Question Are Arai actually safer?

[Rabbit]

I’m hunting for a new safe helmet and wondered if anyone has seen actual data that the Arai round design is actually safer from a rotational energy standpoint? They make a big deal about their round design but I haven’t seen anything to prove it

 

[dduelin]

I would think it is going to be very difficult for any manufacturer to be able to produce quantifiable data on severity of head injuries by helmet brand and/or model. MIPS technology has been around nearly 10 years and I haven't seen a study yet that quantifies the claims of reduced severity of injury.

Pick a comfortable helmet that meets the standard you are comfortable with and wear it. That's my advice.

 

[mzflorida]

I’m hunting for a new safe helmet and wondered if anyone has seen actual data that the Arai round design is actually safer from a rotational energy standpoint? They make a big deal about their round design but I haven’t seen anything to prove it

There are some research articles on Arai at scholar.google.com. I looked at a few of them before purchasing mine. I recall one saying that, essentially, it depends. The conclusion was that even small changes in design, even across the same brand and product line, can produce different outcomes as it relates to protective ability. Then the types of impacts versus those small changes theoretically would impact the protective ability (< >). So, a design change could mean this (or something else).

Arai Signet X in a large shell size could provide superior protection than a similarly sized shell of a Nolan N90.

Arai Signet X in a medium shell size could provide inferior protection than a similarly sized shell of a Nolan N90.

That said, I have confidence in Arai's protective ability. Not sure if it is greater or lesser than others. But...I'm sure others will agree...some others not...Arai helmets are insanely comfortable.

 

[melensdad]

...Arai helmets are insanely comfortable.

^^^^ THIS ^^^^

I cannot prove it is safer/safest. But there seems to be a lot of safety research behind them and they tend to be of the highest quality. But the one thing I know, they are absolutely comfortable helmets and an uncomfortable helmet will not be worn.

 

[Rabbit]

Ok thank you for the insight. I guess given even MIPS doesn’t have research it might be a bit much for me to ask it of Arai.

 

[Rabbit]

I would think it is going to be very difficult for any manufacturer to be able to produce quantifiable data on severity of head injuries by helmet brand and/or model. MIPS technology has been around nearly 10 years and I haven't seen a study yet that quantifies the claims of reduced severity of injury.

Pick a comfortable helmet that meets the standard you are comfortable with and wear it. That's my advice.

You’re right, I just tend to over analyze safety concerns.

 

[MZ5]

There are tests for rotational injury potential. I believe it's the Aussies who are doing some of that in the form of an independent entity (one that buys from retail and tests; NOT manufacturer-generated 'information'). Arai scores well on that testing. I'm aware of no hard data to correlate any anyone's claims or testing of rotational injury potential, to actual crash injuries.

***EDITED TO ADD: The COST 327 report out of Europe did try to evaluate rotational injury, and recommended(?) 5000 radians/sec as an upper limit. I'm still not sure how good the correlation is between that and injury, but it's probably worth considering and certainly worth investigating further.

The US military did a WHOLE lot of testing on impact acceleration and its effects on the human body, over the course of decades. There is a book, free to download, about that work one can find here:

IMPACT ACCELERATION AND THE HUMAN RESPONSE

Scroll to the bottom of the page for the link to the book. The Snell Memorial Foundation has some sort of relationship, or provides (or provided?) support for the book's distribution, or something. I say this because one can find a link to the impactaccelerationexperiments page on the Snell website, and there's a bit of a summary of the book from a Snell person on the page, too. That said, the book is about the military work, and the authors (or at least one of them) ran the Navy lab where most(?) of the data was generated. I recommend downloading it if this topic is of interest.

I'll see if I can find a link to the testing I referred to above about Aussie testing of rotational impacts...

 

[MZ5]

I believe it was Motocap in Australia. Here's their website:

Homepage

motocap.com.au

They list rotational test scores for each helmet they test. NOTE: The gear they test is always purchased at retail in Australia. That means essentially ALL of it is not the same stuff available in North America (where the vast majority of this board's membership is located).

 

[Rabbit]

I believe it was Motocap in Australia. Here's their website:

Homepage

motocap.com.au

They list rotational test scores for each helmet they test. NOTE: The gear they test is always purchased at retail in Australia. That means essentially ALL of it is not the same stuff available in North America (where the vast majority of this board's membership is located).

It’s amazing how differently the same helmet can be rated depending on the country. The Shoei RYD is 3 stars in Motocap but 4 stars in sharp. Big deal is that supposedly the RYD shows zero ability to manage oblique impacts. Just so darn hard to tell what’s actually a good helmet

 

[MZ5]

It’s amazing how differently the same helmet can be rated depending on the country. The Shoei RYD is 3 stars in Motocap but 4 stars in sharp. Big deal is that supposedly the RYD shows zero ability to manage oblique impacts. Just so darn hard to tell what’s actually a good helmet

Indeed. That is a problem even with standardized testing standards that are 'open' to public view (Sharp's, Motocap's, Snell's, and ECE's testing standards and procedures are all available for public review and scrutiny). Now consider all the manufacturers out there who tell you how 'bad' all that testing is, and how they've developed their OWN testing and it's real good and better than all those other ones, but they tell you NOTHING about what they do or how they do it. That's a problem, in my view.

