FixedWing

Very interesting article in Motor Cyclist magazine discussing and testing various motorcycle helmets:

Motorcycle Helmet Performance: Blowing the Lid Off

The long and the short of it is that a Snell certified helmet might actually offer less protection in the vast majority of crashes we experience due to the Snell M2005 standard being set too high which results in too high a loading being transmitted to the brain.

The magazine’s own testing showed that a basic US$80 DOT rated helmet actually offered better protection than all of the expensive Snell approved helmets.

Well worth a read I think.

The article is specifically discussing motorcycle accidents and motorcycle helmets but I wonder what this tells us about cars and car accidents? I wonder if the governing bodies which require only Snell certification have considered whether this actually is safer? Or are they just assuming it is?

Stephen

baldheadracing

Thanks for the link! What I really liked about the article was the explanation of AIS and ISS scores in terms anyone could grasp. (Like any simplification, it isn't perfectly correct, but it sure distills down the volumes of documents I read at work about injury scoring.)

I think that's the key point. The ball drop test that they don't like relates back to the idea of a helmeted head hitting a non-padded rollbar/cage.

Perhaps not that much, unless one is in a convertible with no rollcage. What the article reinforces for me is that I need more, better, and thicker, foam on my rollcage.

I suspect they're assuming it - and it is easy for a scrutineer to check for a Snell sticker. My guess is it is simply a matter of availability in the US - although the BSI 6658-85 type A/FR certification is commonly found amongst rallyists' helmets. Certainly any racing body that doesn't allow FIA 8860-2004 helmets will/should probably be accepting them next year.

Certainly Snell's response to the article does NOT give me a warm fuzzy feeling. Then again, I've never understood how a safety standard could allow open-face helmets.

Anyhow, to me, the big advantages of the Snell certification are a quality control and monitoring program, Snell is independent, and Snell has a date /expiry date. These are important advantages over DOT.

YMMV.

Geo

I just skimmed a great deal of the article, but you piqued my curiosity about the comments by SMF. I'm not quite as disturbed by it as you, but I certainly hope they are open minded enough to review new data to consider changing their testing procedures.

Mostly is sounds to me like motorcycles simply need a different testing procedure based upon the type of impacts expected in the real world. There has been a common, but inaccurate belief by many that the SMF testing for motorcycle helmets is quite different from that of auto racing helmets. The fact is they are the same except for auto racing they add a third anvil. The rest of the tests are the same. Sounds like they need to rethink their motorcycle testing procedures. Maybe it's time to gather new data on auto racing as well. There is SO much more research into racing safety today that the time is right.

To me the biggest advantage of SMF is that it's completely independent. Given the BS we get from SFI, this independence is quite valuable to me. My fear is that if SMF ever fell from favor we would be stuck with SFI and FIA standards. The FIA I would trust. They are almost independent, but there is too much politics in that organization. And SFI you can just forget. If I have the choice of a FIA homologation vs a SFI approval, I'll take the FIA any day of the week and twice on Sundays at this point.

FixedWing

I agree 100% with everything said above.

One other point I found interesting was that young, healthy, fit brains might be able to take more of an impact than older, less health and less fit brains. So the Snell standards might make more sense for professional racers (who tend to be in better shape) and less sense for amateur racers (who often drive a desk most of the day). Just as the Snell standards have mostly been designed with the auto racer in mind and not the motorcyclist, so too have they been designed with the professional racer in mind and not the amateur.

Here is SMF's response to the article (PDF format):

Snell Response to "Blowing the Lid Off" article - June Motorcyclist

Stephen

baldheadracing

I just found the attitude of the Snell response highly condescending, unprofessional in attitude, unscientific, yet strangely limited. Upon re-reading the response, I suspect I would have liked the response before the lawyers saw it (I am assuming the response was vetted by lawyers. )
I'm not sure why this is, but I see lots of politics in almost every sport-related organization (not just racing or motorsports).
The one thing about SFI is you know exactly what you are getting, and exactly where they are coming from. There is an incestuous relationship between every standards/approvals body and manufacturers; the influence is subtle (mostly), but it is there - FIA, SMF, or SFI (or BSI, or even ECE).
I think this is true of all the standards. Also, note that age (biological) has an effect independent of physical conditioning (on average).

Anyhow, I have to buy a new helmet at the end of this season. It will probably prove to be an interesting, but expensive, experience.

FixedWing

Why do you say this? As a lawyer, if I had vetted this letter I would have suggested the removal of the condescending and inflammatory language. Few lawyers are technically trained so cannot address the technical issues. There they must rely on the scientists to be able to defend their work.

When I read the letter I actually thought to my self that it had obviously not been vetted and it would have been better had it been.

Stephen

baldheadracing

Well, I think we can agree that the letter would be quite a bit different if it was written by a lawyer. I also think it is almost unthinkable these days for an organization not to have such a letter vetted by the organization's legal services. Anything is possible, of course.

I guess I thought the letter had been vetted solely because of the way the technical arguments were made - no unqualified rationale was given for the changes in the Snell standards over the years - and there is no admittance that the Snell standard isn't perfect.

As an example, this part caught my eye as something that doesn't make sense scientifically (because people are not all the same), but sounds legalistic (to this layman, I am not a lawyer) :

Anyhow, that's why I said I thought the letter had been vetted. Just my opinion. YMMV

FixedWing

Just a guess but I can imagine that many people working in this field would often be called upon to give expert legal advice. If you do this often enough, you can easily start to sound like the lawyers you are around every day.

Just from memory, I believe the issue of legal liability for an organisation such as Snell was dealt with long ago. I don't hear of them being frequently sued and obviously many people do die every year from head injuries while wearing Snell certified helmets.

I too had to read that paragraph twice. I too thought it seemed strange.

Stephen

Geo

Yeah, but what you get exactly from SFI is standards set by the manufacturers essentially since they effectively are SFI where SMF and FIA are significantly more independent. I'm sure there is influencing going on with the FIA, but I'd expect there is very little with SMF.