mr_bill

CPSC says 5-10 which overlaps most manufactures 3-5. If you use your helmet a few times a year the CPSC 10 year estimate might be about right. If you use your helmet several times a week manufacturers are probably closer.

(Only one manufacturer suggests 2 btw, they are in Greater Boston.)

Two studies (coincidently by the same legal forensics company) say helmets have an infinite life span. Ask yourself why.


Then there is the quote the styrene data sheets crowd, who think that EPS and styrene are the same thing.

Hey, if YOU want to wear your Bell Tourlite or Bell Biker in 2020 (and beyond) “enjoy.”


-mr. bill

Metieval

did that, I don't plan on using it again.

I might just stick to wearing it. Using it sucks badly! LOL

cyccommute 

Basic handling and shipment isn’t going to compromise the helmet unless the helmet has been crushed during shipping. Bicycle helmets are packed rather well to prevent this from happening. In addition, just normal “handling” isn’t going to compromise the helmet. Even dropping it without any other weight than the helmet itself isn’t going to damage it...they aren’t that delicate.

In use, however, there isn’t anything to protect the helmet from exposure to chemicals or environment conditions that can compromise the helmet. You can’t see that kind of damage. And, again, neither can you test for that kind of damage.

The manufacturers say 3 to 5 years. CPSC says 5 to 10. There’s overlap between the two recommendations. And, frankly, I would say that the manufacturers have more knowledge about their materials than the CPSC. The CPSC doesn’t do the testing on the materials. They depend on the manufacturers for their data.

Certainly we can stop the conspiracy nonsense. All it takes is the realization that no one is out to cheat you or me. Yes, there may be decisions made due to marketing but there are also decisions made to ensure that the manufacturer doesn’t have to deal with a bunch of lawsuits. If they say that the helmet is good for 10 or 15 or, in the case of the paper above, 27 years, and then the failure of old helmets results in injury, they are on the hook for the damages. And they are in the business of selling helmets. That’s why they are constantly improving and changing them...to make them better.

There are people advocating for using helmets for 20 years in this thread. My recommendations are based on the properties of the material and how the material reacts to heat, ozone, chemicals around them in use and in storage, etc. What are your recommendations based on?

cyccommute 

Yup. I’ve used several over the last 40 years. Somewhere between 15 and 20 or, roughly, every 2 to 3 years. It’s never fun to actually put one to the test.

livedarklions

Sure they are.

Caliper

To my memory, my helmets have had a year of manufacture marked on them. My current one certainly does.

Yet you also repeatedly claim that the material doesn't degrade which seems that you are advocating that others replace their helmet when? If you didn't bang up your helmet more frequently, if it showed no signs of damaging wear or impact, how long would you go before replacement?

Just Mark

After this thread started, I got the idea to explain to my wife that I need a new bike every couple of years because the carbon fiber loses it’s integrity over time. She bought me an aluminum bike for Christmas and said I would never need another bike.

livedarklions

When I read this, I happened to have a Bell helmet I hadn't unboxed yet. The date of manufacture doesn't appear on the box or anywhere else visible to the consumer prior to unboxing. There's a sticker inside the helmet, which informs me that the date of manufacture is almost exactly two years ago. This is definitely not a sell-by date.

I'd probably go with the CPSC and do an automatic replacement every 5-10 years. But, basically, I think this whole degradation issue is a total red herring as no one seems to have any real evidence that it's a significant factor in any of these range calculations. If it is the major factor, then 3-4 years is absurdly short.

For me, the real calculation is whether I am getting any enhanced safety and/or comfort (without safety loss) by purchasing a new helmet. That's really going to depend more on what's available at a price I'm willing to pay than some hypothetical degradation rate that no one seems to have actually quantified in a manner that anyone else can check their work.

BTW, I've relegated a couple of helmets that were barely used to the "keep as a backup" status because I became convinced that MIPS was likely a very good purchase of safety for the cost so they're what I'm using primarily. My tentative conclusion is that MIPS helmets are actually going to require more frequent replacement for me than conventional foam helmets as the points of connection between the liner and the foam are more subject to the effects of wear. I think this trade-off is worth it.


Long story short, I think people can make reasonable judgments about when to replace their helmet without blindly accepting the "recommendations" of people who clearly have a financial interest in planned obsolescence.

livedarklions

Oh, and one more thing from the actual packaging --here's Bell's safety warning: "A helmet has a limited lifespan in use and should be replaced when it shows obvious signs of wear." Not a single word indicates a fixed rate of degradation. If that's the manufacturer's warning, it's a lot closer to my view than "every 3-4 years."

reconnaissance

My helmet is a Bell V1-Pro in a cool camo pattern that I bought in 1986 when I worked at a bike shop. The conspiracy of that purchase is that it is easier to sell bike helmets when I am a helmet user. I don’t plan to replace it unless my head smacks the ground, which is what I consider “use” in my way of thinking.

I recently replaced the sweat pads and the velcro attach points are still in great shape.

mr_bill

You are going to want to read the whole owner’s manual.

“Bell also recommends that helmets be replaced every 3 to 5 years from the date of purchase.”

-mr. bill

livedarklions

Interesting. Note that they give no reason for the recommendation. Also note that it really isn't consistent with the recommendation in the warning section. Guess which section their attorneys would insist not be touched by the marketing department.

wphamilton

Fashion choice is one of the better reasons in my opinion. And the straps and pad and glue will degrade long before the foam material does to any extent - the fact is, from reading of materials testing studies, data sheets and actual helmet testing (ie, not from half examined general principles) there is almost no UV degradation for helmets. Ozone is also a non factor, because this material is particularly resistant to ozone. Salt doesn't affect it, water doesn't affect it (after it dries out). It is vulnerable to solvents ( I mean organic solvents obviously) and other reactive chemicals which shouldn't ever come into contact with the helmet in normal use.

If anyone wants to replace his helmet for any reason, they're golden in my view. That's the American Way, prosperity through consumption. But it rubs me the wrong way to scare people into buying what they don't need, especially when it's based on obvious CYA legal disclaimers by the manufacturer.