Gear recommendations: modular helmets

[fubar929]

I think you're missing the point of having a chin bar capable of absorbing an impact. If you read the studies about helmet impacts a little over a third of crashes involve face planting the chin bar into the ground. Not having a chin bar that can absorb that kind of an impact leaves your face and chin exposed to impact injuries. Most modulars don't have a chin bar that can absorb much of an impact because they're too thin and flexible and then a lot of modules have cheap plastic hinges and latches that if you punch it with your hand will pop open so I can't imagine it would hold up very well in an actual crash.

Good news! There's data (albeit somewhat old) for this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5924707/

Their data suggests that full face helmets are the safest, but the difference in fatality and injury rates between full face and modular helmets isn't as big as you're suggesting...

 

[ThinkFast]

Chin bar thing is a bit of a red herring, actually, since Snell will certify 3/4 (open face) helmets. They do have a chin bar test which they use on full face helmets - I’m not sure whether they use it on modulars or not.

As I understand it, the main reason they won’t certify a modular is because of the built in sun shade, which results in less protection on the top of the helmet to make room for the shade.

 

[Enchanter]

Chin bar thing is a bit of a red herring, actually, since Snell will certify 3/4 (open face) helmets. They do have a chin bar test which they use on full face helmets - I’m not sure whether they use it on modulars or not.

As I understand it, the main reason they won’t certify a modular is because of the built in sun shade, which results in less protection on the top of the helmet to make room for the shade.

What does that mean for the modular helmets that do not have sun shades?

 

[cal scott]

The link offered in post #12 addressed many of these questions. Snell has different certification criteria for open face and full face helmets. Modular helmets are treated like full face helmets and held to the standards of the full face certification criteria. Snell welcome any manufacturers of modular helmets to submit for certification, however, very few do and, of those that have, only one has ever passed.

 

[llrdhsktr]

I wear a Schuberth C3 Pro because I wear glasses. Have always worn modulars because of that. I went down wearing it a couple of years ago, hitting the side of my forehead. Banged my knee badly on that side. Helmet did not open up. My head was OK. The helmet is DOT rated. YMMV

 

[HeatXfer]

I just bought my first Schuberth (E1) a few weeks ago, wish I had done it years ago: It's hands-down the quietest helmet I've ever owned and it's a modular. I went face down wearing my Caberg modular and it didn't pop. Of course anything can happen during a crash, but I'm satisfied with the protection the Schuberth provides. As far as noise goes, my Arai full face helmets (Quantums & Signets) were quiet but not like the Schuberth. I do wear the standard 32db foam ear plugs when I ride, nothing else has worked for me.

 

[motomania2007]

Good news! There's data (albeit somewhat old) for this:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5924707/

Their data suggests that full face helmets are the safest, but the difference in fatality and injury rates between full face and modular helmets isn't as big as you're suggesting...

The reality is that when I went shopping for my last helmet and I asked for fullface helmets, in 4 of the 6 shops I went to, they offered a modular helmet and specifically called it "a modular fullface helmet" or a "fullface with a movable face" I had to ask what she meant with the second one.

In either case, I asked for a fullface helmet and in the salesperson's mind, "fullface" included modulars and since modulars do not provide as much protection as a fullface, they are not the same and should not be included in "fullface" category anymore than any other open face or 1/2 helmet.

I have had many students in my classes that bought modulars thinking they offered the same level of protection as a fullface because no one told them any different or, in too many cases, they were specifically told by the salesperson that modulars were as good as fullface helmets.

The fact that they offer less protection, even if not that much less, it is still notably less.

I like solid food and would rather not have my jaw wired shut or surgically rebuilt after faceplanting into the pavement in a crash, so fullface is definitely the way to go for me.

 

[islemann]

I have the latest HJC modular and I love it. My Scala Rider is HJC friendly, the ear holes are deep enough for speakers + my floppy ears. I have an 'abundant' beard, that's the only thing that is a semi-issue. Let's just say that the beard reduces airflow over my chin. Interestingly it means the visor doesn't fog in the cold and rain of Seattle.

For daily riding, ie trips to the bank for the random drive-up window stick-up or roadside chats with Ossifer Frendlee - the modular is great.
It's not my only helmet, so for more spirited riding I can always put my HJC Carbon on my brain nub.
Like everything safety related it's a trade-off. Leather or textile? Low-rise or high-rise boots? Armored gloves or comfy comfy deerskin? Full face with tiny eye-port or modular?

I'll take the diminished 'ultimate' protection of the modular in exchange for the increased daily useability. It's a trade I've been making successfully since 1998. So far.

 

[islemann]

While not on your list, I like the Shark Evo One 2 as it has the ability to flip to the rear if you wanted to ride with it open like a 3/4 helmet. https://us.shark-helmets.com/collections/modular-motorcycle-helmets. Now whether if fits your head shape is another matter...

That's the helmet used by the Policia in Spain and Portugal. You see very few other helmets in use. I saw one Caberg and a couple of the cops in Barcelona had Schuberth modulars. Otherwise - every cop I saw whether in town or on the highway / back-routes was in a Shark modular.

 

[Lowerside]

The fact that they offer less protection, even if not that much less, it is still notably less.

I'm guessing you're doing an apples-to-apples comparison between a full face vs a modular from the same brand at the same price bracket. In that situation, I fully agree with that statement as a general guideline. However, for the sake of discussion, let's introduce a bit of nuance here.

Full face helmets are held up as the gold standard of what's considered safe, but we rarely qualify that. At an extreme example, without any extra qualification, we can all probably agree that a Shark Evo One 2 (~$450 modular bucket) will protect you better than some random $50 Ebay no-name full face even on chin bar impacts.