On top of that, which you pointed out, is the disconnect between standardized testing and crash outcomes. It's easy to understand why we don't put actual people into the helmets for testing. It's also clear why standardized testing is necessary: Tests must be repeatable and reproducible. If they aren't repeatable and reproducible, then they have no meaning or utility because you have no way to know whether a test result is representative of how the product will behave for you.

For clarity: Repeatable means you get the same results, within the defined repeatability limits, when a given lab runs the test xx number of times. Reproducible means two different labs get the same results as each other, again within the defined reproducibility limits, when they use the specified test procedure on a given product. Note the need for defined repeatability and reproducibility data. If no one bothers to collect and publish data on the repeatability or reproducibility of a given test procedure, you still don't know much about the usefulness of the test. You HAVE to know whether test results vary, say, 100% from test to test or lab to lab, or if those results vary only 5%, or what. Some tests a given lab can repeat relatively accurately, but lab-to-lab reproducibility is very poor. Math can help with all of these things, but you have to both know what you're doing AND have a desire and make the effort to do it.

 

[itsmenc700]

You know what "they" say - Dont forget after 5 years you need to throw it away and get a new one, because after that the helmet stops working.
Funny - my 9 year old helmet still works!

 

[Rabbit]

You know what "they" say - Dont forget after 5 years you need to throw it away and get a new one, because after that the helmet stops working.
Funny - my 9 year old helmet still works!

I actually saw the reasoning behind that 5 year thing. The EPS becomes brittle Over time and after a certain point it won’t crush the right way in a crash, supposedly.

 

[mzflorida]

I actually saw the reasoning behind that 5 year thing. The EPS becomes brittle Over time and after a certain point it won’t crush the right way in a crash, supposedly.

Yup. You would think they could "fix" that by now. Planned obsolescence perhaps.

 

[670cc]

You know what "they" say - Dont forget after 5 years you need to throw it away and get a new one, because after that the helmet stops working.
Funny - my 9 year old helmet still works!

What’s also funny is that around 45 years ago, I remember helmet manufacturers claimed the same 5 year usable helmet life, before helmet replacement was recommended. So, they have made no progress in improving helmet materials technology in the past 45 years?

As a side note, if the 5 year replacement interval is to be taken seriously, helmets in stock should have expiration dates printed on them, and should be discounted by 20% of the initial price for every year they sit on a retailer’s shelf.

 

[Oldbear]

You might want to check out Billy’s crash helmet site. They look at a lot of lids, using Euro test data. Arab/Shoei make good lids, but so do many others. Once a helmet is actually “approved”, it “should” perform similarly to any other lid with the SAME approval/certification. The big differences then become weight and comfort. Usually a more pricey lid will be more comfy/feature rich. If you are in to Modular’s, be VERY careful. A lot of ‘em use plastic/lightweight clips to hold the chin bar down, and these can and do fail. Unless something has changed very recently the ONLY modular brand that has not had a chin bar failure during testing is Nolan, They use metal latches and a “pinch” latch and it seems to work well. Even Shoei and Schuberth have had chinbar failures in tests, and they are much more $$ than Nolan. I frankly don’t put much credence in DOT, but that’s me. Arai are handmade and shells are quite strong. Get what is comfy with the best safety rating you can find. Punkins are only one to the customer, and if you crack yours you are done

 

[Rabbit]

Yup I love Billy’s site, and no Modular for me. I’m a full face only kind of guy. Thank you for the input though.

 

[MZ5]

I know that Arai has tested at least some of their helmets against the high-speed impact from FIM's new helmet certification, and passed. The story is that it's not only the one Arai model, but at least all of the Corsair line. That part is a rumor, though.

 

[Rabbit]

I know that Arai has tested at least some of their helmets against the high-speed impact from FIM's new helmet certification, and passed. The story is that it's not only the one Arai model, but at least all of the Corsair line. That part is a rumor, though.

One thing I find interesting is that Snell takes a lot of flack for making helmets too hard and requiring high energy management, but somehow FIM gets a pass for building helmets designed to travel safely over 150 mph and we’re supposed to believe that is good for normal road riding. Thank you for the insight into the Arai FIM certification though.

 

[MZ5]

It's definitely a confusing landscape of claims in the helmet crash testing and certification arena.

 

[Rabbit]

Looks like it comes down between impact energy management (snell) vs impact attenuation (FIM and ECE). I’ve reached out to snell to understand more. More to come!