|
A standardised test in principle is good. However, the test itself has to be validated. The motives behind SHARP are admirable. The test itself however is far from perfect. MCN a couple of weeks gave a good and balanced view about it. Main thing is that manufacturers should work with authorities to refine the test rather than rubbish it outright. and the government should involve the manufacturers in developing these tests. After all, it is true that all the big brands have been studying and researching helmet development for all these years.
One observation was that the 5 star helmets tend to have a deeper chin guard which obscures peripheral vision. So while it was safer if crushed, its actually safer not to be in an accident caused by impaired vision/discomfort in the first place. The commenst from an ex-Arai engineer make sense too. The Sharp test looks at side impact, which may not represent real-world impact in a crash. Else Dainese and Alpinestars would not be developing airbags which protect mainly the shoulders and neck.
Also, the Sharp test does not test what happens to the head of the wearer, unlike Euro NCAP which uses crash dummies to check damage etc. Rigidity is not the last word in protection. The key here is energy transfer. A rigid shell transmits energy to the contents inside. For a shell to be protective, it has to dissipate this energy as well as prevent intrusion. Hence in cars, there are crumple zones to absorb the shock and a rigid passenger shell to prevent intrusion. Look at Robert Kubica's horrific crash earlier this season (or was it last season). The nose cone, wheels and everything gets stripped away but the carbon fibre driver seat unit remains intact. Not a scratch.
Verdict's out there, but my Arai really fits well. Better than my old AGV. The venting's better, so the visor doesn't mist so much. Build quality overall is better. and i can wear sunglasses!
|