motorcycle helmets with HUD (heads up display)

http://popularmechanics.com/technology/tech_tuesday/2003/12/tech_tuesday_12_15_03/index.phtml

 

That's pretty cool... but don't helmets cost enough already?

 

I better run out and get me a solid gold helmet!

 

How does a $300+ HUD or a $100+ paint job make my helmet more effective in
the event of a crash?

 

That's a dumb saying, and was just as dumb when I first heard it 30 years
ago.
I wear a $600 helmet, does this mean my head is only worth $600 ?

 

Sadly, yes, I'm afraid that's about all you can get for it on ebay.

and I guess if you get a helmet on sale, your head is not as valuable?

 

at the risk of stirring up a debate on an what's probably an already over
debated subject, I'm curious, has anyone ever done a study and determined a
cheaper non "Name Brand" helmet is less effective than a more expensive
"Name Brand" one? I find it difficult to believe, assuming both helmets have
the same certifications and presumably are made of similar materials, that a
800.00 helmet is any more effective than the 200.00 brand. Its not like an
Arai or a Bell come replete with side air bags or anything.....

Tom B

 

<sigh> here we go again...

The argument of the "price doesn't matter" crowd:
all helmets with the DOT sticker meet their standards for a helmet (more
about these momentarily), and likewise with the SNELL sticker. These
standards are PERFORMANCE standards. The tests measure the helmet's
ability to resist certain sorts of impacts, and both test standards are
available from various sources if you're interested in such things.

AFAIK, there is NO debate that all helmets with the stickers perform AT
LEAST up to the minimum requirements of the standard. Whether exceeding
the performance of the standard is a good thing IS a subject of debate
(and I'm not going to rehearse it here, but it's a complex issue).

So, if meeting some minimum standard for impact resistance (and other
criteria) is your condition for a helmet being "effective", then the
price of the helmet is not a good guide.

The argument of the "cheap helmet, cheap head" crowd (at least, a
version that I've heard-there may be more): more expensive helmets have
other features that make them more "effective" in a broader sense. More
expensive helmets (it is argued, and often correctly) are lighter, more
comfortable, better ventilated, offer better vision, etc. These features
of your helmet make the rider more likely to be wearing it, and lessen
the distractions and fatigue of wearing the helmet. If you are more
alert and more focused, you are less likely to get into a situation
where the impact resistance of the helmet is likely to be tested.

It should be noted that the definition of an "effective" or "good"
helmet differs between the two groups.

This sketch of the arguments in play has also neglected used equipment
(which argument I'll also skip), and so-called "novelty helmets."
Novelty helmets are not DOT certified and exist (AFAIK) to allow people
to appear to meet helmet laws without actually wearing a real helmet, to
wear a "helmet" that looks cool (e.g. horned helmets, military
helmet-alikes, etc.), and possibly other reasons.

That's the short summary. I've left stuff out, but this has taken way
more time for this subject than I really care to. All of this has been
gone over before in any number of places, but you have to work hard to
dig real information out of the huge piles of name-calling.

Now, as to HUD's:
A HUD does not improve the impact-resistance of a helmet. In this sense,
it is an expense without a benefit. Of course, it HAS THE POTENTIAL to
increase your situational awareness and lower the chances of the rider
getting caught looking at the instruments at a bad time. This potential
is a potential increase of the "effectiveness" of the helmet, when
"effective" is taken in a broader sense.

On the other hand, without training and experience, a HUD is potentially
more distracting than having your vision clear. Using military pilots or
law-enforcement personnel as an example of the benefits of a HUD is not
really useful because of the enormous difference in training between
your average fighter pilot and your average motorcycle rider.

I will NOT respond to arguments on this subject. It's been done to death
both here and elsewhere, and is ultimately both misguided and fruitless.
I'm not going to convince anyone of anything with the above, and that
was not my intention.

 

I wear only Snell headwear, since they purchase helmets retail
for more rigorous tests. Also, one thing you buy with a more
expensive helmet (of the same basic design) is less weight.
The top of the line full face helmets from Shoei or Arai are
lighter, and have better aero aids.

Wearing a hat that fits properly and passes Snell 2000 and is
within your budget and that you can stand to wear is fine.

Safety equipment is not the place I look to save money, in
any case, though $$$ are not a direct measure of quality.
I hope not to ever use the thing anyway, just to wear it.

 

A magazine in the UK did tests on various helmets, specifically with a view
to finding out if a helmet that had had a reasonable impact, but with no
visible damage, was actually weakened by the impact and should be replaced
as recommended by the manufacturers. The upside was that helmets still
seemed to perform okay but the recommendation was still to replace the
helmet as the manufacturers recommended it!

The relevant point to this debate was a that a £50 AGV polycarb helmet
performed as well as, and better than some, much more expensive helmets so
spending more on a helmet may give greater comfort but not necessarily more
safety.

Steve H