Tuesday, May 25, 2010

Jarvis: Yamaha won't enter bidding war over Lorenzo

He might have won the last two GPs back-to-back, he might be nine points clear at the top of the title standings and he might currently be showing the way to his record-breaking, seemingly unbeatable team-mate Valentino Rossi – but FIAT Yamaha will not enter into a bidding war with Ducati Corse in order to retain the services of Jorge Lorenzo next year, insists Lin Jarvis.

The Italian outfit's team manager stated last week that FIAT Yamaha's objective is to keep hold of both of its riders into 2011 [see separate story – click here]. Both are out of contract come season's end – as, indeed, are the majority of the premier class field.

However, with the Italian and Spaniard having both come in for bids from rival teams – and the latter in particular having been pursued with some determination and a generous offer by Ducati last year – and Yamaha having suffered more than other manufacturers financially in 2009, it has been suggested that money could ultimately end up playing a deciding role.

An added complication is the uneasy relationship between the two team-mates, with nine-time world champion Rossi having sensationally claimed in Valencia last year that Yamaha would have to choose between him and Lorenzo in 2011 – in other words, between arguably the greatest competitor in motorcycling history but one who will likely soon be entering the autumn of his career, or the promising young rider across the other side of the pit garage who for many represents the future.

“That's our programme,” Jarvis told Italian sports newspaper La Gazzetta dello Sport. “They cost too much together? I don't think it's just a matter of money. We can give them an adequate retainer for their value, plus a very interesting technical situation and bike.

“I don't like market talk so early in the season. However, we must accept it, so we are doing our talks and we hope to be able to define the 2011 team by mid season, let's say by Laguna Seca, in order to be able to focus on results during the second half of the season. We certainly have no interest in fighting over [Lorenzo's] retainer. FIAT are very happy and they would like to go on with the same people. In any case, we'll sort out the riders first.”

Stoner 'has already decided to go', fears Ducati


Casey Stoner 'has already decided' to leave Ducati Corse for Repsol Honda in MotoGP 2011, a well-informed insider from the Australian's current team has conceded – as his suitor admitted that it is also 'interested' in regaining the services of Valentino Rossi.

It was reported earlier this month that Stoner and Honda have all-but agreed terms for the 2007 MotoGP World Champion to switch camps for next season [see separate story – click here], and whilst Ducati itself has maintained its silence on the matter, a source within the Italian outfit has revealed to GPWeek that there is now no going back.

“As far as Casey going to Honda next year, I think it's a done deal,” the 'highly-placed' team member stated. “I don't have any hard information and I don't want to go on the record, but it's just a gut feeling. I think he has already decided to go.”

Chief amongst Stoner's motivations to join Honda is the presence there of former Ducati team manager Livio Suppo, who oversaw the 24-year-old's march to the crown three years ago in only his maiden campaign with the team and second in the premier class and has in 2010 moved to Honda in a marketing and managerial capacity.

Another carrot is the opportunity to return the Japanese manufacturer to title glory for the first time since 2006, as well as the personal prospect of joining the elite group of just Rossi, Eddie Lawson and Geoff Duke to successfully claim the premier class championship with two different marques.

Aside from an opportunistic victory for veteran Loris Capirossi in the wet/dry 2007 Japanese Grand Prix – the same event at which Stoner lifted the laurels – no other rider has triumphed for Ducati since the Queensland native joined the squad, during which time he has equalled the tally of 20 successes notched up over the same period by record-breaking multiple world champion Rossi, despite being sidelined by illness for some of last year, an episode that is believed to have created a degree of tension with title sponsor Marlboro.

There have also reportedly been rather too many accidents for his employer's liking – including two in the first three races of 2010 alone – and Honda has made little secret of its desire to secure the signature of the 27-time race-winner.

