The New Helmet Tests are Here at last!

[kentfallen]

Just to let you guy's and gal's know that the new UK SHARP helmet testing project is now (finally after a long long wait) live as from today -

About 30 test results have been put online. More will follow over the next few days (or weeks if the past is anything to go by).

SHARP - The Helmet Safety Scheme

More helmet results will come online in the next few days.

Damn! My top of the range Shoie X-Spirit only has 4 stars whereas some helmets costing much less have 5 stars! Well guys, there you have it, PRICE doesn't necessarily equate to best protection. As I have been saying for months on this forum, there will be a few red faces within the industry. What a laugh... Go out and get yourself a bargain helmet with 5 stars. It's official, it's no longer necessary to spend hundreds of pounds to get the best protection.

I could have saved myself £350 by buying a cheap £50 NITRO helmet which gets 4 stars too.

These are the BEST Helmets that all get 5 stars out of 5 stars

AGV S.4
ARAI GR5x
Bell M1
HJC HQ1
LAZER LZ6
SHARK RSR2

ONE OF THE WORST HELMETS IS THE (WAIT FOR IT) - ARAI CONDOR COST £250

As I thought, These greedy lying bastards have been fleecing us all for years! Not one Shoei helmet gets 5 stars! :confused1:

I'm sure some of the smaller less well known and cheap manufactures will be most happy with the results. Many cheap £50 helmets get 4 stars!

THIS IS A UK GOVERNMENT FUNDED PROJECT BUT THE INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE TO ANYONE WHO WANTS IT.

I forcee quite a few redundancies and sackings at the Shoei head office! What a laugh... I think I'm entitled to say that after spending nearly £400 on a helmet which I was told provided the best level of protection.

How did you're helmet perform in these tests? Perhaps this thread can be used to discuss this project in detail and forum members can moan about the results...

Enjoy... SHARP - The Helmet Safety Scheme

[Rebaseonu]

Originally Posted by kentfallen

I could have saved myself £350 by buying a cheap £50 NITRO helmet which gets 4 stars too.

How about comfort, ventilation, washable lining and other "small things" that were not tested?

[kentfallen]

Your comment completely misses the point I am trying to make here!

You appear to be rubbishing these tests without any scientific evidence to back up your argument. These tests should be welcomed by all fair minded and intelligent bikers...

Are you really suggesting that a washable lining and ventilation is worth paying a extra £350?

I understand that these tests INCLUDE such important factors as COMFORT and VENTILATION as well as LEVELS OF PROTECTION.

I think if you look closely you will find many many cheaper helmets that are perfectly comfortable and also have a washable lining.

Why are so many people prepared to go out of their way to defend these large and powerful manufacturers who plainly have been taking the piss out of us all for years?

Sour Grapes?

[MarkLG]

Originally Posted by kentfallen

I forcee quite a few redundancies and sackings at the Shoei head office! What a laugh... I think I'm entitled to say that after spending nearly £400 on a helmet which I was told provided the best level of protection.

You really are full of crap aren't you. Only 2 weeks ago you were bragging about buying this helmet for £100 at the BMF:

http://www.horizonsunlimited.com/hub...552#post191929

There's little new in these tests - they're just a variation on the existing European standards test with added emphasis on side impacts. The reason the Arai GPX scored well is that it's based on a car racing design which is stiffer in this area than their other helmets. Whether this added stiffness provides any additional protection in a real world crash was one of the reasons some manufacturers were questioning the testing methods.

I'm honestly not convinced that a group of academics in a lab with a test rig have a better understanding of what makes a good motorcycle helmet than the manufacturers with many years of real world data to work on.
How long have Shoei, Arai, X-Lite, etc been working on the design of their helmets? And how many times have you seen a racer wearing one of these helmets have a big crash and walk away from it?

These tests also take no account of things like fit, finish, comfort, ventilation, misting, parts backup and so on.
The reason I've always bought premium branded helmets is not because I believe they are safer - it's because they fit properly, and are comfortable. I want something I can wear for 12 hours a day without a problem.

[kentfallen]

I bought ANOTHER X-Spirit last week for my partner - Cost £385. At the time of the BMF, yes I did think I had a great bargain, but I know differently now don't I. I was talked into it by a Shoei salesman.

Less of the childish cheap and personal insults please. That was totally uncalled for...

