Short answer: ECE 22.06 added oblique impact testing that measures rotational acceleration, widened where the shell is struck, tested at more than one impact speed, and brought visors, sun visors and accessories into the helmet’s approval. If you are choosing between two comparable helmets, take the 22.06 one. If you already own a well-fitting 22.05 helmet inside its service life, keep wearing it — 22.05 was a real type approval, not a loophole.
The reason this matters more than a version number suggests is that 22.05 ran for about two decades. Helmet construction, materials and the understanding of brain injury all moved on considerably in that time, and 22.06 is the first revision to reflect it.
What ECE actually is, in one paragraph
ECE Regulation 22 is a UN vehicle regulation administered through UNECE, and the thing that distinguishes it from the US system is when the checking happens. ECE is type approval: an appointed authority tests samples beforethe helmet can be sold, and issues an approval number that gets sewn into the chin strap. DOT FMVSS 218, by contrast, is self-certified — the manufacturer declares compliance and NHTSA buys helmets off shelves afterwards for random compliance testing. Our helmet safety ratings guide covers all three systems side by side.
The change list
These are the substantive differences between the two revisions.
| Area | ECE 22.05 | ECE 22.06 |
|---|
| Oblique / rotational impact | Not tested | Tested — angled impacts measuring rotational acceleration |
|---|
| Impact points on the shell | A fixed set of defined points | More points, including positions chosen by the test house |
|---|
| Impact speeds | A single defined speed | Multiple speeds, including a low-speed test |
|---|
| Visor and sun visor | Largely assessed separately | Brought into the helmet’s own approval |
|---|
| Accessories (comms, cameras) | Outside the approval | In scope — the helmet is approved with them |
|---|
| Modular positions | Handled inconsistently | Explicit P (closed) and J (open) homologation |
|---|
| Size-range testing | Representative samples | Broader sampling across the size run |
|---|
The one that matters most: oblique impacts
If you read one row of that table, read the first.
Under 22.05, impact testing was essentially linear: drop the helmet onto an anvil and measure the deceleration straight through the head. Real crashes are rarely like that. A rider hits a road surface at an angle, the helmet catches, and the head rotates. Rotational accelerationis the mechanism behind a large share of serious brain injury — diffuse axonal injury in particular — and a test that only measures linear deceleration cannot see it.
ECE 22.06 adds an oblique test: the helmet strikes an angled abrasive surface and the protocol records rotational as well as linear acceleration. That single addition is the strongest reason to prefer a 22.06 helmet, and it is also what makes the comparison with Snell interesting rather than simple. Snell M2025 asks more of a shell on raw impact energy and includes a penetration test; it does not run an oblique rotational test. So “which is stricter” and “which is more relevant to a road crash” can honestly have different answers — our Snell guide works through that in full.
It is worth separating this from MIPS, which riders often file in the same mental box. MIPS is a construction feature — a low-friction layer inside the helmet designed to let the shell move relative to the head. ECE 22.06 is a test. A helmet can hold 22.06 with no MIPS (the AGV K6-S) or have MIPS with no ECE approval at all (the Bell Qualifier DLX). Neither implies the other.
The underrated changes
More impact points, some of them chosen by the tester. Under 22.05 a manufacturer knew exactly where the helmet would be struck. 22.06 widens the set and lets the test house pick positions, which removes the possibility of a shell optimized for known contact points.
Multiple impact speeds, including a low-speed test. A shell tuned only for a single high-energy hit can be stiffer than ideal for the lower-energy impacts that are statistically more common on the road. Testing at more than one speed pushes against that.
Visors and accessories in scope.This is the quiet one with real consequences. Under 22.06 the visor, the drop-down sun visor and fitted accessories form part of the helmet’s approval rather than being separate items bolted on afterwards. A manufacturer can no longer get a helmet approved and then sell hardware for it that was never in the assessment — which is why makers that design comms into the shell, like Shoei with its SRL channel, have an easier time with the current regulation than one clamping a third-party unit to the outside.
P and J homologation on modulars.22.06 makes the two positions explicit: P for protective (closed) and J for the open jaw position. A modular approved P/J may legally be ridden with the chin bar up. One approved P only may not. This is genuinely useful information that was muddled before — our guide on modular helmet safety and our modular ranking both turn on it.
So what is a 22.05 sticker worth now?
It is a genuine type approval from a protocol that is one generation behind. Three practical readings:
Buying new, and both helmets fit you? Take the 22.06 one. It has cleared tests the other has not. That really is the whole argument.
Buying a discounted 22.05 helmet knowingly? A defensible choice, and the clearest live example in our registry is the HJC RPHA 11 Pro: HJC’s US page states DOT and ECE 22.05, the helmet is the outgoing generation, HJC’s replacement RPHA 12 moves to 22.06, and the price gap is the whole value case. We have the full RPHA 11 Pro against the Shoei RF-1400 if that is the decision in front of you. Buy it deliberately rather than by accident.
Already own a 22.05 helmet?Keep wearing it if it fits and is inside its service life. The thing that should make you replace a helmet is age, damage or a bad fit, not a regulation revision — see when to replace a helmet and how to check a helmet’s age.
A US-specific warning
If you are shopping in the United States, ECE is a voluntary extra on top of DOT, not the operative legal standard. The consequence is that the European phase-out timetable for 22.05 does not govern what sits on a US shelf, and you will find 22.05 helmets, 22.06 helmets and DOT-only helmets side by side at similar prices.
So read the label rather than assuming the market has sorted it for you. The pattern that catches people out is the one we keep finding in our own registry: several premium helmets sold in the US state DOT alone, while the budget LS2 Stream II publishes DOT and ECE 22.06. Price is not a proxy for certification here — our guide on whether cheap helmets are safe is built around exactly that finding.
And one limit on all of this, stated plainly: an approval tells you a helmet passed a protocol. It does not rank helmets against each other. Nobody publishes comparative impact results for US-market helmets — SHARP is the only public body that star-rates helmets at all and it tests a different catalog. Which is why our safest helmets page ranks the most thoroughly certified helmets and says so, rather than claiming to know which is most protective.