Such an eventuality would mean one of the two present incumbents – Dani Pedrosa or the increasingly impressive Andrea Dovizioso – having to make way, with either Jorge Lorenzo or FIAT Yamaha team-mate Rossi looking to be in-line to replace Stoner at Ducati, despite Lin Jarvis' protestations that the objective is to retain both riders [see separate story – click here]. 'The Doctor' has similarly been mentioned in connection with Honda, although given the manner in which he left back at the end of 2003, a rapprochement does not appear likely.

“We haven't drawn a programme for next year yet,” HRC vice-president Shuei Nakamoto told Italian sports newspaper La Gazzetta dello Sport. “Maybe we'll do it in July, but the four best riders have their contracts expiring so it's normal we are interested in all of them, Valentino too.

“Because Honda is not content with podiums, we want to win, we've asked Colin Stoner (Casey Stoner's father and manager) if they would like to come with us. However, we absolutely didn't get into the details – like number of years or retainer – at all.”

Motorcycle Helmet Performance:

Hatz Liner Lg
Helmet designers have devised...
read full caption
Hatz Liner Lg
Helmet designers have devised a number of different liner designs to meet the different standards. The Vemar VSR uses stiffer EPS than most, but has channels molded in to soften the assembly (to ECE specs) and enhance cooling.
Hatz Schus1 Xl
The Schuberth S1 uses five...
read full caption
Hatz Schus1 Xl
The Schuberth S1 uses five separate foam parts glued together to meet the ECE standard.
Hatz Testprep Lg
The helmets are mounted on...
read full caption
Hatz Testprep Lg
The helmets are mounted on a 5-kilo (11 pound) magnesium headform and then dropped from a controlled height onto a variety of test anvils to simulate crash impacts on various surfaces and shapes. In the real world, your helmet actually hits flat pavement more than 85 percent of the time.
Hatz Scorpform Lg
All the Snell/DOT helmets...
read full caption
Hatz Scorpform Lg
All the Snell/DOT helmets we examined use a dual-density foam liner. The upper cap of foam on this Scorpion liner is softer to compensate for the extra stiffness of the spherical upper shell area. Some manufacturers, including Arai and HJC, use a one-piece liner with two different densities molded together.
Hatz Zir Xl
The Z1R ZRP-1 uses a soft,...
read full caption
Hatz Zir Xl
The Z1R ZRP-1 uses a soft, one-piece liner to soak up joule after joule of nasty impact energy.
Hatz Brain Xl
If your brain is injured,...
read full caption
Hatz Brain Xl
If your brain is injured, swelling and inflammation often occur. Because there's no extra room inside your skull, your brain tries to squeeze down through the hole in the base of the skull. This creates pressure that injures the vital brain stem even further, often destroying the parts that control breathing and other basic body functions. If you're hit very violently on the jaw, as in a head-on impact, the force can be transmitted to the base of the skull, which can fracture and sever your spine. It's a common cause of death in helmeted motorcycle riders—and a very good reason to wear a full-face helmet and insist on thick EPS padding—not resilient foam—in the helmet's chin bar. When your brain collides with the inside of your skull, bony protrusions around your eyes, sinuses and other areas can cause severe damage to the brain. And if your head is twisted rapidly, the brain can lag behind, causing tearing and serious internal brain injury as it drags against the skull. A helmet is the best way to avoid such unpleasantries.
Hatz Graph Lg
Hatz Hdform Lg
Hatz Lab Lg
Hatz Zir2 Lg
AVERAGE Gs Fewer Gs = Less...
read full caption
Hatz Zir2 Lg
AVERAGE Gs
Fewer Gs = Less chance of brain injury

DOT-only helmets:


Z1R ZRP-1 (P)
  • Average: 152 Gs
  • LF: 148 gs
  • RF: 176 gs
  • LR: 153 gs
  • RR: 130 gs

    Fulmer AFD4 (P)
  • Average: 157 Gs
  • LF: 152 gs
  • RF: 173 gs
  • LR: 175 gs
  • RR: 130 gs

    Pep Boys Raider (P)
  • Average: 174 Gs
  • LF: 163 gs
  • RF: 199 gs
  • LR: 185 gs
  • RR: 152 gs

