More sharp helmet ratings published today
Discussion
Latest ratings
New SHARP ratings have been published today for the following helmets:
[5*] AGV S-4 Stealth
[5*] Bell M4R
[5*] Buell Turbulent
[5*] Caberg V2R
[5*] Marushin Tiger
[5*] Marushin RS1 Carbon
[4*] Duchinni D801
[4*] Lazer Vertigo
[3*] ROOF Daytona
[3*] VIPER RS 40
[3*] VIPER RS 66
[2*] Schuberth S1 Pro
[1*] KBC Force RR
See the ratings page for more information on each helmet. http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/news/
As a Shuberth and an Arai user I am a little narked by these.
New SHARP ratings have been published today for the following helmets:
[5*] AGV S-4 Stealth
[5*] Bell M4R
[5*] Buell Turbulent
[5*] Caberg V2R
[5*] Marushin Tiger
[5*] Marushin RS1 Carbon
[4*] Duchinni D801
[4*] Lazer Vertigo
[3*] ROOF Daytona
[3*] VIPER RS 40
[3*] VIPER RS 66
[2*] Schuberth S1 Pro
[1*] KBC Force RR
See the ratings page for more information on each helmet. http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/news/
As a Shuberth and an Arai user I am a little narked by these.
toxgobbler said:
As a Shuberth and an Arai user I am a little narked by these.
Why?I think its quite good! I have always though that Arai helmets in particular are over priced for what they are; people seem to buy them blindly cos some racer or other has one and they have been told they are the helmets to buy. Buy a Shark, they are just about the same helmet!!
Cheaper helmets are just as protective if they fit right, the new test has just shaken the market up a bit, which has to be a good thing!
Twit said:
toxgobbler said:
As a Shuberth and an Arai user I am a little narked by these.
Why?I think its quite good! I have always though that Arai helmets in particular are over priced for what they are; people seem to buy them blindly cos some racer or other has one and they have been told they are the helmets to buy. Buy a Shark, they are just about the same helmet!!
Cheaper helmets are just as protective if they fit right, the new test has just shaken the market up a bit, which has to be a good thing!
Whilst I agree it's not surprising that someone like Arai complains, Shoei have claimed they're not the greatest either, which going by their results they have little reason to.
The arguments against sharp testing are that they're focussing on the wrong areas of the helmet, and that the statistics they used to establish the testing process are incorrect. SHARP claim that 53% of impacts occur on the side of the helmet, based on visible damage. The fact of the matter is that most impacts, a substantial 65%, are towards the front of the helmet if other studies are to be taken into account.
Arai's response is certainly worth reading, as it provides a pretty valid argument without throwing excuses all over the place, balanced I suppose.
It can be found here for those who haven't seen it:
http://www.whyarai.co.uk/sharp.php
Personally I'm not a fan of Arai lids, they don't fit me particularly well, always felt cheap compared to Shoei counterparts and unjustifiably expensive for a heavier and noisier lid.
However I do have a lot of respect for them given their extensive research and testing into what works best in a helmet. Anyone who's been to their place will testify it's very impressive.
I think it's superb that the government have introduced this scheme, as has been mentioned anything that promotes safety and an informed decision when buying a helmet can only be a good thing, I just hope they're prepared to constantly review the testing process to ensure they're getting accurate results that reflect real life use, which I've got to be honest I'm not entirely convinced is the case now.
For what it's worth all of my helmets have a 5* rating, which wasn't considered when buying them, so this isn't a defensive post in response to my helmet scoring poorly, nor is it me rubbishing the SHARP scheme, I think it's a great scheme but it' early days and there's only so much weight can be put on it at this stage in my opinion.
Stu R said:
But the manufacturers, who lets face it have leagues of experience and proven research into this sector, have almost denounced the testing methods. I'm not suggesting we take what either the manufacturers, or indeed the SHARP tests say as gospel, but being as it's a new initiative I think it's important to consider the testing methods.
Yes do you trust the helmet manufacturers who have spent countless hours and millions of pounds performing scientific tests and analysis over many years, or some Nu-labour appointed 'catso said:
Stu R said:
But the manufacturers, who lets face it have leagues of experience and proven research into this sector, have almost denounced the testing methods. I'm not suggesting we take what either the manufacturers, or indeed the SHARP tests say as gospel, but being as it's a new initiative I think it's important to consider the testing methods.
Yes do you trust the helmet manufacturers who have spent countless hours and millions of pounds performing scientific tests and analysis over many years, or some Nu-labour appointed 'I'm in no way suggesting that the cheaper helmets (£60) that scored a 5 star are anything other than crap, but something isn't adding up.
I'll continue to wear my Arai as I'm going off practical experience here.
I do think that the top of the range lids from Arai/Shoei/AGV are way, way over priced.
Hopefully they'll drop their prices after all this settles down.
catso said:
Stu R said:
But the manufacturers, who lets face it have leagues of experience and proven research into this sector, have almost denounced the testing methods. I'm not suggesting we take what either the manufacturers, or indeed the SHARP tests say as gospel, but being as it's a new initiative I think it's important to consider the testing methods.
Yes do you trust the helmet manufacturers who have spent countless hours and millions of pounds performing scientific tests and analysis over many years, or some Nu-labour appointed '
As said, I think the SHARP scheme certainly has it's merits, and to all intents and purposes is a great idea. I just think the testing has underlying flaws which need to be addressed before it warrants any serious consideration when buying a lid. Having read around on the testing methodology I am not considering sharp ratings at the moment when buying a lid.
As I read in one report, the current idea is progression of how many impacts and how many impacts in the same spot a helmet can withstand whilst still delivery less than 300g to noggin, where multiple impacts are actually very rare in a crash and what should be focused on is lowering the amount of g delivered to noggin.
As I read in one report, the current idea is progression of how many impacts and how many impacts in the same spot a helmet can withstand whilst still delivery less than 300g to noggin, where multiple impacts are actually very rare in a crash and what should be focused on is lowering the amount of g delivered to noggin.
Biker's Nemesis said:
I'm walking proof that Arai helmets work.
I'm in no way suggesting that the cheaper helmets (£60) that scored a 5 star are anything other than crap, but something isn't adding up.
I'll continue to wear my Arai as I'm going off practical experience here.
Watch this vid http://www.superbikeplanet.com/2008/Oct/091016arai... about helmet fitting (from Jay Leno's garage) talk from some Arai man - see Shinya Nakanos 190mph, 10 impacts to the head Mugello crash and how the helmet stood up to it.I'm in no way suggesting that the cheaper helmets (£60) that scored a 5 star are anything other than crap, but something isn't adding up.
I'll continue to wear my Arai as I'm going off practical experience here.
I bet he's glad he wasn't wearing a £60 helmet........
Edited by catso on Friday 31st October 19:11
In the article on SHARP (linked to above), Arai's criticism of SHARP seems to be to do with the side impact test, on what they call the X-points, whose location is shown below:
Arai say:
This is because through many years of R&D, intense study of motorcycle accidents and immense racing experience, Arai are of the opinion that indicated X-points are less likely to suffer severe impacts. This point is well protected by the riders shoulder. In case of an accident, the shoulder would hit an object (ground) and therefore X-point is less likely to make contact.
However, research by Dietmar Otte suggests that side impacts are more of an issue. Take a look at this diagram:
My guess is that the X-points were chosen to cover general side impacts, and they seem to be in the centre of what are quite common impact sites according to Otte's research.
Furthermore, the SHARP team cites research that 53% of impacts are to the sides of the head, which is the opposite of what Arai claim.
The below diagram can be found at:
http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/about-sharp/test-protoc...
Arai claim that by reducing the thickness of the shell in what they see as being a well protected area makes the helmet lighter and more comfortable. But I haven't noticed any difference when I've tried them on, compared to another brand, so there seems to be a trade-off in terms of safety for a minor improvement in comfort. Personally, I'd rather have a few grammes more shell, and protect the side of my head better.
What surprises me is that no journalist has approached Arai with the above figures and pointed out that the side of the head is a vulnerable position. My research for this post took about ten minutes, and none of the press journalists has bothered to put in the legwork to check Arai's statements. Surely they can't all be that lazy?
Arai say:
This is because through many years of R&D, intense study of motorcycle accidents and immense racing experience, Arai are of the opinion that indicated X-points are less likely to suffer severe impacts. This point is well protected by the riders shoulder. In case of an accident, the shoulder would hit an object (ground) and therefore X-point is less likely to make contact.
However, research by Dietmar Otte suggests that side impacts are more of an issue. Take a look at this diagram:
My guess is that the X-points were chosen to cover general side impacts, and they seem to be in the centre of what are quite common impact sites according to Otte's research.
Furthermore, the SHARP team cites research that 53% of impacts are to the sides of the head, which is the opposite of what Arai claim.
The below diagram can be found at:
http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/about-sharp/test-protoc...
Arai claim that by reducing the thickness of the shell in what they see as being a well protected area makes the helmet lighter and more comfortable. But I haven't noticed any difference when I've tried them on, compared to another brand, so there seems to be a trade-off in terms of safety for a minor improvement in comfort. Personally, I'd rather have a few grammes more shell, and protect the side of my head better.
What surprises me is that no journalist has approached Arai with the above figures and pointed out that the side of the head is a vulnerable position. My research for this post took about ten minutes, and none of the press journalists has bothered to put in the legwork to check Arai's statements. Surely they can't all be that lazy?
Because the information the SHARP project is using for their statistics is widely seen as being incorrect. Even MCN have commented on the fact that SHARP themselves pointed towards side impact figures being wrong (see my previous post). Pretty much every other study has indicated a tendancy for the impact to be borne towards the front of the helmet not at the 'X-point'.
Arai's statements have been covered in the press too.
If you mark up loosely where the X-point is on a helmet, it's far easier to see where Arai et al are coming from.
Compare the SHARP testing to snell (who've been researching and testing for over 50 years), and you'll see the Arai helmets pass with flying colours, in terms of dissipating energy, penetration, chinbar impact, frontal impact, faceshield penetration and so on. To summarise, the Snell testing standard far exceeds that of SHARP (or even EC22.05 regs), who only cover a fraction of what Snell do.
Arai's statements have been covered in the press too.
If you mark up loosely where the X-point is on a helmet, it's far easier to see where Arai et al are coming from.
Compare the SHARP testing to snell (who've been researching and testing for over 50 years), and you'll see the Arai helmets pass with flying colours, in terms of dissipating energy, penetration, chinbar impact, frontal impact, faceshield penetration and so on. To summarise, the Snell testing standard far exceeds that of SHARP (or even EC22.05 regs), who only cover a fraction of what Snell do.
I personally wouldn't go on JUST the SHARP ratings, BUT I would put them into consideration when I buy my next lid.
TBH what other guide have we got? The EURO ruling? Wasn't that ridiculed as a poor second place to the KITE test?
I do judge my own ability sufficient to make my own reasoned decision using fit, build and SHARP to make a decision.
TBH what other guide have we got? The EURO ruling? Wasn't that ridiculed as a poor second place to the KITE test?
I do judge my own ability sufficient to make my own reasoned decision using fit, build and SHARP to make a decision.
This was the best test and sold me on it.
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=GhJQjjppiIU
So with an Arai head, I got me one of these Nakano RX7s. Love it
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=GhJQjjppiIU
So with an Arai head, I got me one of these Nakano RX7s. Love it
What the SHARP testing does for me is to validate the protection levels of the cheaper, less well known brands. The likes of Arai, AGV and Shoei have been around for a long time and know how to make a reasonable helmet. While I’m not suggesting that they wouldn’t make a duff helmet, their R&D budget is significant and the risk to their reputation is substantial should they get it seriously wrong. They have to meet a whole collection of different international standards and also get their helmets tested on a daily basis in race series all over the world where people get to see for real what does and what doesn’t work. If their helmets didn’t work it wouldn’t take long for the “rumor mill” to spread the news.
Many of the cheaper brands were previously rejected by experienced riders just because they were cheaper, (no scientific reasoning) and I’m sure that the large manufacturers encouraged this view. How often did you hear “Well, if you only have a £75 head!”?
What SHARP has shown is that the protection levels of many of the cheaper helmets is pretty much as good as those of the big (and expensive) names. This will allow cash strapped bikers to ensure that their heads are well protected and hopefully will encourage the big names to reduce the price of their more expensive products.
Many of the cheaper brands were previously rejected by experienced riders just because they were cheaper, (no scientific reasoning) and I’m sure that the large manufacturers encouraged this view. How often did you hear “Well, if you only have a £75 head!”?
