Helmet Life Expectancy. Fact or Fiction?

Message

HYPERR · #1 Unread post by **HYPERR** » Sun May 17, 2009 1:00 pm

According to the Helmet industry, you are supposed to replace a helmet after 5 years because the styrofoam deteriorates over time regardless of how much the helmet is used or how well it is taken care of.

I have three helmets that I use on a regular basis. A 7 year old Dainese, a 5 year old Shoei, and a 3 year old Arai. They are all premium helmets and I take excellent care of them and they are all stored inside the house.

The Dainese is still in excellent condition and quite frankly the Shoei and the Arai could practically pass for a new helmet. However, according to the helmet industry, I need to toss my Shoei and the Dainese is living on borrowed time.

I personally find it hard to believe that a styrofoam that lives inside a helmet shell and protected from UVs and other environmental hazards would become deteriorated after only 5 years.

Nothing against the Helmet industry but it is a fact of life that every industry has some sort of collusion in the interest of finances and legalities. I believe the 5 year styrofoam deterioration is a myth created by the helmet industry to sell more helmets as well as to cover their arse from people who take dodo care of their helmets.

I have brought this up with people that work in the helmet industry and they sort of in a roundabout off the record way, agreed with me. In another forum, I brought this up and a poster who worked in the helmet indutry didn't disagree/agree with me and said that he will ask the engineers at his company and post their response. He never did.

I personally think that my 7 year old Dainese and it's internal are in far better condition than a poorly taken care of one year old helmet. I really don't believe in this 5 year rule as a final word. It really depends on how a helmet is stored and cared for. What do you guys think?

MTexile · #2 Unread post by **MTexile** » Sun May 17, 2009 3:08 pm

I've heard it said it's not the styrofoam or the shell, it's the glue that holds the two together that will eventually get brittle. While it makes sense, I don't know it as fact...

Gummiente · #3 Unread post by **Gummiente** » Sun May 17, 2009 3:54 pm

You can have the best cared for and cleanest helmet in all the world, but eventually it will still need to be replaced. I'm not one for conspiracy theories, so I really doubt that there is any collusion or myths of collusion within the helmet industry simply to sell more products.

The whole idea of the styrofoam (or other composite material) inner lining is to absorb as much energy as possible from an impact by compression, thus lessening the amount of force transferred to the head and brain. Styrofoam will naturally compress over time just from the weight of the helmet and the force of the wind pressing it onto your head. Eventually, it will lose its "spring" and remain compressed - reducing its effectiveness to dampen impact forces. THAT is the main concern when a 5lb difference in force could mean the difference between concussion and coma. UV rays and environmental hazards really have nothing to do with the life span of helmet internals, but they will affect the external shell and shield over time.

Because there is no absolute and positive method of checking a helmet's continued ability to protect other than by destructive testing, the five year life span has been adopted by most manufacturers as the reasonable life span of their product. Whether or not you choose to believe and abide by that is, of course, entirely up to you.

#4 Unread post by **Lion_Lady** » Mon May 18, 2009 7:18 am

Hmmm. You wear it on your head, daily, for anywhere from 15 minutes to several hours. Your head sweats and deposit oils into it and the liner. Your ridid noggin compresses the non-rigid liner out of shape. If nothing else, an old helmet no longer fits as well as it used to.

Do you have any shoes that you wear as much/often as you wear your helmet, that you can honestly say are in "good as new" condition after 5+ years? Just because the helmet's hard shell appears unblemished, why assume that the important bits are good as new? Styrofoam/styrene is a volatile material. Admittedly it "lasts forever" in a landfill, but it by no means remains totally unchanged over time.

P

slimcolo · #5 Unread post by **slimcolo** » Mon May 18, 2009 8:21 am

Gumminette said

so I really doubt that there is any collusion or myths of collusion within the helmet industry simply to sell more products.

No not a myth Helmets are actually designed to only last a short period of time. (planned obsolence) If helmet companies actually built a helmet that would last forever (they do have the technology) their sales would fall to almost nothing. By designing them to "wear out" they are only looking at survival of their company.

I do have one old helmet (from the 50s) that is still as good as it was when new. (not nearly as good as a modern DOT helmet but still better than most novelty helmets) It however has no composite material. Steel outer shell and laced leather lining almost like a liner for a steel pot. (no styrafoam or fiberglass)

RhadamYgg · Wed May 20, 2009 12:02 pm

And you've got to have a motivation to get that snazzy new design on the helmet.

