Sharp helmet test, take what they say as gospel?

[Touring Remo]

3doorPete said:

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.

I agree they most certainly aren't the safest car had a crash in one of these.

You can read/see it here http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

God knows how he got out alive....

[sprinter1050]

Dare2Fail said:

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.

OK I agree that we all should take responsibility for ourselves. I think of it that helmets a) are compulsory- by LAW but b) a common sense thing anyway.
Now- seat belts in cars also are a) & b) but there are fewer manufacturers of these (I bet) and the technology behind them has advanced with inertia reels, pre-tensioners etc to improve safety )with reduced injury)yet they get tested independently.
So I think I'm with Fleegle when you consider how many helmet manufacturers multipled by number of models that are on sale and how many are actually tested in (maybe) the same way that M.I.R.A. for example tests seat belts in crash tests. Never mind Fleegle's point about quality control to spot defects.

Makes you wonder if we're focussing on the right things when shopping for lids. Are we,perhaps, brand snobs without even knowing the true facts. I suspect we certainly aren't privilege to the same info that car owners/users are. (NCAP etc)

[Dare2Fail]

sprinter1050 said:

Makes you wonder if we're focussing on the right things when shopping for lids. Are we,perhaps, brand snobs without even knowing the true facts. I suspect we certainly aren't privilege to the same info that car owners/users are. (NCAP etc)

And that takes us very nicely back to the start of the debate as this is the issue that SHARP was put in place to address.

I think brand does play a very big part in all of this. I've never been in an accident that resulted in me relying on a lid to save my life, but for some reason I put a lot of faith in Arai and Shoei over other helmet brands. Maybe it's from their large presense in racing. Maybe it's from them being praised by numerous magazines over the years. I can't say exactly why, but I'll take what Mr Arai and Mr Shoei say about helmet safety with a lot more faith than some DfT based scheme.

[sprinter1050]

^ I just hope they have the test parameters right.
Glad you've never needed to test one either. Hope I continue the same.

[Biker's Nemesis]

3doorPete said:

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.

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?

'anecdotal evidence'.

Are you refering to me there?

You have 1st hand experience. I also do, with 2 brands, Vemar and Shark - bad accidents with the helmet severely damaged in one particular way. Many people do not, hence the anecdotal evidence comment. People will read this thread and go "Arai's are the safest because some bloke on a forum crashed in it and survived. Sharp tests are all rubbish - bunch of geeks who probably haven't even sat on a bike"

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.

It seems to me that other peoples views are clouded by the "its tested by the Government therefore it must be true", Don't you think manufacturers know what they're doing, yes they test in the real world using data gained from accidents on track and through laboratory testing, not just through a set of parameters set out by god knows who.


I'll say it again Sharp test certain parts of the helmet which according to manufacturers isn't a critical part of the helmet compared to where they have hard evidence it's not needed, it's a bit like a crumple zone of a car, certain ares are less resistant to the test that SHARP carry out which gives a lower score because that particular area (side of chin bar) is deemed by SHARP to be important despite what the manufacturers say.


Your anecdote about the Saxo is a bit childish by the way.

[black-k1]

Biker's Nemesis said:

3doorPete said:

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.

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?

'anecdotal evidence'.

Are you refering to me there?

You have 1st hand experience. I also do, with 2 brands, Vemar and Shark - bad accidents with the helmet severely damaged in one particular way. Many people do not, hence the anecdotal evidence comment. People will read this thread and go "Arai's are the safest because some bloke on a forum crashed in it and survived. Sharp tests are all rubbish - bunch of geeks who probably haven't even sat on a bike"

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.

It seems to me that other peoples views are clouded by the "its tested by the Government therefore it must be true", Don't you think manufacturers know what they're doing, yes they test in the real world using data gained from accidents on track and through laboratory testing, not just through a set of parameters set out by god knows who.


I'll say it again Sharp test certain parts of the helmet which according to manufacturers isn't a critical part of the helmet compared to where they have hard evidence it's not needed, it's a bit like a crumple zone of a car, certain ares are less resistant to the test that SHARP carry out which gives a lower score because that particular area (side of chin bar) is deemed by SHARP to be important despite what the manufacturers say.


