R1200RS + R1250RS Forum
Topic settings 
Print view
Jump to forum
|
What about Snell Memorial Foundation helmets? ...... I wouldn't buy a helmet if it does not have that rating or the sticker on it ....
larry l langford
|
|
reply
Zitat von wessie im Beitrag #29Zitat von Paul911 im Beitrag #28 Yes, in a couple of cases Shoei does put a different name on the helmet, but I don't believe there are any physical differences beyond that. The NXR you get is the same as the RF1400 that we get. I have no idea why they do this but it's done in other industries also. I know Nikon used to do this with some cameras. It might be a way to segment markets. Zitat von paleolithictech im Beitrag #31 Snell won't even test a flip up helmet, one with a built in sunshade or one with a built in communicator. However, they will certify an open face helmet which is idiocy. The last I looked, Snell also doesn't really deal with rotational force such as what MIPS is designed to mitigate. ECE is a newer and different standard which is better in some ways, though maybe worse in others. It's worth trying to understand them if you're going to buy a helmet and not just blindly accept them.
2020 R1250RS
|
|
Zitat von Mr. 36654 im Beitrag #33Zitat von Paul911 im Beitrag #28 Sure, but that'd also mean one helmet couldn't pass both standards. As it is, both the RF1400 and NXR pass Snell. As far as I can find, the DOT standard hasn't been updated since 1974. It's an embarrassment. https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/wh...-certifications
2020 R1250RS
|
|
Zitat von Paul911 im Beitrag #32Zitat von wessie im Beitrag #29Zitat von Paul911 im Beitrag #28 It's not a matter of SNELL refusing to test, but manufacturers choosing to not submit products for certification. The chinbar hinge mechanism and internal visors consume a good deal of shell and EPS liner volume which limits their ability to meet SNELL's higher energy impacts with a load-concentrating anvil. As an example, Shoei's GT Air helmet has failed DOT testing when impacted on the side. The transmitted shock loads exceeded DOT's time averaged limits. Since 3/4 and LEO-style shorty helmets don't have a chinbar, there's no strike location (a single point in SNELL and ECE tests). All the other strike areas "fit" on those helmets. But, as we know, about 40% of all helmet hits are on the chinbar or face shield areas. So, not a good choice for a rider. For the record, I wear a Shoei Rf1400 and Arai Corsair-X. When I teach safety classes, I wear an HJC i10. All SNELL rated
Old Forum Orphan
|
|
#36 | RE: Helmet prices in US vs UK/EU.
Wed Apr 24, 2024 12:13 am (Last edited: Wed Apr 24, 2024 12:15 am)
Wed Apr 24, 2024 12:13 am (Last edited: Wed Apr 24, 2024 12:15 am)
Zitat von Paul911 im Beitrag #34Zitat von Mr. 36654 im Beitrag #33Zitat von Paul911 im Beitrag #28 Periodic review and updating of standards is always good if it provides a benefit. Relative to direct impact energy levels, the existing DOT spec exceeds both ECE 22.05 and 22.06. In concept, the oblique testing specified in ECE 22.06 and SNELL 2020R (outside US) sounds great, but the test threshold values are too lax to be meaningful. Based on testing at various labs, most recent DOT or ECE 22.05 helmets will pass the new tests. It's like the HIC criteria specified in the ECE standard, the specified test value (<2400) greatly exceeds the HIC < 1000 criteria used for car crash occupants. Thus, it's meaningless, relative to our safety. But, once a test has been proposed, it creates a bandwagon effect. The upcoming SNELL 2025D (Domestic) standard will include the oblique testing protocol and the ECE 22.06 threshold values. Oh, relative the NXR, I'm not sure the latest version is sold with a SNELL sticker. Old Forum Orphan |
|
