SHARP lid tests and Arai...

[Mon Ami Mate]

The SHARP test has been derived by the Government. It is designed to tick boxes and has nothing to do with the safety of bikers. Ignore it.

[black-k1]

Mon Ami Mate said:

The SHARP test has been derived by the Government. It is designed to tick boxes and has nothing to do with the safety of bikers. Ignore it.

In what way are the tests not appropriate and what tests should be undertaken instead?

[black-k1]

filski666 said:

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!

While there has been a focus on passing NCAP requirements it has not been the only focus of safety improvement by manufacturers. NCAP must also take some credit for making improved safety a general selling point rather than just an additional cost. Cars may not be the safest they can be (but then that’s an impossible goal) but they are substantially safer than they were before the introduction of NCAP.

Let’s hope helmet manufacturers do the same as car manufacturers and there is an equivalent improvement in helmet safety.

[cyberface]

black-k1 said:

Mon Ami Mate said:

The SHARP test has been derived by the Government. It is designed to tick boxes and has nothing to do with the safety of bikers. Ignore it.

In what way are the tests not appropriate and what tests should be undertaken instead?

Regardless of the polarity of opinion in the two above posts... my main issue is simply why has the final weighting algorithm been kept secret?

That is the fundamental reason for my suspicion and my default return to Arai. If the data was published, the algorithm was published, then I could make a scientific judgement based on the data and all would be good. Instead there's a 'dumbed-down' star rating that could have no valid relationship to the data collected (e.g. one star deducted for double-ring strap adjuster, for example) - in the government's words 'easy to understand' generally means 'dumbed-down'...

[Biker's Nemesis]

Rubin215 said:

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.

I've got a piece of bone missing from my neck from my last crash, which my head happened to be inside an Arai.

[black-k1]

cyberface said:

black-k1 said:

Mon Ami Mate said:

The SHARP test has been derived by the Government. It is designed to tick boxes and has nothing to do with the safety of bikers. Ignore it.

In what way are the tests not appropriate and what tests should be undertaken instead?

Regardless of the polarity of opinion in the two above posts... my main issue is simply why has the final weighting algorithm been kept secret?

That is the fundamental reason for my suspicion and my default return to Arai. If the data was published, the algorithm was published, then I could make a scientific judgement based on the data and all would be good. Instead there's a 'dumbed-down' star rating that could have no valid relationship to the data collected (e.g. one star deducted for double-ring strap adjuster, for example) - in the government's words 'easy to understand' generally means 'dumbed-down'...

I don’t have a ‘polarity’ of opinion as you suggest. During the previous thread about the SHARP testing, I expressed the opinion that for these test to be of real value, we had to have a context. We had to understand how measured results from the various tests were ‘turned into’ stars. We still don’t have that (as you point out) but that doesn’t mean that the SHARP tests are worthless.

Previous thread http://www.pistonheads.co.uk/xforums/topic.asp?h=0...

I asked a genuine question above. It’s all very well saying that it’s simply a government box ticking exercise but what I want to know is what then is a valid, consistent, meaningful and repeatable test that will allow us (the ultimate ‘crash test dummies’) to have the appropriate knowledge to pick the best helmet for the job.

ETA link to previous thread.

Edited by black-k1 on Monday 4th August 19:12

[Mon Ami Mate]

black-k1 said:

Mon Ami Mate said:

The SHARP test has been derived by the Government. It is designed to tick boxes and has nothing to do with the safety of bikers. Ignore it.

In what way are the tests not appropriate and what tests should be undertaken instead?

Impact tests on the top of the helmet and swivel tests on the side of the helmet. They have essentially decided that the ability of the helmet to resist turning forces is more important than abrasion or impact resistance. The Arai helmets score badly because of the vents, which apparently have been deemed to create extra swivel hazard.

[black-k1]

Mon Ami Mate said:

black-k1 said:

Mon Ami Mate said:

The SHARP test has been derived by the Government. It is designed to tick boxes and has nothing to do with the safety of bikers. Ignore it.

In what way are the tests not appropriate and what tests should be undertaken instead?

