Sharp helmet test, take what they say as gospel?
Discussion
3doorPete said:
Biker's Nemesis said:
black-k1 said:
The thing about the SHARP tests is that they are repeatable, comparable and consistent. They conduct exactly the same test in exactly the same way and score each helmet on how it performs in those tests. How close those tests are to what would happen in a ‘real world’ accident is very difficult to say. However, the SHARP team do feel that their tests reflect common examples of helmet damage in ‘real world’ accidents but, every single ‘real world’ accident will be different.
Likewise, anyone who says that ‘I had an accident wearing my whatever make of helmet and I didn’t get injured so the helmet must be better than all the rest’ is not really thinking about what they are saying. Unless they go out and have exactly the same accident wearing every other make of helmet then they have no qualification to offer comparative advice.
The SHARP scoring will be far from perfect but they are the best scientifically undertaken comparative tests that are available! As has been said, buy the helmet that fits you best. The fit of the helmet is by far the most important aspect. If you have several helmets that fit you well in your price range then buy the one with the best SHARP score.
I read that SHARP tested the side of the chin bar. Certain manufacturers state that, that part of the helmet doesn't take anywhere the amount of impact that say the top or front of the helmet does in an accident due to the shoulder taking most of the impact.Likewise, anyone who says that ‘I had an accident wearing my whatever make of helmet and I didn’t get injured so the helmet must be better than all the rest’ is not really thinking about what they are saying. Unless they go out and have exactly the same accident wearing every other make of helmet then they have no qualification to offer comparative advice.
The SHARP scoring will be far from perfect but they are the best scientifically undertaken comparative tests that are available! As has been said, buy the helmet that fits you best. The fit of the helmet is by far the most important aspect. If you have several helmets that fit you well in your price range then buy the one with the best SHARP score.
So a manufacturer that tests through racing and takes feedback from riders worldwide should change their helmet designs to satisfy a team of White coats who conduct their tests in a laboratory?
Biker's Nemesis said:
3doorPete said:
Biker's Nemesis said:
black-k1 said:
The thing about the SHARP tests is that they are repeatable, comparable and consistent. They conduct exactly the same test in exactly the same way and score each helmet on how it performs in those tests. How close those tests are to what would happen in a ‘real world’ accident is very difficult to say. However, the SHARP team do feel that their tests reflect common examples of helmet damage in ‘real world’ accidents but, every single ‘real world’ accident will be different.
Likewise, anyone who says that ‘I had an accident wearing my whatever make of helmet and I didn’t get injured so the helmet must be better than all the rest’ is not really thinking about what they are saying. Unless they go out and have exactly the same accident wearing every other make of helmet then they have no qualification to offer comparative advice.
The SHARP scoring will be far from perfect but they are the best scientifically undertaken comparative tests that are available! As has been said, buy the helmet that fits you best. The fit of the helmet is by far the most important aspect. If you have several helmets that fit you well in your price range then buy the one with the best SHARP score.
I read that SHARP tested the side of the chin bar. Certain manufacturers state that, that part of the helmet doesn't take anywhere the amount of impact that say the top or front of the helmet does in an accident due to the shoulder taking most of the impact.Likewise, anyone who says that ‘I had an accident wearing my whatever make of helmet and I didn’t get injured so the helmet must be better than all the rest’ is not really thinking about what they are saying. Unless they go out and have exactly the same accident wearing every other make of helmet then they have no qualification to offer comparative advice.
The SHARP scoring will be far from perfect but they are the best scientifically undertaken comparative tests that are available! As has been said, buy the helmet that fits you best. The fit of the helmet is by far the most important aspect. If you have several helmets that fit you well in your price range then buy the one with the best SHARP score.
So a manufacturer that tests through racing and takes feedback from riders worldwide should change their helmet designs to satisfy a team of White coats who conduct their tests in a laboratory?
I wear AGV now, but have never crashed in one and would like to have a scientific reference point for safety rather than other people's views. This would not be my sole factor in what to buy, but it would have an affect, much like Euro N-Cap crash test results have an effect on what car I buy my wife to ferry my kids around in.
I rolled a Saxo VTR 10 years ago and survived fine - does that make it a safe car? No - they are made of tin foil, but I survived, so could now be telling everyone how safe they are.
3doorPete said:
I'm with Black-K1 on this. These are repeatable scientific tests, that may not be perfect, but set attempt to set a benchmark.
People like to put down lab tests, but then if it weren't for the incremental proven structured improvements they give in all walks of life, we'd still be buying snake oil to cure our ailments because my brothers mate's grandad's cousin said it cured him of scurvy.
