Ok, Im going to open a can of worms here.

1. When it comes to helmet safety, cheaper = better. Do not buy an expensive Snell approved helmet - they are DANGEROUS, and more likely to cause injury in over 90% of accidents.

2. Do not buy a flip up helmet - once they are hit and no longer flip, you can't remove them. Almost lost a rider a year back because of that.

Garry from Oz.

Buy an expensive helmet in the sales!
 

On the price front: Helmets are one thing I've noticed are regularly in sales.

I got my Shark RSF Race oojah cum spiff for half price last year (about £100 I think) because it had been sitting on the shelf for a year or two. I think helmets often end up in sales because sizing is so personal that they often don't get sold.

It's a great helmet and MUCH better than the Carberg I bought for £100 (it's full price). The thing about more expensive helmets is not just that they should be stronger, but they are quieter, more comfortable, less prone to misting up etc.

Matt :)

Haven't read all the posts and I don't think I will because the first pages suggests to me that you don't really need advice on a helmet choice.

Seems to me you have already made up your mind by buying a Nitro lid.

If its simply a debate on cheaper v dearer, then its a differnt story

I believe, if its of interest, that you do get what you pay for to a greater or lesser degree. Wasting money, in my opinion, is buying a race rep helmet at £80 more than the same model in plain colours. I have owned a Shoei, and then have moved to Arai as they are most comfortable for me. I also own an HJC moto-cross lid, so its not a question of blind brand loyalty. What do you get? The R&D such a "BIG" one can invest in, removable liners, interchangeable pad sizes, decent venting systems to keep your head cooler, or in my case, lessen the steaming of my glasses, does not come cheaply. In certain cases, improvements in less wind noise, and better seals on the visor are also apparent. Its not all about crash protection; its useability and longevity. When you have to replace a lid, unless you've binned it, its because the liners have decayed, not that the shell is suddenly weakened.

A friend works in Accessory sales and he once showed me a cross section of an Arai lid and another popular brand (courtesy of some race sponsorship). Crash, friction, penetration tests are done on a standardised area of the helmet, the same way emissions are tested at set revs, and not through out the rev range often giving modern bikes nice little flat spots. In this case, the Arai was a consistent 3-4mm shell thickness throughout and the other lid was down to about 1 mm in parts of the shell that, conveniently where not in the zone that is used for tests: not fun if that is where you land.

Not saying all cheaper lids are like this, but saying that pricier lids are no better is also not necessarily the case. All that this article you refer to says is that the Nitro lid, when tested in these set ways performed, as well, and was cheaper, thus good value. Would it survive closer, more thorough scrutiny? Perhaps, or perhaps not.

I do not see that this industry will be so different from others. Generic Drug companies wait for patents to expire on existing medications so they can sell them at a cheaper rate than the Pharma companies sell them, eg Ibuprofen. They did not do the R&D so the costs are cheaper and so is the price. However, this also means that the technology is (in the case of medications) 15 years out of date. How out of date is the technology of these cheaper lid companies? Which is the better bike, the Honda CG125, or the Chinese made equivalent, after they bought rights from Honda to copy the design. Me? I think the Honda. Although the design is the same, the Quality Control is not. Same with lids: Do we really know how much cross batch variation there is. Where di they get their manufacturing specs from? Is it just a Shoei design that was scrapped from the development line as another design had more promise?

If the safety test requirements were upped by another 50% would the cheaper lids still do as well?

I hope this SHARP initiative yeilds positive things, but as specified, bikers are only a V. small percentage of road users. Will the government really divert enough funds to create a programme based on good science, or will it simply fill a gap with psuedo-science and look proactive to the casual observer. That is to say, will the tests really mimic the actual traumas a lid must overcome in order to protect a cranium in the event of a real-life impact, not just a bit wet-and-dry on a treadmill.

To give a parallel example: kids now do exams at 11 yrs, to show the government is so proactive about education, whilst teachers typically say its an utter waste of time...
PR stunt? Lets hope not for our heads' sakes.

All that said, I hear X-lites aren't bad!! Right... where's my Takei?

PS: The fact I plan to shortly to post asking for advice on open face lids is pure coincidence and ALL input is welcome there!! Ta muchly...

Feeling stoopid...
 

Darn it!!!! This happens way too often...

I knew I should have read all the posts before writing anything!!!

You'd think I'd learn!!

