• 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.

BILT Helmets

Kornholio said:
How much of your sweat gets to the foam though? Assuming you have pads installed (who wouldn't?), I would think you'd have to be sweating to the point of total immersion for that to happen. As for the plastic, again, I have my doubts that five or even ten years of direct sunlight exposure (not like it's going to actually be exposed that long anyway) is really going to do any sort or realistic damage.
Click to expand...

Gixxergirl1000 said:
I'm guessing it's the salt in your sweat that does the damage. Just like it will eat leather over time- which is why it's so important to clean your tack on a regular basis (for those of us who owned horses)... and why it's important to at least rinse out the inside of your leathers on occasion, as well.
Click to expand...

I'm also guessing -- and this is absolutely a blind guess on my part -- it's kinda like expired medication. It's lost ten percent of its potency, which to me is still acceptable but to professionals, I assume, it is not good enough. So then the question becomes how much potency can a helmet lose before you feel it is no longer safe for whatever kind of riding you do? (I am assuming a helmet that just barely fell underneath race-worthy will still be sufficient for in-town commuting.)
 
edscholl said:
The rub is, the more stringent standard might not be the better standard.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that a lower standard is a better standard? :wtf

I'm not saying DOT isn't sufficient. I'm saying that it is just simply that...sufficient. For those people that are able and willing to pay for a piece of safety equipment that has been built to a higher standard and then tested and proven to meet that higher standard by an independent third party, I don't see the issue. Your head, your choice.

As others have already stated, there's a market for lower priced gear and the BILT gear meets that market need. I have never told anyone that they should not buy BILT gear. I'm not part of that market, though. I have my own preferences when it comes to safety equipment and BILT does not meet them. That doesn't mean that someone else has to feel the same way.
 
Peruse through the SHARP ratings and you will find there is very little, if any, correlation between price and safety rating.

This is a UK site so prices are in Pounds and while they may not be the EXACT helmet you can buy in the US nevertheless, price does not necessarily equate with higher ratings.

"We run 32 impact tests on a helmet model before awarding a SHARP rating.

Because the world doesn’t operate at one speed, SHARP doesn’t either. Each crash is unique with its own unique set of variables, so we test at a much wider range of impact speeds than standard regulations.

What’s more, SHARP analyses national and international crash studies – helping us to select the test points that are most representative of ‘real world’ crashes.

For every helmet model, we run 32 tests on seven helmets across a range of sizes – assessing how well each helmet could protect the brain in the event of a crash. To ensure the validity of our assessment, we only test helmets that we ourselves have purchased from retail outlets. It is important that the helmets we test are the same as those you would buy yourself.

We then go to work, testing each helmet by impacting them against anvils to represent flat surfaces and kerbs. SHARP tests are carried out at three different speeds to ensure the helmet provides good protection during both high and low severity impacts. Despite the risk of injury being much lower during less severe crashes, even a small risk could result in riders being seriously or fatally injured."

http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/testhelm...ice-from=0&sharp-price-to=9999&discontinued=1
 
Shark helmets had excellent SHARP ratings but were not Snell rated when they first hot the States. The SHARP testing is more I tense than the Snell FWIW.
 
Kornholio said:
Are you suggesting that a lower standard is a better standard? :wtf
Click to expand...

lower in certain areas may be, which is what the motorcyclist magazine tests referenced by others showed, and which supposedly drove some of the revisions in the snell standard. it definitely got people thinking beyond the "if you don't have a $100 head, don't use a $100 helmet" mentality, and it's definitely why my last track helmet was ece, but not snell, certified.

http://www.westcoastweasels.com/archives/PDF/Blowing_the_Lid_Off.pdf
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/automobiles/27SNELL.html?_r=0

Many head-injury scientists, motorcycle-accident researchers and helmet makers say they are concerned that the “premium protection" proffered by current Snell-certified helmets may not be better after all. They argue that current Snell-rated helmets are too rigid and unyielding to properly absorb impact energy in the great majority of motorcycle crashes, subjecting riders to preventable brain injuries.
Click to expand...

that nytimes article got dexter ford fired from motorcyclist btw, after advertisers threatened to yank their ads because of it.
 
Last edited:
Or perhaps it's more about the manufacturers being butthurt that they can't just claim to meet a standard and stamp it on their helmets without having to prove anything up front...like they can with the DOT standard. :|
 
Kornholio said:
Or perhaps it's more about the manufacturers being butthurt that they can't just claim to meet a standard and stamp it on their helmets without having to prove anything up front...like they can with the DOT standard. :|
Click to expand...

this is my biggest complaint about DOT

a manufacturer does not have to test the helmet prior to certifying it
 
Kornholio said:
Or perhaps it's more about the manufacturers being butthurt that they can't just claim to meet a standard and stamp it on their helmets without having to prove anything up front...like they can with the DOT standard. :|
Click to expand...

? Did you read the articles?
 