    BSI/DOT Helmets

    AGV Ti-Tech (F)
  • Average: 169 Gs
  • LF: 156 gs
  • RF: 199 gs
  • LR: 195 gs
  • RR: 129 gs

    Suomy Spec 1R (BSI) (F)
  • Average: 182 Gs
  • LF: 192 gs
  • RF: 215 gs
  • LR: 197 gs
  • RR: 126 gs

    ECE 22-05/DOT Helmets

    Schuberth S-1 (F)
  • Average: 161 Gs
  • LF: 151 gs
  • RF: 180 gs
  • LR: 176 gs
  • RR: 137 gs

    Suomy Spec 1R (ECE) (F)
  • Average: 171 Gs
  • LF: 156 gs
  • RF: 200 gs
  • LR: 190 gs
  • RR: 140 gs

    Shark RSX (F)
  • Average: 173 Gs
  • LF: 166 gs
  • RF: 187 gs
  • LR: 201 gs
  • RR: 141 gs

    Vemar VSR
  • Average: 174 Gs
  • LF: 171 gs
  • RF: 198 gs
  • LR: 166 gs
  • RR: 162 gs

    Snell 2000/DOT Helmets

    Icon Mainframe (P)
  • Average: 181 Gs
  • LF: 168 gs
  • RF: 217 gs
  • LR: 189 gs
  • RR: 152 gs

    Icon Alliance (F)
  • Average: 183 Gs
  • LF: 179 gs
  • RF: 200 gs
  • LR: 179 gs
  • RR: 175 gs

    Scorpion EXO-400 (P)
  • Average: 187 Gs
  • LF: 185 gs
  • RF: 212 gs
  • LR: 193 gs
  • RR: 158 gs

    AGV X-R2 (F)
  • Average: 188 Gs
  • LF: 192 gs
  • RF: 226 gs
  • LR: 166 gs
  • RR: 167 gs

    Arai Tracker GT (F)
  • Average: 201 Gs
  • LF: 193 gs
  • RF: 243 gs
  • LR: 203 gs
  • RR: 166 gs

    HJC AC-11 (F)
  • Average: 204 Gs
  • LF: 195 gs
  • RF: 230 gs
  • LR: 231 gs
  • RR: 163 gs

    Scorpion EXO-700 (F)
  • Average: 211 Gs
  • LF: 207 gs
  • RF: 236 gs
  • LR: 226 gs
  • RR: 176 gs

    Impact Key: LF: Left Front, 7-foot drop, Flat Pavement. RF: Right Front, 10-foot drop, Flat Pavement. LR: Left Rear, 7-foot drop, Flat Pavement. RR: Right Rear, 7-foot drop, Edge Anvil. Shell Key: (P): Polycarbonate (F): Fiberglass
  • Hatz Bashagv Lg
    Hatz Araitrkrcrk Lg
    Fiberglass helmets such as...
    read full caption
    Hatz Araitrkrcrk Lg
    Fiberglass helmets such as the the Arai Tracker (shown) showed substantial damage to their shells after the edge impact. The polycarbonate-shell helmets were largely unmarked. Neither result is essentially better: Either shell material can be used to make excellent helmets. Polycarbonate helmets generally transmit fewer Gs to the head in our testing than fiberglass-shell lids, even when certified to the same standards.
    Hatz Dual Lg

    An Open Letter
    May 12, 2005
    From: The Snell Memorial Foundation
    To: The motorcycling public

    I've been several months waiting for the helmet comparison write up that has finally come out as the "Blowing the Lid Off" article in the June issue of Motorcyclist. This same comparison has been done before. During my second year with the Foundation, 1991, some of the same people involved in the current article participated in an effort titled "Breaking Some Eggs." This earlier article also created a stir. They told any number of people that their good helmets were bad. Fortunately, hardly any of them panicked and a sober assessment of the facts indicated that the egg breakers were mistaken. Now, they've done it again. When I hear someone yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, like most sensible people, I won't stampede for the exits but I'm apt to sniff the air before I start to wonder about who did the yelling. This time, after a little sniffing, I've got to tell you, I'm not smelling smoke. I'm happy to say that the worst is they may have broken the wrong egg again or lifted the wrong lid. In any case, the smell will dissipate quickly so we all can get back to the feature.

