Anyone looking to purchase a new, legal helmet for racing has probably noticed that the choices have diminished a fair bit. A few of the popular brands and models are no longer made, or the newer "updated" versions are no longer SNELL rated. What's left are the upper (i.e. more expensive) models of the major brands.
I know the saying "what's your head worth?", but after doing some reading on SNELL, DOT, ECE, and the newer FIM standards, price doesn't always mean better. For example, I read an article by a former SNELL Foundation director (Dr. Jim Newman, also a real world head-impact expert) he thinks the SNELL testing standards are a bit miss directed. In the article, he talks specifically about SNELL's requirement for a helmet to pass a double hit in the same spot. The problem, according to Dr. Newman, is that in order to pass the test, the helmets are built to pass the test and not to lessen the G force impact to the head. Currently, SNELL mandates a 300G limit. He feels the standards should progressively lower the impact G forces as a requirement instead. He also thinks the idea of hitting the exact same spot on the helmet in a crash is statistically unlikely.
Anyway, the point? What is your opinion about revisiting the SNELL requirement for our helmets? The current ECE 22.05 standard is debatably as rigorous, if not more, than the SNELL tests and there are quite a few helmets available that meet these standards. ECE also "conditions" helmets as part of their tests (solvents, moisture, and temperature).
Link to ECE 22.05 testing standards: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/t...gs/r022r4e.pdf
Link to SNELL testing: https://www.smf.org/testing
I know the saying "what's your head worth?", but after doing some reading on SNELL, DOT, ECE, and the newer FIM standards, price doesn't always mean better. For example, I read an article by a former SNELL Foundation director (Dr. Jim Newman, also a real world head-impact expert) he thinks the SNELL testing standards are a bit miss directed. In the article, he talks specifically about SNELL's requirement for a helmet to pass a double hit in the same spot. The problem, according to Dr. Newman, is that in order to pass the test, the helmets are built to pass the test and not to lessen the G force impact to the head. Currently, SNELL mandates a 300G limit. He feels the standards should progressively lower the impact G forces as a requirement instead. He also thinks the idea of hitting the exact same spot on the helmet in a crash is statistically unlikely.
Anyway, the point? What is your opinion about revisiting the SNELL requirement for our helmets? The current ECE 22.05 standard is debatably as rigorous, if not more, than the SNELL tests and there are quite a few helmets available that meet these standards. ECE also "conditions" helmets as part of their tests (solvents, moisture, and temperature).
Link to ECE 22.05 testing standards: http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/t...gs/r022r4e.pdf
Link to SNELL testing: https://www.smf.org/testing
Comment