Helmet Replacement Scaremongering

[danryding]

I've just received a marketing mail from Cycle Lab which advises "Significant changes in temperature as well as lengthy exposure to UV light can degrade the EPS (expanded polystyrene), which is the core/shell of the modern cycling helmet. Some sunblocks contain substances that can erode EPS and sweat can also gradually wear into your helmet’s EPS and affect its structure. By replacing your helmet every three years, you are giving yourself both peace of mind as well as optimal protection." and then directs me to their range of helmets for sale.

 

There is clearly some truth in these statements, such as the deterioration caused by exposure to UV. Some of the rest, like sweat affecting the EPS structure, is real scaremongering (hopefully not deliberate on Cycle Lab's part).

 

Three years is a period only recommended by a handful of players in the industry, with most others advocating significantly longer periods. If you spend huge amounts of time on your bike, 3 years may well be a good yardstick, but for the vast majority a modern helmet will be good for several more years.

 

Cycle Lab should, at the very least, ensure that the information they present is correct and not misleading. Frightening consumers into land-filling perfectly good helmets in the interests of selling more product is not something of which they should be proud.

[BaGearA]

Scummy move from a scummy company

[Jakkals.]

Well, rather sooner than later. It might just save your life.

[thebob]

And on the other side of the coin you have people riding around in out of date, broken, patched up or otherwise ****** helmets without a care in the world. Some of them even sell these abominations to fellow Hubbers, which is a far greater offense than a bit of marketing IMO. Anyone with a functioning brain and access to Google can research the claims made in that emailer and make their own judgement. You can unsubscribe from their emails if you feel mortally offended

 

Personally I’ve never had a helmet longer than two years (MTB and motorcycle) owing to my lack of skills, but getting a new lid, with the newest protective technology (like MIPS), every few years is a smart investment in one’s safety

Edited July 3, 2020 by the_bob

[dave303e]

Well if they have 2 brands: 1 saying 3 years and the other saying 5 years. They will not tell you to only replace every 5 years because someone will concuss them selves after 4 years and take them to court for telling them it is safe to replace after 5 years and not 3 as per the manufacturers recommendation.

 

That is just liability management and a good call.

 

The fact that they will no doubt educate a few who did not know helmets need replacement more often that we know, means that they could potentially save a few head injuries which for the greater good is a win.

 

What they failed to mention is that in 3 years you will likely drop your helmet, pack something heavy on it. Bump it in transport when it is hung on your backpack as you go through the airport etc etc. I personally have not had a helmet reach 3 years without having concern for it's structure and replacing it.

 

I will take a cheaper brand new helmet over a 2 year old fancy one.

 

Go google CTE and cycling you will re think trying to get your helmet to last 5 years...

[Christie]

In Holland they dont even wear helmets. I always wear one but I think the polycarbonate outer prevents UV from getting to the polystyrene.

Edited July 3, 2020 by Christie

[Danger Dassie]

Scaremongering? .... Bit melodramatic,
All it is, is a marketing email. As you say, with a few elements of truth.
Really neither here nor there, it's not like the Lab are the first or only ones to make this claim. 

Mountain, mole. 

[DieselnDust]

I've just received a marketing mail from Cycle Lab which advises "Significant changes in temperature as well as lengthy exposure to UV light can degrade the EPS (expanded polystyrene), which is the core/shell of the modern cycling helmet. Some sunblocks contain substances that can erode EPS and sweat can also gradually wear into your helmet’s EPS and affect its structure. By replacing your helmet every three years, you are giving yourself both peace of mind as well as optimal protection." and then directs me to their range of helmets for sale.

 

There is clearly some truth in these statements, such as the deterioration caused by exposure to UV. Some of the rest, like sweat affecting the EPS structure, is real scaremongering (hopefully not deliberate on Cycle Lab's part).

 

Three years is a period only recommended by a handful of players in the industry, with most others advocating significantly longer periods. If you spend huge amounts of time on your bike, 3 years may well be a good yardstick, but for the vast majority a modern helmet will be good for several more years.

 

Cycle Lab should, at the very least, ensure that the information they present is correct and not misleading. Frightening consumers into land-filling perfectly good helmets in the interests of selling more product is not something of which they should be proud.

