It is the very respected safelead brand made of 100% safe lead probably a very heavy helmet.
|
|
|
snell helmets lacking sun shield
- Thread starter bigpoppa
- Start date
I’m the Executive Director/Chief Engineer at the Snell Foundation. I’d like to take a shot at explaining our take on some of the issues you all have been discussing. Drop down visors, or rather the lack of them, is one of the complaints I frequently hear about Snell certified helmets. In fact, though, we once had a model with a drop down visor in the program. It was some years and Snell revisions ago but, at the time, the helmet tested very well and met all our requirements. We were happy to certify it and to recommend it to the motorcycling public. Sadly, though, this model was not submitted for the next standard revision and we have not had a model with a drop down visor submitted for testing since.
Why not? I can only guess but I think it has to do with helmet bulk. Good impact protection requires a generous thickness of impact managing material to ride down a major collision with the pavement but riders prefer helmets with a sleek aerodynamic look. The history of motorcycle helmets since the first Snell standard has been a tug of war between rider preferences for looks and their search for better impact management. During the first 15 years of Snell programs, from late 1959 to 1975, there was a steady progression of bigger and bigger helmets. Snell drove this progression by demanding greater and greater levels of crash impact management. Riders seeking Snell levels of performance discovered that they could wear these bigger helmets and still look good. So good that many non-Snell helmets kept pace, at least with the increases in helmet bulk if not with impact management.
The result was a whole lot of non-Snell helmets with looks and silhouettes much like the headgear Snell certifies but without the increased impact management that necessitated those silhouettes. In essence, makers of DOT-only helmets were making helmets a little larger than the DOT specs demanded and figured if they didn’t need that extra bulk for impact protection, maybe they could spend it on something else like, say, cutting a slot into the impact liner to accommodate an internal, drop down visor. In a sense, thanks to Snell’s push for greater impact protection, a lot of non-Snell helmets could afford to include this internal sun visor feature. It meant sacrificing some potential impact protection but the helmet would still meet DOT demands.
The upside to internal, drop down visors is almost instant relief when a rider’s route takes him directly into a rising or setting sun. There’s no need to pull over to fumble with goggles or sunglasses, just flick a switch and you’re good to go. The down side is that you’ve sacrificed a measure of impact management in a section of helmet that statistically takes a lot of thumps. A good DOT helmet from a reputable manufacturer might still save you and your family a lot of grief; but you will certainly be giving up a measure of the protection that is the helmet’s principal reason for existing.
If a helmet equipped with a drop down visor is to meet Snell requirements, the designer will somehow have to add the five to ten millimeters of material he cut out for the slot back into to the helmet’s front. And he’ll have to reconfigure the shell to accommodate. He’s looking at new shells, new production gear, and a new look to the headgear which riders may or may not be willing to accept. The result is that going from a Snell configuration to a DOT configuration with an internal visor is pretty easy but going from a DOT internal visor configuration to a Snell internal visor configuration might be a real challenge.
I’d like to see the industry accept this challenge. There’s an element of risk to it. The outlays necessary for design and development might be daunting. The differences in looks might not be great but rider acceptance is never a certainty. Still, riders currently have to choose between the premium of impact protection Snell looks for and the convenience of a drop down internal visor. A company willing to provide both in the same helmet could do very well indeed.
Until then, the relative merits of Snell certified headgear versus non-Snell headgear with internal, drop down visors will remain an ongoing debate. We at Snell are convinced that riders are best off with the levels of impact protection we demand in Snell’s M2020 standards. But if a rider absolutely requires a drop down sun visor; if tinted face shield, regular sunglasses or an external drop down visor such as in at least one Snell certified model just won’t do; then please look for an internal drop down visor in a good DOT helmet from a reputable helmet maker. There are more than a few of these reputable brands and many of them also make a few Snell certified model lines as well.
You're welcome to review additional information on our website, smf.org, and I'd be grateful for any comments, questions and criticisms sent to ed@smf.org.
Why not? I can only guess but I think it has to do with helmet bulk. Good impact protection requires a generous thickness of impact managing material to ride down a major collision with the pavement but riders prefer helmets with a sleek aerodynamic look. The history of motorcycle helmets since the first Snell standard has been a tug of war between rider preferences for looks and their search for better impact management. During the first 15 years of Snell programs, from late 1959 to 1975, there was a steady progression of bigger and bigger helmets. Snell drove this progression by demanding greater and greater levels of crash impact management. Riders seeking Snell levels of performance discovered that they could wear these bigger helmets and still look good. So good that many non-Snell helmets kept pace, at least with the increases in helmet bulk if not with impact management.
