30 replies to this topic

[Cobie Fair]

There is a lot of information and technology in this area.  We have had some good data show up in the tires section to start, Tuning should do that too, but would be good to get some up here too.

Here is one example of lack of information/wrong information:  Talked to a student that was not allowed to continue his day, as he had fallen and the helmet had contacted the ground.  Our policy, if the head and helmet hits the ground, he is not going back out that day.

In talking with this rider, he was asked his understanding of helmets and how they work.  He went on to talk about the integrity of the shell being the big factor, and since it was a pretty minor scratch, he actually crashed twice more in that helmet.  I pulled my jaw off the floor and then we went over the compression of the material on the inside.  That is what cushions the head in an impact, and it's a one-time use deal.

I'm not a helmet expert, so that's a very rudimentary understanding.

The idea will be to get some good information up here, aside from general discussion on riding gear.

How's that sound to you guys?

Best,
Cobie

[warregl]

Hey Cobie,

I like the idea of a gear discussion forum. There is a multitude of manufacturers, brands, and styles of riding gear out there and getting real world feedback on members' experiences would be useful. I'm also interested in more technical discussions; on where the technologies are going, what's working, what isn't.

A couple of years ago I bought a jacket with D3O armor. It's a great jacket over all; good fit, nice functionality, great rain and wind protection, however I can tell you I am not overly impressed with the D3O armor. I have not had to test it in anger but just banging my elbow into the wall (scientific testing) I can say I would rather ride out an incident with the old fashioned armor in my other gear. Does anyone have any experience with the D3O or knowledge that might be useful or just plain interesting?

Best,

Carey

[Cobie Fair]

warregl, on 17 February 2012 - 01:41 PM, said:

Hey Cobie,

I like the idea of a gear discussion forum. There is a multitude of manufacturers, brands, and styles of riding gear out there and getting real world feedback on members' experiences would be useful. I'm also interested in more technical discussions; on where the technologies are going, what's working, what isn't.

Best,

Carey

OK, I'll keep working to get some good resources up here.  Don't know anything about that armor personally.

CF

[justin giron]

Which rating authorities have the toughest standards in general?

CE-approved?

UK / Euro brothers, what say you?

Ago

[Cobie Fair]

justin giron, on 22 February 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

Which rating authorities have the toughest standards in general?

CE-approved?

UK / Euro brothers, what say you?

Ago

"CE"?

[Eirik]

Conformité Européenne, which is French for "European Conformity".

Basically a set of regulations.

[justin giron]

BMW Motorrad and other, esp European apparel & helmet manufacturers, like Spidi back protectors  advertise Communaute Europeene CE certification
citing it as typically a tougher standard than the US ones, like DoT or Snell.
Ago

Attached Files

•  photo.JPG   963.3K   5 downloads

[Cobie Fair]

justin giron, on 22 February 2012 - 03:13 PM, said:

BMW Motorrad and other, esp European apparel & helmet manufacturers, like Spidi back protectors  advertise Communaute Europeene CE certification
citing it as typically a tougher standard than the US ones, like DoT or Snell.
Ago

Got it, thanks.

CF

[khp]

Actually, most manufacturers (including US and Japanese) will also get their clothing and helmets certified to the CE standards.

Mind you, CE is a whole body of regulations/standards - name something you can buy, and there's probably a CE marking/standard for it.

[Jasonzilla]

CE is required in something like 50 countries.

[matter]

Cobie Fair, on 16 February 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

There is a lot of information and technology in this area.  We have had some good data show up in the tires section to start, Tuning should do that too, but would be good to get some up here too.

Here is one example of lack of information/wrong information:  Talked to a student that was not allowed to continue his day, as he had fallen and the helmet had contacted the ground.  Our policy, if the head and helmet hits the ground, he is not going back out that day.

In talking with this rider, he was asked his understanding of helmets and how they work.  He went on to talk about the integrity of the shell being the big factor, and since it was a pretty minor scratch, he actually crashed twice more in that helmet.  I pulled my jaw off the floor and then we went over the compression of the material on the inside.  That is what cushions the head in an impact, and it's a one-time use deal.

I'm not a helmet expert, so that's a very rudimentary understanding.

The idea will be to get some good information up here, aside from general discussion on riding gear.

How's that sound to you guys?

Best,
Cobie

hmm, I'm not a helmet expert either and certainly less expert than most in riding per se.  That said, I never heard of the "one time use".  It seems like it would be a matter of degree like most other things.  It would make sense to disqualify the lid if you knew for certain that the helmet protection was compromised --shell or padding.  But  would a little scuff ("minor scratch") as a result of a fall where your head contacts the pavement disqualify that helmet absolutely?  How many of us would trash can a $700 helmet for that?  How many helmets have fallen off bikes and gotten scratched.  There no head in it, in that case but still...  