Of course there are other factors in deciding on a helmet, but if I am fresh to biking, I'd rather look at the results of some scientific testing to help steer my decision, than listen to 'anecdotal evidence'.
I hear what you are saying Pete, but the tests will only be helpful if they are doing the correct repeatable tests. There is no doubt whatsoever that the tests they are doing are repeatable, but there is debate around whether the tests themselves are correct. If they are wrong they could result in a 'less safe' helmet being classed as 'more safe' and therefore influencing a buyer.People like to put down lab tests, but then if it weren't for the incremental proven structured improvements they give in all walks of life, we'd still be buying snake oil to cure our ailments because my brothers mate's grandad's cousin said it cured him of scurvy.
Of course there are other factors in deciding on a helmet, but if I am fresh to biking, I'd rather look at the results of some scientific testing to help steer my decision, than listen to 'anecdotal evidence'.
I know there is a train of thought that any additional testing is a good thing. I'm of the view that additional testing is only good if it is correct, and can be dangerous if it is wrong. As a result I think that the SHARP tests are not great. They are being done with the best intentions, but I wouldn't even give it a second glance when buying a helmet.
Sprinter, I think that's the tought bit. There are two (probably more) camps. There is SHARP who feel their tests are correct. Then you have companies like Arai and Shoei who feel their tests are better, and that SHARP is flawed. To add to the mix you then also have the American SNELL tests that are different, but similar, to the SHARP tests. Ultimately it comes down to who you personally trust the most.
As you have probably guessed from my posts I put more faith in Arai and Shoei.
The problem with an all over solid helmet is that it would way a ton and be incredibly uncomfortable. Uncomfortable = Distracted, Distracted = More likely to crash.
As you have probably guessed from my posts I put more faith in Arai and Shoei.
The problem with an all over solid helmet is that it would way a ton and be incredibly uncomfortable. Uncomfortable = Distracted, Distracted = More likely to crash.
You got me worried Dare2fail ! What my helmet may not be strong all over 
Surely strength & weight (these days) aren't too incompatible? The shell thickness & design structure dictate the strength together with internal padding etc.
Can't see how that can't be achieved without compromise.
Surely strength & weight (these days) aren't too incompatible? The shell thickness & design structure dictate the strength together with internal padding etc.
Can't see how that can't be achieved without compromise.
sprinter1050 said:
You got me worried Dare2fail ! What my helmet may not be strong all over
Surely strength & weight (these days) aren't too incompatible? The shell thickness & design structure dictate the strength together with internal padding etc.
Can't see how that can't be achieved without compromise.
It's not just strength that you want though. You also want it to absorb the energy of an impact. A completely solid structure wouldn't absorb the energy, it would just transfer it very efficiently to your head. What I really want in a helmet is something that is the correct type of 'strong' (i.e. solid vs impact absorbing) in the right places. As there is debate around where 'the right places' are you are back to the argument of who knows best as to what impact points require what material.Surely strength & weight (these days) aren't too incompatible? The shell thickness & design structure dictate the strength together with internal padding etc.
Can't see how that can't be achieved without compromise.
One to throw into the mix.....
Arai and Shoei do their own testing presumably based on feedback form professional riders/racers/crash victims?
What is the percentage of head injuries of recorded crashes?
None of the people I have known to crash, have suffered head injuries, and I know a lot of them. And I would hazard a guess that if you became a fatality, you would have a much greater chance of it being through other organ failure and not head injuries?
If this is the case, shouldn't helmet manufacturers be approached to conduct these tests rather than some organisation who wouldn't know which way to face on a bike?
Arai and Shoei do their own testing presumably based on feedback form professional riders/racers/crash victims?
What is the percentage of head injuries of recorded crashes?
None of the people I have known to crash, have suffered head injuries, and I know a lot of them. And I would hazard a guess that if you became a fatality, you would have a much greater chance of it being through other organ failure and not head injuries?
If this is the case, shouldn't helmet manufacturers be approached to conduct these tests rather than some organisation who wouldn't know which way to face on a bike?
From the Sharp web page in 2008
12/06/2008
WORLD-FIRST MOTORCYCLE HELMET RATINGS COULD SAVE 50 LIVES A YEAR
Fifty lives a year could be saved by ground-breaking motorcycle helmet safety ratings revealed today by Road Safety Minister Jim Fitzpatrick. Ratings for 56 of the most popular full face helmets on the market were published after testing by SHARP - the Safety Helmet Assessment and Rating Programme set up in a world-first by the Department for Transport last year. The SHARP tests - which award ratings of between one and five stars - showed that the safety performance of helmets can vary by as much as 70%. Jim Fitzpatrick said: "Too many motorcyclists (599 in 2006) are dying on our roads - they account for just 1% of all road traffic, but for 19% of all those killed. "But if all riders wore the safest helmets available 50 lives could be saved each year. That is why we started the innovative SHARP scheme and are delighted to publish the first results today. "Helmets from across a wide price range and from a variety of manufacturers have received four or five stars - so all riders should be able to find a high-scoring helmet in a size and style that fits them and at a price they want to pay." All helmets must meet minimum legal safety standards but the SHARP scheme uses a wider range of tests to provide riders with more information on how much protection a helmet can provide in a crash. The objective advice will help riders to chose the safest helmet suitable for them.
Would be interesting to see if if the 50 lives have been saved since this was posted
12/06/2008
WORLD-FIRST MOTORCYCLE HELMET RATINGS COULD SAVE 50 LIVES A YEAR
Fifty lives a year could be saved by ground-breaking motorcycle helmet safety ratings revealed today by Road Safety Minister Jim Fitzpatrick. Ratings for 56 of the most popular full face helmets on the market were published after testing by SHARP - the Safety Helmet Assessment and Rating Programme set up in a world-first by the Department for Transport last year. The SHARP tests - which award ratings of between one and five stars - showed that the safety performance of helmets can vary by as much as 70%. Jim Fitzpatrick said: "Too many motorcyclists (599 in 2006) are dying on our roads - they account for just 1% of all road traffic, but for 19% of all those killed. "But if all riders wore the safest helmets available 50 lives could be saved each year. That is why we started the innovative SHARP scheme and are delighted to publish the first results today. "Helmets from across a wide price range and from a variety of manufacturers have received four or five stars - so all riders should be able to find a high-scoring helmet in a size and style that fits them and at a price they want to pay." All helmets must meet minimum legal safety standards but the SHARP scheme uses a wider range of tests to provide riders with more information on how much protection a helmet can provide in a crash. The objective advice will help riders to chose the safest helmet suitable for them.
Would be interesting to see if if the 50 lives have been saved since this was posted
I wonder if they're saying that helmets that are legally on sale but only have 1 or even 2* ratings are "not safe" enough to prevent (fatal ?)head injuries ?? If so..how come they are on sale ?
From what category of star ratings are they saying there could be "50 lives saved" per year ??
By what ?.. riders choosing higher star rated lids.
Still too many questions methinks.
Mind you mitzy's quote was from a politician...
From what category of star ratings are they saying there could be "50 lives saved" per year ??
By what ?.. riders choosing higher star rated lids.
Still too many questions methinks.
Mind you mitzy's quote was from a politician...
Another one for the mix...
Is each and every helmet that is sold tested?
All well and good testing one helmet from each range from each manufacturer, but how many people have had to take something back to the shop because of a manufacturing fault?
A little rip in your new cardy or a dvd that skips, pails somewhat into insignificance compared to a helmet that splits in two upon impact with the tarmac.
The point I am making is that the testing that both our government funded wallahs and the helmet manufacturers are carrying out, could all be a waste of time if quality control and maintenance of plant is allowed to slip.
When we buy our 5* shcrap approved helmet, do we really know what we are buying?
Is each and every helmet that is sold tested?
All well and good testing one helmet from each range from each manufacturer, but how many people have had to take something back to the shop because of a manufacturing fault?
A little rip in your new cardy or a dvd that skips, pails somewhat into insignificance compared to a helmet that splits in two upon impact with the tarmac.
The point I am making is that the testing that both our government funded wallahs and the helmet manufacturers are carrying out, could all be a waste of time if quality control and maintenance of plant is allowed to slip.
When we buy our 5* shcrap approved helmet, do we really know what we are buying?
sprinter1050 said:
I wonder if they're saying that helmets that are legally on sale but only have 1 or even 2* ratings are "not safe" enough to prevent (fatal ?)head injuries ?? If so..how come they are on sale ?
I don't think they are saying that the are 'not safe', just that some other helmets may in their opinion be 'more safe'.Legislating that only the most safe items are allowed to be sold is a dangerous path to tread. At the end of the day just how safe is motorcycling? Driving a car, based on the stats available, is substancially safer. Therefore how come motorbikes are on sale?
People should be allowed to wear what they want when riding and take personal responsibility for their decisions.
Gassing Station | Biker Banter | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff