Hey all I dare say I know the answer, but "a friend" bought an official Aprilia helmet at the MotoGP last year... https://store.aprilia.com/eu-en/Helmets/Full-Face-Helmets/p/606751M03WH Am I correct in saying its probably trash (safety wise). Cheers!
It says it has ECE approval (doesn't say what number) so should be legal on AU roads. Bit pricey too.
Ah well I only paid like $200 for it at the GP which makes me think that maybe it's just cheap rubbish lol, I guess being ECE approved means it at least meets the minimum criteria but assuming a decent name brand would go 'above and beyond' the minimum criteria in most cases?
I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand because it's cheap - it's thermoset plastic resin which could likely be polycarbonate (Lexan) and that stuff is strong whilst being sufficiently flexible to absorb impacts. I pondered the concept of (minimum) helmet standards a few years ago - if the head takes a hit capable of destroying a helmet I think there's likely worse things to consider. Years ago I saw one of the science programs and a guy that had made a helmet liner that was outer EPS foam shell with conical protrusions pointing inwards and inside, facing out softer foam which interfaced with the EPS foam. Clever idea was the softer foam gently (relatively) decelerated the riders noggin in the case of an impact and the EPS foam stopped the noggin from hitting the helmet shell proper.
@ruckusman that does give me some confidence I read about some new helmets with the MIPS tech which sounds similar, something about an inner layer that slides?
This is a longish article - but I'd put ECE (actual testing and actual certification) above DOT which is an honour system of self-certification. I did not know this previously. https://agvsport.com/blog/which-helmet-standard-is-the-best-snell-dot-ece-sharp-or-fim.html Not sure of his actual reasons for putting carbon fibre above say fibreglass, kevlar and polycarbonate - carbon has got much less elongation to break - which means it goes BANG when it's exceeded and it's damned rigid...but like I said if the accident manages to violate a helmet's structural integrity with a collision or impact, well it's a big one. That MIPS technology does sound very much like what this guy was presenting, or at least a variant of it, cushioning the blow and some (relatively) more gentle deceleration upon impact. I saw that segment decade(s) ago, it's probably taken that long to get it up and running if it's the same people - shame as it had merit way back then
definitely worth looking into helmet standards and understanding them. i wouldn't wear a helmet that wasn't at least Snell rated but that's my choice.
Can confirm the value of MIPS. I got a concussion when I could have got a brain injury crashing. Its literally a second plastic shell on the inside that is connected to the outer shell with this flexible plastic /rubber mounts so the inner shell can move say 10 degrees independent. Sent from my SM-G991B using Tapatalk