Time to grow up: FIM rated helmet choices

[misterprofessionality]

Well the FIM guys don't test them because.....nobody races with a modular on. FIM still kind of thinks of itself as a professional sport oriented outfit, so they're not going to turn their testing equipment on any modular helmets and the manufacturers aren't going to pay the absurd amounts of money required to carry out those tests on non-race oriented helmets. That's why systems like SHARP exist. SHARP tests helmets of all varieties, and while their requirements are not altogether as strict as FIM, getting 5 stars on SHARP is a pretty good indicator that you might actually pass FIM. They correlate.

If a helmet has a 5 star SHARP rating, I think it's probably just as good for street riding.

[tommymck]

The engineer in me is very skeptical that either test standard shines above the other in terms of real-world road-accident outcomes. My guess is that most any brand name helmet that meets either SNELL, ECE/FIM or SHARP is going to have similar injury statistics. Sure, the standards and associated tests are different, but I'd want to see a large data set of accident type and rider outcome as a function of which test standard the helmet was designed to.

[the Ferret]

ECE 22.05

"The ECE 22.05 standard is quite a bit younger than the current DOT standard, and in many ways offers a more comprehensive battery of testing than its American cousin. ECE standards test for safety features that can contribute to avoiding an accident altogether, such as the optical quality of approved face shields, and safety factors not directly related to impact, such as shell rigidity. Unlike the DOT, every ECE 22.05 certified helmet model must actually be tested against the standard by an independent lab before it is available for sale with an ECE sticker.

Average motorcycle crash speeds in Europe are significantly lower than in the United States, and this plays a key influence in the design of ECE impact testing. ECE testing uses a smooth anvil known as a curbstone, which delivers a much lower energy blow than the hemi anvil (used in SNELL and DOT testing). ECE impact tests only consist of a single blow, resulting in a relatively low-energy testing scheme overall. While the DOT and SNELL testing allows a technician to strike a helmet anywhere within a range, ECE tests require the strikes at fixed points. This leaves open the possibility of helmet manufacturers “gaming the system” and beefing up protection at those points to pass an unsafe helmet."

ECE 22.05

PROS:
Standards are actively and thoroughly tested on all helmets sold with ECE certification
Very low peak energy allowable (only 275 g)
Extensive battery of testing for a variety of safety-related features.
Eight head forms for a larger range of testing variables

CONS:
Curbstone anvil and single strike equal very low-energy testing, arguably too low for the higher speeds in the United States
Fixed helmet strike positions make it possible to cheat the impact testing
Head form variety can mean displaced center of gravity during testing, reducing impact energy in tests by up to 20 percent

https://www.revzilla.com/common-tread/he...atings-101

[misterprofessionality]

That's a good write up Ferret. What's interesting about ECE and Snell is the complete lack of rotational transition testing. When you consider that the majority of real-world head injuries are attributed to rotational impacts, that's a huge Con that's missing from the list for ECE. I'd have a lot more faith in it if they'd conduct more extensive rotational testing.

Sharp and FIM both do this. FIM because of the higher speeds involved in racing, and SHARP, because their stated goal is to provide testing above and beyond ECE.

[the Ferret]

There is a place in Columbus, Ohio called Iron Pony. It is an motorcyle accessory super store. (MrP you won't be too far from there during the rally). They have just about every helmet you can think of. I have spent 1/2 day in there trying on helmets. All the big names. Every time, I come back to the HJC. It is simply the most comfortable helmet for my head. Couldn't tell you how it rates for weight, noise or any other standard, but I know when I pull on an HJC helmet I say Ahhhh that feels good. If you wear a helmet a lot, and I do, it has to be comfortable. I trust it is safe enough for me, for all but the weirdest of accidents, and that no helmet can guarantee 100% safety.

The worst helmet for comfort I ever put on there was a Schuberth. It lasted about 10 seconds on my head and had to come off.

No matter the rating, if it's uncomfortable, you will never like wearing a particular helmet.

[emptysea]

I didn't even know about SHARP or FIM until this thread and I find this conversation interesting and technical -- I usually prefer only to read the former and see lots of pictures for the latter. That said, do we have any decent data on the numbers of head injuries to motorcyclists wearing any rated helmet as compared those not wearing a rated helmet or perhaps no helmet at all? I ask because if the risk of sustaining a serious head injury while wearing a Snell-approved helmet is extremely low (I'm not saying it is, I'm assuming it for this question), then how much are you reducing your risk with an FIM or SHARP-rated lid? And are there other factors, like a how a helmet fits on your head, its weight, or even its field of vision, that would reduce the risk of a serious head injury by at least as much as having the FIM or SHARP helmet?