I did. It doesn't change my opinion. If you want me to take DOT seriously, or any test for that matter, you can't allow the manufacturer to test their own products themselves with no supervision from the governing body. That's just stupid.
 
Kornholio said:
I did.
Click to expand...

so who do you think is butthurt over what, specifically, and why do you think that? it certainly doesn't read like any manufacturers upset about anything in particular in that article...

Kornholio said:
I did.It doesn't change my opinion. If you want me to take DOT seriously, or any test for that matter, you can't allow the manufacturer to test their own products themselves with no supervision from the governing body. That's just stupid.
Click to expand...

sure, that's an issue (at least potentially - has there been any incidence of someone claiming to be dot compliant but it turned out they weren't?).

but i was more addressing the fact that you seemed to find it incredulous that a "lower standard" could be a better standard. testing (at least some testing) and other orgs suggest that is in fact the case.
 
Last edited:
I've always bought Shoei and Arai. This last time I went with Bilt modular, because it had Bluetooth, flip down sun visor, and was only $200. It's louder, heavier, and doesn't have great air flow... All things considered, it was worth saving $400 compared to the Arai modular.

IMHO the best we can do is maintain good situational awareness, train emergency maneuvers often, and do frequent training.
 
Oceansides said:
Jason, would you argue that some standards are better than others?
Click to expand...

That depends on what those standards are. There appears to be a witch hunt out on Snell and only by those that are on the manufacturing side (and probably don't want to have to pay for the certification and so they'll do anything to make it appear less credible) and those that are directly affiliated with DOT's program. I'm sure you can figure out why the latter believes their process is better.
 
Kornholio said:
That depends on what those standards are. There appears to be a witch hunt out on Snell and only by those that are on the manufacturing side (and probably don't want to have to pay for the certification and so they'll do anything to make it appear less credible) and those that are directly affiliated with DOT's program. I'm sure you can figure out why the latter believes their process is better.
Click to expand...

Here's something to think about: since the DOT standard has been in place, thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of deaths have been prevented by this substandard standard. It's flawed, as is every standard, but it's pretty good.
 
Gabe said:
Here's something to think about: since the DOT standard has been in place, thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of deaths have been prevented by this substandard standard. It's flawed, as is every standard, but it's pretty good.
Click to expand...

Again, I'm not saying (nor have I ever said) that the DOT standard isn't sufficient. But at what point do you say, "Yeah, that's good enough."? Standards have changed over the years, as has helmet design. There's a reason for that.

Besides, like I said before, until the DOT certification cannot be stamped on a helmet without proper testing being mandated by a third party, I'm not going to assume that the helmet actually meets that standard. Guess I'm just a skeptic when it comes to safety equipment. I expect the worthiness of said equipment to have it's certifications tested appropriately and not just by the company that makes it.
 
Kornholio said:
That depends on what those standards are. There appears to be a witch hunt out on Snell and only by those that are on the manufacturing side (and probably don't want to have to pay for the certification and so they'll do anything to make it appear less credible) and those that are directly affiliated with DOT's program. I'm sure you can figure out why the latter believes their process is better.
Click to expand...

the motorcylist report and testing was initiated by motorcyclist, who subsequently fired the author for a related article in the ny times due to pressure from manufacturers of snell helmets (who were amongst motorcyclist's biggest advertisers). how do you figure that's a witch hunt from those who don't want to pay for certification?

you'll have to come up with something better to substantiate some sort of conspiracy against snell.


and again, yes, the process for dot could be better. but that doesn't mean the standard isn't better (i'm also not saying it is- i suggest it's something people need to look into and make a decision for themselves about).
 
Kornholio said:
Again, I'm not saying (nor have I ever said) that the DOT standard isn't sufficient. But at what point do you say, "Yeah, that's good enough."? Standards have changed over the years, as has helmet design. There's a reason for that.

Besides, like I said before, until the DOT certification cannot be stamped on a helmet without proper testing being mandated by a third party, I'm not going to assume that the helmet actually meets that standard. Guess I'm just a skeptic when it comes to safety equipment. I expect the worthiness of said equipment to have it's certifications tested appropriately and not just by the company that makes it.
Click to expand...

Actually NHTSA does send a random sample of helmets to 3rd-party testers and enforces compliance. Probably not as many as we'd like, but there is some testing. Violating the standard is a $5000 fine per helmet, so I don't think manufacturers are selling substandard helmets.

Until somebody can show me credible evidence the Snell standard is "safer," I'm going to focus my attention on other issues. Helmets don't protect us as much as we think they do anyway.
 
Yakoo752 said:
and a $5k fine per helmet line is a joke when that might be the profits from 10 helmets
Click to expand...

But
(1) is 'per helmet' mean per helmet model, or per individual helmet?
(2) Okay, I can see a fly-by-night operation trying to get away with selling shitty helmets but is it worth it for Arai, Shoei, even AGV or HJC to jeopardize their whole brand to sell one or two subpar models? I can't really see it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top