Impact tests on the top of the helmet and swivel tests on the side of the helmet. They have essentially decided that the ability of the helmet to resist turning forces is more important than abrasion or impact resistance. The Arai helmets score badly because of the vents, which apparently have been deemed to create extra swivel hazard.

Thanks for that. Are there many 'real life' crashes that result in top of the helmet impacts? Do the vents on an Arai create an extra swivel hazard?

[PolarExpress]

Mon Ami Mate said:

black-k1 said:

Mon Ami Mate said:

The SHARP test has been derived by the Government. It is designed to tick boxes and has nothing to do with the safety of bikers. Ignore it.

In what way are the tests not appropriate and what tests should be undertaken instead?

Impact tests on the top of the helmet and swivel tests on the side of the helmet. They have essentially decided that the ability of the helmet to resist turning forces is more important than abrasion or impact resistance. The Arai helmets score badly because of the vents, which apparently have been deemed to create extra swivel hazard.

I find this very hard to believe. The Arai GP5X has 4 vents on the top of the helmet, yet it scored 5 stars according to SHARP.

[randlemarcus]

Re-reading the site, it would seem that their stats say 53% of direct impacts are to the side, so fair enough on that point.

It would seem that they arent fixed tests, though, thus the non-release of them. Which surely means your 5 star this month might be a 3 star next, when they change the tests, and do stuff like introduce a chin guard impact.

The deeper you look, the more pointless the whole thing seems. This isnt a rant because I got a 3 star - I have a Shoei, which scored low, and a BMW which havent been tested, and the next one will be a BMW, and almost certainly not be tested.

ETA Anti-misting, and noise are quite important to me, as is means of securing the chinstrap, and I cant see any objective comparison.

Edited by randlemarcus on Monday 4th August 20:03

[m3psm]

PolarExpress said:

I find this very hard to believe. The Arai GP5X has 4 vents on the top of the helmet, yet it scored 5 stars according to SHARP.

The GP5X vents are much smaller though than on most other Arai's.

The 5X has 4 small (about 12mm x 25mm) vents and 2 slots in the chin peice, whereas the others have a larger chin vent and 2 large (about 25mm x 130mm) top vents, which could be more prone to catching on stuff. In reality though I'd have though either would break straight off on impact.

Wonder if Arai will re-introduce the GP5X as it's their only lid that hit 5 stars but was discontinued before the SHARP results were issued.

[hiccy]

Mon Ami Mate said:

black-k1 said:

Mon Ami Mate said:

The SHARP test has been derived by the Government. It is designed to tick boxes and has nothing to do with the safety of bikers. Ignore it.

In what way are the tests not appropriate and what tests should be undertaken instead?

Impact tests on the top of the helmet and swivel tests on the side of the helmet. They have essentially decided that the ability of the helmet to resist turning forces is more important than abrasion or impact resistance. The Arai helmets score badly because of the vents, which apparently have been deemed to create extra swivel hazard.

If you read the blurb on the site carefully you'll see that the tests relate to areas where it is thought the current standards could be improved upon in the most effective manner i.e. no penetration tests as the current BS and ECE standards already amply cover this. Specifically the tests are aimed at demonstrating a helmets ability to reduce brain damage, so abrasion tests are somewhat irrelevant in this case.

[hiccy]

randlemarcus said:

Re-reading the site, it would seem that their stats say 53% of direct impacts are to the side, so fair enough on that point.

It would seem that they arent fixed tests, though, thus the non-release of them. Which surely means your 5 star this month might be a 3 star next, when they change the tests, and do stuff like introduce a chin guard impact.

The deeper you look, the more pointless the whole thing seems. This isnt a rant because I got a 3 star - I have a Shoei, which scored low, and a BMW which havent been tested, and the next one will be a BMW, and almost certainly not be tested.

ETA Anti-misting, and noise are quite important to me, as is means of securing the chinstrap, and I cant see any objective comparison.

Edited by randlemarcus on Monday 4th August 20:03

There's already plans to make the test more rigorous, the idea being to encourage the development of helmets so they become more protective and perform better in an accident. Changes to the test aren't going to happen overnight, but yes ultimately a 5 star lid purchased today could end up being a midfield perform a couple of years down the line: considering it's a better performing product today I guess that's simply progress.

