SHARP - Helmet ratings published

[rollazuki]

When it all comes back down to earth, If you wanna buy a tinpot 50quid helmet cos it scores well in the sharp test, buy one.

If you wanna buy a 400 quid lid from a well known, race approved manufacturer, then buy one.

Hopefully neither of you will ever crash and need it, but when you do, I hope you are both safe...........

Just an interesting point tho.

I was looking at low end motoX lids at the weekend, and noticed a lot of the current brands of cheaper lids are all using the same shell. That means there is probably one 'unknown' manufacturer of helmet shells out far east, selling the shells to the likes of HJC etc, who add linings, paint etc and their own decals.

If this is the case, do you wonder about the quality control of the mass producer of the shells...........?

[flipper]

tbh...does it matter how they get the helmtets, what it is and why they wear it??? if people like a helmet because theyve seen it stand up to accidents on motoGP then whats the problem?

 

The thing here is that professional racers are given a helmet to wear by the helmet manufacturer, so they wear it, whatever it is, and get paid for doing so. It is not an indication that it is the best helmet they could be wearing.

The same is true of all their kit, as said before.

 

yes that is true , but i think youll find that Rossi, Stoner, etc have a choice in who they sign sponsorship deals with.

That was my point, if they wanted to be sponsored by DY-jung helmets they could easily arrange sponsorship deals , as these guys would snatch their hands off...assuming they could afford it.

but strangely none of them choose to do deals with these manufacturers

 

Money talks.

[martynmcg]

Bulli, I get what you're saying completely mate. I wouldn't say I missed the point only circumvented it a bit.

I was trying to highlight the point that regardless of what Government or race testers say people will buy what they see is the best because of price/looks/brand respectively. However I do believe what you were saying about people being mislead by certain testing measures and approval methods. This could be applied to most things in life that have 'independent, non-bias' testing methods though so it's not a new age tactic, if that is what this SHARP testing ultimatley is. The main sure fire way to check things helmets is unfortunately to crash with them. But not every crash is exactly the same so results can vary.

I do still believe however that further testing by responsible measures can lead to safety equipment becoming better for all involved. Companies who cash in on people's fears and concerns is nothing new though, so as always tread carefully.

Hind sight is only useful when it's too late

[pumilio]

I'm all for the SHARP tests. For me, I see the SHARP testing as a work in progress. If there are really problems with the test, I predict the test will be made better after the first round of testing is finished.

However, I totally disagree that SHARP can possibly make consumers buy a naff helmet. Why am I so sure of myself? Because before SHARP there were two safety standards for motorbike helmets in the UK (called BS 6658:1985 and UN ECE Regulation 22.05 for those interested!) and ALL helmets on sale in the UK must meet the minimum requirements required by both standards. The SHARP test works on logic like this: if all helmets meet some minimum, we predict some helmets might exceed the minimum - let's try to measure by how much and tell that to consumers...

From my perspective, more available data to consumers about products is always a good thing. The SHARP results are partially digested data, just like the old standards, but contain more information than just "yes" or "no". It is your responsibility as a consumer to weight the data as you see fit, take on board or ignore what you so choose and buy a helmet. If you want to ignore some of the helmet rating information available to you when you buy a lid, well, it's your puddin' bowl!

[rollazuki]

The problem with a lot of the 'government' tests, is that they are circumvented by very simple means.

Me n Bulli used to work in a bike shop, and many was the young lad who would have a spill in his cheap end helmet, come in to buy a new one, and leave us the old one to dispose of.

We used to have hours of fun doing this, tyre machines are particularly good at destroying lids...........

Anyway, we found a LOT of cheaper lids simply had loose sheets of kevlar weave tucked under the lining.

These were advertised and logo'd as kevlar mix helmets, and the kevlar sheet was always in the crown of the lid(the test point at that time), thus making it have a 'safe' area.

The rest of the lid is thus (Id guess) somewhat under par.

My other thought, as Ive already mentioned, is that Arai, AGV, etc etc, do their own safety testing and design. A lot of the smaller manufacturers share shells, presumably supplied by some far eastern manufacturing plant, with who knows what by the way of product design/testing/quality assurance.

Another example.

I own a Simpson RX. Its not legal for street use. You know why, the visor hole is basically too narrow. Its got a nomex lining, it passes every race safety standard known to man, but its not for road use. I tell ya, its safer than any far eastern lid with a E mark on it, but the standards say not.

Its a bit of a lottery Id say, you can get the standard ratings for not a lot of money, but do you buy quality?

For my head, Id buy quality.

[jabcrosshook]

Another example.

I own a Simpson RX. Its not legal for street use. You know why, the visor .

 

Those lids are mega, I'd love one, they look really aggresive.

[rollazuki]

hopefully itll be ford focus st asbo orange with black visor by the weekend....