So what extra pieces of information do we have? In general, we have the range of standards of DOT, ECE, SNELL, and FIM. In addition to that, we have SHARP doing their own testing. Within similar price brackets, there are modulars that have the same safety ratings as an existing full face that outperform some full faces that share the same standard rating in testing. eg. the AGV Numo VS the Bell Qualifier.

Of course, different safety standards have their own nuances. DOT is generally considered a joke and the whole self-reporting thing makes them even moreso. ECE and SNELL (at least for 2015) are interesting because they optimize for different testing scenarios, and I think there's still some discussion about whether one or the other is universally safer (if such a conclusion can be made). I'm not familiar with FIM other than it's another standard that's expensive to test against.

I think a better way to think about safety equipment is to set an acceptable level of safety given what you're doing and go from there. In our case, it's most likely picking a standard that a helmet needs to have and/or a SHARP rating that they have to reach. From there, we can make cost/benefit decisions for things other than pure safety such as comfort, style, etc. This means that if we're recommending full faces but never specifying that it must be at least ECE/SNELL, then we're not necessarily recommending a safer helmet depending on what the person is shopping for. If we are specifying at least an ECE standard, then we're going to have to accept that there exists ECE rated modulars that have passed the same level of testing as existing ECE full faces.

 

[motomania2007]

I appreciate your bringing up different standards as that is important data point.

Whether or not DOT is a joke, as you put it, is your opinion and only that.

DOT is far from perfect due to the self certification nature of it that leaves it open to abuse.

The actual DOT impact tests are not a joke and are legitimate tests. Again, it appears that you believe the DOT impact test is lacking and you prefer other impact testing protocols like Snell and ECE. There are plenty of expert opinions on both sides of that fence and a 3rd side of the fence (ala 6D and other mfrs) that think all current impact test standards are crap because they are not testing real world types of impacts that vary in force and rotation, etc.

As for my opinion, I prefer Snell. But that is me.

Legally, in the US, the only certification that matters is DOT. All other certifications are important data points to consider when purchasing a helmet.

DOT certified helmets, from a reputable helmet mfr, are just as reliable of a certification as ECE, Snell, etc.

However, due to the self-certification basis of DOT, I would not recommend any helmet from an "inexpensive," "internet" or "fly by night" brand that pop up all too often.

Those helmets will have a DOT sticker on them, but since the brand is sketchy, the self-certification DOT sticker is questionable.

Please show me where ECE certification does chinbar impact testing on both modular and fullface helmets as that is news to me and probably many others.

 

[Lowerside]

Yeah I agree about a DOT-only helmet from a reputable manufacturer is probably fine, if only because they want to protect their brand. The best way to sell helmets after all is if all your riders survive to buy more helmets and praise how the helmet totally saved them. There are some helmets that come from reputable manufacturers that have low SHARP ratings even with the ECE standard that raises my eyebrows though.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of if SHARP says that the modular helmet's chin bar is retained at 100% (or very close to 100%), then it's basically as safe as a full face in terms of chin bar impact. That said, I also did think that ECE certification tested chin bar strength if only because I thought that DOT did and ECE tested helmets with their chin bar down unless they're dual-homologated (sp?). After doing some digging, it looks like neither standard tests chin bar strength? ECE looks like a manufacturer could optionally test for chin bar strength, but there's no indication on whether or not a helmet's been tested for it. It appears that ECE certified helmets can have a -P suffix to explicitly say if it's been chinbar-tested and -NP if not but it also appears difficult right now to find out whether a specific helmet has a -P or -NP at least online. It looks like a future ECE 22.06 will require a helmet to pass all tests in both configurations, but details are sparse.

souces:
https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/23/files/23ESV-000160.PDF
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_helmet#Modular_or_"flip-up"
https://www.advpulse.com/adv-news/new-ece-standards-to-increase-helmet-safety-and-price/

 

[berth]

DOT certified helmets, from a reputable helmet mfr, are just as reliable of a certification as ECE, Snell, etc.

This is simply a fundamental criteria.

The reputable helmet mfr are reputable for a reason, regardless of the certifications.

We also know that many helmets are built "to the test" in order to ensure passing, which is why different markets have marginally different helmets.

But at the same time, we also understand, fundamentally, what helmets are, and how they work. We don't have to be engineers to do that and still understand that there's a baseline quality to the products from reputable mfrs.

But, as an anecdote, my first helmet was a "white", open faced helmet from KMart that I got for probably $29. As a bonus, it was ill fitting. I know now that it was quite likely too loose.

But what the heck did I know at the time. I knew I should wear a helmet, and that this was a helmet. It looked like a bunch of other motorcycle helmets I has seen.

I can tell you, however, what I do know. That when push came to shove, and I was sliding across the pavement, the helmet did its job. The face shield was destroyed. It took more damage than I did. $29 well spent.

Nobody wants their gear to fail when its needed, but unfortunately, we can't know if it will fail until it's time comes and is tested.

Getting a mainstream item from a mainstream manufacturer and you're likely going to be ok. The product will work. Some will work better, all will have failed at some point in some extreme case. In most cases where a helmet didn't save the person, odds are no helmet would have saved the person.

The key takeaway is that if you look at the curve of injury vs helmet use, the biggest bump is wearing one at all, then the curve gets pretty shallow from there on.

You look at SNELL testing, and I wouldn't be surprised if a bicycle helmet can pass their test. Bicycle and skateboard helmets solve the same fundamental problem motorcycle helmets solve: protecting your noggin from a 6 foot fall to concrete. Everything else is abrasion.