I in no way doubt the Good intentions of Snell or it's desire for safety, initially...
Now they may be a 501(c) corporation but that doesn't mean that they are all dropping by on the weekend and nights to volunteer their time...these people are compensated...and according to a vast many experts (read the article) they are testing to a set of standards that are unrealistic and in some cases unsafe.
The foundation may have started with the best intentions but it has become a unwitting marketing tool for others to take advantage of...and they (Snell employees)also have a desire to "self preserve"
And as the article points out...(in collaboration with what the medical community)
A tougher, stiffer, harder, helmet may not be your safest option...
After the Earnhardt accident there was a flurry of action in the community regarding all aspects of safety...and (big surprise) a slower deceleration is exactly what the DR ordered....HARD does not equate to slower...SNELL tests REQUIRE hardness...
again all I'm saying is research...Snell posts its standards and methods on their web site...draw your own conclusions...
