Snell taking a beating. | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

Snell taking a beating.

Guys, the helmet business is big in Europe. You create a new standard and everyone has to buy a new helmet at $500-$2000. That's a lot of dough into the helmet manufacturers and government pockets. They went through all this discussion in the 1980s with the hard vs impact absorption. They came to the conclusion that with the latter the helmet would have to be too large to be effective, raising the risk of quadriplegia. Everyone who knows helmets knows the Snell standard is dubious also. IMO, so is the new ECE standard - until I see actual stats proving they're better.

Wait until someone actually shows fatality rates that are dropping in a before/after study of a jurisdiction before you buy this scam.
 
Snell predates FIM and ECE

it was a US standard established as DOT was not stringent enough for racing speeds
DOT is the minimum standard that any cheap helmet can pass
and many with the sticker don't

much reading to be done on the subject
but personally, I buy ECE certified helmets
I like the drop down sun shades and decent protection for street riding

not going to find a Snell or FIM lid with a sunshade
and DOT only is usually junk

anything under $500 is junk
 
Relax said:
I don't understand that at all. Why does a safety standard need to be different from another? Over time, science should have them getting closer and closer. The fact that they now have two "standards" that are incompatible with helmet construction just gives them zero credibility and integrity. I thought Snell was a non-profit - why would should they even care what ECE and FIM are doing? They should be sticking to their guns if they believe they're right.
Click to expand...

It is called the "not invented here syndrome", and it affects all sorts of technical requirements worldwide. It isn't just government requirements, either, although those are the biggest nuisance because they carry the force of law.

Two different ways of thinking ... two different schools of thought ... even if one of them is found to have shortcomings, good luck with getting the organisation with the less-suitable standard to change their way of thinking, and admit that they have been (gasp) a little bit wrong ...

My observation having dealt with other bodies of standards is that it's usually the Americans who don't want standards that came from somewhere else. They don't accept a European standard, they have to use an American one. In my own real world, there has been some headway in some areas by taking an ISO standard, essentially copy-and-pasting it and renaming it as an ANSI standard, and calling that the American standard even though it's (as close as we can make it) the same. Doesn't always work ...

The FortNine video explained something that made sense about the Snell standard ... where their double-impact requirement came from: racing cars, with roll cages, with the driver held in place in the seat with a harness. It stands to reason that if their head gets shaken around, they could whack their head against the roll cage in more-or-less the same place multiple times. That isn't something you would expect to happen when a motorcyclist comes off their bike.

I'm quite sure the FIM has done a lot of research on what's needed for a good motorcycle helmet. It appears that ECE 22.06 is the street-related outcome of that.
 
Brian P said:
It is called the "not invented here syndrome", and it affects all sorts of technical requirements worldwide. It isn't just government requirements, either, although those are the biggest nuisance because they carry the force of law.

Two different ways of thinking ... two different schools of thought ... even if one of them is found to have shortcomings, good luck with getting the organisation with the less-suitable standard to change their way of thinking, and admit that they have been (gasp) a little bit wrong ...

My observation having dealt with other bodies of standards is that it's usually the Americans who don't want standards that came from somewhere else. They don't accept a European standard, they have to use an American one. In my own real world, there has been some headway in some areas by taking an ISO standard, essentially copy-and-pasting it and renaming it as an ANSI standard, and calling that the American standard even though it's (as close as we can make it) the same. Doesn't always work ...

The FortNine video explained something that made sense about the Snell standard ... where their double-impact requirement came from: racing cars, with roll cages, with the driver held in place in the seat with a harness. It stands to reason that if their head gets shaken around, they could whack their head against the roll cage in more-or-less the same place multiple times. That isn't something you would expect to happen when a motorcyclist comes off their bike.

I'm quite sure the FIM has done a lot of research on what's needed for a good motorcycle helmet. It appears that ECE 22.06 is the street-related outcome of that.
Click to expand...
In that case, the two concurrent Snell standards would make sense if one is designed for car helmets and the other for motorcycle helmets. But is that the case?
 
Brian P said:
I'm quite sure the FIM has done a lot of research on what's needed for a good motorcycle helmet. It appears that ECE 22.06 is the street-related outcome of that.
Click to expand...

What specific area of head injury are we addressing with the ECE, fracture or concussion?
 
J_F said:
anything under $500 is junk
Click to expand...
A $300 ECE helmet passes the same safety tests as a $500 or $1000 ECE helmet. The difference is weight, quality of materials, features, maybe noise levels and air vents., graphics etc. But a junk? nope. If you don't believe me check out F9's other videos on the subject.
 
Relax said:
In that case, the two concurrent Snell standards would make sense if one is designed for car helmets and the other for motorcycle helmets. But is that the case?
Click to expand...

There are different standards for car-racing and motorcycle helmets, but I don't know what the differences are.

Someone at Snell evidently is hung up on requiring a motorcycle helmet having to withstand two impacts to the same spot.
 
80610029.jpg


It's your head, protect it how you see fit.
Amazon DOT,DOT, SNELL, ECE, Bucket..
 
