SHARP lid tests and Arai...

[cyberface]

Fire99 said:

My concern with all this is that im not disputing Arai lids are very comfortable (well for my brother anyway as they dont fit me.. ) and i certainly agree buying the best lid you can afford as you only get one head.

I have no concern about paying 2 3 4 500 quid for a helmet as long as the money is actually paying for a safer 'lid' and not just a brand name..

What i want to know (and i've not got a difinitive answer yet) is, in a accident, is a £500 Arai or Shoei really going to protect my head better than a £150 AGV or HJC or other cheaper 'gold star' rated helmet?

I'm guessing that I should have put more thought into it rather than immediate knee-jerk 'because the government are s, the SHARP testing methodology is almost certainly nu-labour undergrad statistics and methodologically suspect'.

I like Arai because they fit and are very very comfortable. However the exact lid I wanted when I picked up my bike today (I've got a proper bike at last - woo hooo!!!! fk me they are fun) wasn't available so I got the next model down (all others had lairy graphics, and I wanted a plain light colour for visibility and safety). Now there's not a lot of difference in price between a £200 Arai and a £150 AGV or HJC, so there's a chance that the £50 is for the brand name, and the AGV and HJC lids actually do perform better in the SHARP tests - and that the tests are meaningful.

However the issue that made me take notice was how the £60 helmet got the full 5 stars whereas few of Arai's helmets did. Arai have been around a LONG time and are used by many racers, who presumably care about the protection their helmet affords (though I accept the argument that track crashes are often different to road crashes). £60 doesn't buy you a lot of top quality materials - and more importantly, unless there's huge volume sold, it doesn't seem to offer much in the way of reassurance that a large amount of R&D has been performed on the helmet.

If that one data point didn't exist (i.e. the 5 star £60 lid) then I'd probably have spend some time trying on the £150 AGV and HJC helmets to see if they fit my head as nicely as the Arais I've owned. When I first started biking 10 years ago I took the advice of my older, wiser work colleagues who had been biking for many years - buy an Arai or a Shoei. In the bike shop I tried examples of both, no Shoei fitted comfortably but all the Arais did, perfectly. So Arai it was and has remained.

However if they really are trading on reputation rather than solid fact performance, and the SHARP ratings are meaningfully accurate... perhaps I should try the mid-range priced other brands (I simply can't believe that a £60 helmet is made out of the best materials and has millions of pounds of R&D behind the design). When I need a new helmet, that is... since my nice new Arai is very comfortable

Interesting you'd have thought that a Japanese company, when faced with tests that show their position as pinnacle of engineering in a bad light, would immediately start working hard at fixing all the issues found by the testing. It's not quite so Japanese to simply and arrogantly state that their products are the best and the tests are obviously wrong. The Japanese concept of Kaizen (continuous improvement) would prohibit such retrograde steps - if anything, new data would be embraced to improve the products.

The only other possible explanation I can come up with at this time of night is that the SHARP testers omitted variables, that helmet manufacturers consider very important selling points, in the single-minded pursuit of impact resistance. So perhaps the £60 Lazer does, in fact, stand up to impacts better than my Arai... but the Lazer weighs 25 kg and that's why it's tough? Obviously weight is a big selling point - nobody wants a hugely heavy lid, and from a safety point of view, I don't want a helmet heavier than the ability of my neck muscles to cope with.

SHARP make a big deal about offset impacts that can cause rotation and potential spinal injury. I agree - that's a nightmare injury that nobody wants. But surely a heavier lid is more likely to overwhelm the neck muscles and damage the spine in a case of rotation than a lightweight lid? I didn't see any mention of helmet weight on their website. After all, you could probably achieve 5 stars easily enough by doubling the thickness of the shell and expanded polystyrene impact absorber... at the cost of a bulky and heavy helmet.

Food for thought, I guess. It's just for Arai to dismiss the results, when they could gain much more engineering credibility by saying that they will analyse the data and redesign the offending areas to massively surpass the 5 star rating, seems arrogant and a bit un-Japanese. Arai haven't rested on their laurels for years - the racetrack is a harsh test environment and Arai aren't exactly absent from top racers' heads.

