Helmet Replacement

[cougar8000]

Just keep in mind that the five year recommendation is made by folks who want to sell helmets. I've never seen any study which specifically looked at the deteoriation of helmet materials with time and storage conditions so we're all flying blind here with no data.
- Mark

Mark,

Last time I checked Snell was not there to sell helmets, nor profits from its sales.

And as far as I know each material has its shelf life. And I am not willing to bet that EPS foam or other times do not loose plenty of its softness past 5 years.

To each its own. But Snell is not there to make money.

 

[chickey191]

I tried a search, but didn't come up with anything on this specifically.
How often do you replace your helmet? I have on that is almost 9 years old, and one that is about 5 or 6 years old. Is there a certain amount of time, or hours of use, before you should just get a new one for safety sake?

I replace mine:

1. If it hits the ground real hard, in a get off or if I were to drop it off a height or maybe multiple times off the seat. Would probably depend on where it landed.

2. After about 3 or 4 years - irregardless of any knocks or damage

3. When it doesn't fit as well - Most helmets compress a bit. Like breaking in. As they compress they are losing a bit of their protective qualities, so once a helmet gets loose, I start thinking about replacing.

got rid of my HJC Flip up after it fell off the seat and landed on the chin bar and sproinged it all to hell. Didn't think that a helmet that couldn't protect itself from a 3 ft. drop would be what I wanted on my head.

 

[TriggerT]

It looks like it will be either a Shoei Multitec, or an Arai RX-7 Corsair before the spring arrives. Thanks for all the input, now I just need to scrape together the $$ for a new brain bucket.

 

[RonC]

Snell Foundation has not published an article (or if it has, it is not easily accessible) comparing tests on a helmet that is 5 years or older and a new helmet. They seem just to repeat rumors of effects of UV light and sweat on helmets. Here is an excerpt from helmets.org of what seems to be a bicycle helmet safety organization. They say that EPS is resistant to even salt water and the outer helmet shells have UV resistant chemicals added and call statements about EPS degradation 'rumors':

"Is it newer? With what standards sticker inside?

Newer helmets from the late 1980's and the 90's may or may not need replacement. First look to see what standards sticker is inside. If it's ASTM or Snell, the helmet was designed to meet today's standards for impact protection, and you may even find that Consumer Reports tested it in one of their articles. Most manufacturers now recommend that helmets be replaced after five years, but some of that may be just marketing. (Bell now recommends every three years, which seems to us too short. They base it partially on updating your helmet technology, but they have not been improving their helmets that much over three year periods, and we consider some of their helmets since the late 1990's to be a step backwards, so we would take that with a grain of salt.) Deterioration depends on usage, care, and abuse. But if you ride thousands of miles every year, five years may be a realistic estimate of helmet life. And helmets have actually been improving enough over time to make it a reasonable bet that you can find a better one than you did five years ago. It may fit better, look better, and in some cases may even be more protective. For an alternate view that agrees with the manufacturers, check out the helmet FAQ of the Snell Foundation. Snell knows a lot about helmets and their views on this subject should not be dismissed lightly, even though we disagree with them.

Occasionally somebody spreads rumors that sweat and ultraviolet (UV) exposure will cause your helmet to degrade. Sweat will not do that. The standards do not permit manufacturers to make a helmet that degrades from sweat, and the EPS, EPP or EPU foam is remarkably unaffected by salt water. Your helmet will get a terminal case of grunge before it dies of sweat. UV can affect the strength of the shell material, though. Since helmets spend a lot of time in the sun, manufacturers usually put UV inhibitors in the plastic for their shells that control UV degradation. If your helmet is fading, maybe the UV inhibitors are failing, so you probably should replace it. Chances are it has seen an awful lot of sun to have that happen. Otherwise, try another brand next time and let us know what brand faded on you.

At least one shop told a customer that the EPS in his three year old helmet was now "dried out." That is highly unlikely, unless the EPS is placed in an oven for some period of time and baked. The interior of your car, for example, will not do that, based on helmets we have seen and at least one lab crash test of a helmet always kept in a car in Virginia over many summers. EPS is a long-lived material little affected by normal environmental factors. Unless you mistreat it we would not expect it to "dry out" enough to alter its performance for many years.

In sum, we don't find the case for replacing a helmet that meets the ASTM or Snell standards that compelling if the helmet is still in good shape and fits you well."

On the other hand, there has been some failure analysis on helmets in which the foam is pre-compressed: "Influence of environmental factors on energy absorption degradation of polystyrene foam in protective helmets." De-Shin Liu , , a, Chia-Yuan Changa, Chin-Ming Fanb and Shu-Lin Hsub . Pre-compressing the foam does cause some deterioration of the EPS. I am not certain of that implication - perhaps the compression from wearing it over time may reduce protective capacity.

Ron

 

[cougar8000]

Ron,

Can you post the source for what you have posted. helmet.org looks like nothing more then an advertisement site for variuos deals on helmets. Thus, I would tend to ignore what they say.

This si from snell.com can be found by clicking on Helmet FAQs

"Why replace helmet every five years?

The five year replacement recommendation is based on a consensus by both the helmet manufacturers and the Snell Foundation. Glues, resins and other materials used in helmet production over can affect liner materials. Hair oils, body fluids and cosmetics, as well as normal "wear and tear" all contribute to helmet degradation. Petroleum based products present in cleaners, paints, fuels and other commonly encountered materials may also degrade materials used in many helmets possibly degrading performance. Additionally, experience indicates there will be a noticeable improvement in the protective characteristic of helmets over a five year period due to advances in materials, designs, production methods and the standards. Thus, the recommendation for five year helmet replacement is a judgment call stemming from a prudent safety philosophy."

 

[markjenn]

Last time I checked Snell was not there to sell helmets, nor profits from its sales....And as far as I know each material has its shelf life. And I am not willing to bet that EPS foam or other times do not loose plenty of its softness past 5 years. To each its own. But Snell is not there to make money.

Snell is most definitely are in the game to "make money" (or at least expand their influence so they can grow, hire more people. and pay larger salaries). They receive a fee for every helmet that is sold with their sticker. Most helmets sold, the more fees they get.

You should read the Motorcyclist report on helmets a few years ago. It will tell you some very eye-opening things about Snell and their motives, along with the BUSINESS (which it most certainy is) of certifiying helmets to standards.

The problem with EPS foam degradation has nothing to do with softness or hardness, it has to do with premature compression of the energy-absorbing space. I agree that degradation occurs, but I believe it will be VERY slow under good storage conditions and VERY fast under poor storage conditions. Go to any motorcycle dealership and you can find helmets sitting in boxes that are being sold new that are three, four, or even five years old. If an arbitrary number of five years is so important, why don't they put expiration dates on the outside of the box?

In short, it's an arbitrary number and too long for a few users, and probably too short for most others. What galls me is that organizations like Snell won't back up the number with any real data or studies. I suspect that's because if they did, it would show that helmets probably are more durable than the industry would want you to believe and helmet sales would suffer if such data were to be made available.

- Mark

 

[cougar8000]

Mark,

I disagree with what you are stating against Snell. but that is the beauty of it all. We can have our own opinions. I read that article. have you read a reply from Snell?

If Snell was in it for money do you think they would not certify half helmets, or 3/4 , or some flip helmets? They do not certify those because of the safety concern. If they were money driven there would be many more certifiable helmets.

As I said. Everyone is entitled to its own opinion. Ride safe and protect your helmet.

 

[James Burleigh]

You should read the Motorcyclist report on helmets a few years ago. It will tell you some very eye-opening things about Snell and their motives, along with the BUSINESS (which it most certainy is) of certifiying helmets to standards.- Mark

It's why my new helmet is not a Snell, but a British-certified SUOMY. See FJR Forum thread: Will the Snell Cert. Get you Killed?

JB

 

[markjenn]

Mark,
I disagree with what you are stating against Snell. but that is the beauty of it all. We can have our own opinions. I read that article. have you read a reply from Snell?

If Snell was in it for money do you think they would not certify half helmets, or 3/4 , or some flip helmets? They do not certify those because of the safety concern. If they were money driven there would be many more certifiable helmets.

As I said. Everyone is entitled to its own opinion. Ride safe and protect your helmet.

Yep, as I said, none of us have much hard data so we're just saying our opinions.

Yes, I've read Snell's replies to the Motorcyclist article.

I don't like Snell. I don't like they way they've done business, I don't like their heavy-handed-holier-than-thou attitude. I do think their main interest is protecting the facade that Snell is a "better" standard than others.

