News:

This forum is run by RPM and donations from members.

It is the donations of the members that help offset the operating cost of the forum. The secondary benefit of being a contributing member is the ability to save big during RPM Holiday sales. For more information please check out this link: Membership has its privileges 

Thank you for your support of the all mighty FJ.

Main Menu

Bell revolver modular helmet - half off

Started by ddlewis, February 03, 2012, 09:50:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

ddlewis

http://www.motorcycle-superstore.com/1/1/38/34948/ITEM/Bell-Revolver-Helmet.aspx?WT.ac=SLIsearch

I durn near bought this helmet last summer for $200, which seemed like a great deal then based on reviews.  Also it's the only oval head modular that I've read about.

Now $99 closeout.   I went with - "look at me!!" yellow.



grannyknot

That's a sharp looking helmet but I can't help thinking that a modular isn't going to protect as well as a one piece.
I have no proof, it's just those latches don't look like they would hold together in a big impact.
Anyone have any experience with modulars one way or the other?
84 Yamaha FJ1100L
82 Honda CB450T
70 Suzuki T500
90 BMW K75S

ddlewis

Yes there have been some failures with this flip style chin bar.  Not necessarily the Bell brand, but I've seen the pics of broken helmets and the topic has been discussed at length on advrider and maybe here.   I want one anyway.

mst3kguy

Quote from: grannyknot on February 03, 2012, 05:35:11 PM
That's a sharp looking helmet but I can't help thinking that a modular isn't going to protect as well as a one piece.
I have no proof, it's just those latches don't look like they would hold together in a big impact.
Anyone have any experience with modulars one way or the other?

i highsided on the dragon wearing a flip-up hjc.  oh, wait, i already had it in the upright position.  heh...  but i don't have any real concerns about the mechanism failing.  at the impact that i feel it woudl take to cause both latches to fail, i'm gonna have more to worry about than the secondary bouncing and resulting chin grinding.
dean
2014 triumph street triple r
2019 ktm 1290 superduke gt

terryk

Quote from: mst3kguy on February 04, 2012, 10:38:45 AM
Quote from: grannyknot on February 03, 2012, 05:35:11 PM
That's a sharp looking helmet but I can't help thinking that a modular isn't going to protect as well as a one piece.
I have no proof, it's just those latches don't look like they would hold together in a big impact.
Anyone have any experience with modulars one way or the other?

i highsided on the dragon wearing a flip-up hjc.  oh, wait, i already had it in the upright position.  heh...  but i don't have any real concerns about the mechanism failing.  at the impact that i feel it woudl take to cause both latches to fail, i'm gonna have more to worry about than the secondary bouncing and resulting chin grinding.

FYI - Latch failure is the common reason why flip up helmets do not pass the Snell rating tests. The jaw latches fail in both hard hits and have failed in light road contact by the road actuating the release. Your head, your rissk. But only one flip up in one size, XS, has ever attained a Snell rating to my knowledge.

Arnie

Maybe I missed it, but I have never seen any flip-up helmets with Snell ratings. 
What I have seen is comments from Snell Institute that they have not had ANY submitted for testing.

So, that leads me to question the comments TerryK made. 
I'd like to know which flip-up helmets have been tested by Snell, and which was the one that passed.

Also, I frequently ride with an open face helmet (aka Jet helmet) that HAS a Snell rating. 
Snell has never been concerned how pretty you'll be after an accident, just the amount of G force transmitted to your head.

Arnie

ddlewis

I don't know all the details of why flip helmets can't be snell and don't care.  Nor do I care that they may be marginally less safe in a faceplant than a solid chinbar.  If I were that hung up on small increments of safety I'd just drive cars.


grannyknot

Quote from: ddlewis on February 04, 2012, 06:25:52 PM
I don't know all the details of why flip helmets can't be snell and don't care.  Nor do I care that they may be marginally less safe in a faceplant than a solid chinbar.  If I were that hung up on small increments of safety I'd just drive cars.


Good point, hadn't really thought of it like that. As a side note Schuberth, the company that supplies F1 with (one piece)helmets and are considered some of the safest in the world is poised to try and make a big entrance into the North American market and all it is offering is it's 2 piece modulars units, can't get the one piece at least not in Canada.
At the last big motorcycle show in Toronto I talked to the guy at the Schuberth booth for quite awhile, tried on a few. It certainly was very impressive, flip up, quiet! and comfy as can be. But at $900...so it should be.
84 Yamaha FJ1100L
82 Honda CB450T
70 Suzuki T500
90 BMW K75S

Dan Filetti

Quote from: Arnie on February 04, 2012, 06:12:33 PM
So, that leads me to question the comments TerryK made. 

You are not alone.

Dan
Live hardy, or go home. 

rktmanfj

Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 04, 2012, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: Arnie on February 04, 2012, 06:12:33 PM
So, that leads me to question the comments TerryK made. 

You are not alone.

Dan

Snell is no longer relevant...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/automobiles/27SNELL.html?pagewanted=all

Dexter Ford was fired from Motorcyclist magazine for this article, due to pressure from Arai and Shoei.

Arnie

Note to Grannyknot;

Shuberth helmets have been available in Australia and North America for many years.
They don't say "Shuberth", they're labeled "BMW".

Arnie

terryk

Quote from: rktmanfj on February 04, 2012, 11:30:05 PM
Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 04, 2012, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: Arnie on February 04, 2012, 06:12:33 PM
So, that leads me to question the comments TerryK made. 

You are not alone.

Dan

Snell is no longer relevant...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/automobiles/27SNELL.html?pagewanted=all

Dexter Ford was fired from Motorcyclist magazine for this article, due to pressure from Arai and Shoei.

Snell is very relevant and M2010 addresses the controversy on peak force transmission.

