http://www.motorcycle-superstore.com/1/1/38/34948/ITEM/Bell-Revolver-Helmet.aspx?WT.ac=SLIsearch (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.
(http://images.motorcycle-superstore.com/ProductImages/OG/2011-Bell-Revolver-Helmet-Hi-Visibility-Yellow.jpg)
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?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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 (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.
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
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 (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.
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 (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.
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 (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 ?
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 (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.
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 (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.
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 (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.
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 (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.
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 (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.
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:
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.
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
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.
(http://i643.photobucket.com/albums/uu159/rktmanfj/PICT1244.jpg)
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.
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.
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?
PM me your paypal info and I will pick it up at the fall rally.
Returned it earlier this week. Check Motorcycle-superstore, $99 free shipping.