    The most important item in the article is the helmet comparison itself. They based their comparison on flat impact performance and looked for the lowest peak acceleration. The authors maintain that flat surface impacts are the most common and "Fewer Gs = Less chance of brain injury." Flat impact performance is important, there's no doubt about it but looking at flat impact performance only is like judging a beauty pageant looking through a keyhole. The article holds that more than 75% of impacts will be against a flat surface but this implies that a substantial number of impacts may still be against some other, more threatening surface. The COST 327 report, the same European study mentioned in the article, goes further. It suggests that this number will be much larger than 25% and the resulting hazard much greater than mere flat impact imposes. Their crash study indicated impact surfaces as follows:

    "A round object was the most frequently struck, 79%, and the severity of injury was fairly evenly distributed. An edge object, for example a kerbstone was the least likely to be struck, 4%, but the most likely to cause a severe, AIS 5, injury. A flat object was struck in 9% of cases but was the least likely to cause an injury."

    The immediate conclusion is: the asphalt slab testing is, at best, incomplete. Impacts against flat surfaces will not tell anyone all they need to know about protective performance. Flat impacts are not the whole story and, if the European data is good, and I've got no reason to doubt it, flat impacts may be the least important crash consideration.

    But there's still another weakness, the "fewer Gs = less chance" statement is, at the very least, misleading. All the standards, Snell M2000 and M2005 included, presume a threshold model of injury. That is: so long as a threshold G limit is not exceeded, there will not be a serious injury. A corollary conclusion is that any G exposure not exceeding this G limit is no better or worse than any other G exposure not exceeding this limit. If a G exposure below this limit is safe, another exposure 40 G's lower cannot be any safer.

    The difficulty about this threshold is that no one is certain just where it is but there is some confidence about where it isn't. In the 1950's, BSI helmet testing relied on force measurements and used a test criteria that equated to about 450 G in current terms. The first Snell standard in 1959 set a criterion of 400 G but, because the headform was heavier, today's equivalent work out to 435 G. During the 1960's, the Foundation began to lower this G criterion. Snell certified helmets were no longer just for young, tough auto racers. The American public was taking up motorcycling and while many were as tough as anybody on four wheels, many others needed an additional margin of protection. The motorcycling environment itself raised some qualms. Snell standards and helmets were first developed for use in well ordered competition. No one thought the mean streets would require any less than that. If the helmet hadn't already been all the protection the industry could manage, I'm sure Snell would have asked for more. By 1998, the Foundation's criterion settled on 300 G. It was down some 33% from the levels set in England in the 1950's. Why was it down? Likely because the 50's estimates were based on the needs of soldiers and young, healthy males while today's helmets are intended for almost everyone.

    What about the Wayne State Curve and all the other advances in the science of head injury during the last fifty years? Much of it was good work by gifted and dedicated scientists but, to this day, no one is quite certain what hammer blows to cadaver skulls and air blasts to the exposed brains of test animals have to say about the risks of helmeted impact. We're all still waiting for the breakthrough that will relate helmet parameters to head injury hazards. Right now, the most directly useful information developed for helmeted impacts has come from crash studies. Those findings suggest that current test criteria are working. If they weren't, COST 327 would not have considered flat impact "the least likely to cause an injury."

