I stumbled on an old article claiming that Snell approved helmets are too hard. I thought it was an interesting read and, though it seems to be directed at street riders, I want to share it with everyone.
The key is to define exactly what kind of 'hit' (or, especially multiple 'hits',) that you want the helmet to protect you from. Your question can only be answered when this has been decided on , and clearly defined.
Just like deciding which bike is best. Best for what purpose?
Clearly defining exactly what the impact you are going to use your helmet for is more difficult than it seems at first.
There's a follow up article to that in this months motorcyclist where Snell has a new set of standards that includes some of the recommendations from that one.
$0.02 worth taken. However ... who in the world knows what impact you are going to have? You could tip over and smack your helmet into a rock a low speed, or you could slam into a tree WFO in top gear? I go with both. If the helmet does not have Snell and Dot approval, I won't throw it on my grape.
As stated in the article "But crashes are accidents. So you have to guess."
$0.02 worth taken. However ... who in the world knows what impact you are going to have? You could tip over and smack your helmet into a rock a low speed, or you could slam into a tree WFO in top gear? I go with both. If the helmet does not have Snell and Dot approval, I won't throw it on my grape.
As stated in the article "But crashes are accidents. So you have to guess."
I personally enjoy the WFO into a tree. Much more exciting than the low speed tip over. I've always used dot+snell approved helmets, and have hit my head on everything except the kitchen sink, and my brain still functions for the most part.... Come to think of it, I did hit my head on the kitchen sink once, but wasn't wearing my helmet so it is not relevant to this conversation! :bang: