Posted by Blazing Laser on June 7, 2007, 12:33 am
On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:07:48 -0700, Timberwoof
>I visited Snell Labs a few years ago. Here's what they said:
>€ No one has submitted a modular helmet to Snell for testing.
>€ When a company makes helmets that are Snell-certified and ones that
>aren't, then the ones that aren't certified tend to fail Snell's tests.
>Companies know exactly what's expected of their helmets; Snell works
>with them to do the testing and even tests production prototypes. So
>since modular helmets aren't certified, I take that as meaning they
>aren't as strong in the chin as certified full-face helmets. OTOH, the
>folks at Snell admit that their certification would make no difference:
>the modular helmets sell well despite not being certified, so there's no
>economic incentive for certification.
That's kind of a cop-out, isn't it? I mean they certify 3/4 helmets.
Why can't they certify a modular to the same standards? 8^) Isn't
the 'Snell Certified' sticker a big selling point?
Posted by Mike Young on June 7, 2007, 2:20 am
<Blazing Laser> wrote in message
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:07:48 -0700, Timberwoof
>>I visited Snell Labs a few years ago. Here's what they said:
>>€ No one has submitted a modular helmet to Snell for testing.
>>€ When a company makes helmets that are Snell-certified and ones that
>>aren't, then the ones that aren't certified tend to fail Snell's tests.
>>Companies know exactly what's expected of their helmets; Snell works
>>with them to do the testing and even tests production prototypes. So
>>since modular helmets aren't certified, I take that as meaning they
>>aren't as strong in the chin as certified full-face helmets. OTOH, the
>>folks at Snell admit that their certification would make no difference:
>>the modular helmets sell well despite not being certified, so there's no
>>economic incentive for certification.
> That's kind of a cop-out, isn't it? I mean they certify 3/4 helmets.
They don't certify 3/4 helmets. Chin protection is specifically tested.
> Why can't they certify a modular to the same standards? 8^)
That is precisely the point. There is only one standard for motorcycle
helmets. All helmets are tested to that one standard.
> Isn't
> the 'Snell Certified' sticker a big selling point?
It sure is. 'DOT' stickered means only that it meets or exceeds minimum
requirements for on-road use. 'Snell' means the helmet was tested to a
rational standard for protection. I would buy a Snell-stickered modular,
other factors equal.
Posted by J. Clarke on June 7, 2007, 9:24 am
Mike Young wrote:
> <Blazing Laser> wrote in message
>> On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:07:48 -0700, Timberwoof
>>
>>> I visited Snell Labs a few years ago. Here's what they said:
>>> € No one has submitted a modular helmet to Snell for testing.
>>> € When a company makes helmets that are Snell-certified and ones
>>> that aren't, then the ones that aren't certified tend to fail
>>> Snell's tests. Companies know exactly what's expected of their
>>> helmets; Snell works with them to do the testing and even tests
>>> production prototypes. So since modular helmets aren't certified, I
>>> take that as meaning they aren't as strong in the chin as certified
>>> full-face helmets. OTOH, the folks at Snell admit that their
>>> certification would make no difference: the modular helmets sell
>>> well despite not being certified, so there's no economic incentive
>>> for certification.
>>
>> That's kind of a cop-out, isn't it? I mean they certify 3/4 helmets.
> They don't certify 3/4 helmets. Chin protection is specifically
> tested.
>> Why can't they certify a modular to the same standards? 8^)
> That is precisely the point. There is only one standard for motorcycle
> helmets. All helmets are tested to that one standard.
Snell isn't the government, they can't force manufacturers to submit
helmets for certification. If the manufacturers don't submit modulars
for testing there's not much Snell can do about it. But one does wonder
why they don't.
>> Isn't
>> the 'Snell Certified' sticker a big selling point?
> It sure is. 'DOT' stickered means only that it meets or exceeds
> minimum requirements for on-road use. 'Snell' means the helmet was
> tested to a rational standard for protection. I would buy a
> Snell-stickered modular, other factors equal.
The DOT standard is a bit different from the Snell--it allows higher
peak acceleration but also requires reduced accelerations, lower than
those specified by the Snell standard, and possibly low enough to avoid
distributed brain injury, for specific time periods which may or may not
be reasonable in the context of real-world crashes. I wouldn't call it
"minimum standards for on-road use"--its validity is debatable but so is
the validity of the Snell standard. The major problem with the DOT
standard is not the level of performance, it's the lack of a requirement
for independent testing.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
XML Sitemap
>€ No one has submitted a modular helmet to Snell for testing.
>€ When a company makes helmets that are Snell-certified and ones that
>aren't, then the ones that aren't certified tend to fail Snell's tests.
>Companies know exactly what's expected of their helmets; Snell works
>with them to do the testing and even tests production prototypes. So
>since modular helmets aren't certified, I take that as meaning they
>aren't as strong in the chin as certified full-face helmets. OTOH, the
>folks at Snell admit that their certification would make no difference:
>the modular helmets sell well despite not being certified, so there's no
>economic incentive for certification.