Your anecdote about the Saxo is a bit childish by the way.

Let’s be totally clear.

All crash helmet testing, whoever does it, is undertaken in lab conditions.

Both SHARP and helmet manufacturers use data recovered from real world accidents to design their testing regimes.

Manufacturers also use data collected from real world accidents (including racing) to aid with product development. SHARP do not do product development!

SHARP testing is done in addition to all the testing carried out by manufacturers.

The testing regime at SHARP differs from the regime at Arai and some other manufacturers. No one on here is qualified to say one regime is better than the other. The people best qualified to judge are employed by either SHARP or the manufacturers and can’t actually agree themselves.

No one, including SHARP, has said, or implied, that the SHARP testing regime is perfect.

I have not seen anything from any of the manufacturers (including Arai) that states that the testing that SHARP do will result in a higher star rated helmet actually offering less protection than one of the manufacturers lower start rated helmets. Only that the higher star rated helmet MAY NOT offer more protection! (Please point me to the statement from a manufacturer if such a statement exists and I will happily stand corrected.)

My views are not clouded by "its tested by the Government therefore it must be true"! The testing is independent, Government or not, and thus has a degree of credibility that manufactures and other parties with a vested interested do not have. This is especially true as the only manufacturer to really "moan" about the SHARP tests was Aria who, coincidently, was the manufacturer who’s expensive helmets didn’t do particularly well in those SHARP tests!

If any of the above is wrong, please correct me.

Biker's Nemesis - What I am really struggling to grasp here is why you appear to be so anti SHARP testing. It has no direct costs to the helmet buyer, it’s independent and it is done in addition to the testing carried out by the manufacturers. For the helmet buyer, this seems to be a "win/win" situation. (Unless you have shares in Arai!!!!)

[Dare2Fail]

black-k1 said:

I have not seen anything from any of the manufacturers (including Arai) that states that the testing that SHARP do will result in a higher star rated helmet actually offering less protection than one of the manufacturers lower start rated helmets. Only that the higher star rated helmet MAY NOT offer more protection! (Please point me to the statement from a manufacturer if such a statement exists and I will happily stand corrected.)

Black K1, I agree with a lot of what you have posted even though I come from a slightly different point of view with regards to SHARP, but I wanted to pick up on the above point.

Realistically, even if a manufacturer thought that a higher rated helmet was actually less safe, there is no way they could or would come out and state it. For them to publicly criticise a competitor would be a PR own goal. The general rule of sales is that you never, ever, criticise or insult the competition as the general public tend to think badly of you. To also blatantly attack a government funded body that is seen as trying to improve safety would probably be seen as a very risky strategy. It would be so easy for either the competition, or the Dft, to spin it as 'Company X puts profit ahead of public safety' that it simply wouldn't be worth the risk.

As a result you end up with the sort of statement Arai released. It doesn't openly attack SHARP, but the underlying meaning is pretty clear.

[3doorPete]

Biker's Nemesis said:

3doorPete said:

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.

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?

'anecdotal evidence'.

Are you refering to me there?

You have 1st hand experience. I also do, with 2 brands, Vemar and Shark - bad accidents with the helmet severely damaged in one particular way. Many people do not, hence the anecdotal evidence comment. People will read this thread and go "Arai's are the safest because some bloke on a forum crashed in it and survived. Sharp tests are all rubbish - bunch of geeks who probably haven't even sat on a bike"

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.

It seems to me that other peoples views are clouded by the "its tested by the Government therefore it must be true", Don't you think manufacturers know what they're doing, yes they test in the real world using data gained from accidents on track and through laboratory testing, not just through a set of parameters set out by god knows who.


I'll say it again Sharp test certain parts of the helmet which according to manufacturers isn't a critical part of the helmet compared to where they have hard evidence it's not needed, it's a bit like a crumple zone of a car, certain ares are less resistant to the test that SHARP carry out which gives a lower score because that particular area (side of chin bar) is deemed by SHARP to be important despite what the manufacturers say.


Your anecdote about the Saxo is a bit childish by the way.

I think manufacturers and SHARP testers both know what they are doing. Lets face it - none of the top brands with their models used in racing are going to be rubbish. There may be some nuances in focus by each manufacturer on what is important. I personally have always believed Arai to be a top brand but overpriced. Others swear by them and tell me 'what price your life?' when I say I wouldn't pay for one - as if they are obviously head and shoulders above other brands. It's a personal choice by all concerned. It's a view I have that may or may not be right.

Each crash is different and just because damage is rare in a certain plain, would not be any comfort to me if I'd just smacked by head in an unusual way and my helmet had failed.

I can't really see how the Saxo anecdote was childish? I said it purely to demonstrate that subjective comments on something as especially emotional as near death experience/crashes, vs. the objective facts or views on safety can be poles apart. If you feel that something has saved your life, you will have a loyalty and emotional attachment to it - it's human nature. The objective facts may contradict this view, but in any accident it's hard to quantify what proportion of luck vs. safety of kit, saved injury.

[Biker's Nemesis]

Just had a brif skim of whats been posted:

3doorPete said:

Each crash is different and just because damage is rare in a certain plain, would not be any comfort to me if I'd just smacked by head in an unusual way and my helmet had failed.

Yet your happy to beleive that SHARP test's are correct? Even though the Manufacturers say they aren't.

I've posted all I need to say on this thread previously.

[black-k1]

Dare2Fail said:

black-k1 said:

I have not seen anything from any of the manufacturers (including Arai) that states that the testing that SHARP do will result in a higher star rated helmet actually offering less protection than one of the manufacturers lower start rated helmets. Only that the higher star rated helmet MAY NOT offer more protection! (Please point me to the statement from a manufacturer if such a statement exists and I will happily stand corrected.)

Black K1, I agree with a lot of what you have posted even though I come from a slightly different point of view with regards to SHARP, but I wanted to pick up on the above point.

Realistically, even if a manufacturer thought that a higher rated helmet was actually less safe, there is no way they could or would come out and state it. For them to publicly criticise a competitor would be a PR own goal. The general rule of sales is that you never, ever, criticise or insult the competition as the general public tend to think badly of you. To also blatantly attack a government funded body that is seen as trying to improve safety would probably be seen as a very risky strategy. It would be so easy for either the competition, or the Dft, to spin it as 'Company X puts profit ahead of public safety' that it simply wouldn't be worth the risk.

As a result you end up with the sort of statement Arai released. It doesn't openly attack SHARP, but the underlying meaning is pretty clear.

So, where do you, the helmet buyer, then go for advice?

You can listen to ‘armchair experts’ who have a mate that crashed while wearing a XXX lid and thus they must be the best.

You can listen to the manufacturers who are never going to tell you that the competitions product is better than their own even though it is by a country mile.

You can listen to SHARP who conduct independent tests although some suggest they may not be the best tests available.

You can blindly spend lots of money in the naive belief that more money must mean more protection.

[Dare2Fail]

black-k1 said:

So, where do you, the helmet buyer, then go for advice?

Me personally? I figure out my budget and then have a look at which helmets fall into the price range from the brands I trust. I then try them on and find out which offer the best fit. Once I get to this stage I pick the one that I think looks the coolest.

My personal philosophy is that 99.9% of the time the helmet is a hat. If it is uncomfortable as a hat then it is not meeting it's goal. I think that all helmets in the £300+ price range will save my life (or not) in much the same way in the event of an accident.

[sjg]

Quite. I don't see that commercially Arai (and others who came out badly with SHARP) had any choice but to take the line they did - vocally criticise the testing methods and try to make their methodology sound better. And I have no doubt they're busily refining their designs so they'll do better next time round.

The alternative was to stay quiet and possibly let an opinion build amongst bikers that their stuff wasn't as safe as reputation would suggest.

There are lots of parallels with the Euro-NCAP testing when it started up and the first few rounds of testing were done - some manufacturers who got poor results were the harshest critics of how testing was done. Once a cycle or two of new models has passed and they get good results for their marketing, the criticism dies away and suddenly Euro-NCAP is great.