The post was looking for some data. The motorcyclist magazine posted studies that questioned Snell's ratings. It's an important read 'if' you're looking for data.
Most people make a helmet decision based on the look, the feel, the fit, the vents, and the 2 stickers: DOT & Snell. If you're really concerned about your brain bucket - read the
study here. It actually states that a softer helmet, not necessarily a harder one, is better protection for a head banger.
Here's an egg-zerpt:
"The Snell Foundation may have no reason to think anything else. But every scientist we spoke to, as well as the government standards agencies of the United States and the 50 countries that accept the ECE 22.05 standard, see things quite differently.
The European Union recently released an extensive helmet study called COST 327, which involved close study of 253 recent motorcycle accidents in Germany, Finland and the U.K. This is how they summarized the state of the helmet art after analyzing the accidents and the damage done to the helmets and the people: "Current designs are too stiff and too resilient, and energy is absorbed efficiently only at values of HIC [Head Injury Criteria: a measure of G force over time] well above those which are survivable."
Thought I'd stir the pot a bit on this thread.