Snell M2000 vs M2005 rating

Hey everyone ! I bought a new Shoei RF-1000 helmet from the local Kawasaki dealer today and when I got it home , I noticed it was manufactured in 09/2004 and it had a M2000 Snell sticker .
Should I return it and try to get a M2005 RF-1000 or does it matter ? I guess they are trying to move the old stock !
Is there a significant difference in the two ratings ?


Post edited by: Joe550, at: 2008/02/09 20:46

Personally, I wouldn't worry about the snell rating as long as it has a DOT rating. I'll heard a lot of pro's and cons on the snell rating. If you got it at a good discount for the age I'd keep it. If the discount wasn't big I would take it back and bitch over the price for the actual age.
Ride safe.

Awesome , thanks for the help man . I got it for $ 499.00 CAN and I've seen them on the web for $ 424.00 US . Not a big discount at all for an older " new " one . I'll give the Kawasaki dealer a call Monday and see if I can return it and then find a " brand new " one .












Post edited by: Joe550, at: 2008/02/09 22:11

Post edited by: Joe550, at: 2008/02/09 23:03

The helmet itself is just as good as a new one but I wouldn't pay the same price as a new one. It is an older version after all. The only time where the Snell year rating would become an issue is if you were to enter a race. They qualify a helmet by the Snell rating which most now look for at least a Snell2005. Not sure if the Snell2000 would pass tech. But that's the only time I think it would matter as far as the rating goes. If you are going to pay new price, I would definitely get a new helmet and that number is a sure way to tell. Those are nice helmets too. I have an older version and I loved it. Hope to get that very helmet this spring also.

I think we should be careful before we put too much stock in the article that seems to make Snell out to be a poor testing standard. While there were some legitimate questions raised, the "conclusions" reached by the author(s) seemed to be mostly ax grinding toward the Snell Foundation. So I think it's worthwhile to take the article that proclaims DOT as "better" than Snell with a grain of salt.

Keep in mind that all Snell approved helmets are automatically DOT approved, but not the other way around. It could well be argued that with only a DOT sticker, the buyer has NO assurance that the helmet in question offers any more protection than a pudding bowl strapped to one's head. While it's quite likely that the top brands' DOT only helmets offer comparable protection to their Snell rated models, there seem to be new helmet makers popping up all the time with no track record. I wouldn't trust a DOT only helmet from a manufacturer that doesn't also have a comparable Snell rated model.

The Snell rating gives me an assurance that samples of the model in question have actually passed independent testing. So, I'll continue to take my chances with Snell approved helmets.

NONB ++1
No doubt about it, IMO. If race sanctioning bodies require Snell approved helmets that's gotta be telling you something. Stick with ANY Snell-approved helmet and you won't go wrong.

I'd take it back in a heartbeat!!!

You paid damn good money for that helmet and it isn't truly new, it has sat around for more than a 2 years! The shell of a helmet is a polymer that breaks down over time. If it sat out on the shelf under those fluorescent lights it has been exposed to UV that is nearly as bad real sunlight just no heat to speed up the process.

As for this old argument about DOT versus Snell, NONB is right, don't put much stock in the claim that DOT will protect you better. How can it? Unlike the Cycle Rag that did the so-called investigation saying DOT MIGHT protect your pumpkin better, here is the truth about DOT certification compared to Snell.

"DOT certification, however, is less regulated. The manufacturer performs their own tests and determines whether their helmets are DOT approved. Even though the manufacturer doesn't have to report their findings, the government does occasionally conduct limited tests or spot checks. Nevertheless, allowing each company to test their own equipment and not make them report their results means that the DOT certification is done by the honor system.

n 2001, DOT performed one of their spots tests on 40 helmets. There was a 20 percent failure rate with the AFX, Fulmer, HJC, M2R, NEXL, and THH helmets. Again, after the data was published, it was up to the manufacturer to bring their products into compliance.

While there's no guarantee a DOT-approved helmet has actually been tested, the purchase of a Snell-approved lid ensures that the product has been evaluated under scrutiny."

So do you want to trust an off-shore manufacturer to actually make sure there helmet meets DOT or buy a Snell one that is checked?

You buy DOT only and you're just buying a sticker. It may be better than nothing on your head at all but why save such a little amount of money, you're wearing a helmet because you want to protect yourself from head injuries so do it right the first time as you won't get a second try most likely.

i heard that snell tests with the weight of a human body,and dot test only require the weight of a human head.just what i heard.

I read that article too, and the conclusion I came to was that Snell's testing methods weren't as up to date as they could be. But at least they are testing to some standard. As KZ Rage pointed out, the DOT standards are basically on an honor system, so are you going to trust the manufacturer who says "our helmet meets this standard" when no one is checking?

I'm told the Snell foundation buys five of each helmet they test off the shelf of dealers just like the consumer does. They don't take specimens submitted by the manufacturer. During the course of testing, they destroy four of them with the fifth held for record of exactly what model and manufacture date it was.

The biggest beef that guy had with Snell was the one puncture test Snell uses that requires a pretty hard shell to pass. The argument was, that to pass the puncture test made a helmet less likely to protect against a hard impact on pavement because the shell would not collapse as easily absorbing the shock and therefore passing the shock to your head. Therefore, he concluded that to get the protection against your head being penetrated by a flying piece of metal or something which is highly unusual in accidents, you were giving up considerable protection from impact with a solid surface which occurs in nearly all accidents. May be a logical conclusion, but I still think testing against a known standard is better than not tested at all which is what you have to assume under the current manufacturers "honor system" for meeting DOT standards.

For what it's worth, I'll never wear a helment again that doesn't meet Snell standards, but it's up to the individual whether he/she is willing to risk wearing an inferior helmet or no helmet at all. Also, if you have a helmet you like and is comfortable and you'll wear, it's better than having one you won't wear. Just about any helmet is better than no helmet.