Helmet Standards

I understand that you need the AS 1698 on the back of your lid, but if you have a Snell approved helmet which as i understood a much higher standard, these are frowned upon by the insurance companies etc.. I would like to know , cause as i decided that a close up look at Kent Streets bitiumen is just what i needed on Friday avo, because of this overwhelming desire i now need a new hat, but i have racing helmets( snell approved).

If anyone can shed light on this i would love to know before kissing more cash goodbye.

Oh by the way im fine,bike is injured but is at hospital now.

Cheers,

You need the AS1698 standard to be covered by any insurance or licencing legislation.

Snell is all good but doesnt count as our test standards.

Race track is a different kettle of fish

I often think about bying new lid from o.s, thought what would be the chances.
Attending a road cycle carnival last weekend, a guy disqualified for having a helmet imported from england without aussie standards sticker.
What a crock.
There are some great green lids to be had from abroad

Just stumbled across this thread and it got me thinking about the AS 1698 sticker. I wanted to buy a Shoei X11 from an overseas shop because it was cheaper. Mind you its the same exact helmet that we can get here. The only difference is that one has the sticker and one doesnt.

I just got off the phone with a rep and was advised that if you wear a helmet without the sticker, irregardless if its the same helmet on the market here, you can be fine and incur demerit points as if you are not wearing a helmet at all.

Consider that AS1698 Approval is a two stage process

1 - you test the helmet to the standard using tests that also have a standard applied to them and then you pass or fail
- should you pass the helmet can be sold legally in Australia under the trade practices act BUT under state traffic legislation it can not be used on the road

why you may ask

Because you need to do part 2

2. Certification of Helmets - this is all about quality management of the manufacturers, the product, the importers etc etc -- includes batch testing etc to ensure quality management is in place

Now the reason you wont get a AS1698 sticker from the local rep

well shoei may be imported into the country not by shoei but rather by a exclusive importer -- do you think they are going to let you have a sticker if you buy a product from the USA importer

Consider the costs of certification and then look at the differences in the market sizes between Aus and USA

Now the reason you wont get a AS1698 sticker from the local rep

When I said that I just got off the phone with a rep, I didnt mean a Shoei rep. I meant an RTA rep. Thanks for the info by the way.

Now the reason you wont get a AS1698 sticker from the local rep

When I said that I just got off the phone with a rep, I didnt mean a Shoei rep. I meant an RTA rep. Thanks for the info by the way.

understood champ - i should have been clearer and said shoei reseller

as for the rta position

by law an importer is deemed to be the manufacturer and must have the helmets certified for before stated reasons

and your welcome

Rather than rewrite this info here is a cut and paste

Helmets: DOT vs. SNELL
Published by: 2Wheeltips on 20th Aug 2009 | View all blogs by 2Wheeltips

Helmets are required to be DOT certified. In addition to DOT certification, some helmets also carry SNELL certification. What is the difference? Basically, keep this in mind: all SNELL certified helmet are DOT certified, but not all DOT certified helmets are SNELL certified.

Both DOT (Department of Transportation) and SNELL (SNELL Memorial Foundation) have their own standards used to test helmets. The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 is the one that DOT uses and it dates back to 1974; the SNELL Memorial Foundation uses a standard that is updated every five years. Some of the other basic similarities and differences between DOT and SNELL certification are:

DOT and SNELL assess each helmet by placing it on a head form that is equipped with sensors. The helmeted head form is then dropped from a specific height onto a steel anvil, and the severity of the impact is recorded.

Both standards drop the head forms on flat and hemispherically shaped anvils in order to simulate different types of impacts. However, SNELL also uses an edged anvil that specifically tests the integrity of the helmet's shell.

While both DOT and SNELL drop their helmets to simulate crash impact, SNELL drops the helmets from greater heights, simulating more severe crash impact and require the helmets to withstand greater impact and more force than the DOT standard.

SNELL certification requires a manufacturer to submit 5 helmets of a particular design, for testing; 4 of the 5 helmets are tested and the last helmet is saved as a sample. DOT relies on the manufacturer of the helmet to do self-certification. Periodically, the government will conduct spot audits on the helmet manufacturer. In 2001, when performing a spot audit on 40 helmets, DOT found a 20% failure rate among some of the helmets. Once found and reported, it was up to the manufacturers to bring their helmets into compliance.

Although their testing process is very similar, SNELL requires their certified helmets to withstand a greater impact and absorb more force than the DOT standards.

In order for a company to claim that their product is SNELL approved, they have to submit five helmets for testing. Four of those helmets are tested and one is saved as a sample product. If the helmet design passes the tests, the manufacturer enters into a contract with SNELL. This contract allows SNELL Memorial Foundation to buy helmets from the manufacturer and test them on a continual basis in order to ensure quality.

The bottom line: if you want the safest helmet for your money (and your head!), choose a helmet that has the SNELL certification on it; it will meet or exceed DOT helmet standards.


