motorcyclebloggers.com

What started as an innocent article where I realized “Holy $%^!”, my Arai RX-7RR4 is only a Snell 1995 (I always thought it was M2000), turned into a pretty big learning experience. My original search was to compare the Snell ratings between the 1995, 2000, and the soon to be released 2005 standards. The other purpose was to research the expected life of a helmet that was not crashed or dropped. Little did I know that in the meantime the June issue of Motorcyclist Magazine (MM) had dropped a bomb on the Snell ratings. And an expected (and necessary IMO) response was issued by Snell / smf.org was also published and posted in my article called Snell Part 2.

I had to know what was true. I have lived and preached Snell as the gospel standard for which all my family members must wear. My dad did the same. Snell for eveyone when we got our dirt bikes as kids. I was actually wondering if I had been contributing to spreading any falsities from the claims that were described to me second hand before reading the MM article. Most important, was my concussion #2 more severe than it should have been since I was wearing a Snell 95 Arai Quantum F. Would I have had a lesser head injury if I was wearing a DOT only helmet? Read on…

I finally have read all of the articles, responses, and most of the supporting data that can be found online. I cannot find the COST 327 conclusions, but just interim progress reports found here. The order that I read the info was the Snell response, then the original MM article they responded to, then the Snell response again. This was simply the order I received the info - no conspiracies here.

A couple things that I found interesting. It is obvious that there is a history to this debate between the two groups that dates at least back to the first article (with similar results) that MM published in November of ‘91. In my opinion, reading between the lines, there is also bad blood. When I read the following line in the MM article: “The Snell sticker has become a marketing gimmick”, it seemed out of place and unecessary even though it was a quote from a former Snell director. The net effect was that my little brain (two concussions mind you) started questioning Dr. Newman’s authenticity and/or objectivity where he appeared to be a former disgruntled employee. The second slam was the bit about Snell getting $0.60 per helmet label as if they were an ‘evil corporation’ just in it for the money. Regardless of all the time spent on the subsequent price gouging as a result, I found the statement irrelevant to the topic at hand.

It is worth noting that MM gave Snell a compliment by stating in the opening discussion about Snell: “If you think moving quickly over the surface of the planet is fun and you enjoy using your brain, you should be grateful to the Snell Memorial Foundation.”

NOTE: I would love to get my hands on the November 1991 issue of MM for comparison purposes.

I think it is fair to say that people on both sides of this arguement agree that there are trade-offs in helmet design. A harder shell (fiberglass/carbon/kevlar) are designed to sustain a higher impact and absorb energy by delamination (Snell std. in mind). The softer shells (polycarbonate/plastic) with the softer liner is designed to pass through a smaller G-force from a single impact (DOT std. in mind). This is what the debate is about.

I think they would also agree that if you knew where and how you were going to crash, you could pre-select the best helmet for your incident. The DOT helmets seem to be better suited for a single flat impact (think low-side with only one impact to the helmet from the road). The Snell helmet seems to be better suited for the multiple impacts (think ass over tea-kettle tumbling or exiting the road onto the shoulder, into the weeds, off the cliff, etc.).

The problem is that no one knows how and when they are going to crash. I’ve crashed twice…both being at the track. By the theory above, I should have worn a DOT helmet for the first crash, and a Snell for the second. The first was a low speed high-side in the bowl where I was awarded a serious concussion involving memory loss. The second was a high speed low-side where I was tumbled head over feet once I hit the grass…strangely enough my head never contacted the ground throughout my carnival ride of a get-off. Can you see where I’m going with this?