I am not suggesting we be cavalier with our head safety but there must be some reasonable way to decide that without a black & white, yes or no rule for helmet contact.  I know Shoei (for example) will inspect your "damaged" helmet and let you know if it is still doing its job as specified and therefore safe to continue using.   You don't see riders throwing away racing suits after an off (usually).  I respect that you have your rules at Superbike and maybe you are right to have them.  It just seems like DQ'ing a helmet for any contact is a bit extreme.

[Hotfoot]

matter, on 03 April 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

Cobie Fair, on 16 February 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

There is a lot of information and technology in this area.  We have had some good data show up in the tires section to start, Tuning should do that too, but would be good to get some up here too.

Here is one example of lack of information/wrong information:  Talked to a student that was not allowed to continue his day, as he had fallen and the helmet had contacted the ground.  Our policy, if the head and helmet hits the ground, he is not going back out that day.

In talking with this rider, he was asked his understanding of helmets and how they work.  He went on to talk about the integrity of the shell being the big factor, and since it was a pretty minor scratch, he actually crashed twice more in that helmet.  I pulled my jaw off the floor and then we went over the compression of the material on the inside.  That is what cushions the head in an impact, and it's a one-time use deal.

I'm not a helmet expert, so that's a very rudimentary understanding.

The idea will be to get some good information up here, aside from general discussion on riding gear.

How's that sound to you guys?

Best,
Cobie

hmm, I'm not a helmet expert either and certainly less expert than most in riding per se.  That said, I never heard of the "one time use".  It seems like it would be a matter of degree like most other things.  It would make sense to disqualify the lid if you knew for certain that the helmet protection was compromised --shell or padding.  But  would a little scuff ("minor scratch") as a result of a fall where your head contacts the pavement disqualify that helmet absolutely?  How many of us would trash can a $700 helmet for that?  How many helmets have fallen off bikes and gotten scratched.  There no head in it, in that case but still...  

I am not suggesting we be cavalier with our head safety but there must be some reasonable way to decide that without a black & white, yes or no rule for helmet contact.  I know Shoei (for example) will inspect your "damaged" helmet and let you know if it is still doing its job as specified and therefore safe to continue using.   You don't see riders throwing away racing suits after an off (usually).  I respect that you have your rules at Superbike and maybe you are right to have them.  It just seems like DQ'ing a helmet for any contact is a bit extreme.

I'm not an expert either, but I have read up on this, mainly researching whether the costlier helmets really provide any better protection than the mid-range helmets, so here is my understanding:

The problem is that the material inside the helmet is crushable, that's how it absorbs impact. After being crushed, it doesn't spring back to shape and thus has lost its ability to protect you in another impact. That crushable material is between the outer shell and the inner padding, you can't see it, so the ony way to check it is to send it (as you say above) for inspection by the manufacturer.

In a crash, the inner material is crushed by your head's inertia inside the helmet - so the shell hits the ground, but the crushable stuff between head and shell cushions the impact, slowing your head down and helping to keep your brains from slamming into your skull, and /or your skull crushing on impact.

Personally, if my helmet fell off a bike, I would be a little concerned about its protectiveness after that but I probably wouldn't junk it - since there is nothing heavy INSIDE the helmet to crush the inner liner in the fall. And yes, that could potentially scratch the helmet paint a bit, but in my limited experience, that does not look like the broader scuffs that occur from an actual crash impact.

However, if a student crashed, hit their head, and there was visible damage to the helmet, I would absolutely not think it was wise for that person to continue riding, it's too difficult to tell if someone has a head injury or not; they might think they are fine when they really are not.

[matter]

Hotfoot, on 03 April 2012 - 11:36 PM, said:

matter, on 03 April 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

Cobie Fair, on 16 February 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

There is a lot of information and technology in this area.  We have had some good data show up in the tires section to start, Tuning should do that too, but would be good to get some up here too.

Here is one example of lack of information/wrong information:  Talked to a student that was not allowed to continue his day, as he had fallen and the helmet had contacted the ground.  Our policy, if the head and helmet hits the ground, he is not going back out that day.

In talking with this rider, he was asked his understanding of helmets and how they work.  He went on to talk about the integrity of the shell being the big factor, and since it was a pretty minor scratch, he actually crashed twice more in that helmet.  I pulled my jaw off the floor and then we went over the compression of the material on the inside.  That is what cushions the head in an impact, and it's a one-time use deal.

