Polycarbonate vs Fiberglass Helmet Test 

You needed a melon to know that LS2 would kill you 😅😅😅😅

Nevermind. I saw the drop distance in another comment. Your drop height and weight are more than double Snell and European testing. Given the European test dropping a ten pound block from 9-12 feet produced 5000lbs of force, your test could have generated 2-3 times that. Also the impact angle of the block has to come into play as well since a sharp edge would translate all of the force into a smaller area you would expect to see more damage. This "scientific" test only proves what physics already tells us. I would not be afraid to wear either helmet. If you get hit in the head by a 30-35lb block from 20ft your going to die.

@R3Vlog And that was exactly the point of the demonstration

😂😂

theyre both rubbish! fiberglass collapsed to 1/5 of its original size and volume. i have a screenshot of the clip in the video of when it does if youd like it

This is absolutely true, thermoplastics are just so much less stiffer even thought they are more tough i assume that just means it will deform/bend for a second and crush your skull while fiberglass is multiple times stronger in actual strength but is not tough so once an impact is too large it will break at certain specified places/ways according to the manufacturers intentions

@@leonordin3052 Any breaking and cracking isn't the problem with the fiberglass, the fiberglass is flexible to the point of collapse but your head isn't.

Ya but still, why wear a cheap helmet. That plastic one really is weak, i c what you mean but the stronger shell will stop more of the initial impact. This isnt a very scientific test but yikes that plastic is weak, like just wearing a styrofoam helmet with no shell.

@@nobodysreview6137 the fiberglass bent out of shape crazy too but just bounced back into again

@@usynnstradler Well i bought a Simson Outlaw after watching some of this stuff, Snell rated and as solid as i could find. I have a open face Biltwell for around town though.

@@nobodysreview6137 Simpson buckets rock!

The difference is on penetrating impact, it is assumed that your body is not rock solid and your head will be displaced with the impact, you are not atached to the ground...

Here's what a proper, independent test conducted by Motorcyclist magazine found in 2005. The results are VERY surprising. ...Conventional wisdom has it that fiberglass construction is somehow better at absorbing energy than plastic - something about the energy of the crash being used up in delaminating the shell. And that a stiffer shell lets a designer use softer foam inside, which might absorb energy better. Our results showed the exact opposite - that plastic-shelled helmets actually performed better than fiberglass. In our big, 3-meter hit, the high-energy kind of bash that one might expect would show the supposed weaknesses of a plastic shell, the plastic helmets actually transferred an average of 20 fewer Gs compared with their fiberglass brothers, which were presumably designed by the same engineers to meet the same standards, and built in the same factories by the same people (the test was conducted using plastic and fibre-glass models from the same brand). Why is this? Well, we’re guessing - but it’s a really good guess. And our guess is that the EPS liner inside the shell is better at absorbing energy than the shell. The polycarbonate shells flex rather than crush and delaminate, and this flexing, far from being a problem, actually lets the EPS do more of its job of energy absorption while transferring less energy to the head. Remember, these particular polycarbonate helmets, from both Icon and Scorpion, are also Snell M2000 rated. So they are tested to some very extreme energy levels. And Ed Becker, the executive director of the Snell Foundation, is on record as saying that a low-priced - that is, plastic-shelled - Snell-certified helmet is just as good at protecting your head as a high-priced - that is, fiberglass - Snell-certified helmet. So at the high end of impact energy, we have the Snell Foundation vouching for their performance. And our testing, without the extreme two-hit hemi test, says they’re actually superior. The DOT helmets we had were all plastic-shelled, and none cost more than $100. How did they do? They kicked butt. The DOT only helmets from Z1R and Fulmer delivered less average G force to the headform, through all the impacts, than any others in the test (this included higher-end helmets from Schuberth, Shark, Arai, Shoei, AGV, Scorpion and others...Bell declined to supply helmets for the test). And both plastic lids still excelled in the big-hit, 150-joule impact - a blast 66 percent harder than any actual DOT test for a medium-sized helmet. The Z1R ZRP-1, in particular, continuously amazed us. After all the testing, its outer shell looked essentially unharmed: the slight road rash at the impact sites caused by our stubborn insistence on hitting actual pavement looked no worse than we’d expect if the helmet had fallen off the seat at a rest stop. When we pulled the ZRP-1 apart we saw that the EPS had cracked and compressed at the impact sites, just as it’s supposed to do, and as it did in every other helmet. But it had come nowhere near bottoming; there was still an inch or more of impact-absorbing foam left. And the plastic shell seemed completely unharmed, from the inside as well as the outside, even where it had taken the terrifying edge hit and the big three-meter bash. This illustrates just how hard it is to tell, from the outside, whether a helmet has taken a severe hit. And why you should never, ever buy a used helmet. So the softest DOT helmets came through our tests with protection to spare. But the doubt still lingered, in spite of everything we had seen: How would they do in a monster, wicked big impact? So we decided to kill them. We ran the Z1Rs up the test rig one last time. Not just to the 10-foot, 150-joule Snell test height, but all the way to the top of the rig: 3.9 meters, or 13 feet. This hit would be at 8.5 meters per second, an energy of 185 joules. That’s higher and harder than any existing helmet standard impact. We did one hit on the pavement and one hit on the curb anvil. We did them on the back of the helmets, in the center, because that was the only place we hadn’t hit them before. So, this last test is not directly comparable to the others. But it showed, in no uncertain terms, just how tough - and how protective - an inexpensive helmet can be. The peak Gs for the monster hits were 208 G for the curb impact and 209 G for the flat pavement impact. Just a few Gs more, that is, than many of the Snell-rated helmets transmitted in their seven-foot hits on the flat anvil. And even after those mega hits, the EPS liners were still nowhere near used up. The ZRP-1s are also well finished, quiet and very comfortable, though maybe a little short on venting. They’re also light: Our ZRP-1s weighed only about an ounce more than the lightest helmets in the test, the Arai Tracker GTs. What’s the cost for all this excellent impact absorption, comfort, light weight and highly durable finish? In a solid colour, a ZRP-1 retails for $79.95. The least-expensive helmets in the test, the $69.95 Pep Boys Raiders, also did well in all the standard impacts.

