Interesting video on helmet safety.

[billybovine]

Something I did know about.

https://youtu.be/76yu124i3Bo

[Steve W.]

When I started riding 40+ years ago, the controversy between DOT and Snell was presented to me as a matter of SPEED.

Think of it this way: If you place an object in a padded container and move the entire assembly into a barrier, the object will deform the padding a bit and hopefully survive intact. If you move it into the barrier at a higher speed, the padding will not be able to absorb the impact, your object might not survive. You need to install padding that is more dense to do that job.

Now, if you use that denser padding at the lower speed, it will not deform enough to absorb the impact, and you may as well not have it there at all.

Now apply the two different paddings to helmets. A DOT-spec helmet will likely be used at 'normal' road speeds, say 80 mph or less, so can use a less-dense padding. At race speeds, that padding would not be enough, so a Snell-spec helmet would have denser padding. However, that Snell-spec helmet would be too stiff to absorb the impact at lower speeds.

I know that there are newer Snell ratings that probably blow all this out of the water, but any way you look at it, ... ANY helmet is better than none at all.

.

[ARtraveler]

No reflection on the above posters, just a reminder to keep the discussion friendly in a known hot button topic.

[canamjhb]

I found the information in the first posts to be quite informative. Even though I live in a helmet optional state, I always wear one. I always went with the DOT designation and never paid attention to Snell. Now I kinda know the differences. Thanks..... Jim

[trong]

I would only believe info from true helmet makers/researchers. And you know who they are.
Thanks to freedom of speech in this country, anybody can say anything they want, and people willing to say untrue and/or falsify info just to make a few bucks from you tube regardless of consequences.
Cheers and Ride Safe.

[Pirate]

Something I did know about.

https://youtu.be/76yu124i3Bo

I take his opinion with a grain of salt. He has certain biases against particular helmet manufacturers. Unwarranted I believe.

[ozarkryder]

The video is by a outfit in Canada called Fort Nine, a motorcycle gear outfitter. I have been watching the video's for for a couple of years, and have found them to be interesting, well researched, sometimes tongue-in-cheek, often self-deprecating, and informative. If you watch their videos you will find a long list of sources at the end of many of them. I would take information from a relatively neutral party (Fortnine sells helmets from many manufacturers with both Snell [A Snell helmet will also meet DOT certification, but not the other way around] and ECE standards) than a helmet maker or a certification organization that has a dog in the hunt. DOT and ECE are standards set by government organizations, FIM standards are set by the organization that sets standards for motorcycle racing in general. Snell is a high standard, manufacturers voluntary send in helmets, they only certify motorsports helmets, but they do have a vested interest in having manufactures continue to submit helmets to them.

[RayBJ]

I love the Fort Nine videos. Always very well made and informative. Check out his CanAm history video while you're on his page.

[ozarkryder]

Here is the latest from F9 on the Can Am history. It is from a year ago, and focuses on the Ryker, but it is an interesting watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2Mu0jcPIUY
Another video about the Spyder F3-S from Fort9 from 2016, First Ride and Impressions - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXnYWpccAkU
And a follow up to that video later that same month in 2016, Can Am Spyder F3-S Review - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zzEgGx5w98

[BajaRon]

Everyone has an opinion. But the fact is, the information presented in this video is exactly right, and everyone who has researched it, (including Snell) knows it. His 'Entertaining' presentation does not negate the reality he describes.

So, why the debate? You have Snell, which, since the 70's, has ruled the helmet safety world, virtually unchallenged because of their solid, well deserved reputation developed in the automobile racing industry. They were simply the default, go to source, when safety standards began to be required of motorcycle helmets. DOT set the minimum standard. But if you wanted a REALLY safe motorcycle helmet. You got one with the PREMIUM SNELL rating. Long recognized, around the world, as the Gold Standard for helmet safety (for automobile racing). It was assumed that what was good for the goose, would be good for the gander. A classic "No Brainer". And basically, the same standards were applied to motorcycle helmets.

But as time went buy. More and more evidence began to build showing problems with the Snell rated motorcycle helmets. Problems that the "lower" safety rated DOT helmets were not having. Typically, the Snell helmets were surviving with very minor damage, but the contents were not. Helmets with DOT ratings were being destroyed in accidents, but head injuries were typically much less serious. People started asking questions. These questions brought a discovery that, indeed. While the original and subsequent Snell standards were developed using real world automobile crash conditions. This same process was not being applied to motorcycle helmets. Instead, Snell automobile standards were simply being transferred to motorcycle helmets. But is this the best way to go?

This eventually began to bubble to the top. And Snell had a choice to make. In my opinion, as so many large corporations tend to do, they chose to use their clout and huge worldwide reputation to stonewall and discredit the evidence. Maintaining that anyone who questioned the safety of their product superiority were doing so for monetary purposes. And that worked for awhile. Finally, Europe, the largest helmet purchaser's in the world, decided to do some controlled, scientific testing, based on real world motorcycle crash environment. And found the accusations against Snell to be true. So, Europe decided to completely rewrite the book on motorcycle helmet safety based on this criteria.

And yes, there are some definite monetary rewards in all of this. So, this portion of Snell's position is true. But is profit the driving force as they assert? In my opinion, the proof should be in the pudding. Regardless of the peripheral aspects.

When the ECE (European standard) was recognized, pretty much by everyone but Snell, to be a safer approach, things started to hit the fan. There was still that huge inertia and public demand for a Snell rated motorcycle helmet. It was just boilerplate in many rider's minds. It is extremely hard to change a person's mind once they have decided their position on any subject. But when you get to things like oil and helmets. It's even more difficult. It took a generation of educating new riders coming up to make any real impact. All the time, Snell working hard to prevent the transition to any standard that was not theirs.

As always, everyone is free to believe what they want. But if you do some objective homework on this one. I think you'll find yourself hard pressed to come away with a perspective different than the one described in this video.

Ride safe. It's not the brand name that will save you. Or, the safety certification sticker inside the helmet. It is the design, construction and quality.

[Mikey]

No reflection on the above posters, just a reminder to keep the discussion friendly in a known hot button topic.

[vito1943]

I never even thought about whether a helmet I was considering buying met the European standard or not. Naively I always thought DOT was good, Snell was better. Now I certainly need to re-evaluate. Most of the time I am riding in hot weather, and wear a 3/4 helmet, so most likely I will not fare too well in any event in a major mishap. My good looking face might end up re-arranged but hopefully whatever helmet I am wearing gives my brain some decent protection. FWIW, I always stick to major brands, trusting in their professionalism rather than some inexpensive no-name lid.