Perhaps if Rossi rocks up to a race with a Lazer £60 lid with 'viva la figa' written over it in cheap permanent marker, I'll change my mind. But it's that one data point that brings the entire methodology into question IMO - unless all Lazer do is to reverse engineer the top brands' designs (thus eliminating any R&D cost) and rebuild them with cheaper materials but much thicker for a big safety margin. And I don't think they'd be that cynical.

[Fire99]

Tis a tricky one..

Maybe im being too simplistic but lets take price out of the equation as lets face it, its your head your talking about and you dont want it broken..

This is a safety issue and perhaps the most important one there is since the 'skid lid' is only barrier between our bonces and hard objects..

What i want is an industry / media / bike experts agreed test for crash helmets that is applicable for road riding with a separate testing scheme for racing. Im no sherlock but i'm guessing the risks etc are different for the two environments... (tracks - greater speed and sliding in gravel road - less pace but much more blunt objects to bounce off)

On a slight swerve ball, doesnt Rossi use an AGV??

The crash-helmet crash debate seems to have gone on for an age and i'd just like an agreed test to show the genuine strengths and weaknesses on lids from 50 - 500 pounds..

[PolarExpress]

Fire99 said:

What i want to know (and i've not got a difinitive answer yet) is, in a accident, is a £500 Arai or Shoei really going to protect my head better than a £150 AGV or HJC or other cheaper 'gold star' rated helmet?

wanna be a crash test dummy to find out?

cyberface said:

Arai have been around a LONG time and are used by many racers, who presumably care about the protection their helmet affords (though I accept the argument that track crashes are often different to road crashes). £60 doesn't buy you a lot of top quality materials - and more importantly, unless there's huge volume sold, it doesn't seem to offer much in the way of reassurance that a large amount of R&D has been performed on the helmet.

Arai are used by a lot of racers, but then again I think that's something called free helmets and sponsorship

The technology of helmets involves relatively simple construction - ie, failure can be quite easily identified to where the weak spots are... so it's not unfeasible that the 'cheaper' companies can spend a not so dissimilar amount of R&D budget compared to the likes of Arai who spend a larger proportion of their budget on race sponsorship, not R&D.

[Fire99]

PolarExpress said:

Fire99 said:

What i want to know (and i've not got a difinitive answer yet) is, in a accident, is a £500 Arai or Shoei really going to protect my head better than a £150 AGV or HJC or other cheaper 'gold star' rated helmet?

wanna be a crash test dummy to find out?

well i'm sure there is someone out there with an 'ology who can do it in a much more 'clevvva' way than me bouncing down the road.. Hurts a bit more now than when i was 16..

But on a more serious note the biggest difference i've found with lids over the years (of various prices) has been weight, comfort over long distances, and steaming up issues..

None have cracked like a pear yet.

[londonbabe]

There was an article, written I believe by a respected person who probably knew what they were talking about, which questioned the wisdom of the Snell US tests and possibly the old BSI tests. The thrust of this argument was that the really expensive helmets were designed to pass these unrealistic tests and cope with high-speed crashes at racing speeds - the shells and foams were way harder than you want them to be for a road lid. Most accidents on the road happen at under 30mph, usually a lot lower, and involve hitting deformable objects like car bodies and hedges, or the road at at imact speed of about 13mph. For this type of accident the high-spec very hard helmets didn't absorb enough energy - they just passed it straight on to your skull and brain. The cheaper may therefore protect you better because it deforms more, which might be why the Lazer is getting 5 stars and the Arai isn't.

The article is here http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcyc...
It would be interesting if someone who knew what they were talking about (i.e. not me) could compare the arguments and findings with the new SHARP tests and to see if they were designed to more accurately replicate the common road crashes than ECE or Snell.

[Biker's Nemesis]

PolarExpress said:

companies can spend a not so dissimilar amount of R&D budget compared to the likes of Arai who spend a larger proportion of their budget on race sponsorship, not R&D.

Is the above based on fact? Or your own opinion?

[Rawwr]

Meh, balls to it all. My Arai fits perfectly, feel comfortable and I'm 99% sure that should I be in an accident powerful enough to destroy it and my lovely head, I'll end up in a wheelchair or a coffin anyway.

[PolarExpress]

Biker's Nemesis said:

PolarExpress said:

companies can spend a not so dissimilar amount of R&D budget compared to the likes of Arai who spend a larger proportion of their budget on race sponsorship, not R&D.

Is the above based on fact? Or your own opinion?

Waddya think... it is somewhat implicit in the wording

PolarExpress said:

so it's not unfeasible that the 'cheaper' companies can spend a not so dissimilar amount of R&D budget compared to the likes of Arai who spend a larger proportion of their budget on race sponsorship, not R&D.

Edited by PolarExpress on Monday 4th August 00:57 to add the rolleyes for effect

Edited by PolarExpress on Monday 4th August 00:58

[hiccy]

catso said:

I suspect the Sharp ratings are at best suspect, if you've got a £60 head buy the £60 (5 star) helmet, I'll stick with my (3 star) Arai.

Arai (and others) have been in the helmet business for a long time and have built a reputation based on quality and backed up by experts, crashes and facts, I trust their judgement more than some new testing facility that appears to have the backing of our illustrious Government.

Question is do you trust a company who have a long standing, world leading & hard earned reputation in helmet manufacture or some Nu-labour job-creation 'safety-by-numbers' agency?

Edited by catso on Sunday 3rd August 00:16

But it's not a new testing facility, it is new test procedures and reports performed by a well established government funded transport research facility using data and procedures based on decades of pan-european and global research performed by other similarly independant test facilities. Given that they have no commercial allegiances, why would you prefer to choose to believe someone trying to sell you something, someone who has probably done far less research at that.

Criticism of Arai's approach to constructing the side of helmets is far from new, and their philosophy is out of step with current theories based on extensive public testing (COST-327), so no great surprise that they would fare badly in tests and then take issue with the results.

The proof of the "validity" of the tests will no doubt be provided by new Arai (& Shoei) models achieving 5 star status, across the board.

[m3psm]

Some good points made and it appears that the testing criteria is far from conclusive.

What interests me though from the Arai/Shoei purists (of which I confess to being one) point of view, what's the difference between a 3 star Arai and a 5 star Arai?

Is the £300 5 star one safer than the 3 star £300 as the tests would suggest, or is the more popular 3 star one safer because it's wormn by more racers and comes in better colours?

[rsv gone!]

There was a group test of helmets carried out a year or so ago, but I'm struggling to remember by whom.

It was independent - a magazine IIRC - and the Arias and Shoeis were definitely the best performing, with the Corsair being the only helmet to complete the penetration test.

I have an Arai but I'm not a fanboy. The problem with with this latest test is that the way the final scores have been calculated is being kept secret. There seems to be an arbitrary weighting system instead of cold, hard data.

[Lazydonkey]

As someone who is new to biking it seems the same as the carry on with the NCAP rating in cars.

NCAP isnt on certain things that don't "save" you in an accident, ie you get points if your car has a buzzer if you have the engine on but no seatbelt etc etc.

When they first came out, as another poster has mentioned, Saab and Volvo faired badly (or not as well as expected) even though independent research has them at the top of the pile.

Now EVERY new car is a 4 and 5 star car. Undoubtedly a good thing, but all it's done is level the playing field again......so safety is no longer a selling point.

I can see the same thing happening with helmets - it's not so much Arai have been found out, more than they will HAVE to make sure their helmets pass these tests to ensure their sales don't suffer. My local HG shop says they can't give Condors away at the moment.

Interesting article in one of the mags whereby they've asked SHARP for details on the testing procedure and they've been blanked.

From my point of view i wouldn't and didn't buy a renault on the basis of a 5 / 6 star NCAP score and i wouldn't do the same for Helmets.

[Rubin215]

A point missed by many is that it's not always head injuries that are going to kill you.

