Snell Memorial Foundation - A Change in Direction

Damn.  I don’t really like being wrong, but when I am I fess up to it.  Do you remember the big hub-bub between the folks at Snell and the folks at Motorcyclist Magazine (MM) - Blowing the Lid Off.  We had a couple articles on the topic as well here and here.   It appears that the 2010 Snell Helmet Standard will have some big changes coming…like those suggested by Motorcyclist Magazine.

I was fairly hard on the magazine guys for a couple of reasons.  First, I thought it was more about Snell versus Motorcyclist than about helmet standards - create a shit-storm to sell magazines.  In hindsight, who really knows. 

Second, is my general distrust for journalists.  For the most part, these are not technical folks, but they write about technical subjects.  This is not to say they aren’t knowledgable, but the translation from the people in the know to the journalist’s story usually gets the journalists ’slant’ on the subject.  There is no suck thing as an objective, opinion-free journalists.

And finally, I’m just not a conspiracy kind of guy. Much of the discussion around the water cooler was about the cost of the Snell sticker, he-said / she-said, $80 ZR1 helmets that you can get at Pep Boys rule! I survived a nasty concussion with a Snell rated helmet. For me, that was testimony enough.

Bottom line is that they appear to have been right.  Check out Snell’s website and you will see a draft version link on their home page.  It seems very similar to what the folks at MM and and the ECE/DOT standards.  Check it:

The draft M2010 Standard has been posted on the Snell web site. We are proposing some big changes for the impact testing. These include adopting the ECE head form mass specifications, adding a new “C” size head form with a circumference of 52 cm, and changing the impact velocities for the second impacts to reflect the differing demands the new head form mass specifications will place on current helmet materials and technology. Although an SA2010 draft has not yet been posted, we expect the same changes for that standard as well.

2 Comments

[...] Original post by angrybob [...]

Comment by Snell Memorial Foundation - A Change in Direction | May 18th, 2007 11:42 pm | Permalink

Open, free communication is one of the best things about our society. It can not, by nature, be free of opinion, but at least if you gather multiple opinions, you can make a more informed decision. I

I don’t think you were wrong AB, I think you just needed more information. We all get stuck in ruts of our own choosing and it’s an enlightening moment when we can see the merit of an opinion which differs from our own. I’m glad the Snell foundation considered a different perspective and was willing to incorporate some of it into their updated standards, instead of dismissing it out of hand (Of course, that’s what they did in print intially).

Helmet standards need constant reevaluation. Accidents change, materials change, manufacturing changes. I’m thankful for the helmets we have today, but look forward to the day when I’ll be wearing something that feels like it’s not even there and gives me 10x the protection of what I’m wearing now …. and might even be cheaper;-)

Rhino

Comment by Anonymous | May 21st, 2007 9:24 am | Permalink

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Live Comment Preview

Comment by Somebody

Powered by WordPress 2.3.1    Rendered in 15 queries and 0.396 seconds.    CleanBreeze Theme   
   

Bad Behavior has blocked 2149 access attempts in the last 7 days.