$10 Head $10 Helmet?

[Horse]

SHARP results have long demonstrated that price is no guide for protection.

Features, paint schemes, etc., perhaps, but not protection from traumatic brain injury.

One of SHARP's recent tests results emphasise this:
.

Screenshot_20250225-094802.png (160.98 KiB) Viewed 549 times

.
RRP £65

Although it's 22.05

[Supermofo]

I've long thought a sub/around £100 will get a safe, reasonable helmet if you are on a budget. The extra cash brings quality/comfort improvements rather than anything else. I think I've paid around £300ish for my last few lids which considering they last me 5 years or so is good value I think.

[mangocrazy]

I've used the Shoei XRxxxx and NXR helmet ranges for the last 20 odd years and they suit me just fine. I normally wait for a new model to be released and then try and grab one of the old models at a decent discount, 'cos I'm cheap but fussy.

[Skub]

Any lid is safe enough if you don't bang yer bap off something hard.

[Mr Moofo]

@Horse The Sharp site in an interesting read - but what it doesn't explain is(in easy terms) what is the difference in the real world between a 3 star rated Helmet and a 4 Star rated helmet. Or at least, I cannot find it. It explains the testing methods but ....

[Cousin Jack]

@Horse The Sharp site in an interesting read - but what it doesn't explain is(in easy terms) what is the difference in the real world between a 3 star rated Helmet and a 4 Star rated helmet. Or at least, I cannot find it. It explains the testing methods but ....

I think that is the huge problem that never gets mentioned. Safety gear is good at passing tests, and statistically is good in the real world. However statistics can never guarantee you won't be the unlucky 1 in 10, or 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000. You improve your odds with safety kit, but at the end of the day it boils down to the old line.

"Do you feel lucky punk?"

[Yorick]

I only pay €100 ish for my enduro helmets. And I fall off every ride

[Supermofo]

I only pay €100 ish for my enduro helmets. And I fall off every ride

You have to have something inside your skull to damage to be worried about such things

[Horse]

@Horse The Sharp site in an interesting read - but what it doesn't explain is(in easy terms) what is the difference in the real world between a 3 star rated Helmet and a 4 Star rated helmet. Or at least, I cannot find it. It explains the testing methods but ....

Does the 'protocol' report in the library page help?

Edit: scrolling down further, there's a 'procedure for calculating ... ' which includes (Fig 7) a chart of 'risk of injury severity according to peak g'. Does that help?

[Mr Moofo]

@Horse The Sharp site in an interesting read - but what it doesn't explain is(in easy terms) what is the difference in the real world between a 3 star rated Helmet and a 4 Star rated helmet. Or at least, I cannot find it. It explains the testing methods but ....

Does the 'protocol' report in the library page help?

Huge amount of detail, huge amount of science and technical talk
But what is the real difference between the 1 star, 2 Star, 3 Star, 4 Star and 5 helmet?

Is my 3 star Chaser much worse than my 4 start Chaser x? Should I only look at 5 star helmets?

[Horse]

@Horse The Sharp site in an interesting read - but what it doesn't explain is(in easy terms) what is the difference in the real world between a 3 star rated Helmet and a 4 Star rated helmet. Or at least, I cannot find it. It explains the testing methods but ....

Does the 'protocol' report in the library page help?

Huge amount of detail, huge amount of science and technical talk
But what is the real difference between the 1 star, 2 Star, 3 Star, 4 Star and 5 helmet?

Is my 3 star Chaser much worse than my 4 start Chaser x? Should I only look at 5 star helmets?

See edit above

[dern]

Oh god, not again.

[Horse]

Oh god, not again.

How many heads do you have?

[Horse]

@Horse The Sharp site in an interesting read - but what it doesn't explain is(in easy terms) what is the difference in the real world between a 3 star rated He ftlmet and a 4 Star rated helmet. Or at least, I cannot find it. It explains the testing methods but ....

I don't know anything about the technical aspects of SHARP. If you've read those reports then that's pretty much all I've done.

However, I knew there was an estimate from the early days of SHARP - it's taken some time to find it:

https://www.motorcyclenews.com/news/202 ... your-lid-/
Full article PDF:
https://sharp.dft.gov.uk/wp-content/upl ... ressed.pdf

SHARP was launched in 2007 by the Department for Transport (DfT) in response to a Europe-wide study into 7071 motorcycle accidents and their resultant injuries. The research found that there was a huge variation in the safety performance of motorcycle helmets – by as much as 70% – and concluded that 47 bikers’ lives per year could be saved if all had worn the best-performing lid.

That's with 1* being roughly a legal helmet and 5* the best test result.

Now - and very roughly, not a technical description - 22.06 is about equivalent to 4*. I don't know what alters 4* to 5*.

[Horse]

@Horse The Sharp site in an interesting read - but what it doesn't explain is(in easy terms) what is the difference in the real world between a 3 star rated Helmet and a 4 Star rated helmet. Or at least, I cannot find it. It explains the testing methods but ....

I think that is the huge problem that never gets mentioned. Safety gear is good at passing tests, and statistically is good in the real world. However statistics can never guarantee you won't be the unlucky 1 in 10, or 1 in 100, or 1 in 1000. You improve your odds with safety kit, but at the end of the day it boils down to the old line.

"Do you feel lucky punk?"

