do helmets decay?

I trust Bell. They invented evidence based helmet design.

Some notable helmet stuff:

If you crack your head - buy a new helmet. The way the foam works is it crushes and DOES NOT
rebound. This is how it absorbs energy to keep your dura from crashing against your cranium.

By the same token, normal use accummulates small little comperssions of the foam until the helmet
starts to fit more loosely and provide somewhat less crush zone.

What about a helmet that sits on the shelf for 3 years? Surely that helmet is fine. Probably ought
to define helmet life in miles or hours, but I guess years is easier for everyone to figure.

3 years may limit liability some. Bell has a lot of experience with that. They quit making
motorcycle helmets (maybe for the US market only?) because of spurious lawsuits in the US. It is a
shame, they were the best; they truely had our best interest in mind.

Mike Ross

"Dan Daniel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >

Quoted message said:

Any reason to replace it other than keeping money moving in the economy? Thanks.

Well, since the outer material is plastic, and the principle padding material is stiff
Styrofoam--which is non-biodegradable and will last in a landfill forever--as a skeptic, I think the
3-year rule is meant more for the company shareholders and lawyers, not so much for your head.

Brian

"Dan Daniel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I have a Bell helmet (evo pro) built in June 1998, according to a sticker inside. So it is almost
five years old.

What is the general opinion on the life of a helmet? I think Bell recommends replacing it every
three years.

The helmet has not been crashed. No obvious damage, frayed straps, etc. No cracks, missing pieces.
Never sat inside a car on hot days or other such things that weaken plastics.

Any reason to replace it other than keeping money moving in the economy? Thanks.

Do they decay/degrade? Yes. In 3 years, probably not

Pete

Quoted message said:

What about a helmet that sits on the shelf for 3 years? Surely that helmet is fine. Probably ought
to define helmet life in miles or hours, but I guess years is easier for everyone to figure.

I see no difference between a helmet that sits on the shelf for 3 years and one that sits on my head
for three years (without being crashed.)

Quoted message said:

By the same token, normal use accummulates small little comperssions of the foam until the helmet
starts to fit more loosely and provide somewhat less crush zone.

I don't buy this one, first I don't believe it happens. The reason helmets become looser over the
years is that the foam adjustment pads change. Secondly the crush zone is sufficiently large that if
the helmet still fits at all, it is probably still within the manufacturing tolerances.

I have worn Bell Helmets since sometime about 1964. At that time, there were no other serious
alternatives and the company was pretty straight forward and I trusted their judgement implicitly.

These days, they have been through the mergers and they are part of Bell Sports.

Bell Sports markets some real trash so I no longer trust them implicitly.

jon isaacs

In article said:

I have a Bell helmet (evo pro) built in June 1998, according to a sticker inside. So it is almost
five years old.

What is the general opinion on the life of a helmet? I think Bell recommends replacing it every
three years.

The helmet has not been crashed. No obvious damage, frayed straps, etc. No cracks, missing pieces.
Never sat inside a car on hot days or other such things that weaken plastics.

Any reason to replace it other than keeping money moving in the economy? Thanks.

I would not replace it.

There are a lot more important things to replace regularly, if you're going to do replacement as a
safety precaution (prior to any failure). Tires are #1 on that list I think and brake cables are
probably #2.

--Paul

Quoted message said:

I would not replace it.

There are a lot more important things to replace regularly, if you're going to do replacement as a
safety precaution (prior to any failure). Tires are #1 on that list I think and brake cables are
probably #2.

--Paul

I agree. Tires and brakes are bigger safety issues/factors than helmets.

I do wear a helmet but I do think that too much emphasis is placed on the importance of wearing a
helmet and not enough on keeping the bike in good condition and riding with an eye towards safety.

As Paul says, #1 tires, #2 brake cables, #3 brake pads....

A helmet is on the list but its not #4.

jon isaacs

Jon Isaacs <[email hidden]> wrote:
:>What about a helmet that sits on the shelf for 3 years? Surely that helmet is fine. Probably ought
:>to define helmet life in miles or hours, but I guess years is easier for everyone to figure.

: I see no difference between a helmet that sits on the shelf for 3 years and one that sits on my
: head for three years (without being crashed.)

Sunlight - Assuming the 'on your head helmet' is in the sunlight and the 'shelf' helmet isn't.

I don't know about bike helmets but CSA/UL rated hardhats have a shelflife. Don't quote me but I
'think' it's 5 years.

It would still be much better than nothing and probably offer identical protection to a new one -
he operstive word being 'probably'.

--
'They paved paradise And put up a parking lot' -Joni Mitchell

Yes. The foam becomes more brittle and loses effectiveness over time. Three years is very
conservative, 10 years is probably over the top. Five is probably safe.

Dan Daniel said:

I have a Bell helmet (evo pro) built in June 1998, according to a sticker inside. So it is almost
five years old.

What is the general opinion on the life of a helmet? I think Bell recommends replacing it every
three years.

The helmet has not been crashed. No obvious damage, frayed straps, etc. No cracks, missing pieces.
Never sat inside a car on hot days or other such things that weaken plastics.

Any reason to replace it other than keeping money moving in the economy? Thanks.

brian hughes said:

"Dan Daniel" <[email hidden]> wrote in message >

Quoted message said:

Any reason to replace it other than keeping money moving in the economy? Thanks.

Well, since the outer material is plastic, and the principle padding material is stiff
Styrofoam--which is non-biodegradable and will last in a landfill forever--as a skeptic, I think
the 3-year rule is meant more for the company shareholders and lawyers, not so much for your head.

Brian

Yeah, I wonder if the three year thing is more of a safety factor. As someone mentioned, liability
issues might be part of it. And any helmet maker can't know how a helmet has been used and stored by
any one person. So picking a low number not only encourages more revenue, it also should account for
most 'worst case' histories short of crashes.

Plastics *do* change over time. Certain chemicals evaporate or disappear in other ways. Adhesives
can change. And polystyrene isn't completely inert. Darn close, but I have opened old shipping boxes
and found that the styrofoam has become crumbly.

(Paul Southworth) said:

In article said:

I have a Bell helmet (evo pro) built in June 1998, according to a sticker inside. So it is almost
five years old.

What is the general opinion on the life of a helmet? I think Bell recommends replacing it every
three years.

The helmet has not been crashed. No obvious damage, frayed straps, etc. No cracks, missing pieces.
Never sat inside a car on hot days or other such things that weaken plastics.

Any reason to replace it other than keeping money moving in the economy? Thanks.

I would not replace it.

There are a lot more important things to replace regularly, if you're going to do replacement as a
safety precaution (prior to any failure). Tires are #1 on that list I think and brake cables are
probably #2.

--Paul

My biggest safety precautions are-

- brakes that work- cables, pads, etc.

- tires that will not fall apart

- nothing that will shimmy or cause other control issues at higher speed (or lower speeds 🙂

- being aware to possible crash situations and knowing how to avoid them or get out of them

These are all things that I stay on top of. The helmet is gravy, and I've only needed one twice in
thirty years. Worrying about it every three to five years or so is about as much as I can get
excited about.

I find your naming tires as number 1 confusing. I always think of brakes (the whole thing- cables,
pads, etc.; I don't see particular parts of the brake as being more or less important than others)
as *the* number one thing. Maybe I've been lucky or attentive around my tires so that I haven't
experienced a serious failure and I underestimate the danger.

Can you say more about why you put tires first? What are the dangers of a tire failure that make it
worse than a brake failure?

(Jon Isaacs) said:

Quoted message said:

I would not replace it.

There are a lot more important things to replace regularly, if you're going to do replacement as a
safety precaution (prior to any failure). Tires are #1 on that list I think and brake cables are
probably #2.

--Paul

I agree. Tires and brakes are bigger safety issues/factors than helmets.

I do wear a helmet but I do think that too much emphasis is placed on the importance of wearing a
helmet and not enough on keeping the bike in good condition and riding with an eye towards safety.

As Paul says, #1 tires, #2 brake cables, #3 brake pads....

A helmet is on the list but its not #4.

jon isaacs

As I asked Paul, can you say more about why you put tires at the top of the list?

Barry Gaudet said:

Jon Isaacs <[email hidden]> wrote:
:>What about a helmet that sits on the shelf for 3 years? Surely that helmet is fine. Probably
:>ought to define helmet life in miles or hours, but I guess years is easier for everyone to
:>figure.

: I see no difference between a helmet that sits on the shelf for 3 years and one that sits on my
: head for three years (without being crashed.)

Sunlight - Assuming the 'on your head helmet' is in the sunlight and the 'shelf' helmet isn't.

UV is one thing that will decompose plastics. And gases from autos and other pollution sources can't
be doing a helmet much good.

Quoted message said:

I don't know about bike helmets but CSA/UL rated hardhats have a shelflife. Don't quote me but I
'think' it's 5 years.

Is styrofoam part of the safety functioning of a hard hat? I think of them as heavy plastic shells.

Interesting to hear of the five year (or so) rule for them. Plastics do gas off and change
composition over time, and this usually causes them to become brittle.

Quoted message said:

It would still be much better than nothing and probably offer identical protection to a new one -
he operstive word being 'probably'.

Hopefully I will never need to learn if my present helmet has decayed to a point where it doesn't
offer any protection. All in all, from what people have replied, I think that I will hold on to the
present one through the summer and see if something comes up on sale in the fall or winter.

"Dan Daniel" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Can you say more about why you put tires first? What are the dangers of a tire failure that make
it worse than a brake failure?

A brake failure, while bad, generally only happens to one at a time. Use the other one to stop. And
you still have your shoes as a last resort.

A tire failure at speed, epecially a front tire on a descent in a corner, can be VERY bad.

Pete

Dan Daniel <[email hidden]> wrote:
: On 14 May 2003 00:07:36 GMT, Barry Gaudet <[email hidden]> wrote:
[,,,]
:> I don't know about bike helmets but CSA/UL rated hardhats have a shelflife. Don't quote me but I
:> 'think' it's 5 years.
:>

: Is styrofoam part of the safety functioning of a hard hat? I think of them as heavy
: plastic shells.

No. They are just hard plastic. But if that will decay on a hardhat I figure that part would decay
on a bike helmet as well.

--
'They paved paradise And put up a parking lot' -Joni Mitchell

In article said:

(Jon Isaacs) said:

Quoted message said:

I would not replace it.

There are a lot more important things to replace regularly, if you're going to do replacement as
a safety precaution (prior to any failure). Tires are #1 on that list I think and brake cables
are probably #2.

--Paul

I agree. Tires and brakes are bigger safety issues/factors than helmets.

I do wear a helmet but I do think that too much emphasis is placed on the importance of wearing a
helmet and not enough on keeping the bike in good condition and riding with an eye towards safety.

As Paul says, #1 tires, #2 brake cables, #3 brake pads....

A helmet is on the list but its not #4.

jon isaacs

As I asked Paul, can you say more about why you put tires at the top of the list?

Because people frequently try to eke the last miles of life out of a tire, and they think, "well I
might get a flat, big deal". Blowing a tire at the wrong time is actually really dangerous, risky
like breaking a brake cable or snapping a chain. I put it at
#1 because it's one of the most common dumb dangerous things people
do on bikes. Cyclists should have a similar policy on tires as motorcycle users - smart people
replace them before they are worn out.

Dan Daniel <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I have a Bell helmet (evo pro) built in June 1998, according to a sticker inside. So it is almost
five years old.

What is the general opinion on the life of a helmet? I think Bell recommends replacing it every
three years.

Do helmets decay?

I think you're OK as long as you've only used sugar-free shampoo, and remembered to brush your
hair after feeding it (you DO use one of those shampoos which claims to contain all kinds of
nutrients?).

But seriously, the shell of the Bell Havoc helmet I bought 3 years ago cracked the day I bought
it, when dropped from a height of about one foot while locking up my bike. Not
confidence-inspiring.

The shell has become increasingly brittle, and visibly yellow (lots of UV). Cold weather riding
may have contributed to the cracking - don't know if these are tested below 0C.

My 20 year old V1PRO is rock solid, but I have my doubts about the effectiveness of the
styrofoam liner.

Jon Isaacs <[email hidden]> wrote:
:>Sunlight - Assuming the 'on your head helmet' is in the sunlight and the 'shelf' helmet isn't.

: The foam is protected by the microshell, no direct sunlight.

It would still have some UV exposure through vents and such.

:>It would still be much better than nothing and probably offer identical protection to a new one -
:>he operstive word being 'probably'.

: And of course depending on the model, it might actually provide better protection.

Oh. another thing that voids hardhat guarentees is contact with chemicals even those in a
magic marker.

--
'They paved paradise And put up a parking lot' -Joni Mitchell

Jon Isaacs <[email hidden]> wrote:
:> Oh. another thing that voids hardhat guarentees is contact with chemicals even those in a magic
:> marker.

: I see no reason to believe that the chemicals in a Magic Marker are at all benign. Those pens have
: a strong odor of volatiles when the cover is removed.

: Regarding UV exposure, given the small amount of time a helmet is exposed to sun light, I am not
: concerned.

Well I'm not suggesting it would disintegrate before your eyes, but it would affect the structure
of the plastic over time. How much time? *shrug*

--
'They paved paradise And put up a parking lot' -Joni Mitchell