bell helmets offer

On amazon at the moment there are bell helmets reduced in price. Bought a bell m3x in red and white for 63 quid. Limited in sizes and stock though. Xs and xxl only, the xxl is more of a xl as its a snug fit, but im happy with it. Not used it yet as bike is still at the garage. Paint job and decals are quality, im very pleased to get it for 63 quid.

I was looking at some of those for my brother in law and noticed someone had said the M5X wasn't rated for use in the UK.

It's a rubbish claim, but I did notice this government testing site mentioned in the comments.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Quite handy.  

-edit-
It doesn't give a glowing review of your S2 Stevecat [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] which is surprising for a £400+ lid.  
Some of the expensive Arai's don't fare much better though.

My Shoei Qwest did OK : [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

People had said the m3 wasnt road legal either, but it is. Happy with the sharp rating, greens front back and top and yellows for the sides, just hope I never have to test it myself.

Definitely not.   

I suppose it's worth bearing in mind that the SHARP tests don't take comfort, wind noise etc into consideration.

I note that AGV(6), Bell(7), Caberg(7) and Shark(7) top the list of 5 Star ratings, and Caberg are kings of the Flip-Fronts.  

So does the sharp rating therefore upset the theory of "you get what you pay for"? According to the Sharp results most "cheaper" helmets fair better than the expensive name brands and some brands marque models haven't been tested but are the results a little squeued?

I heard one story that to get certain cheaper helmets through the sharp test they are intentionally strengthened at designated impact points but in the real world these fall to bits.

I also saw a video on youtube of a guy who decided to conduct his own test involving a chair and a hammer, again the cheap 5* helmet rated helmet actually shattered into tiny pieces while the more expensive yet lesser sharp rated helmet behaved as intended.

There are many ways to interpret these results but for me you only get one head, put whatever price you want on it, my take is to pay as much as you can afford to get the best you can afford and rely on real world testing and recommendations from people unfortunate enough to have had to rely on their helmet on the road/pavement/car/lampost etc following an off. Their review is more important to me than any feedback a machine can give.

Wooster wrote:It doesn't give a glowing review of your S2 Stevecat

Yes I've seen that some time ago, was a bit miffed at the time due to the price of the thing. The 'weakness' is on the side, the only place I've tested it, can't say if it was concussion or shock, but did feel a bit funny - till the shoulder got sore and then all head issues vanished!
Pam's helmet gets 5 stars, but I wouldn't wear it to mow the lawn - she is happy with it and it fits her (probably the most important aspects)

Snowcat wrote:So does the sharp rating therefore upset the theory of "you get what you pay for"? According to the Sharp results most "cheaper" helmets fair better than the expensive name brands and some brands marque models haven't been tested but are the results a little squeued?

I heard one story that to get certain cheaper helmets through the sharp test they are intentionally strengthened at designated impact points but in the real world these fall to bits.

I also saw a video on youtube of a guy who decided to conduct his own test involving a chair and a hammer, again the cheap 5* helmet rated helmet actually shattered into tiny pieces while the more expensive yet lesser sharp rated helmet behaved as intended.

There are many ways to interpret these results but for me you only get one head, put whatever price you want on it, my take is to pay as much as you can afford to get the best you can afford and rely on real world testing and recommendations from people unfortunate enough to have had to rely on their helmet on the road/pavement/car/lampost etc following an off. Their review is more important to me than any feedback a machine can give.

Looking at the testing regime and seeing what people commented on online, they don't appear to test the chin, strap or visor.
I do note that they do use real world injury data for the helmets tested though.
Given the minimum is ECE-22.05, it can't hurt to take the SHARP rating into consideration also

Funny you should mention that hammer test Snowcat.
I found this (pretty interesting) article on SHARP: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
...and guess what's linked at the bottom of the page?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  

The SHARP 5* rated (Marushin...never heard of them tbh) helmet is actually the one that survives the test and it's the cheap RZO that fails abysmally.

someone needs to take a hammer to that kid in the background   

Lol^^^

alleycat wrote:someone needs to take a hammer to that kid in the background   

  
Not planning to have kids then?

Yeah ... well behaved ones   

No such thing mate, well behaved children are just a myth.