Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Just to add my older style Intgrale lid came from Ears - they were really helpful & let me try on a few different ones; don't underestimate how much variation in fit there is between two lids the same size.

Glad to see the BS standard mark has been found; I couldn't understand why my "last years" model was BS6658 type A approved and the later one wasn't.

edit: Just reread the original link, it clearly says

BS 6658-85 Type A Approved.
so not sure why the whole approval thing kicked off  :D  :p  :D
  • Replies 47
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • slippy

    11

  • Blatman

    11

  • pistonbroke

    8

  • Dave Eastwood (Gadgetman) - Club Chairman

    6

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted
They're in Macclesfield in Cheshire.
Posted
Where are ears based ?

either side of your head behind "eyes"

sorry couldnt resist  :down:

Posted
There's always one  :bangshead:  :down:  :D  :D  :D  :D  :D
Posted

BS 6658-85 Type A Approved.
so not sure why the whole approval thing kicked off  :D  :p  :D

The BS approval sticker on the original link opens as a Jpeg and it wasn't the 6658 approval. Which is why I had concerns. Add that to the fact that I personally am never comfortable in anything other than a composite shell, and I thought I would offer my opinion...

BSI-Blue-Label(3)._tn45.jpg

Doesn't look like BS6658A to me. I missed it if it's mentioned in the text of the advert :durr:

Stu.

Only lids with 6658 A/FR are fireproof as they have a nomex lining. 6658 type A are normal man made fibres.  Not sure if Snell lids are fire rpoof as standard.

As for impacts, IIRC a car lid is tested to absorb multiple impacts on the same spot (helmet/cage interface) whereas biker lids are tested to withstand multiple impacts at multiple points (rolling down the road/bouncing off things...).

For *track days*, I'm sure a bike lid with ECE22 will be adequate. For *any* sort of competiton, it must be BS6658A, or 6658A/FR, or Snell 2000 or 2005 or it ain't legal.

My opinion is that the MSA are pretty good when it comes to driver safety, so if it's good enough to compete with, then that should be the standard aimed for for a track day, which is just as dangerous, but less regulated when it comes to safety. It's your choice of course, but for me, it's an obvious one...

Posted

For the purposes of discussion/my learning, I would like to know exactly what a helmet is protecting the driver from?

I ask, because the thread is seems to be taking the lean that 'unless it is Motorsport approved' it isn't really good enough.

Early last year, I went shopping for a lid for SWMBO. My first calls were to the local M/C shops. After the third shop, it became obvious that helmets to minimum motorsport standards are rarely found in M/C shops nowadays. In fact, the only one I did find was a pisspot, and the Mrs didnt want one of them :D

We eventually bought one from Demon Thieves. In the M/C shops, there were helmets with *staggering* price tags - and bristling with the latest technology, yet can't be used for motorsport. My thoughts were that it may be because the energy absorbing lining might be designed to cope with a different type of impact. But I've been told it is actually because M/C helmets dont offer the same level of protection in the event of a fire - I dont know for sure.

If that is the case, then fair play. But TBH, if I only ever planned to do trackdays, and that *is* the only difference, then my next lid would come from a M/C shop.

Because *if* the fire is hot enough to start melting my helmet, chances are I am in the crap big time anyway... ;)

The testing for motorsport use ( BS, Snell standards ) is based on the helmets ability to take repeated impacts on the same area of the lid in addition to crash protection and energy absorbtion.  If your strapped in then turned updire down you are more likely to repeatedly batter the roll bar with the back of the helmet or bounce off the road with the top.

Bike crashes would be less likely to have repeated impacts on a specific point.  Therefore energy absorbtion is of greater importance, having an almost sacrificial shell.

BS 6658-85 Type A 'Blue sticker' Approved helmets can be clasified as fire resistant with the addition of a couple of letters ( F/R  ? )

BS 6658-85 Type A F/R 'Red sricker' Approved

A bike helmet,  normally EC standard would protect from small flying debris and probably a light battering.  This said if you flip a car then you will probably excede a light battering and could end up doing the manufacturers R&D for them.

Posted

Helmets always seem very costly for what they are, but how much do you pay out for life insurance each year?

Probably not dis-similar.

Do NOT skimp on price for a helmet, unless SWMBO wants your life insurance money, pay off mortgage etc etc

Kerry

Posted

And if I had forked out £400  for a brainprotecter ,I  wouldnt be worrying about any car smash.

I would however , definatley be worrying about the frying pan that h.i.d. would  use to batter me skull with   :sheep:

Posted

My opinion is that the MSA are pretty good when it comes to driver safety

5279.jpeg

:p  :D

My opinion is that the MSA are pretty good when it comes to driver safety, so if it's good enough to compete with, then that should be the standard aimed for for a track day, which is just as dangerous, but less regulated when it comes to safety. It's your choice of course, but for me, it's an obvious one...

Hence my question, because to me, it ain't so obvious. If design and construction differs to protect the driver from a certain type/strength of impact more prelevant in a car, then paying the extra is worth every penny. But the BS6658 standard has been around for *years*, and AFAIK so have the standards a 'BS' tested helmet has to meet. And the standard itself probably isn't motorsport based, either  :D

For the record, we bought a Snell approved Bell... :t-up:

Posted
BS 6658-85 Type A Approved.
so not sure why the whole approval thing kicked off  :D  :p  :D

The BS approval sticker on the original link opens as a Jpeg and it wasn't the 6658 approval. Which is why I had concerns. Add that to the fact that I personally am never comfortable in anything other than a composite shell, and I thought I would offer my opinion...

BSI-Blue-Label(3)._tn45.jpg

Doesn't look like BS6658A to me. I missed it if it's mentioned in the text of the advert :durr:

Ah, I understand, hadn't really noticed the little label icon; I think the no. on the white background just looks like some kind of serial or ref number, it does appear to say BS 6658-85 Type A in black along the bottom of the sticker, though I nearly went cross eyed trying to read it.  :suspect:  :D

Interested in the composite shell or better bit though, as a newcomer to lids, not something I'd ever thought of. Something to look out for next time round I guess.

Posted

Stu, you know what I meant by driver safety :p

AFAIK, the BS standard, whilst it has been around for a while, was amended in 2000. Not sure what the amendemnt was 'cos it costs £46 quid to find out from the BSI...

Posted
I wouldn't wear it...

You want a fibreglass or fibreglass/kevlar/carbon composite shell. Anything less may not be strong enough. And yes, I know it will have passed all the tests blah blah blah, but I wouldn't wear a plastic lid if they came free with Westfield World...

Blatters ....You appear to be morphing into a Harv :bangshead:  :bangshead:

You need to read what I have posted more carefully...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Please review our Terms of Use, Guidelines and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.