I'm not a helmet expert, so that's a very rudimentary understanding.

The idea will be to get some good information up here, aside from general discussion on riding gear.

How's that sound to you guys?

Best,
Cobie

hmm, I'm not a helmet expert either and certainly less expert than most in riding per se.  That said, I never heard of the "one time use".  It seems like it would be a matter of degree like most other things.  It would make sense to disqualify the lid if you knew for certain that the helmet protection was compromised --shell or padding.  But  would a little scuff ("minor scratch") as a result of a fall where your head contacts the pavement disqualify that helmet absolutely?  How many of us would trash can a $700 helmet for that?  How many helmets have fallen off bikes and gotten scratched.  There no head in it, in that case but still...  

I am not suggesting we be cavalier with our head safety but there must be some reasonable way to decide that without a black & white, yes or no rule for helmet contact.  I know Shoei (for example) will inspect your "damaged" helmet and let you know if it is still doing its job as specified and therefore safe to continue using.   You don't see riders throwing away racing suits after an off (usually).  I respect that you have your rules at Superbike and maybe you are right to have them.  It just seems like DQ'ing a helmet for any contact is a bit extreme.

I'm not an expert either, but I have read up on this, mainly researching whether the costlier helmets really provide any better protection than the mid-range helmets, so here is my understanding:

The problem is that the material inside the helmet is crushable, that's how it absorbs impact. After being crushed, it doesn't spring back to shape and thus has lost its ability to protect you in another impact. That crushable material is between the outer shell and the inner padding, you can't see it, so the ony way to check it is to send it (as you say above) for inspection by the manufacturer.

In a crash, the inner material is crushed by your head's inertia inside the helmet - so the shell hits the ground, but the crushable stuff between head and shell cushions the impact, slowing your head down and helping to keep your brains from slamming into your skull, and /or your skull crushing on impact.

Personally, if my helmet fell off a bike, I would be a little concerned about its protectiveness after that but I probably wouldn't junk it - since there is nothing heavy INSIDE the helmet to crush the inner liner in the fall. And yes, that could potentially scratch the helmet paint a bit, but in my limited experience, that does not look like the broader scuffs that occur from an actual crash impact.

However, if a student crashed, hit their head, and there was visible damage to the helmet, I would absolutely not think it was wise for that person to continue riding, it's too difficult to tell if someone has a head injury or not; they might think they are fine when they really are not.

I agree with your explanation entirely about how the helmet components are supposed to work.  .  BUT, still, isn't it a matter of degree?  How much of a scrape on the pavement compresses the liner?  How much compression is acceptable?  My uninformed opinion is that a scratch like we're talking about here won't compromises the practical effectiveness of that helmet one little bit.  I may be wrong here, but  there are probably instances when the liner either is not crushed or is crushed in such a minimal way as to not matter.  And if its your Shoei X12 with the little scratch are you really going to throw it away?  I doubt it.  I'm all for safety.  We all are.  But that's just too extreme for me.  However I will bring my nice new, unscratched lid to a Superbike school!

[matter]

Cobie Fair, on 16 February 2012 - 07:26 PM, said:

There is a lot of information and technology in this area.  We have had some good data show up in the tires section to start, Tuning should do that too, but would be good to get some up here too.

Here is one example of lack of information/wrong information:  Talked to a student that was not allowed to continue his day, as he had fallen and the helmet had contacted the ground.  Our policy, if the head and helmet hits the ground, he is not going back out that day.

In talking with this rider, he was asked his understanding of helmets and how they work.  He went on to talk about the integrity of the shell being the big factor, and since it was a pretty minor scratch, he actually crashed twice more in that helmet.  I pulled my jaw off the floor and then we went over the compression of the material on the inside.  That is what cushions the head in an impact, and it's a one-time use deal.

I'm not a helmet expert, so that's a very rudimentary understanding.

It would be great to get a helmet (like Shoei) manufacturer to comment here

[Hotfoot]

matter, on 04 April 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

I agree with your explanation entirely about how the helmet components are supposed to work.  .  BUT, still, isn't it a matter of degree?  How much of a scrape on the pavement compresses the liner?  How much compression is acceptable?  My uninformed opinion is that a scratch like we're talking about here won't compromises the practical effectiveness of that helmet one little bit.  I may be wrong here, but  there are probably instances when the liner either is not crushed or is crushed in such a minimal way as to not matter.  And if its your Shoei X12 with the little scratch are you really going to throw it away?  I doubt it.  I'm all for safety.  We all are.  But that's just too extreme for me.  However I will bring my nice new, unscratched lid to a Superbike school!