 

 

 

Only thing I disagree with in their email is the 3 yrs.

Lifespan is generally 5-7years before it goes in the bin.

Also depends on the helmet. If its a lightweight unit with a brazillion vents then maybe 3yr replacement cycle but it depends on how you treat ithow often its used and exposed to direct sunlight.

Wash with a mild soap once  a week and keep it out of direct sunlight when not in use, and don't leave it lying on the parcel shelf of your hatch back in summer and it should see 5 yrs.

[T_Boss]

Luckily I crash way too often to bother with how old my helmets are..... haha

[WIPEOUT 1000]

To the best of my knowledge Expanded Polystyrene is basically impervious to natural decay. It’s an absolute ecological disaster.

 

I do not dispute that helmet technology moves and this can be a legitimate reason to buy a new one, but to claim that you have to do so because the Expanded Polystyrene in your current helmet has expired over time is false marketing.

 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26902784/

 

Age Does Not Affect the Material Properties of Expanded Polystyrene Liners in Field-Used Bicycle Helmets

[DieselnDust]

EPS beadsdo not break down quickly. The bonds between beads do.

[Christie]

If you look at websites that supply commercial EPS for use as insulation, they claim a 50 year service life. I agree with the OP, it is scaremongering. If you want to play it safe, replace every 35 years.

(The part about UV = BS)

 

From another site on EPS:

 

Water Absorption - EPS is not hygroscopic. Even when immersed in water it absorbs only a small amount of water. As the cell walls are waterproof, water can only penetrate the foam through the tiny channels between the fused beads.

 

Chemical Resistance – Water and aqueous solutions of salts and alkalis do not affect expanded polystyrene. However, EPS is readily attacked by organic solvents.

 

Weathering and Aging Resistance – EPS is resistant to aging. However, exposure to direct sunshine (ultraviolet radiation) leads to a yellowing of the surface which is accompanied by a slight embrittlement of the upper layer. Yellowing has no significance for the mechanical strength of insulation, because of the low depth of penetration.

Edited July 4, 2020 by Christie

[DieselnDust]

You okes are missing key concepts here.

 

The EPS inner is bonded to a plastic outer shell. EPS impact absorbtion isn't affected but the structural integrity of the helmet is compromised by age.

The bonded shell comes adrift of the EPS.

As EPS ages and the outer embrittles it loses flexibility so its ability to take repeated small hits diminishes.

with severe temperature cycling the shell debonds the EPS underneath starts falling apart and you cannot see that.

 

Let's talk about the helmet as a structure and not isolate one component and determine the lifespan of the system based on one part of it.

[Christie]

Imo people should not ride what they feel unsafe with. If it makes you happy, buy a new helmet every 3 years - it is your money, and your head.

A new helmet will have the advantage of new technologies like MIPS/wavecell and cool things companies do to make consumers buy.

 

I have an 14 year old helmet in my stable - it has new pads but I still use it.

 

Small protest - Im not missing concepts, Ive been part of a team that developed light helmets for a different industry at one time in my life. We strapped them onto dummies and did impact tests with sharp and blunt impactors etc. We heated them, froze them, radiated them etc. Tried different laminates, ran finite element analyses, then tested some more. Im not a helmet guru by some margin, but I wrestled with the subject matter enough to be past the first Dunning-Kruger peak, I hope.

 

Edit - too much wine! I never debate on the interwebs. Darn it - I posted so much bla bla bla ????

Edited July 4, 2020 by Christie

[DieselnDust]

Good insights. Thank you for having that dop

[Dicky DQ]

We wear helmets because we have to, or depending on where you ride. I have fallen and broken bones without a helmet and the noggin was OK.
Done the same with a helmet and cracked it. Still OK.

Or maybe not. To me the real effectiveness of a helmet is that it falls apart when you trap it between the hard object and your head. So in theory a crappy helmet is probably better as it will simulate a MIPS helmet at a fraction of the cost.

 

So this brings to question when is a helmet better than not wearing one? Is a cheap and nasty heavy solid block better than an old soft one?