BackStreet

ACU Gold Approved and EC2205 Approved are better standards than the old SNELL. DOT is the required standard in the US.

SNELL standards are based on a mistake they have refused to correct so far. They looked at helmets from crashes and saw round "indents". So they made the standard that they drop a weighted helmet onto a round anvil. (I think they actually used to drop a 17 lb steel ball onto the helmet.)

Of course when you smack a round helmet on a flat surface, the result looks round but it is actually flat. A mistake made in 1957 but still used today. Otherwise, they would have to admit they were wrong. The SNELL 2010 standard includes a 48mm radius hemisphere anvil.

Video clip Testing

You end up with a standard built for a crash that will almost never happen i.e. you crash into an immovable ball. Even if you hit your head on a phone pole, that is a cylinder with a much larger radius. They do test with other shapes but they are easier test to pass. The pass level is set at 300g! which would likely kill you or leave you brain damaged anyway.

Newer standards lower the allowed Gs and test of flat impacts - like the road. A test has to be a likely scenario and a test pass has to be survivable without brain damage. More compressible padding providing shock protection is the current direction. Thus Gs below 200 for a pass for a flat surface impact is a much better test.

Grab you SNELL helmet only when 5 inch cannon balls are flying. Better yet, throw out you old SNELL and get a ACU Gold Approved or EC2205 Approved in case you have a real world accident.

shewie

You mean that where you ride there aren't any pirate frigates firing broadsides at you as you pass? What a boring life you must lead. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to tempt fate as I have a scheduled rendezvous with a squadron of Man-O-Wars.

Nice write-up, by the way. Thanks for the info. Makes me feel better about not doling out the extra for a Snell-approved lid.

__________________
If you don't like the way I ride then stay off the sidewalk.

Growler67

So when assessing (helmets as) an orb shaped objects ability to deal with an impact, using an anvil with a shape that will deliver the most energy foscussed to a single point without actually having a pointed object performing such impact - is a mistake?

Short of having multiple shaped anvils to perform this test to simulate/replicate ALL the possible kinds of impact I think a decision had to be made and and orb shaped anvil delivers all the force (of the mass) of the object to a single point, thus giving a representation of the worst case scenario of a given material (helmet) at a single point of impact. When one falls on a hard surface (road, not soil) there is every chance that the (most energetic) impact will be to a single point (at a time) seeing as the shape of the helmet is basically an orb. Rather than a cube that would allow a whole side to disipate the energy of the impact and increase the frictional coefficient of any sliding across the surface, for example. Right?

Simulate an observation at home, if you will. Take your helmet and (on carpet if you wish) place it on it's crown. How much surface area is in contact with the simulated road surface at the point of impact (time as well as actual surface area on the helmet)?

The shape chosen by manufacturers is only one of many considerations in designing a product. They know what the standards are (for those they seek the endorsement of) and very likely have their own on site version of the same to do in house research with on new construction materials (both shell as well as insulative).

I am not an engineer nor have any affiliation with any helmet manufaturers nor any Safety Endorsement entity. I also didn't sleep at a Holiday Inn Express last night. I'm just saying that I don't believe this is an arbitrary mistake left in existence to perpetuate a false sense of security (intentional or otherwise). It has been an industry standard for enough time that it would've been debunked and scrapped long before now. It is an accepted rating system to determine a helmets ability to conform to it's standards. The DOT rating is a different standard (and not as rigorous) and all helmets sold in the US meet that standard in addition to the Snell Foundation certification.

No conspiracy and though there are other ratings and certifications of differing standards, they are not required by the DOT to be on any helmet sold in the US. Wherever you live (international members reside here as well) there are National standards set by government entities much like the DOT (Department of Transportation, for those that don't know). They have an obligation to set (whether they mimic/use the same as another country or develop their own) a standard for such things, including but not limited to seatbelts, vehicle lighting, emmisions, noise and many other facets that the common citizen may or may not be aware of.

Just sayin'.

__________________
"Just leave me some ammo, a little water...........and some chips if you have 'em"
"Actually it's a buck and a quarter quarter-staff, but I'm not telling HIM that...........YOIKS and Away!!!!"

BackStreet

Well, believe it or not I'm not the first person to "debunk" the SNELL standard. The most notable being the Hurt Report published in 1981.

One can argue a "worst case scenario" but if the worst case is so remote a possibility should it even be considered a valid case at all? A most likely scenario is a flat surface. A tree, curb, car door, fender, guard rail, phone pole, etc would all be somewhat likely. I would even accept an edge of a curb as worst case but not a cannon ball.

DOT and other standards bodies have not adopted the test. The fact that SNELL retains the test does not make it valid just because it has been around a long time.

I think it is kind of funny that the standard was based on a mistake. They looked at helmets from crashes and saw round impacts. Plus I would not recommend a SNELL helmet.