I'm not quite sure if you are talking about the school policy, or personal preference - so just to be clear, in Cobie's example, the student crashed and hit his head, at the school. Therefore he was not allowed to keep riding that day, that is school policy. The school cannot safely determine if someone is ok to ride after head impact; it wasn't like Cobie just randomly noticed a scratched helmet and told him he couldn't ride.

Obviously in other circumstances, only you would know what sort of history your helmet has, and it would be a personal judgment whether to continue using one that had been in a 'minor' fall. Personally I'd rather ride in a $200-$400 helmet that has never hit the ground than a $700 one that had been through a crash... Since racing rules require a new  helmet at least every 5 years and recommend it every 2 years, I just stopped buying $700 helmets! Anyway, I think it is free to have a helmet manufacturer check your helmet, that would be a good way to be sure it still offers maximum protection.

Something to consider - in reading up on helmets I remember that the major head impact from a motorcycle fall (assuming you don't hit an obstacle) is from the HEIGHT of the fall, not sliding fast on the pavement. Sliding is a less damaging thing and handled by the shell, but the fall from riding height has to be absorbed by the helmet lining material to protect your brain from trauma. I suppose, based on that, a helmet could appear to be almost undamaged but still have a crushed inner liner.

[Cobie Fair]

I know a guy that hit his head hard enough to crack the skull, and there wasn't that much apparent damge to the lid.

We are just in an area that we don't have an expert in.  Likely this might be something that the helmet guys don't want to get into...I believe a sizable portion of the helmet costs these days is for liability, I knew some numbers once upon a time, but they are way out of date (and I don't recall them exactly).

I'll see what I can find.

Best,
Cobie

[Eirik]

Here's a bit of trivia you can take as you want

- Cheaper helmets are often safer than high cost racing approved helmets. Cheap helmets tend to use polcarbonate shells that are more flexible than CF used in most high-end stuff. Also, IIRC, racing helmets must be able to absorb a blow to the same spot twice. Hence the crushable material cannot destroy itself fully in order to absorb the first - and virtually always - blow.

- Some years back, MOTORRAD put a 13 year old, very well worn Jeb's helmet through the EU standard safety test for current helmets - and the helmet did pass the test! This suggest, but does not guarantee, that sweat plus dropping the helmet on the ground every now and then doesn't significantly impair the helmet's ability to protect yer noggin.

- Since helmets are made to absorb pretty heavy blows, a gentle touch/scrape on the ground is unlikely to impair the helmet's safety.

However, do you want to find out that you should have replaced that lightly grazed helmet after you suffered avoidable head trauma in your next spill, or do you play it safe and replace it immediately? The choice is yours.

[ktk_ace]

seeing as how the SNELL M2010 standard actually revolves around the ECE 22.05 standard, I'd buy the cheapest known brand helmet that meets said ECE standard and fits comfortably.

composite lids now come in at 250-400 USD in my woods so hey , everyones a winner when theres competition ^^

[Hotfoot]

Here is a page with good info from Snell:

http://www.smf.org/h...#aDroppedHelmet

Something I read recently said you should not hang your helmet on a side mirror or handlebar, because it puts pressure on the inside and can crush parts of the foam lining. I had never thought of that.

[anthem]

Hotfoot, on 17 April 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

Here is a page with good info from Snell:

http://www.smf.org/h...#aDroppedHelmet

Something I read recently said you should not hang your helmet on a side mirror or handlebar, because it puts pressure on the inside and can crush parts of the foam lining. I had never thought of that.

You really have to be careful with Snell.  They are a paid group (which inherently nothing wrong) that makes money off of certifications. However the problem is that their last  certification before the current one had a /LOT/ of problems.  The M2005 has a ton of problems - even enough that Snell admitted they had to update their standards - which they did to M2010.  However, there is a lot of confusion in the marketplace as many helmets are still standardized to M2005 and not M2010 (and it's not that easy to tell them apart).  The M2005 standard is still applicable and you can still manufacture (and test) to that standard.  

The controversy actually got a Motorcycle journalist fired.  He wrote an article in the New York Times  as a  freelance author about the issues, and the helmet manufacturers demanded that he be fired from Motorcycle because he also wrote for them.  Otherwise they would pull all advertising.  That is some pretty serious clout to threaten to pull advertising for something someone wrote in /another/ newspaper. . .

Anyhow you can read about that article here.

Sorting out differences in Helmet Standards
http://www.nytimes.c...es/27SNELL.html