    The fact is, all the major crash helmet standards call out G figures greater than those in the article. It's 300 G for Snell, BSI 6658, and FIA 8860, the Advanced Helmet Specification set out by FIA in 2004. It's 275 G for ECE 22-05. It's all of 400 G for DOT. Yes, yes, I know they said 250, they said a lot of things. Their rationale is that DOT's "time duration criteria" effectively set a new G limit of 250 rather than the 400 G limit in the standard. This may even be true for flat impact but DOT also calls out impacts against the hemispherical anvil. They even said so in the article. But they did not tell you that the "effective" G limit for the hemi is still 400 G. And, drawing on COST 327, it's there against the shaped hazard anvils like the hemi, the edge or the kerbstone that serious helmets will prove themselves.

    The upshot is they seemed to have based their comparison on incomplete tests and drawn their conclusions from inconsequential differences. Anyone who was happy with his helmet before reading this article has been given no real reason to feel any differently now.

    Now, ordinarily, at this point we'd fill in the grave, sing a few hymns and go home. But I've got a few more stakes here and the certain feeling we're dealing with the undead. So keep your garlic at the ready because I'm going in again.

    The article also takes Snell to task for impact severity. The complaint is that by the time a rider takes that kind of hit, he's dead anyhow. The article proposed to trade that impact management away for softer liners. Yes, it's a trade. We cannot have both. For a given liner thickness, the softer the liner, the lower the energy management. We've been at just about at the limit of acceptable liner thickness for some time. However, there's no real assurance that softer liners would yield any benefit in reduced incidences of fatality or serious injury while, contrary to the article, the COST 327 report concludes that there would be a substantial benefit from increased energy management:

    "Head impact energy is proportional to head impact speed, which, in turn, indicates to what extent helmets need to be improved to give a corresponding reduction in injury severity. This was calculated and it was estimated that an increase in helmet energy absorbing characteristics of some 30% would reduce 50% of the AIS 5/6 casualties to AIS 2-4."

    There are others who agree. When TRL, one of the companies participating in the COST 327 project, made helmet recommendations to FIA, the controlling body for Formula 1, their advice culminated in FIA 8860, the Advanced Helmet Specification. This specification demands considerably more impact management than the most severe Snell standard. A study of Snell test results has shown that the double impact test against the hemispherical anvil equates, on average, to a single impact of about 185 Joules. FIA 8860 tests helmets against this same hemi anvil and applies a single impact of 225 Joules.

    It doesn't take too much imagination to see why this additional impact management might be valuable. When a rider goes off a bike at speed, even if he's got the good fortune to hit smooth pavement with an 8 foot drop or less, his body will still be sliding along the roadway at his initial cruising speed. Since leathers, denim and human skin aren't nearly as effective at braking as a good set of tires, this rider is likely to slide for some considerable distance and every obstacle he encounters offers a considerable head impact hazard. His helmet may have to do considerably more than see him through the first thump. A famous movie star some years ago crashed and received his most serious head injury smacking into a curb after sliding some distance from his bike.

    It could be even worse. Frequently, when a rider spills onto the pavement, he will not be able to maintain a controlled slide while his cruising velocity gets scrubbed off. If he gets even a little out of shape he'll start to tumble and sustain multiple strikes to all his extremities. His helmet may need to manage a succession of impacts. And there's also no doubt that if he goes off his bike and strikes something less friendly than flat pavement, for example: a vehicle turning left across his right of way, even that first impact by itself may be considerably more serious than any eight foot drop could ever be.

    The article also takes Snell to task for two hits. Snell calls for the helmet to be tested in 150 Joule impact (about 7.75 meters/second) followed by a 110 Joule impact (about 6.6 meters/second) at the same point on the helmet. Snell standards have always been two hits against the flat and hemi anvils and so have DOT and BSI 6658. I've already described how a helmet might sustain more than one hit in a crash and I've seen a number of helmets with signs of several severe impacts and at least a few where those signs overlapped. But there's at least one other justification for the two hit protocol. Back in 1959, when Dr. George Snively was developing the first Snell standard, the favored test device was the "swing-away" rig. This device was an improvement on anything that came before it but it demanded a high ceiling even for a very moderate shot. The only reasonable way for Snively to stress the helmet properly was to hit it twice. By the mid '60's, Snively switched over to the guided fall rig, the same type Snell, BSI 6658 and DOT use today but, by that time he'd also bumped up the test severities. He still needed the double hit.