Snell test helmets for compliance to standards. DOT does not certify helmets before they go to market and then only a few helmets are actually tested in a sampling program. Snell requires sampling on the manufacturing line and pulls helmets off the shelf randomly all year long from certified product and tests for compliance. Dot does not.

But helmet testing protocols differ between DOT, ECE and Snell in rig set up, strike profile and anvil design. This leads to a lack of conforming data for comparison between the ratings.

I like Snells ongoing testing and in essence re certification for all helmets with a Snell rating. Keeps the helmet makers quality under a microscope. And, no one argues that the M2010 rating is irrelevant.

rktmanfj

Quote from: terryk on February 05, 2012, 09:27:20 AM
Quote from: rktmanfj on February 04, 2012, 11:30:05 PM
Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 04, 2012, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: Arnie on February 04, 2012, 06:12:33 PM
So, that leads me to question the comments TerryK made. 

You are not alone.

Dan

Snell is no longer relevant...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/automobiles/27SNELL.html?pagewanted=all

Dexter Ford was fired from Motorcyclist magazine for this article, due to pressure from Arai and Shoei.

Snell is very relevant and M2010 addresses the controversy on peak force transmission.

Snell test helmets for compliance to standards. DOT does not certify helmets before they go to market and then only a few helmets are actually tested in a sampling program. Snell requires sampling on the manufacturing line and pulls helmets off the shelf randomly all year long from certified product and tests for compliance. Dot does not.

But helmet testing protocols differ between DOT, ECE and Snell in rig set up, strike profile and anvil design. This leads to a lack of conforming data for comparison between the ratings.

I like Snells ongoing testing and in essence re certification for all helmets with a Snell rating. Keeps the helmet makers quality under a microscope. And, no one argues that the M2010 rating is irrelevant.

Nice try.

M2010 was a response by Snell to to their detractors to bring their standards in line with DOT and ECE, basically an effort to regain some relevancy in the aftermath of their flawed M2005.

terryk

Quote from: rktmanfj on February 05, 2012, 09:36:34 AM
Quote from: terryk on February 05, 2012, 09:27:20 AM
Quote from: rktmanfj on February 04, 2012, 11:30:05 PM
Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 04, 2012, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: Arnie on February 04, 2012, 06:12:33 PM
So, that leads me to question the comments TerryK made. 

You are not alone.

Dan

Snell is no longer relevant...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/automobiles/27SNELL.html?pagewanted=all

Dexter Ford was fired from Motorcyclist magazine for this article, due to pressure from Arai and Shoei.

Snell is very relevant and M2010 addresses the controversy on peak force transmission.

Snell test helmets for compliance to standards. DOT does not certify helmets before they go to market and then only a few helmets are actually tested in a sampling program. Snell requires sampling on the manufacturing line and pulls helmets off the shelf randomly all year long from certified product and tests for compliance. Dot does not.

But helmet testing protocols differ between DOT, ECE and Snell in rig set up, strike profile and anvil design. This leads to a lack of conforming data for comparison between the ratings.

I like Snells ongoing testing and in essence re certification for all helmets with a Snell rating. Keeps the helmet makers quality under a microscope. And, no one argues that the M2010 rating is irrelevant.

Nice try.

M2010 was a response by Snell to to their detractors to bring their standards in line with DOT and ECE, basically an effort to regain some relevancy in the aftermath of their flawed M2005.

The M2010 peak force dwell transmission rates not are more aligned with ECE and DOT. Correct.

But, all the other relevant points on why Snell testing and certification standards are better than DOT for example, nothing there for you ? At all ? Maybe ?

terryk

Quote from: terryk on February 05, 2012, 09:46:53 AM
Quote from: rktmanfj on February 05, 2012, 09:36:34 AM
Quote from: terryk on February 05, 2012, 09:27:20 AM
Quote from: rktmanfj on February 04, 2012, 11:30:05 PM
Quote from: Dan Filetti on February 04, 2012, 11:13:28 PM
Quote from: Arnie on February 04, 2012, 06:12:33 PM
So, that leads me to question the comments TerryK made. 

You are not alone.

Dan

Snell is no longer relevant...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/automobiles/27SNELL.html?pagewanted=all

Dexter Ford was fired from Motorcyclist magazine for this article, due to pressure from Arai and Shoei.

Snell is very relevant and M2010 addresses the controversy on peak force transmission.

Snell test helmets for compliance to standards. DOT does not certify helmets before they go to market and then only a few helmets are actually tested in a sampling program. Snell requires sampling on the manufacturing line and pulls helmets off the shelf randomly all year long from certified product and tests for compliance. Dot does not.

But helmet testing protocols differ between DOT, ECE and Snell in rig set up, strike profile and anvil design. This leads to a lack of conforming data for comparison between the ratings.

I like Snells ongoing testing and in essence re certification for all helmets with a Snell rating. Keeps the helmet makers quality under a microscope. And, no one argues that the M2010 rating is irrelevant.

Nice try.

M2010 was a response by Snell to to their detractors to bring their standards in line with DOT and ECE, basically an effort to regain some relevancy in the aftermath of their flawed M2005.

The M2010 peak force dwell transmission rates not are more aligned with ECE and DOT. Correct.

But, all the other relevant points on why Snell testing and certification standards are better than DOT for example, nothing there for you ? At all ? Maybe ?

Arnie - Snell flip face passes Snell testing in one size.The Zeus ZS-3000 has excellent quality, a solid-feeling helmet shell and a comfortable liner that is removable and washable.  The helmet is also convertible to an open-face style; and, best of all, the ZS-3000 is currently Snell approval in the small shell size (XS to M). 

Full face helmet standards are a superset for open face testing standards for obvious reasons such as no bneed to test for chin bar structural integrity.