Both selectively reference the COST (European COoperation in the field of Scientific & Technical Research) “327 Report to support their arguement, but its always one side ir the other. A report simply cannot be credible gospel for only certain sections and be crap in others. Here’s what I mean:

MM
“Three of the four impacts we planned for each helmet would be on that flat asphalt surface - simply because that’s what real motorcyclists land on when they fall, more than 75% of the time. The Hurt Report established this, and in the recent Thailand helmet study 87.4% of the helmet hits were from the road surface or the shoulder”

and…

Snell
“Flat impact performance is important, there’s no doubt about it but looking at flat impact performance only is like judging a beauty pageant looking through a keyhole. The article holds that more than 75% of impacts will be against a flat surface but this implies that a substantial number of impacts may still be against some other, more threatening surface. The COST 327 report, the same European study mentioned in the article, goes further. It suggests that this number will be much larger than 25% and the resulting hazard much greater than mere flat impact imposes. Their crash study indicated impact surfaces as follows:”

“A round object was the most frequently struck, 79%, and the severity of injury was fairly evenly distributed. An edge object, for example a kerbstone was the least likely to be struck, 4%, but the most likely to cause a severe, AIS 5, injury. A flat object was struck in 9% of cases but was the least likely to cause an injury.”

This looks like a case of selective data cherry-picking on both ends. MM selectively uses the COST 327 data for its need…except above regarding impacts. Snell does the same. But strangely neither group calls any of the claims from any report inaccurate, but finds different report results that better fits their thesis. In English - the COST data seems to be conspicuosly missing from the MM data and rule of law in Snell’s. Yet with other comparisons, the opposite is true.

Edit 01Jun05: I forgot to add a quick blurb about Snell’s impact head weight. I cannot understand the logic that concludes with testing an XXL and an XS with the same head weight. Incidentally, The British BSI standard shares that method while DOT & ECE vary the test wieght based on head size. From the MM article:

“The Snell Foundation’s position on this is that they have no proof that big heads weigh more. Hmmm. Isn’t a head basically a shell of tin bone filled with water? Doesn’t more bone and water weigh more than less bone and water?”

That to me seems dumb. Stubbornly dumb. End Edit

I could actually go on and on picking through the data, but since I suck at typing I’ll wrap it up.

To me it looks like they meet in the middle somewhere. I think higher of the DOT standard and have some questions now of the Snell standard. I think both arguements did a poor job in sourcing their data. The full report should be made available if it is to be referenced (put it online and put the link in the magazine article). Parsing the same report for targeted (read: not consistent) supporting data only clouds the water…or maybe that’s the point.

Both make me think the other guy is full of crap when you read the articles separately. But when read together or back-to-back, I personally find both lacking in a complete and thourough story. Both make good points. Both clearly don’t like the other. Both use the phrase “but what they (the other guy) won’t tell you is…”. Silly.

So who is the winner? Z1R. They make the helmets that MM testing showed the lowest G’s passed through for $80. Also, people have just been told what they want to hear: an $80 helmet will protect you better than a $500 one. You’re wasting your money on Arai if you are buying it for safety. That my friends is dangerous.

I think I’m a winner in this debate because I know a lot more then I did a coupe of weeks ago. As for my selection if I get a new helmet, it will be a name brand with the best ventilation possible…and probably Snell M2005 approved when released. Old habits die hard, but I primarily ride in the rocky AZ mountain roads and that’s my worry. Edit 31May05: Ironically, the one thing that everyone seems to agree on is that helmets should be replaced every five years. The reasons were the same: the hard liner breaks down over time as it a petroleum product, and the advancements in ventilation, weight reduction, and noise level are measureable in that time frame. End Edit

So who’s the loser? The public and Snell. IMO, sound judgement simply cannot be made from the data at hand without all of the complete reports that are referenced. Some people like me who are in the market for a new helmet don’t know who to believe.

As for Snell being a loser, please SMF take this advice seriously: Knock the dust off of your legal team.

Back in 1991 when the first article from MM was published, regardless of the data, we were not a country suing the shit out of each other to make attorneys rich. Now we are. Think of my concussion example and the question “would it have been a lesser concussion if I were wearing a softer helmet?”, then think of the scum-bag lawyers soliciting for clients in a TV ad: “Have you suffered a concussion with a Snell approved helmet?”

Oh the humanity.