Perhaps we should all listen to YOU and waste all our hard earned money? Why rubbish these tests, I simply don't understand you're logic...

Is there no one who agrees with me?

[MarkLG]

I suppose the obvious question is if a £50 helmet is as good or even better than a £400 helmet then why did you just buy the £400 one.:confused1:

You've started several threads on this subject over the last few months and you've repeatedly stated that premium branded helmets are just a marketing scam aimed at fleecing buyers of their money.
If, as you claim, these manufacturers are just taking the piss and not offering anything extra then why did you spend the money on one yourself?

[kentfallen]

I suppose I have more confidence in these tests than you. The reason why I decided to get a Shoei is that at the BMF my mates advised me it was a good bargain. The Mrs liked it and asked me to get her one. The tests came online TODAY. Yes I admit I do think that some £50 helmets are as good (and in some cases better) than more expensive alternatives. I relented and agreed to buy one on the basis that others (more experienced than me) confirmed the things were indeed worth the extra dosh. If I knew then what I know now I certainly wouldn't have bothered.

I try to encourage healthy discussion and debate about these things because thats the point of a superb forum like this one. Everyone has an opinion and I'm happy for anyone to disagree with me. What I object to strongly is cheap personal insults. I regret to say that is not always reciprocated. some people including it would appear you are adamant that they are right and that all these scientists are wrong. We all need to look at these tests with an open mind and try not to be too biggoted...

I rely upon the results of the tests which do tend to back up what I 've been saying for months now - that the most expensive helmets do not necessarily provide the highest level of protection.

[pecha72]

Did I insult somebody somewhere.. if so, where was that?

I wouldnt be too worried about safety, when we´re talking about reasonably good-quality helmets. With fibreglass shell, reasonable weight, and firm strap-locking systems. When these things are ok, then there are other much more probable causes of injury and death in an accident.

I WOULD be worried, though, that in the EU it is fully legal to sell helmets that in fact can not give anywhere near the level of protection needed, if/when the machines are capable of exceeding 300 kms per hour. Some plastic jars, that will snap into half the moment they touch anything solid, simply should not have the approval for motorcycle use. And now they actually do.

Maybe it is too big a business to stop them being sold in the EU.

[pecha72]

The ECE22-05 norm, that is in force in the EU, is way too soft to really give any indication as to whether a helmet will actually protect you in a crash or not. In that test, a helmet is tested at practically walking speed, and from only specific places (thats why its legal to even sell helmets that have large ventilation holes all over, like a bicycle helmet - they know they will not be tested at those spots!)

I havent seen the test methods used by this SHARP-testing, so can someone please enlighten me, what is it, that makes their way of testing superior to anyone else (because thats the way the original poster does make it sound anyway)? If their testing is anywhere near the ´toughness´ of the 22-05, Im not convinced at all.

Money does not buy you safety straight away, agreed. But you wont get a very safe helmet very cheap, either. Neither will you normally get a very comfortable one very cheap.

It is also a fact that some of the more established manufacturers require their products to meet much tougher standards than just the ECE22-05.

The cheap, plastic ones may just barely meet that standard, but they may not protect in a big impact, if they will easily crack into two pieces, for example.

I recently read a test, where they found out that many of the cheapest options should never be used for motorbike riding, because obviously some of the manufacturers had sent better products into the tests, than they were actually selling! The tests showed highly dangerous, and possibly fatal G forces after impacts, that basically all helmets should be able to protect from. They were planning to test the helmets for several impacts, but couldnt because some of them cracked on first one.

All in all, this is a very complicated matter. Very hard for the average consumer to know, if a helmet is good or not, they all look about the same.

And naturally it is in the financial interest of the cheaper lids´ manufacturers, to claim that any helmet will do just fine. The same way it is in the interests of the more expensive ones, to claim that cheaper ones will not be enough.

[draGone]

But from the SHARP Faq:

Is the safety rating the only thing to consider when I buy a new helmet?

No. It is important that the helmet fits correctly and is comfortable. An uncomfortable/poor fitting helmet can distract you when riding and may offer reduced protection in an accident.

That, and the maximum simulated speed used was 8.4 m/s according to them, which is roughly 30kph by my math.



I guess it means take it all with a grain of salt.


Having tried on some of the less expensive options on the list, most of them felt like some sort of torture device to me. That, and I've personally crash tested one of the 3 star options on the track by low siding at ~140kph and bounced my head a few times. While my wife might argue with you, there's no permanent damage (or temporary after the fact)...

[kentfallen]

These tests are without any doubt the most stringent EVER applied to safety helmets and thats a FACT. I simply don't understand why some people have such a problem admitting they were WRONG!

SHARP is a UK government (Department of Transport) scheme paid for by the UK taxpayers. Are you really suggesting these government scientists don't know what they are doing???

The BIG boys in helmet manufacturing (Arai, Shoei) were involved in the concept and test regime from the start. It was only AFTER their products got a good slating that they raised doubts as to the effectiveness of the tests. It's "sour grapes" pure and simple...

The helmet makers that got good results are very happy with the test regime.

Sales of the £50 Lazer LZ6 have increased enormously since the SHARP tests were published.

I have had a look at this helmet myself and can confirm it appeared very well made and reasonably comfy, cetainly worth a mere £50!

GRAB YOURSELF A BARGAIN WHILE YOU STILL CAN...

[Bronze]

I read a very good article on independent tests recently (can't find it again, sorry) which suggested that making helmet to meet existing (pre-SHARP) tests produced helmets that weren't that good in the real world.

The end result being 'flimsy' cheap chinese helmets worked better in real world crashes than their more robust and expensive rivals.

I don't buy on price personally, I buy on fit. For my over-sized square head that means expensive Arais. Oddly it used to mean expensive Shoeis but the designs seem to have changed in recent years.

So... makes not odds to me either way.

[craig76]

Originally Posted by draGone

But from the SHARP Faq:
That, and the maximum simulated speed used was 8.4 m/s according to them, which is roughly 30kph by my math.

This is partly the basis of my doubts on the scheme too.

What may provide perfect protection for city commuters and scooter riders may be totally inadequate for a track day junkie, even those in the slow group. Most of us will seek out country roads for a nice Sunday ride out and you're looking at the closing speed of oncoming traffic being at least 100mph.

And lets not forget, it's only in recent years that a non-sportsbike has been able to break in to the top 5 best sellers in the UK, i.e. BMW GS, due to the "Ewan and Charley" phenomena. Maybe the scheme has chosen to ignore that but to sum up, we have a ratings system assessed at less than 20mph, where as the top 4 best sellers in the UK can all double the national speed limit with ease!

RIDE mag, unlike MCN, has no obvious affiliation with a helmet manufacturer and they use an impact speed of 120mph in their independent tests. Not realistic you may say but I see a regular indicated (and perfectly legal) 150mph+ on the autobahn's every time I go to Germany and that's with luggage and still accelerating. Some helmets (even the cheap ones) came off better in RIDE's tests, some worse, and yes, Arai did throw their toys out of the pram as expected. Whether you favour RIDE's or SHARP's results would depend on your definition of reasonable road use and being fit for purpose.

What is worrying is that if a helmet is capable of absorbing such a low speed impact so well and apparently so much better than an carbon or composite lid, are they able to retain these same characteristics after a minor drop, off a chair for example, or does the deformation (like a crumple zone) make the helmet unsafe? Like I've said before, I respect Neil's viewpoint but I think the tests leave a lot of questions unanswered. One thing is certain and that is more people will give more thought to their choice of helmet, whether they choose to trust the SHARP ratings or not. Do your own research before you buy and make an informed choice.

[Bronze]

Originally Posted by craig76

What is worrying is that if a helmet is capable of absorbing such a low speed impact so well and apparently so much better than an carbon or composite lid, are they able to retain these same characteristics after a minor drop, off a chair for example, or does the deformation (like a crumple zone) make the helmet unsafe?

One of the bike magazines tested this a few years ago. They lobbed a helmet off a mountain. It looked battered and tested exactly like a new one.

I don't know what the build was, but I've always suspected the 'of you drop it buy a new one' myth was started by helmet manufaturers.

As for 100mph impacts with oncoming traffic. I wouldn't worry. Even if your head survives the rest of you won't.

[kentfallen]

Originally Posted by Bronze

As for 100mph impacts with oncoming traffic. I wouldn't worry. Even if your head survives the rest of you won't.

I AGREE

Now that is beyond refute...