The result was a whole lot of non-Snell helmets with looks and silhouettes much like the headgear Snell certifies but without the increased impact management that necessitated those silhouettes. In essence, makers of DOT-only helmets were making helmets a little larger than the DOT specs demanded and figured if they didn’t need that extra bulk for impact protection, maybe they could spend it on something else like, say, cutting a slot into the impact liner to accommodate an internal, drop down visor. In a sense, thanks to Snell’s push for greater impact protection, a lot of non-Snell helmets could afford to include this internal sun visor feature. It meant sacrificing some potential impact protection but the helmet would still meet DOT demands.
The upside to internal, drop down visors is almost instant relief when a rider’s route takes him directly into a rising or setting sun. There’s no need to pull over to fumble with goggles or sunglasses, just flick a switch and you’re good to go. The down side is that you’ve sacrificed a measure of impact management in a section of helmet that statistically takes a lot of thumps. A good DOT helmet from a reputable manufacturer might still save you and your family a lot of grief; but you will certainly be giving up a measure of the protection that is the helmet’s principal reason for existing.
If a helmet equipped with a drop down visor is to meet Snell requirements, the designer will somehow have to add the five to ten millimeters of material he cut out for the slot back into to the helmet’s front. And he’ll have to reconfigure the shell to accommodate. He’s looking at new shells, new production gear, and a new look to the headgear which riders may or may not be willing to accept. The result is that going from a Snell configuration to a DOT configuration with an internal visor is pretty easy but going from a DOT internal visor configuration to a Snell internal visor configuration might be a real challenge.
I’d like to see the industry accept this challenge. There’s an element of risk to it. The outlays necessary for design and development might be daunting. The differences in looks might not be great but rider acceptance is never a certainty. Still, riders currently have to choose between the premium of impact protection Snell looks for and the convenience of a drop down internal visor. A company willing to provide both in the same helmet could do very well indeed.
Until then, the relative merits of Snell certified headgear versus non-Snell headgear with internal, drop down visors will remain an ongoing debate. We at Snell are convinced that riders are best off with the levels of impact protection we demand in Snell’s M2020 standards. But if a rider absolutely requires a drop down sun visor; if tinted face shield, regular sunglasses or an external drop down visor such as in at least one Snell certified model just won’t do; then please look for an internal drop down visor in a good DOT helmet from a reputable helmet maker. There are more than a few of these reputable brands and many of them also make a few Snell certified model lines as well.
You're welcome to review additional information on our website, smf.org, and I'd be grateful for any comments, questions and criticisms sent to ed@smf.org.
Thanks for reaching out to the community, @Ed Becker! I wish all vendors/organizations were as proactive as you.
Great post. Thanks for coming by and clarifying some things.
J_F
Guest
Way too slow to react for some situations (into or out of tunnel, bursting out of trees, etc). Also, they block some light even when not exposed to UV so they aren't ideal if you ride and night and don't want to change the visor (not a ton of light, but the more your eyes get the better).
Yeah, I was put in my place by some smartass last time I brought this up...
It's also quick to change tint if you are travelling through one of thousand tunnels we have in Ontario...
Have they changed over time? The last time I tried transitions, a full change took minutes. Do they have some that flip in a few seconds now?
For the fancy/expensive helmet brands, they could use the electro-tint that Boeing put in the 787. If they want to get really fancy, put a light sensor inside the helmet and let the tint change to keep incoming light constant.
Priller
Well-known member
A quick Google suggests the Transitions-style photochromatic ones get a good bit darker in about 20 seconds and fully dark in about two minutes. I'm assuming he reverse time is similar.
There are electric ones, but apparently the biggest issue is they're not fully clear when off, and not dark enough when on. Here's a review:
AMI Powersports Akari AX12 Review
If they could improve the variation, they'd be awesome, especially if they made one with a light sensor. I find the biggest challenge for visors is riding on a wooded road when the sun is low. The ongoing transitions between bright and shadowed are non-stop, and having something that could keep up to that would be really cool...
If they really want kick ass, electric could potentially be zoned so you have dark tint on the sun and no tint in the shady parts of your field of view.
I havent looked at an electric visor. The 787 windows go from very close to clear to surprisingly dark (something like limo tint iirc).
Aens
Well-known member
Cost. They are $250 or more per visor and I tend to have to change out my visor once a year or so (back roads and group rides). Shoei and Bell offer Transitions visors.
I've seen the Arai Pro Shade and that may be a decent safety compromise, if an Arai was in your price range.
I'm completely staggered that we started having another talk about the impact of the Snell standard, and then someone from Snell wanders in. This thread isn't even a week old
Edit: broke the swear filter again
Edit: broke the swear filter again
No pun intended?
You know, you're not wrong about that. The shade on my Airflite sure is convenient, but the distortion is right about at the limit of what I am willing to tolerate.
It was damn well intended
|
|
|
|
|