I've seen no research, but intuition says the full face is better protection than a modular. That said, I currently use a modular because getting glasses off and on with a full face helmet is a PITA.

 

Don't know if this will work , still trying to get to terms with new set-up , but below is a link to the SHARP test web site

http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/

 

Woo Hoo!! it worked

 

That's a good link, Hawkwind, BUT, riders in the US should take those ratings with a grain of salt. Most high end helmets sold here are Snell certified, and from my recollection from reading the Motorcyclist article several years ago, the Snell rated helmets sold here are NOT the same as the helmets sold in Europe (Snell helmets generally cannot pass Euro testing)...... Well, that may not be entirely true, since I just did a little nonexhaustive search and I could't find any US sold Snell rated helmets on the Sharp list, though I did find some DOT only helmets sold here that are on their list. Anyhow, if you read Shap's Faqs, you'll find this blurb,

"Why are you only striking the helmet once in each impact site when some standards strike the same site twice?
We do not have any evidence to suggest that in a motorcycle accident helmets suffer repeated impacts on the same site. We do see that helmets can receive multiple impacts and that is why the SHARP assessment does involve more than one impact on helmet but at a different point."

Snell's testing does include a two strike same spot impact test, and it is this test that was the source of the contoversy outlined in the Motorcyclist article. In order to pass this test, the manufacturers are forced to use a stiffer foam than they might otherwise use. The downside is that designing a helmet to take two stikes to one spot significantly reduces its ability to cushion ones head in the event of a single strike in one spot. In Motorcyclist's review of the studies done on motorcycle accidents, they conclded that multiple strikes to the same spot almost never occur. Sharp seems to confirm this finding.
In any event, Hawkwind, do you ever see any helmets sold in Britain with Snell stickers on them? Snell certification is considered the holy grail here, and essentially all Arais, Shoeis, Simpsons etc. sold here are Snell certified.

 

Since that article, I'm no longer drinking Snell Coolaid.
I use to start only with Snell helmets and would not consider a helmet that was not.
Now, I go for comfort fit first, light weight second, cool grafics third, helmet design fourth and last DOT, could care less if it was not Snell certified.

 

full is the safest.

 

Obviously, you didn't take a look at the Sharp ratings.

 

There could be from what the website says.

http://www.smf.org/

 

In any event, Hawkwind, do you ever see any helmets sold in Britain with Snell stickers on them? Snell certification is considered the holy grail here, and essentially all Arais, Shoeis, Simpsons etc. sold here are Snell certified.[/QUOTE]

I had never heard about Snell certification before you guys mentioned it , though I'm certainly no expert on the subject , hence the link .

Though it seems obvious that in a crash there would be multiple strikes to a helmet , you would think that it would be unlikely for them to be in exactly the same place . Therefore to design a helmet that will withstand that type of impact , yet injure or even kill the wearer is defeating the objective . The design should be to provide the best protection , not to pass a ratings test!!