New helmet make - Forcite

An advert on my mobile on Facebook came up with this new brand of helmet. I looked at their website to see one that has a built in camera and bluetooth connectivity to a mobile. It looks ok, but there is no information about charging time or battery life.

I was surprised that their website describes it as “ULTRA LIGHTWEIGHT Carbon fibre shell only 1500G +/- 50G”, as my Shoei NXR Flagger is 1300g and my HJC RPHA 10PLUS is also 1300g, and neither of those are advertised as lightweight, let alone ultra lightweight. I’ve sent a message off to the company to ask them about this, and will wait for their reply.

It might be jam packed with all the shiny geegaws, but there are no Snell or Sharp ratings for it. I think that I’ll stick with my ‘basic’ Arai with its 5* safety rating for now.

1 Like

Forget Snell (illegal to buy here in the UK same as TuV) or Sharp ratings, not worth a fig just like the ACU gold accreditation which is a joke.

The EC22.05 approval is the one that matters, along with a decent fit.

Technology in a helmet has also been proven to contribute to a number of crashes during various trials, so stick with what you know…

1 Like

Haha, that shows how out of date and behind the times I am, doesn’t it ?

Take a 1300g helmet, add 200g of comms and camera to it and you’ll get 1500g

1 Like

Spot on Mian. I had a reply within 24 hours " Hi Martin,

The 1500G +/- 50G weight, includes our electronics module, led array, camera, speakers. as well as the helmet itself."

That seems fair to me.

Any hemet with a Sharp rating meets E.C.E. R22.05 by definition, as it provides an additional level of testing on top of approved helmets. Not sure how extra information makes it worthless?

And though I do not know where Brexit leaves things, so maybe you do, but as of July all new helmets sold in the E.U. will need to meet E.C.E. R22.06. As it is a U.N. standard I assume the government will enforce a similar requirement, not that it is likely manufacturers will continue to produce less rigorously tested ones just for the U.K.

And on the point of Snell, there is a big debate over whether their helmets are more dangerous. They test multiple impacts, and so reward more rigid shells. But multiple impacts on the same point are uncommon and the medical consensus on this side of the Atlantic favours more flexible shells which better dissipate an impact.

I am quite sure we have had the Snell vs. E.C.E. discussion on here before. We certainly have had the all E.C.E. helmets are good enough vs. £35 Halford helmet for a £35 head one a few times!

Sorry, you are right, the standard to go for now is 22/06, but like BS6658-85 (the BSi standard before) 22/05 is still a legal and accepted standard.

Bear in mind that the EC standards are self certificated and replaced the BSi standard as these tests are no longer conducted in the UK (BS4110 for visors is though).

With regards to DoT and Snell it is not that these helmets might be more dangerous, it is simply the case that it is not legal for a retailer to sell anything other than an EC accredited hat, but that said, I have been involved in some tests in Japan where there is a difference in standards between the various resting bodies, but non the less it is the legality of selling a non EC helmet although a foreign national entering the country with a helmet accredited elsewhere would be legally entitled to wear such a hat.

Although we are out of the EU, the EC standard will remain simply because to reintroduce the equivalent of BS6658-85 would cost a fortune which would substantially increase the cost of helmets at point of sale, but as I have said many times to use your quote, a well fitting £35 Halfords helmet complying with 22/06 will offer far more protection than a Snell or DoT £500 helmet that fits badly and I have the case studies and the crash investigation evidence to support this…

1 Like