So I took a look around, and it seems that the only 3/4 helmet with a Snell rating is the Shoei RJ-Platinum R. However, it is the older 2005 snell rating. I have the HD 3/4 based on the HJC IS-33. I like it for the face shield, but have decided the look is a little dorked. The Shoei is more of a traditional 3/4 style. I would definitely be interested IF the Snell rating is worth it---speaking of worth it---the Shoei is expensive as heck!.
Thoughts?

 

That is an old Rj with the 2005 certification. The new ones carry 2007 or 2009. There is significant improvement in the newer RJs.

 

Snell certification is always worth looking at. The bigger issue is this the best 3/4ths on the market. However, buy the new one, not the last generation.

 

I have the RJ Platinum and its 2010 Snell version (just purchased from RevZilla $238)

 

Hmm... I got the stats right from the Shoei website. Do any other brands have a traditional 3/4 helmet that is Snell 2010?

 

I would recommend you read this article.

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/ge...iew/index.html

It is a very long article...but it might change your perspective a bit on the snell rating. Just FYI.

Here is the part dealing with the Snell Rating

On The Highway To Snell

On the stiff, tough-guy side of this debate is the voluntary Snell M2000/M2005 standard, which dictates each helmet be able to withstand some tough, very high-energy impacts.

The Snell Memorial Foundation is a private, not-for-profit organization dedicated to "research, education, testing and development of helmet safety standards."

If you think moving quickly over the surface of the planet is fun and you enjoy using your brain, you should be grateful to the Snell Memorial Foundation. The SMF has helped create standards that have raised the bar in head protection in nearly every pursuit in which humans hit their heads: bicycles, horse riding, harness racing, karting, mopeds, skateboards, rollerblades, recreational skiing, ski racing, ATV riding, snowboarding, car racing and, of course, motorcycling.

But as helmet technology has improved and accident research has accumulated, many head-injury experts feel the Snell M2000 and M2005 standards are, to quote Dr. Harry Hurt of Hurt Report fame, "a little bit excessive."

The killer—the hardest Snell test for a motorcycle helmet to meet—is a two-strike test onto a hemispherical chunk of stainless steel about the size of an orange. The first hit is at an energy of 150 joules, which translates to dropping a 5-kilo weight about 10 feet—an extremely high-energy impact. The next hit, on the same spot, is set at 110 joules, or about an 8-foot drop. To pass, the helmet is not allowed to transmit more than 300 Gs to the headform in either hit.

Tough tests such as this have driven helmet development over the years. But do they have any practical application on the street, where a hit as hard as the hardest single Snell impact may only happen in 1 percent of actual accidents? And where an impact as severe as the two-drop hemi test happens just short of never?

Dr. Jim Newman, an actual rocket scientist and highly respected head-impact expert—he was once a Snell Foundation director—puts it this way: "If you want to create a realistic helmet standard, you don't go bashing helmets onto hemispherical steel *****. And you certainly don't do it twice.

"Over the last 30 years," continues Newman, "we've come to the realization that people falling off motorcycles hardly ever, ever hit their head in the same place twice. So we have helmets that are designed to withstand two hits at the same site. But in doing so, we have severely, severely compromised their ability to take one hit and absorb energy properly.

"The consequence is, when you have one hit at one site in an accident situation, two things happen: One, you don't fully utilize the energy-absorbing material that's available. And two, you generate higher G loading on the head than you need to. "What's happened to Snell over the years is that in order to make what's perceived as a better helmet, they kept raising the impact energy. What they should have been doing, in my view, is lowering the allowable G force.

"In my opinion, Snell should keep a 10-foot drop [in its testing]. But tell the manufacturers, 'OK, 300 Gs is not going to cut it anymore. Next year you're going to have to get down to 250. And the next year, 200. And the year after that, 185.'"

The Brand Leading The Brand

"The Snell sticker," continued Newman, "has become a marketing gimmick. By spending 60 cents [paid to the Snell foundation], a manufacturer puts that sticker in his helmet and he can increase the price by $30 or $40. Or even $60 or $100.

"Because there's this allure, this charisma, this image associated with a Snell sticker that says, 'Hey, this is a better helmet, and therefore must be worth a whole lot more money.' And in spite of the very best intentions of everybody at Snell, they did not have the field data [on actual accidents] that we have now [when they devised the standard]. And although that data has been around a long time, they have chosen, at this point, not to take it into consideration."

A World Of Hurt

Dr. Hurt sees the Snell standard in pretty much the same light.

"What should the [G] limit on helmets be? Just as helmet designs should be rounder, smoother and safer, they should also be softer, softer, softer. Because people are wearing these so-called high-performance helmets and are getting diffused [brain] injuries ... well, they're screwed up for life. Taking 300 Gs is not a safe thing.

"We've got people that we've replicated helmet [impacts] on that took 250, 230 Gs [in their accidents]. And they've got a diffuse injury they're not gonna get rid of. The helmet has a good whack on it, but so what? If they'd had a softer helmet they'd have been better off."

How does the Snell Foundation respond to the criticism of head-injury scientists from all over the world that the Snell standards create helmets too stiff for optimum protection in the great majority of accidents?

"The whole business of testing helmets is based on the assumption that there is a threshold of injury," says Ed Becker, executive director of the Snell Foundation. "And that impact shocks below that threshold are going to be non-injurious. "We're going with 300 Gs because we started with 400 Gs back in the early days. And based on [George Snively's, the founder of the SMF] testing, and information he'd gotten from the British Standards Institute, 400 Gs seemed reasonable back then. He revised it downward over the years, largely because helmet standards were for healthy young men that were driving race cars. But after motorcycling had taken up those same helmets, he figured that not everybody involved in motorcycling was going to be a young man. So he concluded from work that he had done that the threshold of injury was above 400 Gs. But certainly below 600 Gs.

"The basis for the 300 G [limit in the Snell M2000 standard] is that the foundation is conservative. [The directors] have not seen an indication that a [head injury] threshold is below 300 Gs. If and when they do, they'll certainly take it into account."

So nobody is being hurt by the added stiffness of a Snell helmet, we asked.

"That's certainly our hope here," answered Becker. "At this point I've got no reason to think anything else."

 

There is a lot of articles out there on helmet ratings.

1) Snell M2005 has been discredited as being flawed.
2) There are a lot DOT labeled helmets that do not meed the current DOT certification standards, DOT is trying to correct this with a new DOT sticker that will give them a the legal clout to go after manufacturers who purposely cloud the issue/differences between 1972 standards and current standards
3) ECE 22.05 and/or Snell M2010 are currently considered the highest level of safety certification

See http://www.webbikeworld.com/motorcyc...le-helmets.htm

 

Thanks for the article, good info. I bought mine because I like the style and fit, the Snell rating wasn't as much as a consideration as the manufacture was.

 

You can get HJC CL31 that are both DOT and Snell approverd for around $60.00.I just got 2,one for my wife and one for me.This is the 2nd set of these helmets that I bought.They look good and are comfortable good fit.I can't remember the the name of the co. that I bought them from look on the internet.They are 3/4.There were a few places that sold them at this price.If I remember the name of the co. I will contact you.

 

Dang. Might have been relying on Snell too much--but how else can I judge the protective values? Is there any other way to evaluate outside of DOT/SNELL?

And also generally---what sort of 3/4 open face helmets do folks prefer?