Tweet
Re: Helmets
DOT is just a certification in India, there is no body to keep a check on the compliance.
Furthermore they are tested by the Federal government in the US, not in India, this is why even cheaper ₹1500 shells from Studds or even ₹200 buckets from a local vendor get a DOT sticker ! I have no idea how reliable these are.
You are actually saying SNELL is stiffer design based, yes it is, that resists puncture of the helmet shell, but again SNELL is just voluntary and in the 2015 form, much more reliable than DOT. This is why tracks in the US explicitly demand SNELL.
Another point to be noted is that DOT does not test roll off safety, there is no chin bar testing, no testing of visor strength, while all of this is always tested on the SNELL or the ECE. (there is a limit of guess, 65mm deflection of the chin bar on DOT, just wish they actually tested this, would it make a difference ? there is also chin strap retention test in the DOT standard, again, never tested)
But I will stick to my point - SNELL, SHARP, TUV, RES/NTC are not widely accepted standards and I will just keep to ECE or DOT.
Also yes, ECE does require a single test and this has it's own logic, the limit for ECE is 300g, in one single impact, while DOT has a limit over that in two impacts, I agree, but that two times, is it even tested ?
Not to mention testing for two impacts is not a good idea, and results in helmets that are way too hard for the average crash, resulting in overly aggressive G-loads.
This is a report from 2015.
It pretty much says: DOT's budget only allows 10 models of helmets to be actually tested, therefore there are A LOT of helmets that don't meet DOT standard but they have DOT stickers(because manufactors claim they met DOT standard). And DOT's solution is to lower the cost of testing by only measuring the thickness of the helmets. This will only be enforced by states that have mandatory helmet law, so those states will buy the cheaper tool kit and test only the thickness of the helmets, if they are not thick enough they fail the standard. manufactors are given 2 year to replace their models to satisify this new standard.
So unsafe DOT sticker helmets can still be sold outside of those states(including foreign countries like ours, India ! )
in those states that have helmet laws, unsafe helmets become DOT approved as long as their shell and liner are thick enough under 22N of force. (this is to assume those states do test those helmets)
That report was posted by federal government itself, and not by some motorcycle article website, earns it's credibility.
ECE has much widespread batch testing and a more comprehensive test which as stated above, tests chin bar strength, visor and fastener strength.
Also about the velocity of the ECE helmet testing.
This is from ECE test regulations itself, should help.
7.4.1.1.2.3. The helmet shall be tested in any condition in which it may be placed on the market, that is both with and without accessories if they are supplied as original equipment. Helmets placed on the market with a visor shall be tested with the visor in the closed position. 7.4.1.1.3. Test The drop height shall be such that the unit constituted by the headform and helmet falls on the test anvil at a velocity which, immediately before impact, is equal to 8.5 (-0.0/+0.15) m/s. 7.4.1.2. Apparatus (see annex 8, fig. 1b) 7.4.1.2.1. Description The test apparatus shall comprise: (a) An anvil rigidly fixed to a base; (b) A free fall guidance system; (c) A mobile system supporting the helmeted headform; (d) A headform conforming to that referred to in paragraph 7.4.1.2.6., and (e) A system which may be adjusted such that the point of impact can be brought into correspondence with the upper part of the face of the anvil. (f) A means of recording the continuously changing transmitted anvil force during the impact. (g) A suitable energy-absorbing base and catch net to prevent damage to the helmet after the impact.
And oh, I never meant to trash DOT standard, just stating what DOT is in my understanding, ECE and DOT both have their flaws, but I will stay with my ECE lid until something major changes on the part of DOT. Though I agree, DOT is a very respectful standard, just not on the Indian soil.
Also a thing to be noted - stated multiple times above - ECE does not require a printed or ECE stickers on the helmet shell, but the certification should be sewn on the chin strap or the helmet padding. This is how it goes, and it is certainly not as good as DOT which comes with a sticker. ECE helmets do accompany a booklet with them, which can tell you the year of manufacturing and what not, depending on your will to actually read that booklet.
About safety and self certification of DOT, about the lawsuit and the fines, in 2006, office of Vehicle Safety bought 40 odd DOT helmets to verify safety qualifications, 13 ended for questionable safety, other 5 for more problems and 7 had to be completely recalled off the market. Just from this small testing, we do learn a lot. Guess what, around 42000 helmets left the factory with a DOT sticker, 42000 of those 7 failed standards.
