Snell vs. DOT

I'm always curious about how others approach the saftey vs. utility/comfort/cost issue. I'm a "no snell, no buy" guy when it comes to buying helmets, which means the various flip-up helmets aren't a consideration for me, but then again I'm an old lady (though there is a rumor that in 2004 a snell approved flip-up will appear). I'd like to hear other's thoughts as to whether a snell certification indeed means a safer helmet or whether the difference between a snell and DOT certification is meaningful in safety terms. One difference at least is that snell purchases and tests helmets randomly whereas DOT is an honor system approach

I'm a Snell guy all the way.

Snell, except for flip ups

I have had two bicycle helmets save my mellon, both Snell rated. Will not change... unless it is a flip up. If I could find a Snell flip up that would be the one I would purchase.

The biggest difference in my understanding is the speed of impact that they are rated for. Snell being faster.

I switched to Snell

and my life has improved. Lowered my blood pressure and my golf score. My &^%$ is bigger, teeth are whiter (both of them), and all the aches and pains are gone from my joints. Smoother skin, rippled abs, and my feets don't have no stank.

Snell sounded safer, so I switched.

And one more standard, for reference:

Keep in mind these are safety standards for marketing and consumer protection. In a nutshell:

DOT sets standards (testing requirements, methods, measurements to meet for passing) but doesn't routinely test for or enforce their standards.

Snell Memorial Foundation sets standards, is essentially a testing lab for the manufacturer who wants the certification, and enforces their certification.

ECE R22-05: The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) is where this regulation 22 is established, amended 5 times (the "-05": gotta love the web). It is to set limits for what is legal to be sold in the EU.

Updating standards is often a game of leap frog. 22.03 used to be good enough, now it's 22.05. Is that a significant safety change or just fixing typos and making technical corrections in the amendment? Does it change the product at all? If a helmet already met testing requirements, it doesn't matter if the standard changed as long as the helmet still meets whatever test applies; it doesn't mean the helmet must be changed. The tests usually set minimum pass limits, not minimum failure limits. In other words, "must withstand a drop of x from y" is not that same as "finally breaks apart when dropped..."

How you wear the helmet, if it fits correctly, if it's taken care of properly, etc. will affect how a specific helmet works for you. It's only the most extreme circumstances that will cause one helmet to outperform another significantly, if you're looking at high quality products in the first place.

Y'know, you'd think that if we can put a man on the moon (and thirty-five years ago at that!), we'd be able to make a Snell-rated and ultraquiet flip-up helmet. You'd think anyway...

Re: And one more standard, for reference:

Montana said:

It's only the most extreme circumstances that will cause one helmet to outperform another significantly, if you're looking at high quality products in the first place.

Click to expand...

Ya gotta be careful makeÔÇÖn statements like that. I don't think you could find any studies to back that up. As a matter of fact, I think the last major accident study, not helmet test'n, indicated that expensive helmets provided no more protection in a crash than an inexpensive one

Re: Re: And one more standard, for reference:

Rad said:

Ya gotta be careful makeÔÇÖn statements like that. I don't think you could find any studies to back that up. As a matter of fact, I think the last major accident study, not helmet test'n, indicated that expensive helmets provided no more protection in a crash than an inexpensive one

Click to expand...

I agree with Rad on this. If it has Snell and DOT ratings the level of protection should be the same. Less expensive does not equate to less protection only less features and technology.

I guess you both need to go back and reread that last paragraph. We're all saying the same thing, except I'm not the one who brought "expense" into this comparison.

Montana said:

I guess you both need to go back and reread that last paragraph. We're all saying the same thing, except I'm not the one who brought "expense" into this comparison.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I guess yur comment confused me.

Montana said:

if you're looking at high quality products in the first place.

Click to expand...

I have a Shoei Syncrotec, which is not Snell rated due to the flip up design. Do I think that it isn't as safe as a Shoei that is rated by Snell? (all their others are). No, I feel safe in the helmet and I like the convienence of the flip up design, especially in hot humid weather here in the midwest. I do dress for the slide, not the ride and I trust that Shoei knows enough about helmets to keep a sub standard product from reaching the street. When I go to the track I will buy another non flip up, since the rules for track day specify a Snell rated helmet. I am sure it will be under 100.00, since I can't afford to spend another large sum for a helmet I won't use all that much. If it is Snell rated, it should do the same job as a 400.00 one. Just because it isn't worn by a world champion or advertised extensively doesn't mean it isnt of high quality.

yuck

if my helmet has both a snell and a dot rating, can i just abbreviate and call it SNOT?

