Helmets

[MidnightEvil Parth]

Re: Helmets

Can i know the motivation behind presenting such a blanket statement? What's wrong with going for extra protection? Did you ever see a relatively low speed accident that a polycarb shell would have been sufficient for but the rider sustained brain injuries and passed away as a result of the ratchet lock buckling and coming off? If no then please don't make such statements.

I agree it was wrongly interpreted, what I meant to say is, ECE has standards set even for the micrometric buckle closure system.
Brands selling helmets - They have micrometric buckles with variable shell sizes, variable EPS, better build quality than Indian market specific helmets.

What do we as motorcyclists here in India get ? A double D ring which is not as important as features mentioned above.

Though I highly agree that it is better than a micrometric closure, but I would still pick shell size, EPS density and other gradients above the double D ring, if given a choice.

Also, if you have any data or proof that ratchet buckles come off in the event of a crash, I would be happy to see that data. They are standard set by ECE and are totally safe.

[MidnightEvil Parth]

Re: Helmets

I was not talking about the data(nor do i have any data) on how much force would a well designed micrometric ratchet like the heavy duty one in LS2 FF 397 will take. What i said was what's wrong with having D ring. It has no moving parts(to grow old and fail) and by design will be become tighter the harder it is tried to pry open. The blanket statement was regarding the Indian statement.

I never said it's wrong in having a double D ring, what I wanted to say was that manufacturers are shying on other aspects of the helmet since most Indian customers do not have a very high knowledge and just go for the one with a double D ring closure instead of the one with an overall better specifications score.

[black asp]

Re: Helmets

I never said it's wrong in having a double D ring, what I wanted to say was that manufacturers are shying on other aspects of the helmet since most Indian customers do not have a very high knowledge and just go for the one with a double D ring closure instead of the one with an overall better specifications score.

Got your point but that post came out as something different.

CHEERS

[MidnightEvil Parth]

Re: Helmets

Got your point but that post came out as something different.

CHEERS

I know you did, you come across as a knowledgeable and sensible person to me from our past conversations. And I know the interpretation was wrong, cheers mate.

[black asp]

Re: Helmets

I know you did, you come across as a knowledgeable and sensible person to me from our past conversations. And I know the interpretation was wrong, cheers mate.

Excuse me for that.

[Thamps]

Re: Helmets

I would say you never did a thorough research then sir.

ECE doesn't need to be printed, firstly. I do not need it printed at all, a sticker is better infact. It should come with the standard ECE print booklet.
Secondly DOT is a honorary and a very inferior standard, I don't even want DOT written on my helmet ! It is that inferior.

Keeping LS2 at side for no DOT ? I would call this a half baked research honestly.

Atom is a good helmet though, but nothing close to LS2 quality.

At the price below 10 k,I guess hjc Cl-17 is a good pick,though the shell is polycarbonate,it has passed snell- M2015,and the shell manufacturing,sizes, available graphics etc seems to be uniform for all countries.

[MidnightEvil Parth]

Re: Helmets

At the price below 10 k,I guess hjc Cl-17 is a good pick,though the shell is polycarbonate,it has passed snell- M2015,and the shell manufacturing,sizes, available graphics etc seems to be uniform for all countries.

HJC cL17 is a darn good helmet without a doubt.

[Bharat9581]

Re: Helmets

Hi All,

Im planning to buy a helmet. Was looking for ECE & DOT certified helmets when i came across the news about Non ISI helmets rule. Can anyone share a light on the same.


Thanks.

P.S. Do suggest me some good helmets in the range of 3000-5500 INR.

[hemanta]

Re: Helmets

Hi All,

Im planning to buy a helmet. Was looking for ECE & DOT certified helmets when i came across the news about Non ISI helmets rule. Can anyone share a light on the same.


Thanks.

P.S. Do suggest me some good helmets in the range of 3000-5500 INR.

Final verdict by govt not out yet. If you want to be law abiding go for ISI helmet. Studds thunder I found to be the best ISI helmet, better than the studds shifter even though it's cheaper. Studds scorpion is also good along with Vega Cara.

[MidnightEvil Parth]

Re: Helmets

Hi All,

Im planning to buy a helmet. Was looking for ECE & DOT certified helmets when i came across the news about Non ISI helmets rule. Can anyone share a light on the same.


Thanks.

P.S. Do suggest me some good helmets in the range of 3000-5500 INR.

Do not, I repeat, do not look for DOT standard. It's just honorary.

If you want safety, get ECE Certified one.
Would recommend SMK Twister.

If you want to be law abiding, get a Studds Shifter.

[Bharat9581]

Re: Helmets

Do not, I repeat, do not look for DOT standard. It's just honorary.

If you want safety, get ECE Certified one.
Would recommend SMK Twister.

If you want to be law abiding, get a Studds Shifter.

I know that DOT is just a certification the helmets manufacturers have to comply unlike mandatory testing of ECE certification. But we will be sure that the manufacturer tested the helmet to comply with DOT certification. Im not taking a stand alone DOT helmet. I want a Dual Certification. ECE+ISI seems to be non existent. I dont wanna break the law or my head. Both are important.

So, that.

Thanks.

[MidnightEvil Parth]

Re: Helmets

I know that DOT is just a certification the helmets manufacturers have to comply unlike mandatory testing of ECE certification. But we will be sure that the manufacturer tested the helmet to comply with DOT certification. Im not taking a stand alone DOT helmet. I want a Dual Certification. ECE+ISI seems to be non existent. I dont wanna break the law or my head. Both are important.