I quite agree about the other qualities of a helmet being important, hence the reason why I cannot see myself purchasing a £60 lid, but ultimately its primary role is to stop your brain getting mashed. Or mushed. I think areas such as ventilation or anti-misting are best left as the preserve of Ride-style tests, although perhaps some laboratory testing of noise would be a good idea.

[catso]

Mon Ami Mate said:

The SHARP test has been derived by the Government. It is designed to tick boxes and has nothing to do with the safety of bikers. Ignore it.

I suspect it is much like the energy rating on 'HIPS' report (for house energy ratings), pure box ticking and totally worthless in the real world.

[Sossige]

catso said:

Mon Ami Mate said:

The SHARP test has been derived by the Government. It is designed to tick boxes and has nothing to do with the safety of bikers. Ignore it.

I suspect it is much like the energy rating on 'HIPS' report (for house energy ratings), pure box ticking and totally worthless in the real world.

And so that they can say to the EU that they are trying to do something to enhance motorcyclist safety.

They'd be better off repairing some of the roads!

[filski666]

black-k1 said:

filski666 said:

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!

While there has been a focus on passing NCAP requirements it has not been the only focus of safety improvement by manufacturers. NCAP must also take some credit for making improved safety a general selling point rather than just an additional cost. Cars may not be the safest they can be (but then that’s an impossible goal) but they are substantially safer than they were before the introduction of NCAP.

hmmm and what are you baseing this comment on? In my experience, we design cars to pass the NCAP and Thatcham requirements, and that is pretty much all. I am not saying that is a bad thing, as I said before -it is a start - but there are a set of crash tests as used by NCAP and these are the basis for the simulation work done prior to real trolley and full vehicle testing.

There is no NCAP test for a high speed crash, no test for rollover, and all the tests are conducted into standard barriers. No testing for vehicle to vehicle (eg small car into SUV), no test into non-deformable poles (eg a tree) at various positions (there is ONE test and it is pretty specific where it hits (the "R" point)). A lot of components in a vehicle are positioned according to NCAP tests. It would be better to armour them (eg fuel filler neck) but this isn't necessary to pass NCAP so don't bother as it is expensive, and as long as it passes NCAP and gets it's 5 stars, no one is interested.

When I was working at one company on a large SUV, the side impact test was aced by the vehicle because the standard test sled hit so low on the car that it bounced up and the sled went under it. PASS. But doesn't really test how good the car's actual impact protection is, does it?

NCAP IS good because it raises awareness about vehicle safety and makes it a purchasing decision by the customer - but don't think just because 3 cars have 5 star NCAP rating they are all as safe as each other. Some manufacturers (eg Volvo) go above and beyond NCAP because that is one of their key selling points.

[Simon495]

Don't forget the UK price 'effect'.

The plain RX7 that is £450 here is £330 in the US - clearly a UK head and it's contents is more valuable than an American's...

It doesn't seem so long ago that a plain Quantum was less than £200, now a plain Viper is £330.

Sterling has appreciated noticeably against the Yen, so they have either spent lot's of money on R&D, which I'm unsure about; all I can see is that there's been an evolution of vents but I don't recall any news about their shell material, where's the extra gone?

I've been a long-term Arai wearer and have succesfully crash tested a Quantum Walker rep on a track day, but when I next need to renew I will consider the SHARP results and try other makes too.


Anybody wanting to read more about the test methodology in SHARP's own words can at

http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/about-sharp/test-protoc...

[londonbabe]

Simon495 said:

Don't forget the UK price 'effect'.

The plain RX7 that is £450 here is £330 in the US - clearly a UK head and it's contents is more valuable than an American's...

From what I have read helmets, even the same model and externally identical are going to be different because they are made to different standards for the United States. They only have to pass DOT for sale in the US, which is a joke standard; there is no requirement for side protection for example. They may choose, if they want to get more money to pass the voluntary Snell tests, but these are very different tests to European ones and do require a different construction.

But there's nothing to stop you finding a cheaper price elsewhere in Europe of course - same standards so it will be the same helmet.