Re: yuck

username said:

if my helmet has both a snell and a dot rating, can i just abbreviate and call it SNOT?

Click to expand...

Either that or DELL.

Dude! You're gonna get it now...

Let's get real.... Would you rather have a Snell 3/4 helmet or a DOT full-face?

DOT is the standard (FMVSS 218) for a legal helmet.

Snell is voluntary.

DOT is the STREET standard.

Snell is a RACING standard.

No Snell sticker does NOT equate to a lesser helmet. It could also be that the company didn't want to pay Snell to test their lid and then pay for every Snell sticker/label OR doesn't intend for their lid to be used in RACING.

I'd still like to find someone who's "no Snell, no buy" that can empirically differentiate between it and DOT and the testing rationale behind them.

These flip-up helmets passed a Snell test fine, but aren't labeled Snell
http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/accessoriesandgear/fliphelmets/index.html

Snell's nice, but there are a lot of things higher on the list as to what helmet I buy, like DOT and fit for some.

Hey thanks for the article. I feel better knowing that my Shoei will pass the Snell test if they allowed flip frong helmets to be tested.

Joe said:

I'd still like to find someone who's "no Snell, no buy" that can empirically differentiate between it and DOT and the testing rationale behind them.

Click to expand...

Joe

Thanks for the article. Good resource. As to your quote above, the Snell web site has a Snell v. DOT discussion as to the differences in testing, but it is a quantitative not qualitative discussion (at least there is no explicit ÔÇ£we are betterÔÇØ statement). If you mean that you are looking for proof that a Snell certified helmet is a more protective helmet, me too or the contrary! (that is why I started this thread in the first place). Of course your question can be turned around to put the burden on a DOT advocate. IÔÇÖm just not aware of any third-party empirical data to prove either side of the discussion.

Absent an empirical answer we do the best we can. My own personal approach is to buy Snell for the following reasons: 1) a Snell certified helmet canÔÇÖt be worse than a DOT only for the simple reason that all Snell helmets are DOT certified as well, 2) Snell states that their tests are ÔÇ£the most demandingÔÇØ ÔÇô itÔÇÖs a non-profit so I am not as skeptical of their claims but of course they may be wrong but as I said above I am not aware of anyone who has empirically demonstrated that their belief is incorrect, 3) whether or not a manufacturer who claims to meet DOT standards in fact does is not readily determinable, i.e., no agency tests to see whether the helmets in fact do meet DOT standards (itÔÇÖs an honor system so you have to trust the manufacturer, for me, no thanks), 4) conversely, Snell does pre and spot test ÔÇô if nothing else you are assured that the helmet really does meet DOT at least.

I think you can sum it up by saying: Snell is at least as good and could be better. I'll take those odds, but then again, I'm an old lady.

I didnÔÇÖt see anything on the Snell web site that says theirs is only a ÔÇ£racingÔÇØ as opposed to a ÔÇ£streetÔÇØ standard and I think IÔÇÖm missing the significance. If you mean that the only real difference in protective ability is at speeds none of us will approach then I think that would settle the whole discussion at least for me. Is that what you meant and if so can you point us to that data?

As to flip-ups, Snell has this to say: ÔÇ£At present, the Foundation has not had the opportunity to test any of the flip up front type helmets. So far, we can not find any fault with these designs as long as they are used according to the manufacturers instructions.ÔÇØ

I read that a Snell sanctioned one will be coming out in the spring.

Thanks for your input.

This just might be the most informed, rational helmet discussion I've ever seen.

The links and discussion here have taught me a lot.

Another Article

I have not read the article yet, but on page 22 of the March Rider is an article with a tease line of Snell or DOT

Re: I may be wrong...

Blue Knight said:

I had three BWM System helmets and now a Schuberth and none are SNELL approved.

Mike

Click to expand...

As you probably know, the "system" helmets were made by Schuberth for BMW and as I understand it, they pass European TUV and EC standards which are as tough, if not tougher, than Snell ratings.