KWDRZ said:
Not convinced any of them mean **** in a serious accident you're ******
Click to expand...
Or a minor accident. My wife fell about 24" onto a plastic floor and suffered 2 minor bleeds and a major bleed on her brain. Left her in a wheelchair.
Even if she has been wearing a helmet, it might not have made any difference. The brain impacts the inside of your skull in an impact and that is what causes the damage.
There is so much dependant on circumstance.
This is why i scoff at anyone that says "i only ride casually and just on the street".
 
Relax said:
I don't understand that at all. Why does a safety standard need to be different from another? Over time, science should have them getting closer and closer. The fact that they now have two "standards" that are incompatible with helmet construction just gives them zero credibility and integrity. I thought Snell was a non-profit - why would should they even care what ECE and FIM are doing? They should be sticking to their guns if they believe they're right.
Click to expand...
I think Snell may have had it right when they started out decades ago. There weren't any meaningful standards and they moved the bar in the right direction for a time.

Like all organizations Snell is a business and they need revenue to exist. The designation "non profit" means nothing. Everyone employed by Snell is making good money and they need revenue to continue to stay open. Snell will continue to adopt or implement confusing standards because it serves the purpose of staying in business.

If you don't believe this is true then take a look at all of the various charities that are out there sucking in money for diabetes, heart and stroke etc...... and then look at the list of their corporate sponsors and the labeling you see on their products "approved by the .......... foundation. All of these organizations are "non-profit" and raking in hundreds of millions in dubious sponsorship fees. Take a look at their c suite employees and you'll see dozens of people making mid 6 figure salaries.
 
Relax said:
I don't understand that at all. Why does a safety standard need to be different from another? Over time, science should have them getting closer and closer. The fact that they now have two "standards" that are incompatible with helmet construction just gives them zero credibility and integrity. I thought Snell was a non-profit - why would should they even care what ECE and FIM are doing? They should be sticking to their guns if they believe they're right.
Click to expand...
Basically, what @Brian P said, but to add, people work for these organisations and so there needs to be a justification for their ongoing existence. See the discussion about MADD elsewhere, where the original remit has been broadly achieved, so goalposts need moved to justify what is now a huge multi-million dollar operation.

If Snell were to hew too closely to what the FIM and ECE standards are aiming for, the need for Snell to continue starts to be less pressing. What's the point in simply repeating testing done elsewhere? So as ECE standards exceed the Snell standards, they need to stake out a different concept of what makes a safe helmet.

That said, I'm glad they are continuing to go their own route, as it's clear that there is no single perfect helmet or standard, and more approaches means more data and more choice for riders. As it stands, I'm firmly in the ECE camp, but data changes and new info should be incorporated.

Look at the attention paid to oblique and rotational impact now, which is a product of a huge amount of new data relating to concussions and long-term brain injury symptoms. 20 years ago, that information didn't exist and 'having your bell rung' was simply a rite of passage. Now, we're aware of the very serious consequences of those injuries and helmets are changing accordingly. Look at MIPS and other rotational systems, for example.
 
Wingboy said:
Or a minor accident. My wife fell about 24" onto a plastic floor and suffered 2 minor bleeds and a major bleed on her brain. Left her in a wheelchair.
Even if she has been wearing a helmet, it might not have made any difference. The brain impacts the inside of your skull in an impact and that is what causes the damage.
There is so much dependant on circumstance.
This is why i scoff at anyone that says "i only ride casually and just on the street".
Click to expand...
Of course a helmet would have helped. Even a bicycle helmet. Your hypothesis is spurious.
The idea of a helmet is to NOT TRANSFER the energy from an impact to the soft tissue of the brain but absorb it in place of.
Throw yourself off the bar stool with and without a helmet on and let me know how that works out.
 
Motorcyclist magazine did an article way back. I think it was called "blowing the lid off" or something along those lines. Around mid 2000s.

Coles notes, Snell was designing for higher speed impacts and double impacts. The end result was harder helmets (outer and inner) that increased energy transfer to the head/brain at road use speeds. The tests actually showed cheaper DOT only helmets tested better than high end $$$$$s Snell approved helmets. There was huge uproar at the time from advertisers. The other question.... was the Snell standard (vs just DOT, EU...) protecting the head at impacts that were not likely survivable with a reasonable standard of living afterwards.

Fast forward to today, can't say if this is still the case. The standards have changed since then.
 
  • Like
Reactions: J_F
TK4 said:
Of course a helmet would have helped. Even a bicycle helmet. Your hypothesis is spurious.
The idea of a helmet is to NOT TRANSFER the energy from an impact to the soft tissue of the brain but absorb it in place of.
Throw yourself off the bar stool with and without a helmet on and let me know how that works out.
Click to expand...
This seems a bit cold and harsh. Guy tells you his spouse had a fall that left her in a wheelchair and you nitpick and then mock him.

I think Wingboy's message was that brain injuries can be very serious and that even a minor fall at home can have terrible consequences. You don't have to be in a "serious accident" to get hurt.
 
yeah, but, like, what kind of oil should I use for a snell helmet?
Forum Sponsor
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom