Camilo

You could say that about all sorts of stuff that is thrown out "just because it seems to make sense" or worse yet, disposable crap that doesn't need to be disposable.

My point is,I think it's wrong to throw away stuff that doesn't need to be thrown away. Applying any arbitrary rule to dispose of bike helmets is wasteful and adds to the cost of disposal that everyone else has to pay for your helmet. Unless you have some objective reason to do it, it doesn't make you in fact safer, at best it maybe makes you think you're safer. And, of course, it's totally to the benefit of the helmet sellers to get us to think that we need new helmets when we don't. (as for the economic benefit of the whole "gotta wear a helmet or else" thing, that's a different thread).

I get new helmets when my old ones are visually damaged, or "soft" parts like pads, straps, strap attachments, etc. are worn out or broken and can't be replaced. Otherwise it's a waste of money and landfill costs.

Vintage Schwinn

Even a New from China $6.99 free shipping bicycle helmet on Ebay that comes from a seller located in Shen Zhen, or Shanghai, or perhaps Hong Kong will probably provide you a decent amount of protection. I have not done any testing, nor have I seen any published test results that compare a pre-1995 helmet with the $6.99 free shipping helmet that directimports has.( directimports1899 98.3% on ebay #263829406290 ).
I would think that specific new $6.99 helmet that directimports has is probably superior in every way to what every every brand new helmet was in 1993 when new from the store at that time.
*******The most important thing is that you WEAR your helmet, and that you wear it properly!
Now perhaps, you want to ride like you did in the old days..................remember this: MOST BICYCLES ARE CAPABLE OF HIGHER AVERAGE CRUISING SPEEDS AND HIGHER MAXIMUM SPEED than back in the Sixties or early Seventies. You are a heck of a lot older than you were in those days, and you likely don't have the cat like reflexes and agility that you once had. Perhaps, the most sobering thought is that your co-payments and out of pocket expenses could be significant and physical theraphy and rehab could be very lengthy.....................there could be worse situations as you well know.
Don't Worry So Much About The Lifespan Of Your helmet.............if it looks functionally decent, and it still fits and can be worn properly, and you're okay with it....
......Wear A Helmet. Look at it like this, you might never need it and that would be great,BUT you want to be wearing a helmet at the time that you Do Need It.
Don't leave home without it. Don't get on the bike without it.
here are some links on bicycle helmet certification standards, etc....
https://www.triathlete.com/2017/09/g...y-means_306276

https://www.helmets.org/standard.htm

https://www.chinesestandard.net/PDF/...x/GB24429-2009

Camilo

You know you could save a lot of money if you quit bouncing your helmet off the ground while your head is in it! 8-)

Metieval

this cuts me deeply. haha

truth be told my jacket has a hole, both bar mits have holes, both shoe covers have holes, half my shoe buckle is gone but still functions.

better than tattoos from skidding I guess. however I did scrub my shoulder good. It will match the left shoulder now.

I think my knee warmers are okay, Endura mtb shorts are tougher than nails!

oddly enough I pedal skipped at age 16 laying it down and today that is my largest scar. no helmet then either. I've had several bad crashes with no helmet never hitting head. and several bad with smashed helmets.

the scariest with no helmet was falling off the back. I knew going down it would be bad. tensed up and tucked head.

point is it cost more than a helmet, but ... the bar mitts were too hot anyways, the holes may help out.

bpcyclist

Put the bike down on the pavement today in very wet and slick conditions. Kind of a freak thing. I thought I was okay with the traction, but I wasn't. A very kind motorist stopped her car in the middle of the street to help me. Very sweet of her. Landed on my left hip, pretty scraped up. No fracture. Bike is okay. Thought for sure I was going to slam the left side of my cranium on the pavement, as I have done that before, but for some reason, I did not. So, no new helmet from Santa this year. Now, when are those new wheels getting here...

Camilo

I've only fallen twice on road bikes since I was in my 20s (I'm mid-60s now). Both times were in the past few year and both were turning too sharp on gravel patches at intersections. Once, very slow (slowly rolling a stop sign) and no damage to anything except my ego (my wife: "Haven't you been HARPING on me to be aware and careful of gravel on intersections! Why did you do that?" How can you answer that question?).

The other, just road rash on my hip, torn glove and jacket sleeve. The loose material, I think, helps after the fall in that you tend to slide a bit more rather than fetching up hard on dry pavement. Nothing too bad, but a reminder that I don't want to fall on a bike any more. I'm too old for that sh.. I mean stuff.

The last time I fell in my 20s was same thing except wet pavement, and since the outfit of the day was jeans and probably a flannel shirt, no harm, no foul. Of course no helmet back then, who'd ever think of wearing a helmet riding a BICYCLE? for heaven's sake.

The only time I've smacked my helmet when I swung my car's rear hatch down on my head - once with the helmet on, and yes, a second time later without a helmet. I will testify that helmets help in that situation.

woodcraft

See post #5 in this thread for definitive research showing that helmets do not degrade from age.

Sy Reene

I read that link.. but all I think they showed was that helmets up to 26 years old still passed a test. I couldn't find where they limit tested eg. a control helmet 26 yrs ago, and held another of the same model on the shelf for 26yrs and then limit tested it again. I guess this only matters if all anyone cares about is whether your helmet still meets certification requirements. Though since pretty much any non-MIPs helmet does this (and many seem to be proponents of MIPS), and/or that some people put stock in the VTech relative ratings, that study has limited value IMO.

livedarklions

This is a silly argument. You're basically saying that the study is not useful because they didn't have the foresight 26 years ago to save a control helmet to prove what exactly? That there's been absolutely no degradation? Assuming that the 26 year old helmet wasn't wildly overbuilt, the fact that it meets standards today would be some pretty solid evidence that whatever degradation it suffered in the intervening years is not significant enough by itself to warrant replacement.

I'm not advocating that people use 26 year old helmets, btw, just saying there's probably a dozen better reasons to replace them other than some theorized foam degradation.

This is rapidly turning into a burden of proof problem, with the advocates of a 3-5 year rule offering no data or proof that that range is based on anything substantial. If you're going to tell people they should replace items that appear to be in full working order, there is some obligation to provide proof that there is a real benefit to doing so, not just telling them they're being foolish because they can't prove a negative.

woodcraft

"MEA's analysis showed that there was no significant impact performance change with age"

They passed the same test required for new ones. I doubt that you could find where new helmets were "limit tested" either so what's your point?

mr_bill

No, they did not. They tested one test from the suite of CPSC tests (high impact flat anvil), and then did a bizarre hybrid test NOT in CPSC (low impact flat anvil). About 1/8 of their "old" helmets were unused. They used date of manufacturer-only as the independent variable. Even then they had fails and close fails.

-mr. bill

livedarklions

A video of one of the tests:

woodcraft

I was going by this statement: "They crash tested them at 3 m/s (a drop of 1.5 ft.) and 6.2 m/s (a drop of 2 meters--the CPSC standard drop"

"Bizarre hybrid test"?

This was testing to answer the question 'Does helmet performance degrade with age?', so what other variable besides age is important?

Are you a rep for a helmet company?

Caliper

Tires also last "forever" in a landfill. But I can tell you that even a tire stored in a climate controlled building for 5-10 years and not used will not perform as it did when new.

I don't get the resistance to spending about $1-2 a week on a helmet...

mr_bill

Unbelieveable.

I'm going by the PAPER. "All impacts were onto a flat steel anvil...." CPSC tests require 6.2 m/s onto a flat anvil, *AND* 4.8 m/s onto a hemispherical anvil and curbstone anvil.

3.0 m/s onto a flat anvil is a bizarre hybrid test.

I'll ask you a question. Is an unused helmet "field-used?"

-mr. bill

woodcraft

I was originally responding to RkFast's assertion that there were no studies countering the 3-5 year replacement guideline.

Are you nit-picking, or do you think that helmets do need be replaced that often?

mr_bill

This is *NOT* "nit-picking."

NONE of the helmets in the study passed the CPSC tests because NONE of the helmets in the study were subjected to the CPSC tests.

I'd even spot them the benefit of the doubt of not doing all the conditioning tests and picking just ambient. Even give them a pass on the strap tests, rolloff tests, and peripheral vision tests.

But to not even bother to test hemispherical and curbstone anvils ought to make one pause about WHY these were not tested.

-mr. bill

Sy Reene

I'm not saying the study is worthless, I'm only saying that it just provides evidence that a 26yr old undamaged helmet can still pass the certification test. Which doesn't say that a newer helmet wouldn't be any safer.

Not sure exactly what the VA Tech study does, but it does indeed rank I believe, the relative protection of helmets -- all (?) of which previously passed the same fundamental gov't test for minimum safety required.

Simple question, would a $50 helmet bought today, be safer than a $50 helmet (adjust for inflation if you like) bought 5 yrs ago? I'd hazard to say yes, because you can get MIPs.

livedarklions

Guess you stopped reading my post before you got to this:


I daresay none of those dozen things would operate with such regularity that a fixed 3-5 year use limit is anything but arbitrary.

livedarklions

Buying a new helmet means shopping, trying stuff on, and taking some risk that it will actually be worse than what you already have.

BTW, helmets aren't tires.

Caliper

If you're worrying about this, you're in the bike shop how many times in 3-4 years? I've never done much trying on for a helmet. Find the options/features you want, check that the color is what you want, check the size, done. Even if you're picky in your helmet fit, take this once every 3-4 years for most here debating this and it's the range of seconds for every ride you make over that time.

Correct, helmets aren't tires. But they are both made of highly engineered compounds that rely on being not too hard and not too flexible to work properly. While the base material is incredibly stable, the modifications to that material to give it just the right properties to protect your head aren't likely to be. We all know that tires of a certain age are trash, even if they have full tread depth. Why is there resistance to the same idea with helmets? My point was that just because something lingers in the landfill for a long time has no bearing on if it is still any good for its original purpose.

livedarklions

So now we're amortizing money and effort? That's really not how life works.

The reason there's "resistance to the same idea with helmets" is there's no reason to believe that's the case for helmets. Other than assertion of an analogy, you offer no reason to believe that foam isn't a more stable material than tire rubber. I really don't care about landfills, that wasn't my argument.

I actually don't have a problem finding helmets that fit me, but I have two sons who both have big heads that make helmet shopping an incredible pita. We don't go out of our way to figure nonsense reasons for replacing them.

Sy Reene

When did this whole discussion become about whether foam degrades or not? The OP started with the simple input that the industry promotes that it's a good idea to get a new helmet every 5 yrs.

livedarklions

It's because of goalpost shifting from people trying to justify an arbitrary time rule.

The reason it shifted to this is because there's no other good reason for replacing a helmet that's plausibly related to time since purchase. If "it looks and feels fine" is to be discounted as a good reason to keep wearing it, you have to come up with some invisible/intangible reason to discard something that seems to be functioning well.

Also, given the manufacturers' clear financial interest in promoting planned obsolescence, people have been pushing the idea that the manufacturers have some hidden cache of data that supports the 3-5 year rule, and there's really only a few candidates for what that data could be.

Caliper

It certainly is with money. You can easily amortize it by just setting aside a tiny bit of money from each paycheck. Time can be a bit more subjective, but for most of us buying a helmet is a simple task that needs very little time. I sympathize with the dilemma of ill-fitting goods because of the shape of ones body, and if that means you are comfortable taking a greater risk in a crash, that's your choice.



No reason? Except that the manufacturer - who MIGHT know a thing or two about the material in the helmets and how they last or degrade - recommends replacement. OH, right, that's just a conspiracy...

OR, you could trust the Snell memorial foundation (who used to be involved in bicycle helmets until the CPSC mucked things up) who recommend a 5 year replacement interval for helmets.

OR you could look to any other sport that uses helmets and see that they ALSO recommend a regular replacement of helmets.

No, I guess it's just more logical to disregard the primary manufacturers and test facilities who makes or tests helmets and assume that, unlike any other petroleum based product, the material in bike helmets is unique and its material properties are unaffected by the passage of time, exposure to sunlight, sweat, skin oils and so forth. Seems logical.


Regarding landfills, you claim not to care, but you also responded to a comment regarding that very topic...