What SHARP has shown is that the protection levels of many of the cheaper helmets is pretty much as good as those of the big (and expensive) names. This will allow cash strapped bikers to ensure that their heads are well protected and hopefully will encourage the big names to reduce the price of their more expensive products.
It's easy for those who ride bikes for fun, as a luxury item effectively, where money isn't really a fundamental consideration, to glibly repeat that '£50 helmet for a £50 head' and spend £300 on a lid. However it's always concerned me that there is such a wide range in helmet pricing - the so-called 'good' helmets from Arai and Shoei are up to 6 times more expensive than the 'cheaper' helmets. Now if this was motorcycles, we'd be looking at brand new bikes for around £5k being compared with £30k bikes? Are the £30k bikes qualitatively *better*? Yes, but not 6 times.
With most products, a factor of six price difference would normally indicate that the cheaper product is either utter garbage, or the higher priced product contains a LARGE label / branding premium, as per fashion clothing. Very rarely do functional products that perform in the same sort of way have this wide a range of pricing (can anyone think of one that doesn't involve fashion, branding and snob-value?)
Personally, my entire livelihood centres on my brain being bloody sharp (groan) so my first bike (which wasn't particularly expensive, it was a fast scooter) was purchased with the 'best' helmet I could buy. I asked the shop, they said 'Arai or Shoei' as did all my biker colleagues, and so it turned out I had an Arai head, so an Arai it was.
Not the fancy race-rep painted jobbies (looks a bit silly on a scooter) and I've kept to light, plain colours ever since for visibility (usually silver) so I don't end up paying £450 for the paint-job, but I've never tried cheaper helmets. Seeing Nakano's stack certainly reassures me about the quality of Arai helmets, and at the end of the day I have no problem with paying the premium for proven protection - but it has always interested me how helmets to similar standards are being sold for 6-8 times less than the Arai... looks like there's definitely a premium for the big brands, presumably to pay for their race sponsorship.
With most products, a factor of six price difference would normally indicate that the cheaper product is either utter garbage, or the higher priced product contains a LARGE label / branding premium, as per fashion clothing. Very rarely do functional products that perform in the same sort of way have this wide a range of pricing (can anyone think of one that doesn't involve fashion, branding and snob-value?)
Personally, my entire livelihood centres on my brain being bloody sharp (groan) so my first bike (which wasn't particularly expensive, it was a fast scooter) was purchased with the 'best' helmet I could buy. I asked the shop, they said 'Arai or Shoei' as did all my biker colleagues, and so it turned out I had an Arai head, so an Arai it was.
Not the fancy race-rep painted jobbies (looks a bit silly on a scooter) and I've kept to light, plain colours ever since for visibility (usually silver) so I don't end up paying £450 for the paint-job, but I've never tried cheaper helmets. Seeing Nakano's stack certainly reassures me about the quality of Arai helmets, and at the end of the day I have no problem with paying the premium for proven protection - but it has always interested me how helmets to similar standards are being sold for 6-8 times less than the Arai... looks like there's definitely a premium for the big brands, presumably to pay for their race sponsorship.
If Otte's reserch is correct, then mapping the Snell test area onto Otte's diagram puts about 20% of impacts into this. So this statement from the Why Arai page would be incorrect:
We are convinced that the test area as defined by Snell offers a more correct reflection under actual impact circumstances.
I'm inclined to agree that SHARP does apportion too much weight to side impacts, and I'd also like to see them break down the results of helmets a bit further. (e.g. Five stars for frontal, four stars for rear...)
I don't necessarily think that the SHARP test is perfect, but it's the only independently run, graded test out there. And I'm inclined to believe it over statemens from a PR department.
I agree with Black K1 that it does show that a £60 helmet offers the same levels of protection as a more expensive one. I've seen similar articles in the past that support this view.
We are convinced that the test area as defined by Snell offers a more correct reflection under actual impact circumstances.
I'm inclined to agree that SHARP does apportion too much weight to side impacts, and I'd also like to see them break down the results of helmets a bit further. (e.g. Five stars for frontal, four stars for rear...)
I don't necessarily think that the SHARP test is perfect, but it's the only independently run, graded test out there. And I'm inclined to believe it over statemens from a PR department.
