• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

Replace helmet every 2-4 years?!?

Bikerfish,

Yes, I KNOW DOT doesn't do "tests" but I was implying the DOT "standard" tested to.....

And it may well be a "gentleman's agreement" but I have to believe that there is FAR FAR too much potential liability involved for manufacturers to simply pay $.85 for a DOT sticker for their helmets. We haven't had tort reform in this country yet.
 
It is not a gentleman's agreement. The helmet manufactures submit their helmet to independent test labs that certify that the helmet meets FMVSS218. Want to see the test results? Check out http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/testing/comply/fmvss218/

That site lists, by year, the lab that did the testing, what helmets were tested, pass/fail, and failure modes. Sometimes the failure is due to incorrect labeling... performance may have been fine. Or not.
 
DOT commissions someone else to run their tests? is that correct? if so, i think we are both right; they do test and they don't test.
thanx for the link.
 
What we have here is an example of someone that actually believes what the government tells them? WOW! That's a new one!Maybe refreshing but not the norm these days...
I have this issue with the helmet foam thing: Remembering the old styrofoam coolers when they first came out(and the occasional one we buy while on a fly-in trip) as being truly a throwaway item of the first rank and then considering that these guys are molding what looks to be the same stuff, painting them,adding some inside pads, a visor and a strap with a few hardware items and what you have is a piece of foam(albeit some technology & testing thrown in) that costs you the proverbial arm & a leg! Have we sorta gone from the crappy cooler that you are forced to throw away(because it breaks up) to the helmet(that saves your life?) that you are "told" to throw away? Interesting contrast???:scratch

P.S., And then we have Consumer Reports that tells me what kind of ice cream to like and why. What kinda bike do they like? Electric scooters from Medicare , no doubt?



Should I crash and my helmet sustains any impact whatsoever, I'll gladly consider the helmet as disposable. Heck - I've been doing that with bicycle helmets for decades, so I'm familiar with the drill.

I'm not worried about my helmet degrading over four or five years. My Shoei Multi-tec is two years old now and I have no intention of replacing it anytime in the next couple of years. It's never been dropped (knock on wood) and I baby the heck out of it considering how much it cost and the important job I ask it to do.

But I refuse to believe claims that the protective properties of the high density foam inside the helmet degrades to the point that it won't adequately protect my head in an impact five years from now. The foam inside my m/c helmet is identical to the foam in my bicycle helmet, and that stuff doesn't degrade over time - only with impact. Maybe over 50 years the chemicals would break down, but certainly not over five years - and especially not over 2-4 years as the CR article claimed.

If the U.S. Department of Transportation tells me I need to replace my helmet every five years, I'll believe them. I won't believe the claims made by companies in the business of selling new helmets. They have too much at stake to be unbiased.
 
Sorry, but that is not very scientific! The styro coolers are crap from the beginning and anybody that has used one can testify to that. If it is on the shelf a long time it hasn't led a very busy life. I stand by my premise that we are looking at little beads that you add water to and mold into a pricey helmet and then???:banghead and then???



In the MSF class I took back in May, the teacher used this example as to why you should replace your helmet every 4-5 years. Go to Walmart, Kmart, or wherever, buy a cheap styrofoam cooler and set it in your garage for a year or two. After that, buy another cooler similar and set them side by side. Now feel the difference. See how easy it is to break the two-year old cooler vs the new one. And that is after just two years.

Surely you all have seem an old styrofoam cooler that is very old. It just crumbles. Do you want that protecting your head? As others have stated, not only does the styrofoam breakdown over time, but the overall safety of helmets increase as new designs and engineering takes place.

So throw those old helmets away. If not, certainly do not think you you are protecting your head. The plastic of the helmet is there only to protect the styrofoam from the elements, and provide some structure to attach the shield. And of course, provide a little marketing magic as well.
 
I have to assume that perhaps there is a bit more science to the foam that is put into helmets? Let's face it, foam cooler foam has specific properties that make it good for throw-away coolers, not helmet liners.
 
OHSA , OK, what about the facts I have read about the air pressure across the ear opening(even while wearing a full helmet ) and its deteriorating effect on hearing? With a 35%+ loss ( noise induced) I'll wear the plugs as I have experienced the difference both ways while riding. I was a "hearing loss prevention officer in an Army unit and had some training in hearing protection-the one big thing you do is limit exposure and using the plugs serves that purpose.:wave

An interesting helmet discussion. Here's a dissent on a couple items.

Not a fan of internal sun visor a least as implemented by Nolan. It has a large notch out in the middle that makes it worthless because dealing with glare requires lowering it too far to offset that stupid notch. The gradient shields on a Shoei are better IMO.

I've got a pair of Shoei RF1000s and they are very quiet while looking over the top of the shield on my RT. Much better than the Nolan for reasons of aerodynamics and fit IMO. No earplugs required (I have run OSHA style hearing protection programs so know what levels need protection) and it is easy to converse using a couple Bluetooth devices or make a phone call. Call listeners are unable to tell I'm on the bike.

The Nolan ratchet closure for their strap is useful and worthy of emulation by others.

My current inventory is 7 helmets of 4 brands for use in various track cars and on my bike. I have the ability to regularly compare them against new models and am not a 5 yr fanatic but do dump them when any deterioration is apparent. Amount of use and storage conditions are key. Heavy use in hot weather has killed some in 3 years and others are OK at around 6-7. Not inclined to try for 10 - too many destructive components from internal combustion in modern suburban atmosphere, especially in a garage or home heated with older oil furnances. The cheapest one (HJC) is nowhere near a match for the more expensive ones in construction quality and features.

Haven't sprung for an Arai yet, however. And the very lightly used Nolan 103 could be sold to an interested party (W, L, with bluetooth stuff built in).
 
I'll continue my self appointed role as the "devils advocate": here we have a several hundred $$$$ device, that is to save our life in an accident and we have to throw it away because it will not survive a short fall? Now, that really is a confidence builder!:thumb

I was just thinking that in reflecting on 10 years of playing football(the other century-not this one) I would lack confidence in a football helmet that you couldn't drop a few feet and live through the next game!As one who had several concussions I am not sure I would have wanted a styro cooler on my head(I love my Shuberth too much to let it go-including the flip sun shade!!!) for protection! When I first played @ Roosevelt Jr. High we actually wore leather helmets in the 7th grade(hand me down stuff for the little guys) and here I am to tell about it. I am absolutely not any sort of helmet expert, but have you ever seen a styrofoam football helmet? I have also heard that they now have a huge team expense on the helmets for FB which is no doubt tort driven? So, how much do lawyers enter into the bike helmet equation?


a hit to solid ground from most anything that is seat height or beyond. if it hits a plastic part (vent, shield, etc) as the initial contact point you are probably just fine. if the body of it takes a hard hit, there could be notable internal damage that compromises its functioning the next time it takes a hit, even if you can't see much for external damage.
would you want to risk that "the next time" is when you are wearing it?
 
Last edited:
Kantuckid,

No one is saying the helmet won't "survive" a fall. However, what effect the "drop" has had on the integrity of the liner is unknowable by the consumer. Have I replaced my helmet every time I dropped it. No. But then it hasn't happened often and not from a significant height.
Automobiles are built to standards with "crumple zones" - Saw a YouTube vid on the NHTSA 50th Anniversary "crash" of a 1959 Chevy Impala and a 2009 Chevy Malibu. Standard offset frontal crash. The "driver" of the Malibu received brusies on his knee. The "driver" of Impala was killed instantly. The video showed several angles and the crumple zones did their jobs in protecting the driver.

When you get into an accident that compromises one of those zones and take your car to the neighbor kid who takes body shop at the Vo-Tech, neither can you expect him to fix it correctly nor can you expect that zone to do what it was intended to do in another accident. Without proper inspection and mitigation it may never be right again. I think that is the issue with helmets. Since inspection is not possible without complete deconstruction, the recommendation is to pitch it and buy a new one.

Before my son was born I rode and hardly EVER wore anything more than a leather jacket and safety glasses. Once my wife decided she wanted to get her license and once my son was old enough to ride 2-up, we searched for helmets. I was amazed at the PRICES of helmets at the local bike shop.

Then I saw my son trying them on and realized what I was asking the helmet to do. Price became a non-issue then. He's on his second one because of head growth, not damage.

On your football helmet comment. Fact is, football helmets DO suffer and wear out. But they are also made differently for a different kind of impact. And look at the numbers of concussions you hear about now. Athletes with multiple who can never play again. And in many cases helmets are made with replaceable pads both for wear as well as fit and comfort.
 
As a guy that knows body repairs(on cars, not heads) I don't see you comparison at all. Unit body cars are one thing and a head helmet entirely another. If it will not survive a short drop, just how can it protect your head is a legitimate question from a users perspective. The car thing I cannot let go by as I was one of the tech teachers that taught the "neighbor kid" that you make reference to. You might be surprised what some of these kids know! As to crumple zones in vehicles, yes they are designed that way and yes they are NOT made out of styrofoam like many helmets(and some helmets not!) and yes many are in fact repairable. The idea of the crumple zone never being made whole again is a generalization that flies in the face of there being unit body frame racks and trained techs out there to do the job. Not an example to use for me and my question as to why a helmet that is to save my life cannot take a short fall to the ground and not come out usable other than cosmetics. The FB helmet point I was trying to make is that they WILL survive these sort of lesser bangs and not be unusable as is the bike helmet supposedly.
Just got back from Maine and nearby places-beautiful state!
Actually people are saying they spend big bucks on replacements and throw them away from a short drop.

Kantuckid,

No one is saying the helmet won't "survive" a fall. However, what effect the "drop" has had on the integrity of the liner is unknowable by the consumer. Have I replaced my helmet every time I dropped it. No. But then it hasn't happened often and not from a significant height.
Automobiles are built to standards with "crumple zones" - Saw a YouTube vid on the NHTSA 50th Anniversary "crash" of a 1959 Chevy Impala and a 2009 Chevy Malibu. Standard offset frontal crash. The "driver" of the Malibu received brusies on his knee. The "driver" of Impala was killed instantly. The video showed several angles and the crumple zones did their jobs in protecting the driver.

When you get into an accident that compromises one of those zones and take your car to the neighbor kid who takes body shop at the Vo-Tech, neither can you expect him to fix it correctly nor can you expect that zone to do what it was intended to do in another accident. Without proper inspection and mitigation it may never be right again. I think that is the issue with helmets. Since inspection is not possible without complete deconstruction, the recommendation is to pitch it and buy a new one.

Before my son was born I rode and hardly EVER wore anything more than a leather jacket and safety glasses. Once my wife decided she wanted to get her license and once my son was old enough to ride 2-up, we searched for helmets. I was amazed at the PRICES of helmets at the local bike shop.

Then I saw my son trying them on and realized what I was asking the helmet to do. Price became a non-issue then. He's on his second one because of head growth, not damage.

On your football helmet comment. Fact is, football helmets DO suffer and wear out. But they are also made differently for a different kind of impact. And look at the numbers of concussions you hear about now. Athletes with multiple who can never play again. And in many cases helmets are made with replaceable pads both for wear as well as fit and comfort.
 
Last edited:
Kantuckid,

When I made reference to the "neighbor kid who takes vo-tech auto body classes" I was more referring to any shade-tree auto-body guy. So it was a bad analogy in that respect. Mea Culpa. The point I WAS trying to make however is that if the underlying structure of a crumple zone is not fixed properly, it will LIKELY not function as designed and intended NEXT time. But it CAN be fixed properly by someone with the knowledge and tools of the trade to do so.

However, unlike a car where the damage can be inspected, in a helmet it can not. Helmets are designed to work ONCE and then be replaced. I guess the difference in our opinions centers around what the definition of "work" is. What if you were on your bike and mis-footed and went down bumping your head against the driveway? Is that work? I guess we can split hairs.

And I think MOST here agree that a short drop, seat height or less will do little or no damage save for perhaps a scuff or two.

But again what are we asking the helmet to do? You spend hundreds of dollars a YEAR in insurance because you HAVE to to protect yourself in an accident. But you're willing to risk it with a helmet that has suffered a hard drop? That's up to you.

Next time you're in the area, drop me a line!
 
I have a few crashed helmets around unfortunately. Been meaning to take a band saw to disect one to see if I can find any evidence of impact in the liner. I have a feeling the damage wouldn't be visual but I have no doubt there's some compromise to the impact absorbtion ability.

I just don't see how a drop from the seat or several feet would compromise the liner though in an empty helmet. Only the shell would experience any tangible impact ... and the shell is designed to take much more than that. The motorcyclist magazine article from a few years back outlines the tests used.

As an aside, National Geographic TV also had a episode last week that shed some light on the testing used by Nolan (also AlpineStars & Brembo) for 'crash' gear.
 

Attachments

  • Helmet-1a.JPG
    Helmet-1a.JPG
    128.6 KB · Views: 358
And I think MOST here agree that a short drop, seat height or less will do little or no damage save for perhaps a scuff or two.

Depends. If my head or something about the weight of my head was inside the helmet then a drop that height may have done real damage to the liner. If the helmet was empty then the only damage is to my feelings. ;)
 
the idea of the helmet "not surviving a short drop" is this- you need to consider a helmet to be a "one use" item; i.e., it does its job of protecting whatever is inside of it (air, head, a dozen eggs, whatever) one time and one time only. After that it has used up its energy absorbing characteristics, and will no longer protect the enclosed item a second time at the level that it is intended and designed to. Might it still do its job in a minor impact get-off? Sure. But then again, it might not.

The question then becomes- how much of an impact is enough to compromise its structural integrity, and make further usage questionable?
Well, considering what we are asking that helmet to do- protect the one irreplacable and totally necessary organ from permanent or catastrophic damage........
(you can figure this one out for yourself, right?)
 
All this talk of impact...I always thought that a helmet's best utility was in protecting the head from abrasion, since so many get-offs result in sliding or rolling on the ground. Of course being great at protecting my head from both impact AND abrasion is good. :thumb



As for disposing of old helmets, I recommend smashing them or cutting them into pieces. This achieves two things:
1) keeps somebody from pulling your lid out of the trash and assuming that it's still good, and
2) makes it take up less space in the landfill. Folks, we gotta think about reducing our waste. We don't have infinite space to fill with garbage.
 
Back
Top