Yrs: Me... I used up 34 of my 20 points... Score= minus 14 points! Looks like the two of them will have a funeral to attend if my son survives. If not, my grandson will have two.

So making it personal tells me that cutting down the seriousness on any or all injuries is worth any cost that I can possibly bear. My reading took me to the Shark Helmet website, and I liked their focus on energy absorption via the same concept as the crumple zone in a modern car and a focus on the concept voiced in the article. They take the ideas voiced in the article very seriously! I found one of last year's Shark RSI models for half price at a local dealer. Its quality is easily equal to Shoei or Arai, and it fit very well... Felt very similar to my Shoei RF 800. Bought it, and am happy with it. I'll be putting aside $10/month in an envelope labeled "For New Shark Top of the Line Helmet in 2014."
I sincerely hope that this whole discussion brings this age issue regarding helmets and ATTGAT to the forefront, as I'm not the only old person here! Please, no matter which age group you're in, READ the whole article and think about it!
Rod

PS: This all is not to detract from the critical issue of smaller sized helmets and SNELL's change of heart in that area... That's progress, and I commend them for THAT (if they have gone far enough... Haven't studied it yet.)