So, that.

Thanks.

DOT is not tested on every helmet for you to consider that manufacturer tested it, probably they never did.
DOT also has residual forces much, much higher than ECE or even ISI.

Dual certification is a gimmick and nothing else in case of DOT+ECE.
A cost saving process infact by the manufacturer to avoid printing it ECE or DOT market specifically.

Get ECE, done.

I have no idea why you would knowingly try to find a helmet with this gimmick.

[The Mountain]

Re: Helmets

I know that DOT is just a certification the helmets manufacturers have to comply unlike mandatory testing of ECE certification. But we will be sure that the manufacturer tested the helmet to comply with DOT certification. Im not taking a stand alone DOT helmet. I want a Dual Certification. ECE+ISI seems to be non existent. I dont wanna break the law or my head. Both are important.

So, that.

Thanks.

Do not, I repeat, do not look for DOT standard. It's just honorary.

If you want safety, get ECE Certified one.
Would recommend SMK Twister.

If you want to be law abiding, get a Studds Shifter.

DOT is not "just a certification". It is the US Department Of Transportation certification, federally mandated for any helmet intended for on-road use (i.e. not applicable to off-road helmets) in the United States. While the standards are different from those of the ECE certification, they certainly aren't trivial (and in a couple of cases, are even more stringent).

The DOT cert is also not "just honorary". While manufacturers are supposed to do their own testing to the DOT standard and then self-declare that the helmet meets the DOT standard, DOT helmets do get tested by the Department Of Transportation after they are brought to market, and the penalty for failing the test is USD$5000 *per helmet produced*, which adds up really quickly; there's a strong incentive to ensure the helmet meets the standards. And all that comes before the potential for multi-million dollar civil lawsuits from consumers if a manufacturer sold DOT-labeled helmets that didn't actually meet the standard and resulted in injury (US: land of the lawsuit).

There have been numerous tests over the years by (mostly) motorcycling-oriented magazines to determine which test is the "best". What they've found is that in the real world, the DOT standard provides plenty of safety margin even on the high-speed roads in the US. The Snell standard is actually worse than DOT in a way, because in order for a helmet to pass the Snell tests, it ends up having a stiffer shell, which the comparison tests found to result in a greater likelihood that the helmet shell will crack rather than deform. Cracking reduces the amount of impact the shell can distribute, resulting in higher forces transmitted to the head of the wearer.

The ECE standard does incorporate higher standards in some areas, and you won't go wrong buying on that cert. However, ECE does *not* require a penetration test as part of the standard, while DOT *does* require it, so a DOT helmet has at least some attention given to preventing things from puncturing the shell, whereas ECE helmets are not required to provide this kind of protection. Also, DOT requires that the helmet be labeled with date of manufacture, while ECE has no such requirement; thus, you have no real idea how long that ECE helmet sat on the shelf before you bought it, and EPS does degrade over time.

Edited to add: oh, and DOT requires two consecutive impacts to the same point on the shell without exceeding a cumulative amount of G's, whereas ECE only requires a single impact.

Here's a nice article with some explanations:

https://www.webbikeworld.com/dot-vs-ece-helmet-safety-standards/

[Thamps]

Re: Helmets

. The Snell standard is actually worse than DOT in a way, because in order for a helmet to pass the Snell tests, it ends up having a stiffer shell, which the comparison tests found to result in a greater likelihood that the helmet shell will crack rather than deform. Cracking reduces the amount of impact the shell can distribute, resulting in higher forces transmitted to the head of the wearer.


Here's a nice article with some explanations:

https://www.webbikeworld.com/dot-vs-...ety-standards/

I guess the article refers to Snell m2005.then there was Snell m2010 which considered all the criticisms and was changed accordingly.then came m2015(current one) with small changes, which brings it closer to ECE specs.does that make Snell the best certification standard at present.!?

[The Mountain]

Re: Helmets

I guess the article refers to Snell m2005.then there was Snell m2010 which considered all the criticisms and was changed accordingly.then came m2015(current one) with small changes, which brings it closer to ECE specs.does that make Snell the best certification standard at present.!?

The article references Snell m2010 (but not 2015, despite being written in 2017). Snell is a lot closer to ECE than it used to be, but the standard isn't really covered in the article. I suspect that Snell still focuses on shock resistance rather than shock absorbance. Further, Snell is a voluntary standard rather than a mandatory one such as DOT or ECE, which is why it isn't really covered in the article. Since Snell isn't a government standard you won't find any road-legal helmets that are Snell-only; they'll be (something else) plus Snell. It's important to note that virtually no "convertible" helmets i.e. helmets with a hinged chin bar are Snell-compliant, but are very popular with the touring crowd. The reason Snell is important (particularly for US riders) is that Snell *is* accepted by various racing bodies, whereas DOT is not, so you can pull on your Snell-approved DOT helmet and head out to a track day.

It's only fairly recently that ECE helmets started to show up in significant numbers in the US, and ECE is not considered a substitute for DOT, so those helmets will be certified for multiple standards (the vast majority of DOT helmets will pass ECE, though due to the DOT penetration requirement the reverse is not necessarily true). This allows manufacturers to maintain a single production line for a particular helmet model, instead of juggling US-spec models vs. Euro-spec models; if everything they sell is certified in both markets, they make more money by providing more options for riders.