Farq once you drop a lid you Replace it simple as that, Time limit for lid use is about 2 years, and less if you ride over winter or in extremes.

If you can't afford an expensive helmet then ebay is your friend.

I cant agree that cheaper =better. I dont think that dearer = better, though this is a common belief. It depends on too many factors, some of which, we as consumers are unaware of.

I'm interested in your comments about flip-ups. Most of the people on the HUBB will be wearing flipups, as I do. Yet I once read a throwaway remark by a helmet manufacturer dismissing flipups as useless - but thats all I could find out about them.

If anyone has some hard facts/research on this it would be useful to see.

This is exactly where manufacturers in developing countries fall short. A friend of mine (also rides bikes) is an engineer for a sub-contractor making subframes and chassis components for a major world car manufacturer. He was sent out to China as a consultant as they were installing a production line he designed for a now discontinued model. Basically, his opinion is that the role of the Chinese in manufacturing is in cheap labour only and it will be years, if not decades before they catch up to the west in R&D and quality control.

Before you go out and buy a cut price lid made in a near third world country, ask yourself this. Would you really buy a new, Indian-built Austin Montego?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caminando (Post 179970) I cant agree that cheaper =better. I dont think that dearer = better, though this is a common belief. It depends on too many factors, some of which, we as consumers are unaware of.

Judd/Caminando, my comments relate to an incident that occurred in November 2007.

A rider from France came down under to join a group of us locals on a Sydney - Melbourne - Brisbane tour via all the twisty back roads. Going down a mountain, 50kms from the nearest small town, the rider locked the rear wheel on his GSX1400 (we were all riding 14s), ran wide on the corner and basically went head on in to an oncoming Subaru. His head hit the A pillar as well as the windscreen and when we went to pick him up off the road (not literally) he was drowning in his own blood inside his flip up Schubert. Although we got the visor open we could not flip the front of the helmet up or take it off his head (ultimately the ambulance officers had to saw the front of the helmet off to remove it) and as with most flip-ups you can't take them off without first flipping them (flip-ups have the front section of the helmet sitting much closer to the mouth/jaw than a regular full-face and many of them actually fit under your chin).

The rider is now back in France but was comatose for a fortnight then spent
3 months in rehab in Melbourne before being repatriated and spending a further 3 months in rehab in Paris. He is still an outpatient, and because of his brain injuries has limited control over the left side of his body.

As for my comment about cheaper being better, it is based on Snell certification. Snell certification means a manufacturer charges more for their helmet (it's a higher standard and better isn't it? - yes and NO).

Basically to achieve Snell certification means the helmet outer and inner must be very firm to pass the cannonball pendulum intrusion test.

The problem being of course is that the firm inner can no longer absorb lesser shocks, and transmits them directly to the skull (which transmits them to the brain and causes brain injury). Accidents which cause lesser shocks represent 90+% percent of all accidents (and just about 100% of all single vehicle incidents), so in effect, by buying a "better, more expensive" Snell approved helmet you are increasing your risk of brain injury in 90% of your possible accident scenarios.

Basically it's all Snell’s fault - they just kept raising the bar to make their impact intrusion standards better than everyone else, but they unfortunately forgot that intrusion is not the be all and end all for helmet safety.

Garry from Oz.

What a great thread - wonderful read :-)

Okay, so here's my two pennies worth.

I wrote a story a few years ago, when this new government body was first being thought of.

The 'Big 2' were getting rather naffed at the fact that people had entered the market and were able to sell lids at £38 that hit the safety standards for Europe. They pointed out (and started Lobbying the EU and UK Governments) that the existing tests were too easy to 'engineer' - IE impact tests were always carried out in exactly the same place on every lid - enabling the manufacturer to make a lid that 'passed the test' rather than 'protected the rider'.

The Big 2 (and others) make a point of testing their lids far in excess of the EU standards, they trade on the very fact that their lids are the safest on the market, not that they are 'good enough'.

I was invited to take a look at how they tested their lids, what they tested, how they selected lids (at random) off the production line and then destroyed them in random impact tests (amongst others). It was a real eye opener. I approached other brands sold in the UK and was politely, but firmly told, they would not expose their testing methods, but that all their lids met European Safety standards.

So for me it boils down to this, do I want a lid that is 'good enough' or do I want a lid that 'protects the rider'?

Other considerations of course are design, long-term comfort (especially important for us types), and quality of the 'fittings'.

My own choice after seeing how the testing is done?

Shoei, Arai or Schuberth without a second thought. I wont pay extra for the flash designs, I always buy the plan simple models, and as my head has grown and settled into a shape I find 9 out of 10 Shoei's fit me well and I'm becoming less of an Arai man!

My other thought here, is that I'm happy to pay a premium knowing that I'm funding an after-care service which includes having my lid tested after a bump, includes getting it serviced for free, and most importantly funds further R&D into making lids as safe as possible.... ask your brand before you buy if they carry out any R&D into helmet safety beyond regulation testing.

Jesus! that story of the French bloke is horrific....made me a bit sick..

The whole story of helmet safety is vastly complicated. I certainly find it difficult to form a clear conclusion - which is maybe just as well - it'll keep me looking. I repeat what I said earlier though - that price does not automatically equal quality. When I hear that said I think of how our cash-driven values corrupt our thinking.

Bump!
 

Bumping this thread because it contains very interesting information....

Has anyone else anything to bring to the party?:welcome:

Well, the SHARp scheme is up and running, and (at least to someone who believes/trusts it) it's become quite obvious that there are good cheap and expensive helmets just as there are bad cheap/expensive helmets. A 80 quid Lazer scoring higher than some of the 300+ quid Shoeis, Arais, etc. etc. kind of proves the point (at least IMHO).

Whether it's a good test or not (I've hear and read opinions on both ends of the spectrum) is up to you, however perhaps the fact that there's a test that's not based on a purely "pass-fail" system, but rather graded, if nothing else, will make people realize that "if it's EU/Snell/DOT/whatever certified it's good enough" could mean risking your life. And of course that the idea that dearer=better isn't at all true (although looking at the results to date, as someone said early on in this thread, spending under 100 quid on a lid is probably not such a great idea).

Either way, lets face reality, if you fall off your bike at 80mph and hit a guardrail (or other relatively solid object), you'll be dead no matter WHICH helmet you're wearing. Just like hitting a brick wall at that speed with your car. Unless you believe in miracles that is...

Now if they could just add some kind of objective testing for noise, ventilation, fogging up. etc (after all wearing a helmet that is, above all, comfortable, helps you concentrate on the more important things and thus helps avoid accidents in general).

I have to say though, I'm curious to see (when they finally get to it) how Flip-ups, off-road, etc. helmets do in the tests...

Try a Nolan N41 ... I ride with them now. Open face, yet has a full visor for cold or rain, and a peak.

And they are not expensive ... about 110 quid at openfacehelmets.com

And they are much lighter than a full face.

I've been reading this thread and it says more about people in general than anything revolutionary about helmets/design etc.

I have a theory that wearing any approved motorcycle helmet is 99.something% of the head protection you'll ever find in motorcycling. The remaining protection is probably attributable to quality of fit etc. In the same way that people rationalise playing the national lottery. Massaging a tiny probability to make it seem realistic and justify their expenditure beyond what is in reality just a harmless opportunity to endulge oneself in some daydreaming! Buying expensive helmets over less expensive approved helmets is similar - justifing the expenditure that *may* (remember this is just my theory) be completely out of proportion to the real additional risk. Stop kidding yourself that anecdotal evidence - or even that old chestnut 'gut feeling' - 'proves' you are statistically safer - these lovely, expensive helmets just look and feel better. Leave it at that and don't stick your neck out saying things you can't prove.

There has to be some amount of consumerism, there is always going to be a company that says their product is better and a consumer that will agree. No argument there and if you want to pay extra to look like a track racer that is indeed your business.

As an engineer and motorcyclist though I can guarantee that I could design a better helmet test that the current BS, EU or DOT. The current test is a compromise between expense, enforcability and repeatability, while my "better" test might not prove to be so balanced (would you want all helmets to be £700 so that the worst 1% come off legal sale?) . As such they set the bar at the 75-95% level and don't take into account the finer points such as visibility, misting and different types of flip front mechanism.

Discussion here is useful IMHO. There is no way a Roof which uses plastic straps with press stud poppers to hold the chin bar (mine split in a year, probably because I used it in open face mode and subjected the popper straps to vibration and thus failure by fatigue) compares to a Schuberth with a proper mechanism. Now maybe the Roof is designed so a paramedic can open it with a scalpel if you are choking, but somehow I doubt it. If chin protection is what you are looking for the Schuberth is better and that's what you hopefully find out here.

Andy