New SHARP helmet ratings released

ChrisL wrote (see)

There are already perfectly good safety standards for helmets, which have the advantage of being internationally recognised. Why on earth did our government have to stick its pointless bureaucratic oar in? Nobody needs these ratings, with their ridiculous name and nobody in their right mind would trust the British department of transport to give them advice on helment safety. If Jim Fitzpatrick can't find something useful to do, maybe we can do without him.

really? what are they then? what do they test? how do they compare across different manufacturers or different ranges?How do you know they perfectly good?

Can you easily actually look up the testing requirements for EC22-05 or does the ACU sticker you can buy off ebay have any real significance ( especially for roaduse).

Maybe you are annoyed because you were daft enough to buy an Expensive helmet that is now rated a 1 or 2? 

Go on tell us what we should really be looking for....perhaps some expensive graphics or a plastic vent for another £200..at least Sharp are attempting to answer the question scientifically..

But an otherwise poor quality helmet can be reinforced in the specific areas that the SHARP tests target and therefore gain a high rating. Despite the fact that the visor falls off, the lining compresses in a week and the chin strap falls off, it will be a "top rated" helmet.

I will stick with the EC and ACU tests thanks

Another case of empire building ... much like the whole CE fiasco IMHO

Remember...
..can quickly turn into.. ..so never skimp on kit!..

Dimebag wrote (see)

But an otherwise poor quality helmet can be reinforced in the specific areas that the SHARP tests target and therefore gain a high rating. Despite the fact that the visor falls off, the lining compresses in a week and the chin strap falls off, it will be a "top rated" helmet.

I will stick with the EC and ACU tests thanks

ChrisL wrote (see)

Gedge - So an internationally recognised standard wasn't good enough and we have to have some empire building British official redo the testing?  No I'm not annoyed because of whatever rating they've given whatever helmet I happen to own (a Shark RSX which is on the list with a five - not that it matters). I'm annoyed because someone's gone to the trouble of creating proper standards and the British government has decided to ignore them. All these tests will do is cloud the issue.

For the second time of asking then..What internationally recognised standard is that? SNELL? thats american only and doesn't meet ec 22-05, and the EC standard is europe only...

You are not on their payroll by any chance are you mate?

People have worn (and crashed) in helmets for years without the "benefit" of SHARP ratings. Some got hurt, some didn't. I fail to see how another test will change this.

Dimebag wrote (see)

You are not on their payroll by any chance are you mate?

People have worn (and crashed) in helmets for years without the "benefit" of SHARP ratings. Some got hurt, some didn't. I fail to see how another test will change this.

No I am not..nor am I a fan of fancy helmets or even tests..but dont see why anyone should mind having an external ( to the industry at least) testing system to help people choose and also to make manufacturers make safer helmets..

PS for years people have died in crashes BECAUSE they wore poorly made or poorly fitted helmets too....

Yep, and some people have died in crashes despite wearing well made, well fitting helmets. Some people have survived wearing both kinds of helmet too.

My take on it is to get a helmet that fits me correctly from an established manufacturer and which satisfies the legislation in force in this country. Anything else is superfluous really.

Dimebag wrote (see)

Yep, and some people have died in crashes despite wearing well made, well fitting helmets. Some people have survived wearing both kinds of helmet too.

My take on it is to get a helmet that fits me correctly from an established manufacturer and which satisfies the legislation in force in this country. Anything else is superfluous really.

superfluous? not sure thats the right term..without testing we would probably still be wearing centurion lids that fell apart on the slightest impact..testing tends to bring about improvement and in my book ( whilst agreeing that it guarantees nothing) that can  be a good thing..

Most people buy helmets  for reason of aesthetics or fashion ...helping ensure their choices are also functional can't do any harm..

Read it properly mate, I was implying that any FURTHER tests are superfluous and that the criteria we have in place at the moment is sufficient to ensure that we are not wearing tat.