Originally posted by The Mountain
View Post
Furthermore they are tested by the Federal government in the US, not in India, this is why even cheaper ₹1500 shells from Studds or even ₹200 buckets from a local vendor get a DOT sticker ! I have no idea how reliable these are.
You are actually saying SNELL is stiffer design based, yes it is, that resists puncture of the helmet shell, but again SNELL is just voluntary and in the 2015 form, much more reliable than DOT. This is why tracks in the US explicitly demand SNELL.
Another point to be noted is that DOT does not test roll off safety, there is no chin bar testing, no testing of visor strength, while all of this is always tested on the SNELL or the ECE. (there is a limit of guess, 65mm deflection of the chin bar on DOT, just wish they actually tested this, would it make a difference ? there is also chin strap retention test in the DOT standard, again, never tested)
But I will stick to my point - SNELL, SHARP, TUV, RES/NTC are not widely accepted standards and I will just keep to ECE or DOT.
Also yes, ECE does require a single test and this has it's own logic, the limit for ECE is 300g, in one single impact, while DOT has a limit over that in two impacts, I agree, but that two times, is it even tested ?
Not to mention testing for two impacts is not a good idea, and results in helmets that are way too hard for the average crash, resulting in overly aggressive G-loads.
This is a report from 2015.
It pretty much says: DOT's budget only allows 10 models of helmets to be actually tested, therefore there are A LOT of helmets that don't meet DOT standard but they have DOT stickers(because manufactors claim they met DOT standard). And DOT's solution is to lower the cost of testing by only measuring the thickness of the helmets. This will only be enforced by states that have mandatory helmet law, so those states will buy the cheaper tool kit and test only the thickness of the helmets, if they are not thick enough they fail the standard. manufactors are given 2 year to replace their models to satisify this new standard.
So unsafe DOT sticker helmets can still be sold outside of those states(including foreign countries like ours, India ! )
in those states that have helmet laws, unsafe helmets become DOT approved as long as their shell and liner are thick enough under 22N of force. (this is to assume those states do test those helmets)
That report was posted by federal government itself, and not by some motorcycle article website, earns it's credibility.
ECE has much widespread batch testing and a more comprehensive test which as stated above, tests chin bar strength, visor and fastener strength.
Also about the velocity of the ECE helmet testing.
This is from ECE test regulations itself, should help.
7.4.1.1.2.3. The helmet shall be tested in any condition in which it may be placed on the market, that is both with and without accessories if they are supplied as original equipment. Helmets placed on the market with a visor shall be tested with the visor in the closed position. 7.4.1.1.3. Test The drop height shall be such that the unit constituted by the headform and helmet falls on the test anvil at a velocity which, immediately before impact, is equal to 8.5 (-0.0/+0.15) m/s. 7.4.1.2. Apparatus (see annex 8, fig. 1b) 7.4.1.2.1. Description The test apparatus shall comprise: (a) An anvil rigidly fixed to a base; (b) A free fall guidance system; (c) A mobile system supporting the helmeted headform; (d) A headform conforming to that referred to in paragraph 7.4.1.2.6., and (e) A system which may be adjusted such that the point of impact can be brought into correspondence with the upper part of the face of the anvil. (f) A means of recording the continuously changing transmitted anvil force during the impact. (g) A suitable energy-absorbing base and catch net to prevent damage to the helmet after the impact.
And oh, I never meant to trash DOT standard, just stating what DOT is in my understanding, ECE and DOT both have their flaws, but I will stay with my ECE lid until something major changes on the part of DOT. Though I agree, DOT is a very respectful standard, just not on the Indian soil.
Also a thing to be noted - stated multiple times above - ECE does not require a printed or ECE stickers on the helmet shell, but the certification should be sewn on the chin strap or the helmet padding. This is how it goes, and it is certainly not as good as DOT which comes with a sticker. ECE helmets do accompany a booklet with them, which can tell you the year of manufacturing and what not, depending on your will to actually read that booklet.
About safety and self certification of DOT, about the lawsuit and the fines, in 2006, office of Vehicle Safety bought 40 odd DOT helmets to verify safety qualifications, 13 ended for questionable safety, other 5 for more problems and 7 had to be completely recalled off the market. Just from this small testing, we do learn a lot. Guess what, around 42000 helmets left the factory with a DOT sticker, 42000 of those 7 failed standards.
Comment