Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 (Tek) 9/28/84 based on 9/17/84; site tekig4.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!tekig3!tekig5!tekig4!markmo
From: markmo@tekig4.UUCP (Mark Morland)
Newsgroups: net.cycle
Subject: Re: helmets
Message-ID: <307@tekig4.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 10-Oct-85 00:47:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekig4.307
Posted: Thu Oct 10 00:47:49 1985
Date-Received: Sat, 12-Oct-85 18:09:12 EDT
Organization: Tektronix, Beaverton OR
Lines: 32

--------
In article <111@drutx.UUCP> bjc@drutx.UUCP (CampbellBJ) writes:
>A D.O.T. approved helmet is virtually useless, make sure it is Snell
>approved.  Expect to pay $150+ for a really good helmet...
>
>Becky

I have to disagree with a notion that a Snell rated helmet is mandatory.
Many of the changes between Snell 70, 75, and 80 ratings are for
fire protection, not crash protection.  This is important to racing drivers,
but is not the main concern of a motorcyclist.

A recent article in Motorcyclist magazine was a helmet comparison.  The
consensus was that (permanently) crushable foam is the best liner material
to give our brains a survivable decelleration rate in a sudden stop.  The
Snell impact test rates helmets on surviving two identical impacts.  This
type of test favors helmets with restorable foam.  Here again, the standard
helps protect racing drivers whose head is most likely to contact a
specific point on the roll bar several times, but the standard is not
specifically designed for motorcycle crash protection.

What will I buy next?  A Snell 80 - I can't race sportscars without it!

I'm dissapointed that the highest rating printed for quietness was "better
than average", Motorcyclist never said which one was BEST.

>Expect to pay $150+ for a really good helmet...
True, but ALWAYS wear SOME helmet.

Happy Biking,

Mark Morland   tektronix!tekig4!markmo