how many people buy helmets off the internet after trying in shops? most important thing is to make sure it fits properly, 1 model is not always the same fit as another model by the same manufacturer, its like shoei and arai, you generally (not always) fit 1 or the other but not both.

First helmet was an arai after reading reviews of people who had crashed in them! then bought a hjc hq1 on looks alone but its not nearly as comfortable as my arai which is now nearly at the end of its usable life, so just splashed out on an arai rx7 corsair after trying on a few other brands. Right about the arai, shoei thing though, only arai fit my head proper!
the corsair is a great helmet as well.

[quote="brooky"]how many people buy helmets off the internet after trying in shops? most important thing is to make sure it fits properly, 1 model is not always the same fit as another model by the same manufacturer, its like shoei and arai, you generally (not always) fit 1 or the other but not both.[/quote]

I agree on this.

The main problem with SHARP is that it was promoted as something to help differentiate between helmets that have all met the minimum standards required to be sold to the public in the EU, but the things it tests have not been independently established to be actually relevant to safety. The DfT commissioned the TRL to develop a test and rate all of the helmets, which they did, but what is missing is any scientific agreement that the test they came up with was able to bring out differences that would really matter.

I remember reading about SHARP when it was first announced, having already known about the significant debate in the 'States regarding the Snell and DOT standards, and wondering why they didn't even discuss how they had arrived at the particular testing methodology upon which the SHARP tests were based. It was as though they had completely ignored the ongoing scientific debate, picked their own testing criteria and got down to business. What a farce! But then I remembered we were dealing with government, here...

I'll start believing in SHARP once the DfT enters (and prevails in) the debate about which safety standard is best. Only then will the SHARP test results have any useful purpose--until then, AFAIC it's just another waste of taxpayers money.

Ciao,

JZH
London, UK
http://www.vsource.org" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

micpec wrote:hmm...not only sweat and dirt counts in case it has been put on a head and used, what about UV-light (normal day/sunlight), temperature where the helmet is kept, humidity, dust in general, etc. All can effect usage on a helmet without being put on a head. I personaly would not buy a NOS helmet with a shelf life of +3 years compared to label tag.

and what do most shops have.....fluorescent lights (which give off low levels of UV) + helmet sitting on a shelf + nobody buys = on to the sales shelf?
how long has that helmet been exposed and then put on the cheap shelf?

AGV ti tech and now the gp tech, i wont wear any other lid, fits great and u know its tested properly by blokes on gp bikes every week, the sharp tests arnt conducted in a bike crash specific way, no wonder arai and the like arnt impressed who have been testing helmets for 50 odd year... Buy the most expensive u can afford mate, and as long as its not a £500 quid lazer lid u should be fine! (sorry to lazer helmet owners, they might be quiet good but i wouldnt know )