• 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

I think the crux of the dilemma is in the quote at the end of the article. Seems we need some kind of technology that absorbs both low impact AND higher velocities in a two-stage system.

"It's the age-old question," said Chris Withnall, senior engineer at Biokinetics, a firm that tests product safety. "Can you tell me how you're going to crash your bike? If so, I'll tell you exactly what kind of helmet to buy."
 
@ZCrow - My point was not about some yahoo at Snell saying that they suck. My point was that it was some yahoo at Snell doing the trash-talking.

I think it's a neat idea and I'm excited to see the liner technology move forward.
 
Yeah SNELL is doing a great job of murdering any kind of authority they held. I've got a SNELL 2015 approved helmet because they dropped the double hit test, but I'd much rather we have open goals and research into improved helmet development than different testing regime. Before 2015 was out, it was ECE/BSI/DOT standards for me only.

I'd also imagine that the Bell Custom Fit program helmets are more protective simply because the helmet fits better and allows for a more consistent impact location/spread because it's actually shaped to your head. Wish they would do 6D with their custom fit program, but apparently that's tough to do.
 
Much like football has shown, I still believe a softer outer shell is good since it disperses more force by deflection, but the 6D system certainly SEEMS like it should work.

If it does, you might see it used in the NFL sooner than later...

Also, anything to move the needle forward is better in the long term...
 
Last edited:
wingnutthehutt said:
@ZCrow - My point was not about some yahoo at Snell saying that they suck. My point was that it was some yahoo at Snell doing the trash-talking.

I think it's a neat idea and I'm excited to see the liner technology move forward.
Click to expand...

Agreed. My only point was that the Bell helmet with this new feature is Snell certified so at least in the case of the new Star Race Pro the argument is moot. But I suspect that is also why the new Bell Stars are so damn heavy, even for a Snell rated helmet.

As far as whether Snell or ECE is better, I have no skin in that game. I personally like approach the UK took with their Sharps Helmet test site. I would like to see all of the standards publish clear test results for all helmets tested. A certification sticker means nothing to me without transparency. Just viewing that site becomes obvious that any two ECE helmets may meet the government standard but that does not make them equally protective.
 
Z3n said:
Yeah SNELL is doing a great job of murdering any kind of authority they held. I've got a SNELL 2015 approved helmet because they dropped the double hit test, but I'd much rather we have open goals and research into improved helmet development than different testing regime. Before 2015 was out, it was ECE/BSI/DOT standards for me only.

I'd also imagine that the Bell Custom Fit program helmets are more protective simply because the helmet fits better and allows for a more consistent impact location/spread because it's actually shaped to your head. Wish they would do 6D with their custom fit program, but apparently that's tough to do.
Click to expand...

Snell 2015 still has double hit. DOT also has double hit.
 
kuksul08 said:
Snell 2015 still has double hit. DOT also has double hit.
Click to expand...

Snell double hit is much more of an intense hit than DOT. I stay away from SNELL and stick to ECE.


Who am I kidding, I but XS helmets on closeout via ebay for $80 dollars. :laughing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top