• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

6D Moto Helmet -- New innovation

Dunno. We have covered this with other helmets. It makes sense, until one of those dirt bikers comes off 15ft in the air and lands head first on a rock. Then we ALL want SNELL. This isn't even DOT qualified. That seems a tad overkill, but again, dunno. Catch-22.
 
Pretty interesting helmet. Fortunately for me, I am far from the fastest off-road rider in the world. I could see these things being adopted by racers in the coming years, though. Cool idea, if nothing else.
 
what happened to that startup skully

seems like they need to branch and market themselves with this guy,

they create the software gizmo, and this guy creates the helmet
 
clutchslip said:
Dunno. We have covered this with other helmets. It makes sense, until one of those dirt bikers comes off 15ft in the air and lands head first on a rock. Then we ALL want SNELL. This isn't even DOT qualified. That seems a tad overkill, but again, dunno. Catch-22.
Click to expand...

Ah but that's not actually correct. I looked up the Bell version of this helmet and it is both Snell and Dot certified. Even the 6D Helmet is DOT just not Snell certified per the article.

http://www.revzilla.com/motorcycle/bell-moto-9-carbon-flex-helmet?gclid=CMjf0p-SpsYCFZFafgodjzoHWw

http://www.6dhelmets.com/#!features/cpvf 6D both DOT and ECE certified.

It will be interesting to see how this develops. A shake up would be good. Companies like Aria are not innovating (look at their shield system).
 
Helmets are just a fad......like disco and cell phones.
They'll never catch on.
 
FXCLM5 said:
what happened to that startup skully

seems like they need to branch and market themselves with this guy,

they create the software gizmo, and this guy creates the helmet
Click to expand...

Skully folded after allegations of misuse of company funds, non delivery of product and lawsuits in progress. it's dead.
 
FXCLM5 said:
what happened to that startup skully

seems like they need to branch and market themselves with this guy,

they create the software gizmo, and this guy creates the helmet
Click to expand...

Skully died just like everyone knew they would. No way to make a light, compact helmet that does tall that at a cost anyone can afford.
 
I would be interested to see one of their helmets side by side with a traditional helmet. I would want to compare dimensions. Weight is pretty good.
 
My original post was back in 15 about skully, sucks they blew the $$$ and developed nothing.

But this design if you read the article is 40-100% less effective in a severe crash, it only helps for minor crashes where it improves the safety - in theory
 
FXCLM5 said:
But this design if you read the article is 40-100% less effective in a severe crash, it only helps for minor crashes where it improves the safety - in theory
Click to expand...

That's according to Snell, which is a controversial rating at this point. And of course they're going to say it's dangerous. Snell wants more companies to pay $$$$$$ to have them certify their helmets.

There is a HUGE debate between DOT v Snell v ECE certification. It's like comparing McDonalds and Jack in the Box and Wendy's. They all get the job done, but they all do certain parts of the task better than others and in a different way.
 
ZCrow said:
Ah but that's not actually correct. I looked up the Bell version of this helmet and it is both Snell and Dot certified. Even the 6D Helmet is DOT just not Snell certified per the article..
Click to expand...
This is from the article, not from what the manufacturer claims:
"These 6D helmets are 40% to 100% less protective in a severe crash," said Hong Zhang, education director for the Snell Foundation.

Zhang said her organization bought a 6D helmet, which was not submitted for Snell approval, and tested it. "The 6D helmet does meet the minimum DOT standard," she said. "Any other claim, there is no science to prove it."
Click to expand...
wingnutthehutt said:
That's according to Snell, which is a controversial rating at this point. And of course they're going to say it's dangerous. Snell wants more companies to pay $$$$$$ to have them certify their helmets.

There is a HUGE debate between DOT v Snell v ECE certification. It's like comparing McDonalds and Jack in the Box and Wendy's. They all get the job done, but they all do certain parts of the task better than others and in a different way.
Click to expand...
It seems like you basing all your opinion on one article a few years ago that was discredited because the testing could not be verified. The reporter was fired. Look it up. I am too busy with a chemo headache and stuff.
 
ZCrow said:
Ah but that's not actually correct. I looked up the Bell version of this helmet and it is both Snell and Dot certified. Even the 6D Helmet is DOT just not Snell certified per the article.

http://www.revzilla.com/motorcycle/bell-moto-9-carbon-flex-helmet?gclid=CMjf0p-SpsYCFZFafgodjzoHWw

http://www.6dhelmets.com/#!features/cpvf 6D both DOT and ECE certified.

It will be interesting to see how this develops. A shake up would be good. Companies like Aria are not innovating (look at their shield system).
Click to expand...

Agree.

I dunno if the 6D and Pro Bell concepts will prove better or not, but it does seem like Shoei and Arai are not doing much research on advancement -- or maybe they just don't publicize it. Dunno. But my newest Shoei isn't much different than my oldest.....
 
They need a "best online motorcycle community" category.
Part of being an intune motorcyclist is to be connected.



I know this place.......:dunno
 
FXCLM5 said:
My original post was back in 15 about skully, sucks they blew the $$$ and developed nothing.

But this design if you read the article is 40-100% less effective in a severe crash, it only helps for minor crashes where it improves the safety - in theory
Click to expand...

This quote makes no sense, how could a helmet be 100% less effective unless it provided zero protection?

It may also be worth giving up some protection in a really hard crash in order to have better protection in more common lower energy impacts. No way too know without more data, I do know SNELL has been criticized for forcing helmets to be too firm as a result of their double impact requirement.
 
wingnutthehutt said:
That's according to Snell, which is a controversial rating at this point. And of course they're going to say it's dangerous. Snell wants more companies to pay $$$$$$ to have them certify their helmets.
Click to expand...

Hell yes. For many years I've been saying Snell is an bullshit unregulated scam. How does this stupidity slip through the QC cracks of this sport? Who is Snell? No one can say.

I called Snell at their Sacramento address 15 years ago and they avoided me. I was like "you have zero government authority to comment on helmets, so why are you commenting on helmets? Are you the Department of Transportation? No. So who are you?!?" They were like "ummmm....we talked to our boss, and he doesn't want you to ever call us again." :laughing
 
bpw said:
This quote makes no sense, how could a helmet be 100% less effective unless it provided zero protection?

It may also be worth giving up some protection in a really hard crash in order to have better protection in more common lower energy impacts. No way too know without more data, I do know SNELL has been criticized for forcing helmets to be too firm as a result of their double impact requirement.
Click to expand...

read the article doh :laughing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top