ECE 22.05 Motorcycle Helmet Standard

This information on the U.N. Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) ECE 22.05 motorcycle helmet safety standard has been provided by Intersport Fashions West.

The U.N. ECE website has a full copy of the ECE 22.05 standard in .pdf format.

When a motorcyclist goes into a shop to buy a helmet and starts reading the stickers and labels on the helmets for sale, he or she is likely to have some questions. This is because in spite of interest and lip service to international harmonization, there are still numerous performance standards for motorcycle helmets.

Some are government standards and others issued by private organizations. These standards differ in many ways but are similar in that they measure a helmet’s ability to absorb impact. The effectiveness of the retention system that keeps the helmet on the head is also tested as are accessories such as face shields.

Equally important, although not directly addressed by helmet standards, are wearability issues such as comfort, ventilation, weight, fit, cost, appearance, and availability. There are two ageless helmet maxims that the reader should be aware of. First is that if you can tell the helmet designers exactly what your crash will be, they can make you the best possible helmet for that particular crash. Second is that the best helmet possible won’t protect you if you’re not wearing it.

ECE 22.05 and DOT motorcycle helmet stickersMotorcycle helmets are designed, manufactured, and tested to meet performance standards. These performance tests drive the helmet design and the measured performance of the helmets in laboratory testing, and therefore accident performance as well. In spite of the similarity of purpose, the methods and requirements vary dramatically from standard to standard.

Some are relatively simple, and others are far more complex. It is important to note that none of the standards are meant to precisely replicate the threats that a motorcyclist may see in a crash. This is primarily due to the need for reliability and repeatability in the testing environment, to say nothing of the variability of actual crashes.

There have been several studies of motorcycle crashes over the last 25 years that have attempted to evaluate any protective advantage or disadvantage of helmets meeting one standard or another (Hurt, 1981; Otte, 1991). No advantage has ever been shown in these field studies for any particular standard, so the helmet industry and individual riders are left comparing theoretical pros and cons of the various standards.

That is not to say that research has not shown important differences in helmets. Since helmets protect best what they cover most, additional coverage has always been found to provide additional protection: a full-facial coverage helmet has more protection than an open-face which has more coverage and protection than a shorty (partial coverage) helmet.

Research in California (Hurt, et al, 1981) showed that 90% of real life crash impacts are at or below the impact requirements of the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 218, performance standard for motorcycle helmets (also known as FMVSS 218 or DOT).

It is critical to note that helmets have been continually shown to be effective in reducing head injury, regardless of what standard they might meet. The only noteworthy exception is the novelty helmet worn in protest of mandatory helmet use laws. These “helmets” do not meet any standard and cannot be expected to provide meaningful head protection.

In the United States, there have historically been two helmet standards applicable to motorcycle helmets. The FMVSS 218 or DOT is the mandatory U.S. government standard that all motorcycle helmets must meet to be legal for sale and use on public roads and highways.

This standard was first issued in 1974 and was updated in 1980 and again in 1988. Much work has been done toward another update in the near future. The second standard is issued by the Snell Memorial Foundation, a private organization that issues its own motorcycle helmet standard.

A third helmet standard from the Economic Community of Europe (ECE) is actually the most commonly used internationally, the ECE 22.05, required by over 50 countries worldwide. While helmet standards all have the goal of regulating helmet performance for protection of riders’ heads, some performance requirements conflict between standards.

A major benefit for U.S. riders is that the ECE 22.05 standard does not directly conflict with the DOT standard. Limited testing shows that ECE qualified helmets will also meet the demands of FMVSS 218. Of course, not all DOT helmets will meet ECE 22.05 because the European standard does require testing at higher velocities than DOT.

Another advantage of the ECE 22.05 standard is the requirement for mandatory batch testing of helmets before they are released to the riding public. What this means to the consumer is the quality of the helmet in meeting the ECE 22.05 standard is assured by a mandatory sample testing of every production of helmets before they leave the factory, not with random testing performed after thousands of helmets with unknown quality are delivered to the dealers.

No one helmet designed to a particular standard or standards can provide the maximum protection in all types of crashes and no helmet can protect the wearer against all foreseeable impacts. Helmets can be designed to provide additional protection, for example, full-face helmets compared to the open-face types, but added protection comes with a weight penalty.

How much weight are you willing to wear? If you reject helmets with less coverage, you will end up with a helmet that covers most of your head and weighs about three pounds. By choosing a helmet meeting a high performance standard such as ECE 22.05, you can minimize that weight while maximizing protection.

Summary

If you’re not comfortable with a helmet that only meets the US Government DOT standard, what do you look for? Historically, American riders have looked for a Snell label but the world is getting smaller and we now have other viable alternatives. The ECE 22.05 standard is used in over 50 European countries, including Germany, a country known for taking a hard line on personal protection.

Helmets certified to the ECE 22.05 standard are approved for competition events by AMA, CCS, FIM, Formula-USA and WERA and are chosen by nearly every professional motorcycle racers competing in world championship road racing, motocross and off road events, including the ultimate sport of Moto GP. Helmets that are certified to both DOT and ECE 22.05 offer the highest level of realistic protection with the added benefit of light weight for day-long comfort and rider performance.

Last edited by Takamii on Mon Jun 28, 2010 11:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sorry, just dropping in to see if seiko's been on this thread whinging about how cold he was last night

**looks around**

no...................ok, i'll be off then.

**leaves**

Bought an Arai anyway, cheers for the advice.

A hypothetical question for you all.

You have to ride Sydney to Perth and you have a choice of 2 Helmets. One is a POS telephone plastic open face with a AS1698
sticker the other is a state of the art Arai full face without the sticker... Which one do you use.

I've seen heaps of people riding in utter crap helmets; if and/or when they fall off and turn themselves into vegetables we pay for it. Yet according to the bureaucrats that make the laws the potential vegetables all well and good.

You have to ride Sydney to Perth and you have a choice of 2 Helmets. One is a POS telephone plastic open face with a AS1698
sticker the other is a state of the art Arai full face without the sticker... Which one do you use.

Neither if they are over 5 years old ...... what I cant work out is how the shithouse $100 helmets pass the so called standards, I tried one on for shits & giggles when I was looking for a new helmet & it felt so wrong... so farking wrong, I pity the boy racer on a zero budget that buys one of these pieces of crap... they should be outlawed & standards should be high enough that our markets cant be flooded with shit helmets.

More of a case that the manufacturing process is now cheaper. Not to mention there are a few more certified testing companies to bring the price down.

I have an $80 helmet that feels better than my $400 helmet. I dont wear the cheap one out on my spirited rides, but I commute wearing the cheap one, and it feels much better that the good one. I have no doubt that the Cheap one would hold up in a crash.

I dont want to test either of them! I would like to see how they all compare tho....

You have to ride Sydney to Perth and you have a choice of 2 Helmets. One is a POS telephone plastic open face with a AS1698
sticker the other is a state of the art Arai full face without the sticker... Which one do you use.

Neither if they are over 5 years old ...... what I cant work out is how the shithouse $100 helmets pass the so called standards, I tried one on for shits & giggles when I was looking for a new helmet & it felt so wrong... so farking wrong, I pity the boy racer on a zero budget that buys one of these pieces of crap... they should be outlawed & standards should be high enough that our markets cant be flooded with shit helmets.

"State of the art" Arai full face helmets were not made prior to 2010, so they can not be 5 years old.

Also a five year old helmet is not necessarily defective.

"Neither if they are over 5 years old " ....is supposed to be a joke I guess.

I understand where you are coming from though robracer. There are brand new helmets available that somehow meet the AS1698 standard that I would not pay 1 dollar for. Especialy, virtualy all, open face varieties. Unless of course I drilled some holes in it for drainage and used it for pot plants. I mean one dollar is not bad value for a pot for plants. Or one could keep an open face helmet for pillion passengers they did not like.

Maybe some bright spark could write a book: 101 uses for an open face helmet.

I think it unwise to dismiss a helmet because it only costs $100 though.
Keep in mind, that some very good helmets 2 major components consist of fibreglass and EPS (expanded polystyrene). The material cost of the quantity of those 2 components used in 1 helmet is probably less than one dollar. The EPS component
can and in many examples come out of molds like sausages out of a machine. The laying up of the fibreglass is done by hand
and is somewhat labour intensive, so that labour could be a major contributor to cost. I could imagine 1 man with plenty of practice, turning out a high quality shell in an hour.
It seems to me R & D, tooling, testing etc are pretty much a one time cost that will be reduced by quantity of product. It could be possible to turn out effective no frills helmets for $100. Having said that, I've just forked out for a
Shark RSR2 V+ that retails for nearly $900 at this time.

Last edited by Phantom on Sun Aug 22, 2010 3:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

...... what I cant work out is how the shithouse $100 helmets pass the so called standards.

The same way you get dumbarse motorcycle riders - they are both designed to pass a test, not to be any good at other stuff.
People keep bitching that sub $100 helmets 'can't be safe' simply because they're cheap. Unless the sticker is a fake it'll be just as safe as any of the thousand dollar helmets. Sure, it probably looks like shit, fits like a vice and screams like a banshee if you go over 50 ... but if you smash your head on the ground it will absorb the shock that would otherwise be transmitted to your brain. That's all it has to do.

What you say can be totaly true and correct.

However there are some cheap helmets that meet the standard that are made out of plastic. Plastic that has less penetration resistance than materials like kevlar (Aramid fibre). A lot of kevlar
woven correctly (as well as fibreglass) spreads force over larger areas reducing concentrations of force and also absorbing energy by not bouncing like a plastic super ball... which increases the duration of the force.