    But the Motorcyclist article went further. Not content with impugning Snell standards, the article slyly suggested fraud. They quoted one of their sources saying, "The Snell sticker has become a marketing gimmick." and implying that riders were being hustled for as much as $100 a hat. Nonsense, we live in the most market savvy country in history. I've grown up seeing and seeing through more slick ad campaigns and smears than my great grandparents would ever have dreamed possible. The half-life for a marketing gimmick these days is surely no more than a few months while Snell is coming up for its fiftieth anniversary. Certainly Abe Lincoln was right, nobody could have fooled all the people for this long. If I wasn't already insulted as a Snell guy, I'd be insulted as an American. We're no gimmick and neither are any of the helmets we certify.

    Snell certified helmets come in a range of prices, the least expensive cost not much more than Harry Hurt's bargain basement items. Of course, the production costs are higher, Snell test fees and stickers may add a dollar or so but the bulk of the costs is likely to be the internal quality control measures necessary to succeed in the Snell programs. But, if I'm to wear their helmets, I don't want manufacturers going light in this department in any case.

    And not everyone wants to shop the bargain basement and I'm not sure that everyone should. There's more to good helmets than protective performance. Riders demanding premiums of comfort, fit quality and good looks may have to move up to the higher shelves. But here again, they can get real value for their money. No one will stay with a helmet that's ugly or uncomfortable, at least, not for very long and a helmet that isn't worn is no bargain no matter how inexpensive.

    Snell can't really help with comfort, fit quality or style issues. They're all matters in which riders can tell us much better than we could ever tell them. But I will try to offer a little advice in the matter of fit. The less expensive helmet lines use no more than two helmet configurations to cover the full range of head sizes and some offer just one. A size medium rider is apt to wind up wearing a size x-large helmet stuffed with thick comfort padding to bring it down to his head dimensions. But on the higher shelves, a helmet line might include as many as four or five distinct configurations and at least one manufacturer configures different lines for different head shapes. The result is that almost everyone can find a good fit. The catch is that more configurations imply shorter production runs and, in turn, more expensive production methods. The saving grace is that the value is there, in the helmet. The price reflects the production costs. No one is laying out an extra $30, $40, $60 or $100 dollars for just a Snell sticker. The competition among Snell certified manufacturers is too fierce for that. Riders are getting the protective performance called out in Snell standards and they're getting the comfort, fit and style they demand at the best price our economic system can deliver.

    I've attempted, as the writer at Motorcyclist did, to inject some humor into this. But even as I've worked on it, I've been getting emails from concerned riders who want to know whether we've been misleading them and whether their helmets were ever any good. I hope all of you will look past anything you might find frivolous or inappropriate here and understand that Snell standards and Snell certified helmets represent the best solution to head impact protection that we here at the Snell Memorial Foundation can propose.

    Snell and helmets have come a long way in fifty years. Back in the late 1950's when Dr. Snively was drafting the first Snell standard, he was working with a clean slate. Almost anything he might do would be an improvement. But in fact, he was startlingly deft in all his choices and policies. He did better than improve helmets, he worked a revolution. Thanks to his effort and genius, and to the support of Snell helmet manufacturers and all the riders and drivers who wear Snell certified helmets, Snively has gifted us all with a tremendous legacy. And with that legacy comes a tremendous burden. A poorly chosen policy or a mistaken technical judgment at this point could well destroy that legacy and endanger all those riders who depend on Snell certified helmets. We're part way up a mountain on a narrow trail and a wrong step will mean a long, long fall. The good news, though, is we're on the right trail and we're moving upward. If we suck it up, watch the signs and ignore the mosquitoes we will continue to make progress.

    Sincerely,
    Snell

    Head: Motorcyclist's Response

    As you can see, the Snell Memorial Foundation is not pleased with our helmet-testing story, "Blowing The Lid Off", in the June '05 issue.

