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

rktmanfj

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 ?

Nope, not really.

Not until Snell certified helmets also pass DOT and ECE.

Until they do, Snell is just not that important, IMO.

terryk

Quote from: rktmanfj on February 05, 2012, 09:55:46 AM
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 ?

Nope, not really.

Not until Snell certified helmets also pass DOT and ECE.

Until they do, Snell is just not that important, IMO.

I get your opinion and agree as all Snell certified helmets do meet DOT certification standards. This is always the case as all Snell certified helmets meet DOT and all ECE certified helmets for sale in the USA meet DOT certification standards. ECE and Snell would also argue they exceed DOT standrards, but you need a DOT certification, albeit self certification, to sell a helmet for street use in the USA.

But, Snell, DOT and ECE all use the same DOT testing standards for certification. Snell and ECE then apply their own standards as well making their testing standards a superset of the DOT standards.

Standardized testing criteria is a bridge too far really as ECE and DOT can not even agree on a basic criteria for "The Headform" used in the test.

DOT uses three headforms and ECE uses five (with a potential for eight). Their weight ranges are about the same. In theory, the ECE headform weights, spread across a larger range of headform sizes, might allow the helmet manufacturer to calibrate the EPS (expanded polystyrene) liner more accurately for the particular helmet size. But the ECE and the DOT shape is quite different with the DOT form being quite flat. Not like most heads at all.





rktmanfj

Quote from: terryk on February 05, 2012, 11:40:12 AM
Quote from: rktmanfj on February 05, 2012, 09:55:46 AM
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 ?

Nope, not really.

Not until Snell certified helmets also pass DOT and ECE.

Until they do, Snell is just not that important, IMO.

I get your opinion and agree as all Snell certified helmets do meet DOT certification standards.


All M2010 helmets, perhaps, but with M2005 models (and there are still a lot of them around) that is not true.

M2005 models might pass DOT, but probably not ECE.

terryk

Quote from: rktmanfj on February 05, 2012, 01:08:05 PM
Quote from: terryk on February 05, 2012, 11:40:12 AM
Quote from: rktmanfj on February 05, 2012, 09:55:46 AM
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 ?

Nope, not really.

Not until Snell certified helmets also pass DOT and ECE.

Until they do, Snell is just not that important, IMO.

I get your opinion and agree as all Snell certified helmets do meet DOT certification standards.


All M2010 helmets, perhaps, but with M2005 models (and there are still a lot of them around) that is not true.

M2005 models might pass DOT, but probably not ECE.

Ok, so buy a new helmet if you really think M2005 is not good enough. Get the M2010.

The new Snell M2010 standard resolves this problem. Once it takes effect, manufacturers will be able to build helmets which will satisfy DOT, ECE 22-05 and Snell simultaneously.

The chief virtue of the Snell M2010 standard is that it will enable a "world helmet" which will provide Snell levels of protection to riders in Europe as well as in North America.

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. But for street riders in Europe, M2010 may make a considerable difference.

For the first time in years, they may be able to choose helmets which satisfy all the local regulations and provide a premium of protective capability over and above local requirements. 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.



rktmanfj

Quote from: terryk on February 05, 2012, 01:26:25 PM

Ok, so buy a new helmet if you really think M2005 is not good enough. Get the M2010.

The new Snell M2010 standard resolves this problem. Once it takes effect, manufacturers will be able to build helmets which will satisfy DOT, ECE 22-05 and Snell simultaneously.

The chief virtue of the Snell M2010 standard is that it will enable a "world helmet" which will provide Snell levels of protection to riders in Europe as well as in North America.

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. But for street riders in Europe, M2010 may make a considerable difference.

For the first time in years, they may be able to choose helmets which satisfy all the local regulations and provide a premium of protective capability over and above local requirements. 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.




And this post sums it up nicely... you either have not read the study the above referenced article is about, or you have, and just don't understand the controversy, or you just like a good debate.      :boredom:

terryk

Quote from: rktmanfj on February 05, 2012, 02:39:00 PM
Quote from: terryk on February 05, 2012, 01:26:25 PM

Ok, so buy a new helmet if you really think M2005 is not good enough. Get the M2010.

The new Snell M2010 standard resolves this problem. Once it takes effect, manufacturers will be able to build helmets which will satisfy DOT, ECE 22-05 and Snell simultaneously.

The chief virtue of the Snell M2010 standard is that it will enable a "world helmet" which will provide Snell levels of protection to riders in Europe as well as in North America.

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. But for street riders in Europe, M2010 may make a considerable difference.

For the first time in years, they may be able to choose helmets which satisfy all the local regulations and provide a premium of protective capability over and above local requirements. 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.




