Helment suggestions...??

[Trickie Dick]

Web Bike World

You can get an awful lot of information here: http://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcycle-helmets/motorcycle-helmets.htm

 

[NancysToy]

Scotty,

The DOT changed their testing protocols about 2 years ago (I think) and they're much more involved than they used to be. I used to have the full testing format but I'm sure I've misplaced it somewhere. It used to be that Snell was considered better, but the DOT updated their testing to make it better. I'd be interested in getting the standards again and comparing...that'd be the best way to go.

As far as crash mechanics go (and this is my field), the impact of your head on the concrete is what matters most...the brain is going to move around regardless of what helmet you have on (as is also the case with football injuries)...can't really compare football with vehicle crashes...vehicular crashes are obviously far worse as there are no football lineman that weigh a ton or two and none can deliver the force of a vehicle upon impact...

I have read the revised DOT standard, as well as the 2005 and 2010 Snell protocols and the ECE methods. I used to believe that one or another was preferable. I no longer do...except for auto racing where you are in a heavy vehicle at faster speeds, sitting in a metal roll cage a few inches from your noggin. In those cases I prefer Snell. In the end it all depends on the crash, the person, and the circumstances. "Better" is a subjective term. I respect your opinion and expertise, but I don't share your feelings. I think each of the standards has circumstances in which it may be marginally better for the victim, and each may also cause some difficulty under other circumstances. All are strong enough to do the job. Statistics will prove that out. Like I said, a lot like octane. You pays your money and takes your choice.

 

[Firefly]

Scotty,

The DOT changed their testing protocols about 2 years ago (I think) and they're much more involved than they used to be. I used to have the full testing format but I'm sure I've misplaced it somewhere. It used to be that Snell was considered better, but the DOT updated their testing to make it better. I'd be interested in getting the standards again and comparing...that'd be the best way to go.

As far as crash mechanics go (and this is my field), the impact of your head on the concrete is what matters most...the brain is going to move around regardless of what helmet you have on (as is also the case with football injuries)...can't really compare football with vehicle crashes...vehicular crashes are obviously far worse as there are no football lineman that weigh a ton or two and none can deliver the force of a vehicle upon impact...

But doesn't the material of the helmet provide a 'crumple zone' much like cars have--- thus giving a 'slower' crash of the brain box as opposed to a 'faster' one?

 

[NancysToy]

But doesn't the material of the helmet provide a 'crumple zone' much like cars have--- thus giving a 'slower' crash of the brain box as opposed to a 'faster' one?

Not much for US standards...at least as opposed to the ECE standard. The standards are focused on lack of helmet penetration and on helmet integrity. In my opinion, the allowable forces to the skull are excessive, but to make them fall within known safe limits, a helmet would have to be several inches thicker...which is also unacceptable. In all the protocols, when you see the actual forces on the brain from their test results, it is excessive with current technology. You seem to have two choices...trauma from without, or trauma from within. You may lose either way if the crash is bad enough and you land wrong. If landing in a freshly plowed field at a reasonably slow speed knocked me out for four hours, there is a roll of the dice involved in any crash.

 

[bone crusher]

But doesn't the material of the helmet provide a 'crumple zone' much like cars have--- thus giving a 'slower' crash of the brain box as opposed to a 'faster' one?

You're not going to find a foam that can work like a car crumple zone. The idea behind a crumple zone is that the vehicle takes all the impact, and you are spared...this is a great thing as you don't want the energy dissipating in your body, if you can help it.

If your car is moving when you are hit, you avoid car damage but you absorb it...far worse...that's why, if you're going to get rear-ended, and you see it coming, slam the brake...don't try to get away.

One problem we see now with car manufacturing is that the cars are yet again getting more rigid...this means in the majority of car crashes, which are low-speed, the bumpers will not absorb the energy and it is transmitted to your body (being you're not part of the car)...so, less car damage, more human damage.

As far as foam quality for a helmet goes, it does make a difference. The reason we have the DOT, Snell, and others testing helmets is so that we can see the absorptive abilities of each helmet. There are so many variances that go into each crash that no one helmet can protect you against everything...however, they should have a certain standard to meet.