    Our intention in doing the tests and writing the original story was not to attack the Snell Foundation, the Snell M2000/2005 Standard, or any helmet brand. And a fair reading of the story would show that we didn't. We simply devised our own tests, designed to represent the vast majority of actual crashes we and our readers actually have, based on the best scientific information we could get. We tested the helmets, fairly and objectively, and let the chips fall where they fell. And the overwhelmingly positive response we got from you, our readers, showed that you appreciated the effort.

    The scientists we quoted, Dr. Jim Newman, Professor Harry Hurt and Dave Thom, were sometimes frank in their criticism of the Snell Foundation. Where were the scientists who are in favor of the Snell Standard? Why didn't we quote them? The answer is really simple. In all our research, in the U.S., England and Europe, over most of a year, we haven't found one.

    On The Edge

    If the Snell Foundation wanted to criticize our methodology and our story, we would have hoped that they would have portrayed the story accurately. This quote from their response showcases their selective reading: "They (Motorcyclist) based their comparison on flat impact performance..."

    They ignored the 32 individual tests we made, not on a flat surface, but on an edge anvil, a nasty-looking piece of upright stainless steel bar Snell uses in its own standard testing. We calculated these edge-anvil tests into the average peak g graphs, just like the flat-pavement tests. We wrote about these edge-anvil tests repeatedly in the story. They are clearly delineated in the key to the comparison graph. There's a picture of one of these edge-anvil tests on the second spread—complete with a caption. Snell missed the edge-anvil tests, proceeding as if we had never done them. And then attacked our testing because it was all done on flat surfaces. Which it wasn't.

    Major Impact

    Snell also reasserts their scientifically unsupportable position that taking violent impacts to the head is "non-injurious," so long as you take less than their 300g limit. Well, the list of scientific papers, accident studies and eminent head-injury scientists the world over who disagree with Snell on this is overwhelming.

    Dr. Jim Newman, a highly respected head-injury scientist and a former Director of the Snell Memorial Foundation, has stated that a 200g impact to the head can be fatal, that a 200-250g impact corresponds to an AIS 4, or severe, head injury, that 250g-300gs relate to an AIS 5, or critical head injury, and that a blow over 300g corresponds to AIS 6. AIS 6 means dead.

    Military Standards

    Even our military disagrees with Snell on this. The U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (USAARL) has created a g-tolerance standard for helicopter crewpersons' helmets. For a two-meter drop height, the same drop height we used in 3/4 of our testing, the Army allows no more than 150 gs to the earcup areas of the head, which they have determined are especially vulnerable, and no more than 175 gs on other areas. Should we motorcyclists—who are often older, not as fit, and not quite so willing to die or sustain head injuries as eager young soldiers—accept g tolerance levels of 300g for the same hits?

    Round Table Discussion

    In their response, Snell picks a paragraph from the European COST 327 Final Report—the most recent major motorcycle-accident and head-injury study. The paragraph says that helmeted riders struck a "round object" 79% of the time. And Snell is using it to justify their controversial hemispherical anvil testing, the tests that make Snell-rated helmets stiffer than others.

    The "round object" figure directly contradicts the findings of at least 6 reputable motorcycle accident studies, done all over the world over the last 30 years, that have shown that between 75% and 87% of helmet impacts happen on the flat road surface. Which makes sense. Because a huge majority of the time, the road is what you're riding on when you fall. And when you fall, you fall down. It's that darned gravity thing.

    Some scientists we've talked to, who are just as mystified as we are with this particular COST 327 finding, have suggested that this data came from examining helmets in the lab after crashes, and finding round marks on the helmets. But when you hit a flexible, essentially round helmet on a flat surface, you get a round mark on the helmet—which may have been misinterpreted by the lab staff as the impact of a "round object".

    If the COST 327 people really thought 79% of victims hit their helmets on "round objects," one would think they would have put a "round object" hemi anvil into their proposed helmet standard. They did not. The COST people propose to hit helmets on a flat anvil and a curb anvil—no hemi anvils at all.