My first bike was a Honda CB350 and I rode for ten years with a Bell TX500 3/4 helmet, a light leather jacket, street shoes, and gardeining gloves. While I ride with much better gear now, I think our society's obsession with replacing perfectly servicable equipment with new/safer equipment has gone overboard. It's the reason the next generation of cars will have 27 airbags rather then 13. It's good for business as the mfg's sell more equipment and the standards bodies can sell more stickers, but I look at these things with a critical eye and am not going to throw away a perfectly good helmet at five years because Snell says so. I don't trust them any further than I can throw them.

- Mark

 

[cougar8000]

You are into a conspiracy theory, aren't you

Main reason I would get a new helmet after 5 years is simply because what I know tells me that material degrades. And as you have pointed out there is really no research was done that we can find to prove that it does or it does not. So, I would rather error on the safe side and buy a new helmet then having my wife wonder why I got brain injury if the helmet looked new.

 

[TriggerT]

WOW, I never thought this question would stir up such debate! For me, I think I am going to go with the 5 year rule. My wife works with people who have traumatic brain injuries, and I can justify spending the money every 5 years to help ensure I wont be her next patient.

 

[Kiki]

WOW, I never thought this question would stir up such debate! For me, I think I am going to go with the 5 year rule. My wife works with people who have traumatic brain injuries, and I can justify spending the money every 5 years to help ensure I wont be her next patient.

My Arai has a manufactured date on the tag inside-- and the rep gave me letter recommending replacement after 5 years from said date

 

[TriggerT]

WOW, I never thought this question would stir up such debate! For me, I think I am going to go with the 5 year rule. My wife works with people who have traumatic brain injuries, and I can justify spending the money every 5 years to help ensure I wont be her next patient.

My Arai has a manufactured date on the tag inside-- and the rep gave me letter recommending replacement after 5 years from said date

Just wait for the "That is because he wants to sell you another helmet" response to this. My thinking is that if all he wants to do is sell you another helmet, why not tell you that if you ride a lot, you need to replace it even sooner? To say you ride a lot leaves it open to what you think is "a lot" and means you will probably buy a helmet even sooner.

 

[mdisher]

I read this:

EPS is a long-lived material little affected by normal environmental factors. Unless you mistreat it we would not expect it to "dry out" enough to alter its performance for many years.In sum, we don't find the case for replacing a helmet that meets the ASTM or Snell standards that compelling if the helmet is still in good shape and fits you well."

as:

NO matter what, we're not telling you not to wear a helmet. Even if it's old, an old helmet is better than no helmet if it fits.

 

[RonC]

Ron,
Can you post the source for what you have posted. helmet.org looks like nothing more then an advertisement site for variuos deals on helmets. Thus, I would tend to ignore what they say.

This si from snell.com can be found by clicking on Helmet FAQs

"Why replace helmet every five years?

The five year replacement recommendation is based on a consensus by both the helmet manufacturers and the Snell Foundation. Glues, resins and other materials used in helmet production over can affect liner materials. Hair oils, body fluids and cosmetics, as well as normal "wear and tear" all contribute to helmet degradation. Petroleum based products present in cleaners, paints, fuels and other commonly encountered materials may also degrade materials used in many helmets possibly degrading performance. Additionally, experience indicates there will be a noticeable improvement in the protective characteristic of helmets over a five year period due to advances in materials, designs, production methods and the standards. Thus, the recommendation for five year helmet replacement is a judgment call stemming from a prudent safety philosophy."

Sorry, I made a few errors on the citation, cougar8000. First, the site is helmets.org, not helmet.org. Second, it is a bicycle helmet group, not motorcycle, although it does mention motorcycle helmets. I've corrected my original message to reflect that. Also, since the site is suggesting that you can go longer than 5 years without degradation, and that the 5 year replacement recommendation is more of a sales gimmick, I think that they are at least credible and not an industry front.

Ron

 

[Checkswrecks]

I'm the FNG on the forum, but have been riding for about 40 years, am an accident investigator, and have kids who ride horses (English hunt), and sell mountain bikes. This has been an entertaining thread but from a practical point, I can't think of any of our helmets lasting 5 years. Our rule is that if there is an impact, visible damage, or it's loose the helmet becomes trash and one of those things much more often than 5 years.