In regards to impact, it's unlikely you're going to hit your head only once...if you impact and roll, your brain is going to be rolling around no matter what helmet you have on. Even with great foam, most impacts will lead to mild traumatic brain injury.

 

[bone crusher]

I have read the revised DOT standard, as well as the 2005 and 2010 Snell protocols and the ECE methods. I used to believe that one or another was preferable. I no longer do...except for auto racing where you are in a heavy vehicle at faster speeds, sitting in a metal roll cage a few inches from your noggin. In those cases I prefer Snell. In the end it all depends on the crash, the person, and the circumstances. "Better" is a subjective term. I respect your opinion and expertise, but I don't share your feelings. I think each of the standards has circumstances in which it may be marginally better for the victim, and each may also cause some difficulty under other circumstances. All are strong enough to do the job. Statistics will prove that out. Like I said, a lot like octane. You pays your money and takes your choice.

I agree...that is a good take on things...best to never let your helmet (with head) ever hit the ground or any other surface!

 

[Firefly]

Good info.... which begs the question... why do skydivers wear helmets as opposed to party hats? :roflblack:

 

[NancysToy]

I agree...that is a good take on things...best to never let your helmet (with head) ever hit the ground or any other surface!

Easier to accomplish on a Spyder than a bike, eh? :thumbup:

 

[dave01]

I may be superstitious, but if my helmet ever hits the ground, it goes in the pile of old ones.

My latest is the Joe Rocket line from HJC. Carbon fiber, very light and a good fit for me.

 

[WackyDan]

Wife and I have the same helmets. Little bulky, but seem well made, vent well, and modular. As my first modular helmet, I've been very pleased with them.

I have the HJC SY-MAX II, I like the flip down sun visor and in the summer you can leave the visor up and enjoy the air, with you face protected. It has the polycarbonate chin bar that drops down, (making it easier to use). Check out WWW.newenough.com for the best deals on all your personal gear. hyea:http://www.newenough.com/street/hel.../hjc/sy_max_2_metallic_motorcycle_helmet.html
This what I wear.:yes::firstplace:

 

[Donk45]

I tried on the Can Am helmet too, just last weekend. It was nice, but a little plain for my liking. I was looking at the Shark helmet, and found a different one that I'm thinking about...more visibility at night. Both are the same helmet, it glows at night. I figure with the dual visor, you could open the clear visor up for air...I did that in the summer even with the Gmax when it was hot, but then a bug hit my eye!

I have been looking at this helmet too, looks really cool. I think it is supposed to start shipping out sometime this month.

 

[dltang]

I have had HJC helmets but they feel way to heavy for me. I have a modular flip up Z1R and a 3/4 Z1R and they are more lightweight for me and fit me well. I also have a little shorty that weighs like nothing - which I like the best. If I didn't have so much neck pain I'd be totally into a nice full helmet but I can't ride with one long enough or my neck and shoulders really start to hurt.

I have an HJC but I bought the Carbon Fiber. I just didn't like all that weight on my neck of other helmets. It is amazing how light this helmet is for a full face. It was worth the cost and it fits well too.

 

[dave01]

I have an HJC but I bought the Carbon Fiber. I just didn't like all that weight on my neck of other helmets. It is amazing how light this helmet is for a full face. It was worth the cost and it fits well too.

+1... Great helmet

 

[4leafpat]

Helmets

I have an XL sorta-oval head. The three helmets I wear, depending on the temperature are:
Akuma
Nolan
Nexx

and still looking for the perfect one!

 

[j45p3r]

I just picked up an HJC Sy-Max II. Very comfortable helmet, no pressure points, it fits me really well. It'll be a few weeks before I ride with it but so far I'm impressed.

 

[Amanda B]

Cool!

I have been looking at this helmet too, looks really cool. I think it is supposed to start shipping out sometime this month.

I keep looking and waiting for them! Let me know if you see them somewhere and I'll do the same.

 

[TicketBait]

This helmet is versatile, and blue tooth capable, although I have not done that yet. Called Nolan Trilogy. light weight and very comfortable
I wear glasses and the sun visor works great.

I got my wife the same helmet with out the Nolan wording (it's called the outlaw version), this way you don't get the two different sizes confused.

and I found a place that sold it in on my head for $225