[misterprofessionality]

I don't know If I can answer those questions directly, but I can tell you WHY I can't answer them (can you tell i'm a career bureaucrat?):

the various testing methodologies, and the helmets that adhere to them are unforunately strongly segregated by region. ECE and FIM are firmly planted over in the EU. they have a completely different helmet market over there. You still get ECE ratings on pretty much all good helmets sold in the US, but the ECE ratings are secondary pursuits. Snell is something that is almost exclusively tested for in North America, and it's whole philosophy of testing is different as a result. Again, the helmets we use over here are built for a different market because of this. SHARP is just a british government thing.

The result of this is that the scientific waters are badly muddied. You might say there are more or less fatalities of permanent brain injury with Snell or ECE helmets, but the data is corrupted, because those statistics are segregated by region. Riders in the EU and riders in the US are completely different animals with completely different training and completely different attitudes. Any difference in fatality statistics would be worthless scientifically because of this. There is, however, a whole lot of science out there on the most common causes of death in motorcycle accidents.

". Seventy-five percent of all fatal motorcycle accidents involve head and brain injury, with rotational forces acting on the brain the primary cause of mortality. Current motorcycle helmets are reasonably effective at reducing head injuries associated with blunt impact. However, the mechanism of traumatic brain injury is biomechanically very different from that associated with focal head injury." -- John D. Lloyd, PHD/CPE.

I'm putting that quote up there because the standards and practices of North American safety testing organizations (Snell, DOT) are so radically different from European testing (ECE, SHARP, FIM) that you can draw a clear line on this one issue: Rotational Inertia. The number one type of impact that causes fatality or permanent injury to the head/neck is utterly ignored by Snell and DOT. It's not a huge leap to conclude that helmets designed to mitigate this issue are going to most often serve to prevent serious injury or death. This speaks to your question by saying that helmets that focus on stopping rotational Inertia from getting to the brain/neck (FIM/SHARP) are less likely to be found on the heads of people who suffer traumatic brain injury/death. I can see how that's not the most conclusively scientific viewpoint, but I think it's all we've got until helmet construction and standards becomes a whole lot less regional.

[Houtman_imp]

There is a reason that MANY road racer wear an Aria helmet , the company does not pay them to my knowledge . Look at the crashed helmets in the Aria files and you will see why people buy them. Of course we are not racers but sometimes the streets are even more dangerous than a circuit.

[j3gq_imp]

I don't know If I can answer those questions directly, but I can tell you WHY I can't answer them (can you tell i'm a career bureaucrat?):

the various testing methodologies, and the helmets that adhere to them are unforunately strongly segregated by region. ECE and FIM are firmly planted over in the EU. they have a completely different helmet market over there. You still get ECE ratings on pretty much all good helmets sold in the US, but the ECE ratings are secondary pursuits. Snell is something that is almost exclusively tested for in North America, and it's whole philosophy of testing is different as a result. Again, the helmets we use over here are built for a different market because of this. SHARP is just a british government thing.

The result of this is that the scientific waters are badly muddied. You might say there are more or less fatalities of permanent brain injury with Snell or ECE helmets, but the data is corrupted, because those statistics are segregated by region. Riders in the EU and riders in the US are completely different animals with completely different training and completely different attitudes. Any difference in fatality statistics would be worthless scientifically because of this. There is, however, a whole lot of science out there on the most common causes of death in motorcycle accidents.

". Seventy-five percent of all fatal motorcycle accidents involve head and brain injury, with rotational forces acting on the brain the primary cause of mortality. Current motorcycle helmets are reasonably effective at reducing head injuries associated with blunt impact. However, the mechanism of traumatic brain injury is biomechanically very different from that associated with focal head injury." -- John D. Lloyd, PHD/CPE.

I'm putting that quote up there because the standards and practices of North American safety testing organizations (Snell, DOT) are so radically different from European testing (ECE, SHARP, FIM) that you can draw a clear line on this one issue: Rotational Inertia. The number one type of impact that causes fatality or permanent injury to the head/neck is utterly ignored by Snell and DOT. It's not a huge leap to conclude that helmets designed to mitigate this issue are going to most often serve to prevent serious injury or death. This speaks to your question by saying that helmets that focus on stopping rotational Inertia from getting to the brain/neck (FIM/SHARP) are less likely to be found on the heads of people who suffer traumatic brain injury/death. I can see how that's not the most conclusively scientific viewpoint, but I think it's all we've got until helmet construction and standards becomes a whole lot less regional.

When you say that the primary concern is “stopping rotational inertia”, this isn’t entirely clear to me. So let me ask to make sure:
we are looking for helmets which during any type of accident “will not force your head to twist or turn around any axis”, or ... keep induced torque minimal or zero, correct ?
If this is what is meant, wouldn’t this imply that all it takes to build such a helmet (or find and buy it) is to make sure that it’s as round and flush as possible. In other words ... all the complicated testing for impact might not be so important after all ?

[GoldOxide_imp]

Helmet weight plays an important role regarding neck injuries, and not just from accidents.