RhadamYgg

HYPERR · #7 Unread post by **HYPERR** » Sun May 31, 2009 1:31 pm

slimcolo wrote: No not a myth Helmets are actually designed to only last a short period of time. (planned obsolence) If helmet companies actually built a helmet that would last forever (they do have the technology) their sales would fall to almost nothing. By designing them to "wear out" they are only looking at survival of their company.

Slim do you know this to be a fact?

I kind of find it hard to believe that a top helmet maker like Shoei or Arai would intentionally build inferior helmets that are designed to only last a short period of time. Especially in the US, the land of firvolous lawsuits. So you are basically stating that a whole different type of collusion exists in the helmet industry?

I appreciate everyone's opinion on this, but has there ever been a study done on this that anyone knows of? Did the helmet companies(or any other organization like DOT or Snell) actually do a study to come up with this 5 year replacement life span? I have asked a few people in the industry and they all seem to admit(off the record and somewhat hesitantly) that there is absolutely no valid data supporting this 5 year rule.

mazer · #8 Unread post by **mazer** » Sun May 31, 2009 3:49 pm

FROM THE HORSES MOUTH -
The Snell foundation recommends a helmet be replaced every 5 years based on a general concensus of manufacturers and the Snell foundation. "Glues, resins and other materials used in helmet production can affect liner materials, and general liner deterioration as a function of hair oils, body fluids and cosmetics, and normal "wear and tear" all contribute to helmet degradation. 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, design and the standards. Thus, the recommendation for five year helmet replacement is a judgment call stemming from prudent safety philosophy."

Also, if a helmet has been in any significant impact, it should be inspected by the manufacturer or simply replaced, even if it looks ok from the outside. Helmets are made with a hard rigid outer shell with an inner impact absorbing liner. The inner liner absorbs impact by deformation and may not be evident under the hard outer shell while the inner layer may no longer absorb or be as effective as before initial impact. The general rule explained to me is any drop from waist height to the ground is considered a significant impact, so dont drop your helmet!

#9 Unread post by **MZ33** » Mon Jun 01, 2009 2:42 pm

a whole different type of collusion exists in the helmet industry

That's not uncommon in industry. Technology in the computer industry has been "rolled out" over time, when in fact the technology already existed. rx companies hold onto slight variances in drug formulations so that, when the patent on, say, Ambien, expires, they can roll out "Ambien CR." It's the same drug, but redesigned to have both an immediate and a continual release.

In fact, it would be sensible for the companies to have this "estimated" obsolescence rather than a tested one. It seems a reasonable estimate, but I'm sure that it falls well on the safe side of probability. From a liability standpoint, they are protected. Keep in mind, too, that if they start getting hard data: first, it would take years to have the components studied, and second, every time they modified a component, they would not be able to state a time claim until they tested again. They will always be years behind their own technology. Instead, this handy "rule of thumb", not unreasonable, is out there.

So, in reality, it likely will last longer than 5 years, but we're talking about your head, here. One of those "ladder of risk" moments. What's the chance on any given ride that you will need that helmet at all?

I think of it as: "we're quite sure that the components will hold up for 5 years. Somewhere after that, different components will degrade at different rates and we can't be sure of anything at that point. It's your head. Use it."

HYPERR · #10 Unread post by **HYPERR** » Tue Jun 02, 2009 11:42 pm

mazer wrote:FROM THE HORSES MOUTH -
The Snell foundation recommends a helmet be replaced every 5 years based on a general concensus of manufacturers and the Snell foundation ~ "Thus, the recommendation for five year helmet replacement is a judgment call stemming from prudent safety philosophy."

Thank you mazer. Just as I thought and just as people from the helmet industry have off the record admitted. The 5 year "rule" is based not on a study of any sort but on a general "consensus". As with anything, especially in the land of the frivolous lawsuits, any form of "general consensus by the manufacturer is going to be on the ultra conservative side in the interest of selling more helmets and in the interest of covering their arse.
As I have said, I have 3 helmets, all premium models, all well kept and maintained. I have examined the glue, foam, etc on all these helmets and they are all in excellent shape. That being said, the oldest(the Dainese) is 7 years old. Despite still being in excellent condition, I will probably replace it in a year or so.
The 5 year "rule" is essentially a judgement call. There is no reason a helmet receiving excellent care, maintenance, & storage would deteriorate in 5 years. There is also no reason why a helmet that is banged around while being carried around, rode hard and put away wet, and stored in a freezing/boiling garage year around is going to last anythig close to 5 years.
Common sense prevails and judgement calls apply.