On Mon, 9 Jan 2006, mike wrote:
> Here's an idea. Take a gander at Motorcylist Magazine
> http://motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/hatz/ article on helmets. The way
> I read it, you might be nutz putting your braincase in a Snell approved
> helmet because it is looking for multiple impacts w/o disentigrating.
> While the helmet doesn't crack open like an egg, it might scramble your
> egg in the process. The article has caused me to re-think the whole
> helmet picture.
a) If you want to run SCCA Solo2, you don't have a choice, the
requirement is for Snell; so this article is moot.
b) Any helmet on the market is more than adequate for any forseeable
Solo2-class incident, so this article is irrelevant.
c) After reading the article, it's very clear that the authors have some
axe to grind with Snell, with a number of snide remarks about marketing
and a specific targeting of Snell's measurements and approaches. I don't
know (or care) what that axe is, but here's the gist: Most of the helmets
on the market are designed to meet *ALL* the standards in their
marketplace: Snell, D.O.T., and the Euro specs. The authors are focused
on low-G transferance, which apparently NONE of the current standards call
out. All of the standards focus on different performance criteria in what
is clearly an inexact science of crash methodology. If any of the
standards adopt a maximum-transfer spec, I'm sure all the manufacturers
will meet that as well, at whatever cost to bulk/style/price - and also
maintain the multiple high-impact spec that Snell uses.
d) I just bought a new full-face helmet from a major manufacturer, both
D.O.T. and Snell M2000 certified, for $50. The price of entry for quality
head protection may never have been lower. At the same time, there's a
wide range of available options and prices available to those who have
particular concerns and priorities. The rest of the consumer space should
be in such good shape!
KeS
|