Full face or other?

[Billyboy]

I'm a pretty conscientious rider. I'm aware of what my bike is doing. I maintain it well, I inspect it regularly.

I take riders courses, practice emergency braking, swerving, and avoidance. I ride as if I'm invisible.

STILL I wear ATGATT. Machines fail, unexpected conditions arise, dust blows into eyes at the most inopportune moment, trucks spill diesel.........

I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

[Clone]

+1 for full face, I slid down the road on my face with a 3/4 on and that little sheild being the only protection for my face. Bleeding nose,split lip, kept my teeth. From that day on I voted for a full face.

[lordcannon88]

It reveals the high intelligence and common sense of the overwhelming majority of the members of this group.

well that is if safety is most peoples #1 priority. its not mine. i only mentioned the vetter fairing because i dont see it conceivable to ride a half helmet without a windshield.

[Grandpa]

well that is if safety is most peoples #1 priority. its not mine. i only mentioned the vetter fairing because i dont see it conceivable to ride a half helmet without a windshield.

And safety is not your top priority? Interesting...

Ride safe.

[Baatfam]

And safety is not your top priority? Interesting...

Ride safe.

Well if one were to make safety their top priority, one wouldn't ride motorcycles at all....

[Billyboy]

http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=347210

[earlfor]

well that is if safety is most peoples #1 priority. its not mine. i only mentioned the vetter fairing because i dont see it conceivable to ride a half helmet without a windshield.

You're kidding, right?

Earl

[C.V.]

http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=347210

Excellent link! Thanks! All the flip up helmet guys should check this out.

Full face for me (HJC), but the visor went bye bye. Not to big a deal with the vetter, but I am shopping for a new one.

[Grandpa]

http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=347210

Excellent link, Billyboy. Thank you!

[Hammered]

I think a major point missed in that link's post was, Hh was speeding into a blind turn at night. And from the sound of it, the helmet did its job. Hes alive and able to post without the use of a drool bucket.

[p_s]

well that is if safety is most peoples #1 priority. its not mine. i only mentioned the vetter fairing because i dont see it conceivable to ride a half helmet without a windshield.

Safety third.

[Bert Patterson]

I'm a pretty conscientious rider. I'm aware of what my bike is doing. I maintain it well, I inspect it regularly.

I take riders courses, practice emergency braking, swerving, and avoidance. I ride as if I'm invisible.

STILL I wear ATGATT. Machines fail, unexpected conditions arise, dust blows into eyes at the most inopportune moment, trucks spill diesel.........

I'd rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

It's difficult to come up better reasoning than that, Billy.

[Gimpdiggity]

the thing i am confused about with the dot vs snell helmet debate... every snell helmet i've ever had was also dot approved. so how does being snell AND dot make it not as safe as just dot?

It's all in the testing.

A helmet that reaches Snell's approval ratings will also inherently pass the DOT's testing methods. That, and the DOT doesn't actually test helmets...they leave that up to the manufacturers then trust that those manufacturers are being honest.

Snell's certifications generally require a helmet to require some rather silly things. Two drops onto an anvil from the same heigh on the same exact spot. That's ridiculous. The chances of hitting the exact same spot on a helmet are pretty high...but the chances of hitting the exact same spot at the exact same velocity are VERY VERY low. But that is part of the test, and in order to pass that many manufacturers are making their helmets too stiff. This stiffness doesn't allow the helmet to compress optimally in a crash, and therefore the stiffer helmets might be a little bit less safe in an actual crash. A helmet's whole purpose is to slow the head down in a collision, really. But in order for a helmet to pass Snell's testing, it has to be a bit too stiff to ideally slow the head down in an accident.

When all of this information broke, Snell quickly decided to change their testing procedures and revise their certifications...but it's taking them a long time to do.

[Gimpdiggity]

Snell vs DOT? Depends on how you ride.

DOT rating covers what is likely to happen on the street at somewhat legal speeds. Snell is rated for racing speeds. Given that you only have about an inch of foam for padding inside the shell, they have to adjust the density of the foam for the speed. A foam that is light enough to absorb the shock of your head hitting the pavement at 60 mph is far too light to absorb it at 160 mph. Conversely, foam that is dense enough to properly absorb the impact at 160 may as well be a brick wall at 60.

If you race, get a Snell-rated helmet. If you stick to the street, DOT will suffice.

.

Incorrect.

Read this article to understand why.

http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html

Racers don't wear Snell helmets because they are safer...they wear them because they are sponsored by companies that are Snell certified companies.

[Billyboy]

It's difficult to come up better reasoning than that, Billy.

Thanks Bert.
I could also add that I have a responsibility to be around for my family, show my wife I'm being as safe as possible to aswage her fears, and set a good example for my children and others that are new to riding.

The link was just to show the possible flaws in a flipface lid. Every rider makes his/her own gear choices.