Your neck is the most vulnerable bit (10 kilos of skull and plastic balanced on a bone no bigger than the end of your thumb).

Rotation, compression, elongation and shearing incidents will easily damage your spinal cord (roughly the consistency of toothpaste) leading to death/paralysis.

Certainly not knocking the protective capabilities of any manufacturers products, but if you fall at speed and hit your head off something solid while still travelling, it doesn't matter how good your helmet is if you snap your neck.

[PolarExpress]

Lazydonkey said:

Now EVERY new car is a 4 and 5 star car. Undoubtedly a good thing, but all it's done is level the playing field again......so safety is no longer a selling point.

I can see the same thing happening with helmets - it's not so much Arai have been found out, more than they will HAVE to make sure their helmets pass these tests to ensure their sales don't suffer. My local HG shop says they can't give Condors away at the moment.

Interesting article in one of the mags whereby they've asked SHARP for details on the testing procedure and they've been blanked.

From my point of view i wouldn't and didn't buy a renault on the basis of a 5 / 6 star NCAP score and i wouldn't do the same for Helmets.

But as a user/consumer of these products, it's in my interests to ensure that the helmet I choose meets/exceeds the toughest safety tests. I don't care about protecting the sales success of Arai/Shoei etc, but I'm more concerned about whether the helmet will protect me. And to that end I'm all for the likes of SHARP to be critical of these companies and hopefully [continually] raise the bar to make the manufacturers produce/design a safer safety product.

Not targetted at LazyDonkey at all, but I think consumers would do well to support SHARP and ask tough questions of the manufacturers instead of defending our own personal purchases.

[randlemarcus]

PolarExpress said:

Not targetted at LazyDonkey at all, but I think consumers would do well to support SHARP and ask tough questions of the manufacturers instead of defending our own personal purchases.

Make SHARP an open book exam, and we could do that. Keeping scoring systems confidential doesnt help anybodies case, and doesnt live up to the idea behind SHARP, which was to provide an objective means of assessing quality in graded levels, rather than a simple BS (geddit?) pass or fail system.

[Dakkon]

FeatherZ said:

Funny how everyone who slates these tests own an arai, aint that funny?

Fact is the helmet is tested for impact, in most areas including side impact which arai dont agree with, on the track fair enough, but we ride on roads, with lots of objects we could hit side on, cars, kurbs,sign poles, all bloody sorts.

These helmet tests are good news, arai users hate it because they just wasted 500 pound to look like haga.

I have a Haga rep helmet

Edited by Dakkon on Monday 4th August 12:53

[filski666]

black-k1 said:

I remember when the first Euro NCAP results were published and there were some surprises as to which cars got good ratings and which didn’t. Many manufacturers then said that the tests were inappropriate and irrelevant. Surprisingly, these were the manufacturers who scored badly! Many car owners also agreed that the tests were inappropriate and irrelevant but, again, these tended to be the owners of cars that scored badly.

As we all know now, car manufactures now strive to get 5 stars for their cars and many customers will have their model choice seriously influenced by the star rating system. As a result overall safety in cars has improved dramatically. (This has much more to do with KSI statistics than speed cameras – but that’s a different debate!) I expect crash helmets will do something very similar.

no - car manufacturers now design cars to pass NCAP tests - they are not designed to be as safe as can be - because NCAP tests are still inappropriate to a lot of REAL world accidents, but hey - it's a start!

[Hyperion]

If you look at the RiDE test, the Arai Condor came out well, but only scored 3 in the SHARP test http://www.ridetriangles.com/pdf/643/221609.pdf

[filski666]

Hyperion said:

If you look at the RiDE test, the Arai Condor came out well, but only scored 3 in the SHARP test http://www.ridetriangles.com/pdf/643/221609.pdf

good cos that is what I have!

[m3psm]

Hyperion said:

If you look at the RiDE test, the Arai Condor came out well, but only scored 3 in the SHARP test http://www.ridetriangles.com/pdf/643/221609.pdf

It still got beaten by an £80 lid though.