Comparison Tests of Motorcycle Comparison Tests of Motorcycle - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

Aug 11, 2023 214 likes •453 views

Comparison Tests of Motorcycle Comparison Tests of Motorcycle Helmets Qualified to Helmets Qualified to International Standards International Standards David R. Thom, MS Collision and Injury Dynamics El Segundo, California w w w

SLIDE 1

Comparison Tests of Motorcycle Comparison Tests of Motorcycle Helmets Qualified to Helmets Qualified to International Standards International Standards

Collision and Injury Dynamics

El Segundo, California w w w .ci-dynamics.com

David R. Thom, MS

SLIDE 2

SLIDE 3

Motorcycle Helmet Standards Motorcycle Helmet Standards

FMVSS No. 218 (DOT) – Mandatory* for motorcycle use – (* but poorly enforced) Snell Memorial Foundation British Standards Institution 6658 ECE 22.05 (European Commission)

SLIDE 4

2005 Real 2005 Real-

World Tests

World Tests

2 & 3 meter drop heights Flat pavement impact surface Aggressive metal edge impact One impact per site

SLIDE 5

Real Real-

World Tests

World Tests

Two and three meter

drop heights represent 90th and 99th percentile impacts

SLIDE 6

Real Real-

World Tests

World Tests

Flat pavement impact surface--Just

like the roads we crash on.

Hurt Study found 87% of all helmet

impacts to be against flat surfaces

71% of the impacts on pavement

SLIDE 7

Real Real-

World Tests

World Tests

Aggressive metal edge

impact surface

Because there are 11%

things out there to hit that are not flat.

SLIDE 8

Real Real-

World Tests

World Tests

One impact per site--Just like real

crashes

Hurt Study found 91% single critical

impact

Only 6.3% had any second impact at

the same site…and at far lower energy

SLIDE 9

Monorail Test Apparatus Monorail Test Apparatus

ASPHALT PAVEMENT ANVIL ISO SIZE J HEADFORM

SLIDE 10

Helmet Components Helmet Components

Shell EPS Liner Shell EPS Liner Fit Padding Retention System

SLIDE 11

One Part EPS Liners One Part EPS Liners

SLIDE 12

Two Two-

Part EPS Liners

Part EPS Liners

SLIDE 13

Multi Multi-

Part EPS Liners

Part EPS Liners

SLIDE 14

Crush Crush-

Zone EPS

Zone EPS

SLIDE 15

1992 & 2005 Tests 1992 & 2005 Tests

11.5

223g 252g DOT-Snell NA 191g None Tested DOT-ECE NA 207g None Tested DOT-BSI

28.3

182g 254g DOT % change 2005 3 meter (9.8 ft) 1992 10 foot (3m) Standard

SLIDE 16

1992 & 2005 Tests 1992 & 2005 Tests

11.5

223g 252g DOT-Snell NA 191g None DOT-ECE NA 207g None DOT-BSI

28.3

182g 254g DOT % change 2005 3 meter (9.8 ft) 1992 10 foot (3m) Standards

SLIDE 17

Lower Acceleration is Better Lower Acceleration is Better

There is no “magic” line at 300g:

299g is no better than 301g

“Future improvements are more

likely to come from reduced acceleration limits than from increased impact energy requirements.” (Hurt, 1993)

SLIDE 18

Lower Acceleration is Better Lower Acceleration is Better

DOT’s effective limit is 250g European ECE 22.05 limit 275g European COST 327 proposed

standard has a limit of 180g for some impacts

SLIDE 19

Conclusion: Conclusion: helmets are better now. helmets are better now.

SLIDE 20

More Conclusions More Conclusions

Full face helmets have better impact

attenuation in 2005 than in 1992

Helmets are available in the US meeting

European standards & DOT

The standards met correlates well with

impact performance in realistic tests

DOT-only performs best, followed by

ECE, BSI and Snell qualified helmets

SLIDE 21

More Conclusions & More Conclusions & Some Problems Some Problems

More riders are wearing:

–Nothing –Partial coverage helmets –Fake helmets

SLIDE 22

Thank you for your attention ! Thank you for your attention !

SLIDE 23

Internet Resources Internet Resources

AMA –

ama-cycle.org

Collision Dynamics- ci-dynamics.com

DOT-NHTSA –

nhtsa.dot.gov

Dynamic Research – dynres.com

HPRL –

hprl.org

Motorcyclist–

motorcyclistonline.com

MSF –

msf-usa.org

Snell Foundation – smf.org