New Snell Standard

[Black_peter]

Seems that the new Snell standard (M2010) matches some of the major recommendations made by Motorcyclist in their article 2 years ago.

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/

They are not however admitting it was MC, whom they bashed that lead them to the changes or apologized for accusing them of bad science and attacking the foundation. So look for the M2010 label if you agree with the testing done in the above article.. The 2005 testing can still mean too much energy into the brain

[StevieB]

"So the perfect helmet would be huge, with 6 inches or mosre of soft, fluffy EPS cradling your precious head like a mint on a pillow...Problem is, nobody wants a 2-foot-wide helmet."

Somebody forgot to tell Indy Car drivers that. Have you seen the huge melons they wear?

"If you ask the representatives of many of the top Snell-approved helmet companies, they'll say the Snell standard is a wonderful thing, and they'll imply helmets certified to lower-energy standards—that would be any other standard in the world—are suspicious objects, like smoked clams from the 99 Cents Only store." Love the way this guy writes!

"The peak Gs for the monster hits were 208 for the curb impact and 209 for the flat-pavement impact. Just a few Gs more, that is, than many of the Snell-rated helmets transmitted in their seven-foot hits on the flat anvil. And even after these mega hits, the EPS liners were still nowhere near used up."

That sorta gives the lie to conventional wisdom that you should toss your helmet in the trash if it hits ANYTHING, at any velocity, even if you are not wearing it. I have long suspected that that advise was a bit Chicken-Little. I wish someone would include that sort of testing in their regiment, so we would have some real idea of what to do with a helmet that had such a little bump.