Kawasaki Sportsbike Riders Club - Australia - Online Forum

wow

I learnt a bit more about helmets after that...........
good and bad

good post Jase

Mabye my cheap $190 agv is better than I thought.

Aussie Ninja wrote:Mabye my cheap $190 agv is better than I thought.

and i am happy with my AGV 'rossi' replica....

if only it was that easy..

just goes to show that more expensive and more advanced doesn't mean better.

i have no idea about the standards in oz, but i think upper and lower limits on the stiffnes of a helmet would be a good idea after reading that.

Thanks. I think I'll walk now...

Good article. Dispels a lot of the myths about spending buckets of money equalling better protection.

The other good point and something we impress upon learners regularly is that it really doesn't matter what speed your doing, your head is generally going to hit the ground with the same impact at 10km/h or 200km/h. Therefore no matter how slow you are going, wear your helmet.

aardvark, awesome find there.

So what I've been standing by all these years is true - A more expensive helmet doesn't mean it offers more protection.

Don't forget they are referring to American helmets, and American standards. They say themselves that the manufacturers make different helmets for different markets, and I know that my helmet doesn't have a SNELL sticker in it which seemed to be their biggest issue in the article.

Probably the most important point, which is easy to overlook in the whole SNELL vs DOT debate, is that all modern helmets transfer less energy to the wearer than helmets of 10 year vintage. In other words they have improved crash survivability over time, which ever helmet you buy.

But generally this is no different to the old "my old car is better than those new tin boxes - in an accident my car will hardly get a dent, those new ones would be a write off". Basic physics tells us that if the car doesn't absorb energy by bending and twisting metal, then that energy is transferred to something that will. This is often the occupants. I bought my car expecting that it will be written off in a serious accident. As long as I survive, who cares about the car?

It seems as if the SNELL test seems a bit pre-occupied with how the helmet survives, rather than the wearer. It is a pity that they aren't welcomming of the critique, and don't appear to want to expand on the points raised or in fact do their own research and testing to improve outcomes for helmet wearers.

Must have missed this originally, mods feel free to delete my repost

The snell theory seems rooted to the fact that you are safe at 299g but will die at 301g. Rather flawed if you ask me...

Shifty wrote:Must have missed this originally, mods feel free to delete my repost

OK