    Here's what Dr. Bryan Chinn, the Editor-In-Chief of the COST 327 Final Report, says about the hemispherical anvils Snell dictates: "From our research, the (hemispherical anvil test) is a particularly severe test and can result in a very stiff liner that possibly detracts from performance in other types of impact, particularly on the flat."

    Calculating the COST

    It's probably a bad idea, in the long run, for Snell to support their position with a couple out-of-context graphs and snippets from the 327-page COST Final Report. Because there is no shortage of places in which the COST study directly contradicts the Snell "300gs is OK" position.

    Such as this quote: "Peak linear acceleration (to the head) should be less than 250g." (COST 327 Introduction, page v)

    Or this one: "Current (helmet) designs are too stiff and too resilient, and energy is absorbed efficiently only at values of HIC (Head Injury Criterion, a measure of g force over time) well above those which are survivable." (COST 327 Introduction, page x).

    Or figure 7.28, page 166. This graph shows how the actual observed head-injury level of accident victims rises with the peak linear gs the victims received in their crash. At 250g, accident victims had an 80% chance of an AIS 3, or serious, head injury. At 300gs, the probability of an AIS 3 injury went up to 93%. As anybody who can read a graph can see, getting hit less hard is, well, less bad.

    Or the final proposed COST 327 helmet standard itself. This contradicts just about everything Snell espouses. It actually requires higher-energy hits than any Snell-M2000/2005 impact, and dictates lower allowable peak gs for those impacts—275g vs. Snell's 300g. It has no Snell-type hemi-anvil hits. It has no Snell-type double hits. It uses a two-tiered impact-test regimen, with lower, 180-g limits for lower-energy impacts, the ones that actually happen a huge majority of the time. And unlike Snell, it graduates the headform masses according to head size, to keep people with lighter heads—small men, women and children—from taking harder hits in a crash.

    Also unlike the Snell Standard, the COST Standard includes a chin-bar test that limits peak gs. This is important, because a blow straight to the face is a relatively common accident—and one that often results in a fatality, from a basilar skull fracture.

    We think the COST 327 standard, which is proposed to replace the current UN/ECE 22.05 regimen, is the smartest off-the-rack standard we've seen—the best reflection of current knowledge about human tolerance and the helmet making-and-testing state of the art.

    Malcontents

    The Snell Foundation has also been less than kind to some renowned head- injury scientists for trying to find, and give our readers, the truth.

    We expected more from a foundation that many of us, for many years, have trusted with our money, our lives, our health and the welfare of our families.

    In one e-mail, to a member of the Norton Owners List, Snell's Executive Director called our article "an attack," perpetrated by "malcontents."

    Here are a few of the people who helped with our research, or who have expressed their agreement with our testing methods and our conclusions—it's pretty much a who's who of eminent head-injury scientists around the world:

    Dr. Bryan Chinn, Editor in Chief, UN/ECE COST 327 Final Report.

    Dr. Jim Newman, former Snell Foundation director, and highly respected head-injury scientist. Dr. Newman is an actual rocket scientist, has been inducted into the International Health and Safety Hall of Fame, and holds several helmet patents.

    Dr. Terry Smith, of Dynamic Research Incorporated, another internationally respected motorcycle- and automobile-accident researcher and head-protection scientist.

    Andrew Mellor, of the FIA Institute, a renowned helmet-design scientist and originator of the FIA Super Helmet specification for Formula 1 drivers.

    Dave Thom, of Collision and Injury Dynamics, an enthusiastic rider and eminent motorcycle-accident researcher and scientist. He's worked with us for many years trying to prevent accidents, improve helmets and save lives.

    And Professor Emeritus Harry Hurt, of the Head Protection Research Laboratory Professor Hurt ran the HPRL head-injury lab at the University of Southern California for many years. And the Hurt Report he helmed is still one of the most important, most credible studies of motorcycle accidents the world has ever seen.