08-11-2021, 10:28 AM
(08-11-2021, 07:39 AM)EmptySea_imp Wrote: One cannot conclude that a particular helmet would not stop (or reduce) rotational inertia simply because those helmets were not tested to the FIM or SHARP standard, though. And even if a helmet was tested by FIM or SHARP and did not pass, we cannot conclude that the helmet does not reduce rotational inertia to the point where there would be a statistically insignificant difference in safety to the user. We would need to know the degree to which any tested helmet reduces the rotation so maybe there would be a scale, say of 0-100 with 100 being the perfect score and 80 being "passing" by FIM. Is the difference between a helmet that scored 60 or 79 and one that scored 100 significant in terms of safety.
I hope this doesn't come off as argumentative. That is not my intent. Nor is my intent to criticize in any way the testing processes that any of these organizations use. In fact, and I may have said this in my last rant, I'm glad that there are different testing methodologies and I suspect that I would like to see my helmet meet or exceed the standard of each of them. In the end, though, I guess I'm wondering if there's a great deal of difference between an Arai that has the FIM approval along with Snell and ECE or an Arai that only carried the latter two.
Has to Dr. Lloyd's quote, was he only talking about riders who were wearing helmets?
I thought that was a well thought out post. Without knowing the "difference " besides pass and fail how do you make an informed decision. And if the fail point is 80 out of 100, and one helmet passes with an 81 and one fails with a 79. How much difference is there really?