And this post sums it up nicely... you either have not read the study the above referenced article is about, or you have, and just don't understand the controversy, or you just like a good debate.      :boredom:

Read it, understand it and still stand behind the cetification and re certification by Snell. I own a Snell 2010 - DOT rated helmet and two different ECE and DOT rated helmets.

Arnie

All this discussion is probably good.  It gets us thinking about helmets and safety and perhaps learning a bit more about "standards" *.  However, I think that for almost all of us who are not track riders, but street riders, the added protection that MAY be afforded by a Snell rated helmet over a DOT or ECE or ASA 1698 (or other) certification, is a very narrow accident set.
In my time as  a helmet-wearing street rider (over 45 yrs), I have only ever touched my helmet to the pavement once.  How long till I next have an "off" where I not only hit my helmet, but do so causing greater transmitted force than DOT but still less than Snell ?
BTW  In that hypothetical case, it is likely that I would die anyway due in great part to my age.

Just my opinion, but I think that this religious belief in the superiority of Snell, should be instead used in avoiding the incident in the first place.

* The beauty of "standards" is that like MicroSoft, if you don't like them you just define your own.

Arnie


rktmanfj

Quote from: Arnie on February 05, 2012, 10:26:44 PM
In my time as  a helmet-wearing street rider (over 45 yrs), I have only ever touched my helmet to the pavement once.  How long till I next have an "off" where I not only hit my helmet, but do so causing greater transmitted force than DOT but still less than Snell ?
BTW  In that hypothetical case, it is likely that I would die anyway due in great part to my age.

Arnie



Eh, maybe you would, Arnie, maybe not.  There are some pretty good helmets out there.

The one pictured below belongs to a friend of mine.  It definitely saved his life when a teenage girl pulled out directly out in front of him.  His SV650 hit right behind the driver's side front wheel, and because of the angle of the impact,  he went over the bars and the A-pillar of the car launched him  into the air (witnesses said 10-12' high) and about 50' down the road, where he landed face first on the pavement.  Was he uninjured?  No.  He suffered a broken jaw (displaced, had to be wired), and got at least a mild concussion (was knocked out for several minutes).  IMO, considering the force of the impact, that's a pretty good outcome.

This particular one is a Fulmer, of modular design (DOT approved), and despite the hard hit right on the chinbar, did not break the latch.



ddlewis

Just as a followup to the Bell Revolver saga..  It didn't fit.  As is the case with all modular helmets I've ever tried, the internal shape is too round - regardless of reviews saying otherwise, it's bowling ball round inside and puts too much pressure on the forehead of my oblong shaped head.  Also the chin bar lightly touches my chin when it's closed - more incompatibility with my head shape.  And thus, I have re-learned my lesson.. don't buy helmets online - must try on.

Too bad for me, because the helmet did seem otherwise high quality paint, finish and materials wise.  Nothing cheesy about it.  The front flip/latch mechanism worked smoothly and seemed solid as a rock.  The helmet is a smoking deal at $99 (50% off orig msrp) - if it will fit.

rktmanfj

Quote from: ddlewis on February 15, 2012, 09:03:15 AM
Just as a followup to the Bell Revolver saga..  It didn't fit.  As is the case with all modular helmets I've ever tried, the internal shape is too round - regardless of reviews saying otherwise, it's bowling ball round inside and puts too much pressure on the forehead of my oblong shaped head.  Also the chin bar lightly touches my chin when it's closed - more incompatibility with my head shape.  And thus, I have re-learned my lesson.. don't buy helmets online - must try on.

Too bad for me, because the helmet did seem otherwise high quality paint, finish and materials wise.  Nothing cheesy about it.  The front flip/latch mechanism worked smoothly and seemed solid as a rock.  The helmet is a smoking deal at $99 (50% off orig msrp) - if it will fit.



Fathead.

the fan

Quote from: ddlewis on February 15, 2012, 09:03:15 AM
Just as a followup to the Bell Revolver saga..  It didn't fit.  As is the case with all modular helmets I've ever tried, the internal shape is too round - regardless of reviews saying otherwise, it's bowling ball round inside and puts too much pressure on the forehead of my oblong shaped head.  Also the chin bar lightly touches my chin when it's closed - more incompatibility with my head shape.  And thus, I have re-learned my lesson.. don't buy helmets online - must try on.

Too bad for me, because the helmet did seem otherwise high quality paint, finish and materials wise.  Nothing cheesy about it.  The front flip/latch mechanism worked smoothly and seemed solid as a rock.  The helmet is a smoking deal at $99 (50% off orig msrp) - if it will fit.


What size is it?


the fan

PM me your paypal info and I will pick it up at the fall rally.

ddlewis

Returned it earlier this week.  Check Motorcycle-superstore, $99 free shipping.