I know he's (Ryan F9) not everyone's favourite but no one else is producing content like this:
|
|
|
Snell taking a beating.
- Thread starter 800over
- Start date
All youtube links still facked. Include search terms or video id or something so people can find it.
Video ID, 76yu124i3Bo
Ouch. We've had the executive director of snell drop by GTAM to deliver some advice before.
www.gtamotorcycle.com
snell helmets lacking sun shield
It is the very respected safelead brand made of 100% safe lead probably a very heavy helmet.
www.gtamotorcycle.com
The Snell Helmet Standard is Meaningless
Snell-certified motorbike helmets are a hallmark of safety. But last year, something sneaky happened. And it changes everything.Support us by shopping motorc...
tinyurl.com
I guess I have just one question. Is Snell M2020R a superset of ECE 22.06 i.e. does it specify anything that 22.06 doesn't?
It requires a Snell M2020R sticker? I kid, I haven't looked in detail but most standards fail a lot of helmets based on labelling.
Found the video. The Snell "original" double-impact test requiring a hard shell is incompatible with ECE 22.06 and FIM standards. The same helmet cannot meet that Snell standard and ECE 22.06 / FIM. Snell M2020R is a watered-down test to allow an ECE or FIM helmet to bear the Snell badge. It omits many aspects of FIM or ECE 22.06 compliance.
Personally ... I haven't paid attention to Snell for years, and I've only bought helmets that met the then-current ECE 22.05 standard. I intend to continue to do so.
Personally ... I haven't paid attention to Snell for years, and I've only bought helmets that met the then-current ECE 22.05 standard. I intend to continue to do so.
Priller
Well-known member
Apparently 22.06 is pretty much in line with the FIM rating, very similar requirements and added oblique impact tests. It also measures exposure to sunlight for durability, as well as protection in extreme heat and cold. It's a huge jump from 22.05, as shown by the very short list of helmets that meet it (just two at the moment)...
While I admire the original Snell mandate, and have no issue with the organisation, I feel like they've been forced by ECE to stick with their extremely stiff shells and multiple impact resistance just to stake out a different corner, otherwise the mandate is a bit lost.
Relax
Well-known member
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.
Different applications require different safety standards. From what I've read, FIM introduces a couple of additional testing methodologies for their racing helmets, one of which is "critical rotational accelerations". If you've seen racers slide from the asphalt to the gravel, they typically start tumbling once they reach the gravel which is meant to slow them down, but also causes them to roll as well. This is less likely to happen to a street rider, where the focus on helmet testing is on a single impact with an object like the asphalt, a curb or lamp post.
bigpoppa
Well-known member
Fine is a reasonable description of DOT. I want better than fine to protect my melon. Others may be ok with fine.
J_F
Guest
Probably similar level of protection to the plastic salad bowl with a dot sticker. I like it.
Relax
Well-known member
I understand that for FIM, but what about DOT, Snell, and ECE which are (I assume) primarily focused on street riding?
|
|
|
|
|