http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html

This article has been out for a few years but I had never seen it until yesterday while doing some helmet research on-line.

A must read if you ride a motorcycle, this in-depth article on current helmet standards came out in Motorcyclist magazine in 2005 and it will blow away any pre-conceived notions you had about DOT and Snell, particularly the superiority of Snell rated helmets.

In many cases, your bargain basement DOT helmet from Wal-Mart is able to offer better protection in typical real world accidents than that super expensive Snell rated job. Also debunks the theory that fibreglass shells are superior to polycarbonate (plastic) shells in most typical accidents.

This is great news as I just ordered two fiberglass, Snell certified helmets, next time I'll shop at PepBoys...LOL!

* Last updated by: Kruz on 4/27/2011 @ 12:55 PM *

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html

A lot has changed in 6 years, at least in the technology of helmets.

Since the report was produced SNELL has established even more stringent certification specifications SNELL 2010.
When buying a new helmet, make sure it is SNELL 2010 approved (as opposed to SNELL 2005)

http://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcycle-helmets/snell-2010-standard.htm

http://www.smf.org/standards/m/2010/m2010_final

Did you read it Steven?

Quote:Webbike World/Snell 2010:

For street riders in North America, the differences between M2010 and M2005 should be of little significance. M2010 does not exceed M2005 but it does demand comparable protection.

Helmets certified to the M2010 standard and ECE 22-05 will provide protection comparable to M2005 and will qualify for sale and use in the UK and Europe.

* Last updated by: Kruz on 4/27/2011 @ 1:06 PM *

THANKS HEAPS for that kruz so me buying my non fiberglass $360 Icon sounds better than most Expensive brands out their ! sweeeeeeeeeet

* Last updated by: bean07 on 4/28/2011 @ 5:51 AM *

Well it's says 2010 so it must be better than 2005. If the make them any safer the next satandard will bring zombies back to life and then everyone can live in peace forever and ever and ever!

* Last updated by: Edgecrusher on 4/28/2011 @ 1:12 PM *

If you read the article, the Snell M2005 standard was not acceptable to the Europeans because they considered it excessively stiff. To give maximum penetration protection, the Snell M2005 standard created a shell stiffer than accident statistics showed was necessary. DOT and EC 22.05 create softer shelled helmets that are designed to crush in relatively low speed impacts dissipating crash energy more effectively where a helmet meeting M2005 would barely budge. Shell stiffness and energy absorbtion are inverse to each other, make it stiff and it won't protect as well in a low speed impact and vice-versa. Decelerative G forces well below 300 are most desired whereas the older Snell standard went as high as 400G. It is obviously a complex business and the industry experts can't even seem to agree. The new Snell M2010 meets the EC 22.05 standards and allows the helmets to be sold in Europe, it is essentially a softer version of the M2005. One thing I have learned in my research, you must know exactly what tyoe of accident you intend to have to select the right standards to adhere to. That is a simple way of saying no one helmet can do it all.

Did you read it Steven?

Kruz, actually I did. There is a reason SNELL 2010 has taken presence over 2005. Main one you just mentioned above.
The research goes on. For the most part, new discoveries replace or enhance old ones. Same with the helmet safety research. For my piece of mind, I would buy the latest, hence my logic of preference.