Theres literally not a discernible difference in protection according to this test. You would have died regardless of the helmet you were wearing, both helmets squished into an oval. The fiberglass one was just able to retain its shape afterwards

Maybe a regular brick would of been a better test but i'll be wearing a fiberglass helmet for now on.

Good eye Simon. The reason it actually deformed was the fact that it was previously crashed at over 140mph and there was a crack on the chin bar.

@@nobodysreview6137 but it deformed....

It collapsed and squished down until the face opening was not visible. Fiberglass in naturally flexible. It is springy. Your head would have been crushed like a Halloween pumpkin under someone's foot, while the helmet returned to its former glory. The best helmet does not dent or collapse.

@@BeachMotoLosAngeles Nah...fiberglass is made to be flexible....it will deform and return to its original shape.

Its not useless. Even though it wasnt scientific in its implementation you can clearly see the strength difference between the 2 materials. There is a reason why fibreglass helmets cost over 350 and you can get polycarbs for 70 dollars

​@absolutelysobeast I mean he did say the fiberglass shoei was in a previous crash sooooo😅

Shoei x 14

They know nothing abut subject of test, test also should be posted in slow motion, as fiberglass went back to its original position, but would your skull also?? Stupid test from stupid tester!

About 20 ft.

Haha, i know what you mean but it doesnt exactly work like that. Once the blunt trauma is protected against, the enemy is the speed of the blunt force which causes your brain to hit your skull. So yes the padding is where its at once the shell is strong enough. If we had like 16 layers of padding and the helmet was the size of a beach ball we might be approaching levels of almost invulnerable but then the leverage would snap your neck. But again fibreglass is way superior

@@absolutelysobeast you don't seem to be familiar with d30 and what it does it absorbs kenetic energy and displaces it so what your talking about is practically eliminated as far as cranial damage is concerned. I'm not talking about being hit by a Mac truck here. Normal motorcycle helmets save people all the time when they're in an accident so no you don't need a beach ball sized helmet. The material I am referring to is being implemented in professional football helmets as well as military applications and it is currently commercially available.

On a high level, polycarbonate is more expensive, flexible, softer, and lighter. Conversely, ABS is much cheaper, as well as harder, heavier, and more brittle. So if you want a helmet that's thin and light, you're much more likely to find that in a polycarbonate shell. so...... polycarbonate is better. hard and heavy doesn't translate to good...

@@usynnstradler Are polycarbonate and thermoplastic same ? In Google I couldn't find the the difference . It says polycarbonate is also a thermoplastic. And even abs is also a thermoplastic. Could you please explain if you have information ?

​@@JC-nx5xx"thermo" means heat. So, both abs and polycarbonate are melted at high temperatures and put into moulds to create a helmet shell.

Interesting observations I hope never to experience myself.

Sorry about the crash man. As far as i understand it, thats why fibre glass is better. It spiders and almost shatters like tempered glass which spreads the energy out over a broader area. I have the option of a fibreglass hjc that i know fits vs a bell polycarb with MIPS. Tough choice man but fibreglass seems like a better bet for me

Did you sustain a concussion?

I watch Demolition Ranch on youtube and he has a video where he shoots a glass ball. This same type of thing happens where the energy travels around from where it’s shot and cracks the back. I’m guessing it’s a similar phenomenon, but I’m not sure what’s happening. Glad to hear you’re doing well after something like that!

He should take two helmets from the same company. Test is useless.

You can send us two helmets from your favorite company and we will gladly perform our highly scientific test agan.

shoei is the mercedes not the ls2

Also, the best helmet is people paying attention while driving their cars and/or not being a Fast & Furious wannabe.

Sounds like a hearse to me

People still die from head trauma inside cars. Professional drivers also wear helmets.

No it's not this was a bs review

No, the fiberglass was just more flexible 1:45, but your skull isn't that flexible.

@@NoName-cx3gk i agree!