My favorite subject.  

1. Snell test above the Snell line, think of a slightly larger version of a Hebrew skull cap and you're there. Reguardless of how good or accurate each test they perform is, the majority of of a full face lids surface area remains untested.

2. It's not that long ago that we were all dripping about helmets that fail the old British standard passing Ec22. The relative merit of Euro testing vs our older test is a moot point now, but an awful lot of riders weren't convinced that the new standard was an improvement.

3. Arai, Schuberth et al carry out extensive, scientific testing on their own and competitors kit, but they're not sharing the results or offering their design aims with the rest of us. The pathetic scoring of one of Schuberths top drawer helmets is taken by many to show some fatal flaw in the SHARP system, but the reality is that SHARP uncovered the unusual construction of the helmet. The method chosen (lots of foam inserts as opposed to a single moulding) allows for a superb fit, but the trade off is that the individual cells can be overwhelmed in a collision. Schuberth believed it a reasonable compromise right up until it became public knowlege that their helmet passes more force than cheaper alternatives, at which point they started questioning the validity of the whole SHARP process. Arai, similarly, don't feel that the side of a helmet warrants as much protection as the front, top or back. If they had a dotted line on the outside of the lid the size of 70's headphones with a warning that this area is protected by the users shoulder, not the helmet itself, would Arai fans be quite so happy to defend the firms decision?

4. Independant research shows an even distribution of helmet impacts in road accidents. It has also shown an area the size of a palm print, over the temples, to be particularly prone to damage in fatalities, often refered to as the "X spot". SHARP specifically test this area, and give it equal weighting to impacts front, rear and top. Next year ARAI claim all their UK helmets will pass at 4 stars or better, presumably by improving the protection over the X spot. If this is the specific reinforcement you're talking about Dime, I'm all for it!

5. SHARP (as opposed to sound bite obsessive political slime) are at pains to point out that fit and comfort are vitally important in chosing a helmet and offer some advice on getting it right.

6. Lastly, there isn't a test in the world that looks at the long term durability of a lid. Luckily we live in the UK, so if your visor drops off, your lining compresses and your chin strap falls off, get trading standards involved. 

Hth.  

 Ah, John, the one flaw in my otherwise convincing argument....

Cnut

I'm with Flo and Gedge on this.

Arai have redesigned the side pods on the new RX7 GP. The official reason is that it's to improve the aerodynamics of the helmet as they're now recessed. The unofficial reason (and I've heard this secondhand off two or three people) is SHARP.

In my opinion this is a good thing, as my weird head only fits Arais.

The other criticism of SHARP is typically phrased as, "There's no way that a £50 helmet will protect as well as a £500 helmet."

In which case I'd like to point you in the direction of this article:

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html

I've tested Arai helmets over the years and I can confirm they do their job well, well enough for me to tpype tish os oyu nac usertand em.

Me I meen.

Thanks Graeme, that's the first time I've read the whole article. It's pretty much what I'd like TWO to cover (instead of just giving the makers a "we wuz robbed" platform ). Interesting that the US Army consider the ear cup area less capable of taking an impact than the rest of the head (150g vs 175g). Back to Arai's side pods . Interesting too that all the (presumably US market) foam inserts only seem to protect the top of the head...

I just loved this quote;

"Even though many motorcycles were capable of running the quarter-mile in 11 seconds (or less) and topping 140 mph back in '81, not one of the 900-odd accidents investigated in the Hurt study involved a speed over 100 mph. The "one in a thousand" speed seen in the Hurt Report was 86 mph, meaning only one of the accidents seen in the 900-crash study occurred at or above that speed. And the COST 327 study, done recently in the land of the autobahn, contained very few crashes over 120 kph, or 75 mph. The big lesson here is this: It's a mistake to assume that going really fast causes a significant number of accidents just because a motorcycle can go really fast."

One for the "speed kills" stazi, eh?