As for the internal hard foam, my mountain-biking son recently fell on a downed tree hard enough to get a 3-day concussion. The helmet visor broke off and there was a minor scuff behind the ear, but the helmet looked fine and he didn't want to spend for a new one. I reminded him that I pay for a basic helmet anyway (he kicks in to upgrade), and lightly flexed the helmet. Suddenly he could see numerous cracks around the scuff and visor attachment points. I've done the same for horsey helmets when other parents bitch about cost after their girls fall and they generally change tune fast. We generally can't remove the hard foam from motorcycle helmets, but try a new one in the same size and the wear quickly becomes apparent.

From a chemical attack standpoint, it's true that sweat and such won't make much difference. But I do know from our lab what ozone (traffic exhaust), UV, and oils do, and there is a true attack from those. If the helmet is new, stored in a box, in a warehouse, the chemical aging ought to be slowed, but do you really know the storage environment?

Bob

Forum FNG with a 2004 FJR

 

[Bagger]

I've seen this sort of thread in several motorcycle forums before. They all seem to have the same/same end ... helmets should be replaced every 5 years, or earlier if it is dropped or has been in a crash.

I really don't have a problem with that. The dollar amount invested in a helmet is relatively small compared with the bike, farkles and gear. I can dig it.

But ... I have 6-8 (hell, maybe 10 !) helmets of various kinds, makers, colors, etc. Some are over 5 years old, some are only a few months old. They get worn at different times for different conditions (cold, hot, warm, rain, yada, yada) and on different bikes. I have 1/2, 3/4, flips, full face lids. All in good condition and fitment. And some I have had to work on to get the foam to fit my face without discomfort. That takes time.

Before I toss these helmets, I would have to see some scientific testing of new vs 5+ year old helmets subjected to the type of trauma one would see in a crash. Doesn't sound very difficult to do. I'm sure one could use SNELL or who ever's testing measures ... or perhaps Motorcycle Consumer News could do it.

BAGGER

 

[FJRottie]

5 years, 10 years, what does that matter. What matters is the actual use you are getting out of it and the real wear and tear. For some it may be 2 years. If it is undamaged and the inners are still fine...it is fine?????

Anyway..

(sorry for the hijack but my New Year party starts early...hic :drinks: )

The big question is, What do you do with your old helmet?

Hang it over the fireplace.

Hang it in the garage.

Wear it in the car (like TC mentioned).

Throw it at the neighbor's cat.

Keep it in the car till you need to throw it at someone.

Nail some antlers on it and wear it hunting.

Find a second helmet, a drinking buddy, and a place to joust.

Add some beer holders and drinking tubes, then wear it for a New Year party.

 

[weekend rider]

Do helmets go bad and have an experation date ? Or is it marketing?

For all those that own a Corvette made from plastic you must get rid of it in 5 years, it is the same as your helmet, plastic.

Interesting question, hope there is a correst answer.

weekend rider h34r:

 

[Dwavey]

Do hockey players replace their helmets every time they fall to the ice or go crashing into the boards? If they don't because the helmets are still good, what makes their $50 helmets better than our $500 helmets?

Sorry, didn't mean to stir the pot, just finished watching the replay of the Canada/Slovakia game at the World Juniors...

I don't disagree with the 5 year rule but I'm with Bagger, I need to see some objective scientific testing to show 5+ year old helmets have lost their protective qualities to any significant degree to warrant disposal. Until there is something objective then arguments ranging from marketing ploy conspiracies to deterioration attributable to the colour and length of the rider's hair will continue to be touted. Frankly, I don't think a 'recommendation' for replacement based on conjecture does the motorcycling community any good, in fact, I think Snell and others do us a disservice by not doing the testing that would offer some authority to their recommendation - how do we even know that 5 years is a good number, and how many people are riding around in helmets much older than 5 years just because they don't agree with the 5 year rule?

Here's one to add to the conspiracy theory bag: Imagine a rider sustained a severe head injury because his 6 year old helmet was starting to fail - do you think Snell and the manufacturers make the 5 year replacement recommendation in order to limit their potential liability in the event the rider might sue?

Does anyone know if DOT has anything objective to say about helmet replacement intervals? I wonder if they, or Consumer Reports or some other independent agency that doesn't have a stake in the whole debate, might do some testing - their independence might give us a whole new perspective that many obviously don't feel they're getting from either Snell or the manufacturers.