FWIW, the SHARP test score is weighted according to actual crash results and outcomes. Real riders, hundreds of them, actual crashes and injuries.

The Cost 327 report and others detail that. e g.:

Detailed accident data was collected over a two-year period from July 1996 until June 1998 in Finland, Germany and the United Kingdom. Two hundred and fifty three cases were completed and were used to compile the COST 327 accident database. The COST database comprised accidents that were selected according to the following criteria:
• motorised two-wheelers
• full or open faced helmet was worn
• Casualty sustained head/neck injuries Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 1 and above or known head/helmet contact occurred but without head injuries. It should be noted that these accidents were a sub-set of a larger database in each country.

The database was analysed in detail to determine the accident mechanisms and the injury mechanisms to the head and neck. It was found that the object most frequently struck by the motorcycle was a car, 53.9%. The second most frequent was the road or roadside furniture resulting from single vehicle loss of control. However, impacts to a HGV, 9%, were the type most likely to be severe or fatal.

Sixty seven percent of casualties sustained a head injury and 27% a neck injury. Also, notable were the 57% with a thorax injury and 73% with leg injuries. Injuries were classified according to the Maximum Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) and it was found that as the MAIS increased so did the proportion with head injuries, from 38% for MAIS 1 to 81% for MAIS 3 and greater.

Location of helmet damage and speed of head impact were considered critical to the understanding of head injury causes. Helmet damage was distributed evenly with 26.9% lateral right, 26.3% lateral left, 23.6% frontal and 21.0% to the rear. Impacts to the crown at 2.2% were less frequent. It was found that head injury severity increased with head impact speed quite dramatically. The median was 18km/h for AIS 1, 50km/h for AIS 2-4 and 57km/h for AIS 5/6.

And (also @Mr Moofo )

In conclusion, a specification for a new European Standard was prepared from the findings above. If this is implemented, COST 327 confidently expects an improvement to motorcycle helmets that will reduce casualties with fatal and serious head injuries by at least 20% per annum across the EC. Thus, 1000 lives could be saved each year


And, as I've said before about ATGATT etc.:
"Choose the crash you're going to have, dress accordingly"

With the pragmatic addition:
"And the weather you will encounter"

[The Spin Doctor]

Huge amount of detail, huge amount of science and technical talk

So impulse buyer or someone who researches purchases?

But what is the real difference between the 1 star, 2 Star, 3 Star, 4 Star and 5 helmet?

Is my 3 star Chaser much worse than my 4 start Chaser x? Should I only look at 5 star helmets?

As I understand it, helmets have pretty much reached a point where there's not a lot more that they can do. The shell doesn't shatter, the chinstrap design means it will stay on your head even in a heavy crash, the chin bars don't crush and stones won't penetrate the visor.

Many riders who die outright from head injuries also had internal injuries that would have been fatal. They would just have taken a bit longer to kill them so the head injury goes down in the book of 'death by motorcycle'.

[Horse]

As I understand it, helmets have pretty much reached a point where there's not a lot more that they can do.

Hmmm ...

https://sharp.dft.gov.uk/sharp-2025/

[The Spin Doctor]

As I understand it, helmets have pretty much reached a point where there's not a lot more that they can do.

Hmmm ...

https://sharp.dft.gov.uk/sharp-2025/

OK, fair do... reducing rotational brain injury is definitely something that can be done, but I think I'm still right in saying the blunt force trauma impacts from a rider hitting a tree or an oncoming car create fatal bleeds at the same time as fatal head injuries.

[Horse]

As I understand it, helmets have pretty much reached a point where there's not a lot more that they can do.

Hmmm ...

https://sharp.dft.gov.uk/sharp-2025/

OK, fair do... reducing rotational brain injury is definitely something that can be done, but I think I'm still right in saying the blunt force trauma impacts from a rider hitting a tree or an oncoming car create fatal bleeds at the same time as fatal head injuries.

You're obviously correct that skull & brain meeting a very solid object at high speed can't be mitigated by helmet, however good it is.

In those high speed crashes, internal organs can slosh about (I hope this medical jargon is ok) inside the body, potentially tearing blood vessels etc. Let alone crushed ribs, broken pelvis, etc.

But helmets have, generally, improved since SHARP's first results in 2007. Results have moved far more to the 4 & 5 star end of the scale.

It's about reducing traumatic brain injury. SHARP's rotational test was long before any of the MIPS-type construction. Now 22-06 has a formal test. All helmets have to mitigate that type of impact, so potentially reducing TBI.

Construction will evolve, gradually*. As I understand it, SHARP 2025 is about setting achievable challenges.

The research underpinning SHARP showed where impacts were that caused injuries and death. 'Temporal Fossa' (sp?) is one particular area highlighted.

* eg Triple layer (different density) liners are used by some manufacturers.

[The Spin Doctor]

I'm not arguing with any of that... however, what I have heard is that by the time the traumatic injury is hard enough to kill you fast, you have internal injuries that will be just as fatal - but more slowly.

If you want an example of what I mean, think about the difference between a MotoGP crash where the rider can highside, smack their head on the tarmac and escape with concussion, and a TT crash where the rider impacts a telegraph pole or a wall.

So is there that much point in improving helmets' impact resistance? Improving testing to ensure helmets actually comply is a different matter.