Motorcycle.com

Stonedog · 05-17-2005, 10:43 AM

First Post? Now I can go read the article.

Steven_Verschoor · 05-17-2005, 11:09 AM

Well, that was a pretty poorly written letter from the SNELL foundation, but I think I'll still buy helmets with SNELL ratings. Remember last year when that racer crashed and wound up doing backward sumersaults. How many times did his head whip around and wack the pavement?

HelterSkelter · 05-17-2005, 11:44 AM

Why am I not looking forward to my ride home anymore?

BMob · 05-17-2005, 11:46 AM

The direct link for the article is
http://www.smf.org/pdf/btlo_response.pdf

Enjoy!

BMob · 05-17-2005, 11:51 AM

I do not know about you guys, but I feel good about my Raider helmet purchase since I read Motorcyclist's article. After all, what sort of round objects would I be likely to strike on asphalt? I could see striking rocks off road, but are roads not primarily flat? There is 9% chance of striking curbs, so what about the other 91%? I would personally prefer to have less G's travelling through my brain just to be on the safe side . . .

sarnali · 05-17-2005, 11:52 AM

Motocyclist magazine:You're full of s**t,

Snell Foundation: No YOU're full of s**t

Questions?.....

sportbike_pilot · 05-17-2005, 12:12 PM

Welcome to the world of scientific debate. This is great because it's an window into the world of how scientific and engineering principles are sometimes not so clear as we'd like to think. As far as I can see both sides have some points in their favor. I, for one, think that this debate will ultimately lead us to better head protection which is the goal. Salute to both parties.

-sbp

cliby · 05-17-2005, 12:22 PM

Snell's letter seems almost entirely defensive. At least Motorcyclist raised some good points. I was suprised by what appeared to be a lack of significant evolution in research over the past 10 years - I think that shows the weight motorcyclist's heads carry in terms of economic or political clout. Snell neglected to comment on the very significant point raised about using identical standards for different size (presumable weights) heads. Hopefully this will focus some attention on a field that could benefit from added research. I would also hope the motorcycle manufacturers could work together to actually fund such research to further their customers interests. If the effort/money to protect our heads was evolving at a fraction of the pace that sportbike R&D was moving, I'm betting we'd all have very differnt head protection.

wwalkersd · 05-17-2005, 12:52 PM

Round objects? Car fenders & bumpers, trees, posts (fence-, lamp-, sign-), public trash cans, some guardrails, mailboxes (at least the edges), Jack Russell terriers (they're football-shaped for a reason, according the bumper sticker I've seen on a JR owner's truck), etc. Plenty of round stuff out there to hit. The Snell response mentions a Euro study that says round objects are the _most_ likely impact point (but then the Euros aren't as obsessed with straight lines and right angles as we 'Murcans are).

johnnyb · 05-17-2005, 01:01 PM

i enjoyed the Undead comment. I can remember Art Friedman holding forth on this same topic at least 10 years ago, and at various intervals since. Personally I would rather read about uh, well almost anything. How many pages they give that in Motorcyclist? talk about your dearths of ???

05-17-2005, 10:43 AM	#1
Stonedog Founding Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 36	Re: Snell vs. Motorcyclist First Post? Now I can go read the article. __________________ valar morghulis

05-17-2005, 11:09 AM	#2
Steven_Verschoor Registered Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 441	Re: Snell vs. Motorcyclist Well, that was a pretty poorly written letter from the SNELL foundation, but I think I'll still buy helmets with SNELL ratings. Remember last year when that racer crashed and wound up doing backward sumersaults. How many times did his head whip around and wack the pavement? __________________ http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/tsmileys/d.gif

05-17-2005, 11:44 AM	#3
HelterSkelter Founding Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 320	Re: Snell vs. Motorcyclist Why am I not looking forward to my ride home anymore?

05-17-2005, 11:46 AM	#4
BMob Founding Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 22	Re: Snell vs. Motorcyclist The direct link for the article is http://www.smf.org/pdf/btlo_response.pdf Enjoy!

05-17-2005, 11:51 AM	#5
BMob Founding Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 22	Re: Snell vs. Motorcyclist I do not know about you guys, but I feel good about my Raider helmet purchase since I read Motorcyclist's article. After all, what sort of round objects would I be likely to strike on asphalt? I could see striking rocks off road, but are roads not primarily flat? There is 9% chance of striking curbs, so what about the other 91%? I would personally prefer to have less G's travelling through my brain just to be on the safe side . . .

Sponsored Links	Remove Advertisements
Motorcycle Forum Advertisement

05-17-2005, 11:52 AM	#6
sarnali Founding Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 3,420	Re: Snell vs. Motorcyclist Motocyclist magazine:You're full of st, Snell Foundation: No YOU're full of st Questions?.....

05-17-2005, 12:12 PM	#7
sportbike_pilot Founding Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 739	Re: Snell vs. Motorcyclist Welcome to the world of scientific debate. This is great because it's an window into the world of how scientific and engineering principles are sometimes not so clear as we'd like to think. As far as I can see both sides have some points in their favor. I, for one, think that this debate will ultimately lead us to better head protection which is the goal. Salute to both parties. -sbp

05-17-2005, 12:22 PM	#8
cliby Founding Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 3	Re: Snell vs. Motorcyclist Snell's letter seems almost entirely defensive. At least Motorcyclist raised some good points. I was suprised by what appeared to be a lack of significant evolution in research over the past 10 years - I think that shows the weight motorcyclist's heads carry in terms of economic or political clout. Snell neglected to comment on the very significant point raised about using identical standards for different size (presumable weights) heads. Hopefully this will focus some attention on a field that could benefit from added research. I would also hope the motorcycle manufacturers could work together to actually fund such research to further their customers interests. If the effort/money to protect our heads was evolving at a fraction of the pace that sportbike R&D was moving, I'm betting we'd all have very differnt head protection.

05-17-2005, 12:52 PM	#9
wwalkersd Registered Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 247	Re: Snell vs. Motorcyclist Round objects? Car fenders & bumpers, trees, posts (fence-, lamp-, sign-), public trash cans, some guardrails, mailboxes (at least the edges), Jack Russell terriers (they're football-shaped for a reason, according the bumper sticker I've seen on a JR owner's truck), etc. Plenty of round stuff out there to hit. The Snell response mentions a Euro study that says round objects are the _most_ likely impact point (but then the Euros aren't as obsessed with straight lines and right angles as we 'Murcans are).

05-17-2005, 01:01 PM	#10
johnnyb Founding Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 1,613	Re: Snell vs. Motorcyclist i enjoyed the Undead comment. I can remember Art Friedman holding forth on this same topic at least 10 years ago, and at various intervals since. Personally I would rather read about uh, well almost anything. How many pages they give that in Motorcyclist? talk about your dearths of ???