I agree with Black K1 that it does show that a £60 helmet offers the same levels of protection as a more expensive one. I've seen similar articles in the past that support this view.
I have said this before: a cheaper helmet is not always cheaper because of safety compromise, it is often cheaper because it is bulkier, heavier, less focused on lovely comfort on the inside, uses cheaper materials (just as 'safe', just usually bulkier or less complex construction), or everything else about it is designed by a 5 year old (visor hinges snapping etc, etc.
I have a Shoei because it fits, it's ridiculously well built (it FEELS like someone cared when they designed it), looks good and is so wonderfully comfy, but I would have no reservations about a cheaper helmet which performs well in a multitude of tests.
Arai make good helmets - CLEARLY they do - but they were very much being bad losers when they responded to the SHARP tests. After all, if a helmet does badly a test, it's not doing it's job in one certain area, regardless of whether that crash area is commonly hit or not! And they are definitely more expensive than they perhaps 'should be'.
I have a Shoei because it fits, it's ridiculously well built (it FEELS like someone cared when they designed it), looks good and is so wonderfully comfy, but I would have no reservations about a cheaper helmet which performs well in a multitude of tests.
Arai make good helmets - CLEARLY they do - but they were very much being bad losers when they responded to the SHARP tests. After all, if a helmet does badly a test, it's not doing it's job in one certain area, regardless of whether that crash area is commonly hit or not! And they are definitely more expensive than they perhaps 'should be'.
Edited by untruth on Saturday 1st November 13:26
Did I buy an Arai RX7 Corsair?
Yes.
Why did I buy it?
It was by far the most comfortable helmet I could find.
Do I believe it will offer adequate protection in the event of a crash?
Yes.
Do I believe that buying a helmet with a higher SHARP rating than the RX7 would make a significant difference to the result of a crash?
No.
Am I happy with my choice and prepared to stake my life on it?
Yes.
Yes.
Why did I buy it?
It was by far the most comfortable helmet I could find.
Do I believe it will offer adequate protection in the event of a crash?
Yes.
Do I believe that buying a helmet with a higher SHARP rating than the RX7 would make a significant difference to the result of a crash?
No.
Am I happy with my choice and prepared to stake my life on it?
Yes.
Edited by Rawwr on Saturday 1st November 13:48
Rawwr said:
Did I buy an Arai RX7 Corsair?
Yes.
Why did I buy it?
It was by far the most comfortable helmet I could find.
Do I believe it will offer adequate protection in the event of a crash?
Yes.
Do I believe that buying a helmet with a higher SHARP rating than the RX7 would make a significant difference to the result of a crash?
No.
Am I happy with my choice and prepared to stake my life on it?
Yes.
+1 and the venting is second to none, which counts alot on hot days (if we ever get any).Yes.
Why did I buy it?
It was by far the most comfortable helmet I could find.
Do I believe it will offer adequate protection in the event of a crash?
Yes.
Do I believe that buying a helmet with a higher SHARP rating than the RX7 would make a significant difference to the result of a crash?
No.
Am I happy with my choice and prepared to stake my life on it?
Yes.
Edited by Rawwr on Saturday 1st November 13:48
Maybe a £60 Lazer helmet works as well as an Arai?? if so that's good news for a Lazer wearer but I will not believe that said Arai is less safe than the Lazer, as for value for money well that's up to the purchaser, there are people who will always buy the budget brand in everything, no doubt Lazer and Hyosung would get the job done but I'll stick with Arai & Ducati thanks.
Graemsay said:
Arai say:
This is because through many years of R&D, intense study of motorcycle accidents and immense racing experience, Arai are of the opinion that indicated X-points are less likely to suffer severe impacts. This point is well protected by the riders shoulder. In case of an accident, the shoulder would hit an object (ground) and therefore X-point is less likely to make contact.
In their "immense" racing experience, has anyone at Arai turned their head to the right or left as far as they can comfortably then slammed their head into a desk?This is because through many years of R&D, intense study of motorcycle accidents and immense racing experience, Arai are of the opinion that indicated X-points are less likely to suffer severe impacts. This point is well protected by the riders shoulder. In case of an accident, the shoulder would hit an object (ground) and therefore X-point is less likely to make contact.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff