Topic: helmet reupholstery

[yoomit]

anyone know of a shop that can reupholster vintage helmets?  i have an old arthur fulmer that could use some new padding.

preferably around the NYC area, but willing to ship elsewhere.

anyone??

[Bob Wessner]

If you Google "motorcycle helmet relining" a couple of places come up. One is in Deleware.

[333]

Are you intending on wearing it?  If it is a fiberglass helmet, it had about a 5 year life, after which they get brittle and not so safe to wear.   If it has lived in a dark closet away from ambient sunlight, that may help, but not much.

[andy750]

I knew someone would mention the lifespan of the helmet as a factor NOT to re-upholster it. Is there any data out there or proof that fiberglass helmets do indeed become brittle and are NOT safe to wear. Ive heard this point of view a number of times but havent seen any facts to back it up. Im not saying its not true but Id like to know the source of the information if there is any.

Id have thought that if the vintage helmet is on your head and you crash then as long as it does its job ONCE then you are safe to wear it....so even if on impact it cracks BUT still absorbs the force as good as that particular type of helmet can (open-face versus full face etc etc) then it will be fine.

Not trying to be difficult but he did ask about re-upholstery as opposed to safety of vintage helmets. Technology has come a long way since the 70s say but even in the 70s people were still wearing helmets and crashing and still walking away.

cheers
Andy

[eurban]

There might be some places to have a helmet reupholstered out there but if you find that there isn't many, it is probably due to liability reasons.  . . .   I wear a helmet to protect my head and would do so even if the state told me I didn't have to.  If you want to protect your head I can absolutely guarantee you that a modern quality DOT or Snell certified helmet will do the job better than an antique.  If you are just looking to meet state requirements then perhaps and old helmet will suffice.  However, many states now require helmets to be certified.  As to whether or not fiberglass really looses its strength over time?  I would think so but don't know for sure.  Probably not worth risking my noggin to find out though!

[333]

Fiberglass is made to delaminate in a controled way as to absorb impact.  The resin cracks whilt the glass strands hold the resin (now pieces) together and supporting the styrofoam inner liner.  When it gets brittle, it breaks up faster on impact and the glass wont hold as well as when it was newer.  Anyone who has any experience with old fiberglass boats knows this is true.

But,

Probably not worth risking my noggin to find out though!

So true!!!

[TwoTired]

Fiberglass is so named because it has glass fibers embedded in resin.  If you change the resin material, the finished product is still called fiberglass. 

Do helmet manufacturers ever specify the resin used in the helmet shell?  Heres is a sample of resins that can be used:

CPF - Isophthalic polyester resin, CVF - Vinyl ester resin, SPF - Isophthalic polyester resin, SVF - Vinyl ester resin, SGF - Orthophthalic polyester, SFF -  Isophthalic polyester resin,
SPW - Polyester resin, epoxy, phenolic, poly/vinylester, cynate ester, bmi.  The aging and durability characteristics will, of course, vary among the various resin selections.

As you might guess, statements about general fiberglass durability are meaningless unless you know something about the materials used in its construction.  Further, the actual construction and curing process of the finished material plays a huge role it its durability.

The process of resin hardening doesn't stop after it first becomes rigid for many resins.  Over time and heat it continues to harden to the point of brittleness.  This process is accelerated if there is no seal coat to delay out-gassing of the plasticizers in the resin.  Surface color plays a part in the aging process as well.  Dark colors in the sun heat much higher than light reflective colors and metallic finishes retain heat longer due to the embedded metal particles. 

I've also seen DOT approved helmets made of injection molded plastic, as well.

The Helmet manufacturers promulgate confusion among consumers by obscuring details.
Do the manufacturers purposely select materials that will degrade rapidly over time?  And then, specify routine replacement "for safety reasons"?
Do they simply confuse buyers in order to promote sales and profit figures? (can't be too safe now, can we?)

Since the manufacturers pronounce that helmets do deteriorate with time, then shouldn't you replace your helmet every month to achieve maximum protection?  Even going to the manufacturer recommended replacement interval implies a loss of protection.

Personally, I WANT the helmet to break up on impact and absorb as much impact energy as possible.  I don't care if it falls apart in the process.  It just needs to stay together long enough to distribute the energy not absorbed to the styrofoam liner that cushions my skull.  That is the problem with the current Snell testing, as it focuses on the survival of the helmet instead of the human head it is supposed to protect.

There might be some places to have a helmet reupholstered out there but if you find that there isn't many, it is probably due to liability reasons.

I agree with eurban on this point.  You change anything the manufacturer tested to comply with regulations, and you assume compliance responsibility. One lawsuit will put the upholsterer out of business.  Few will risk their livelihood.

Old (define old?) fiberglass boats often used polyester (styrene monomer) resin because of it's economics.  This resin is known to be brittle even right after initial cure.  Further, lamination techniques and curing processes vary with the specific product being made.  I assert that old boat anecdotes are pretty meaningless in a helmet discussion.

As far as risking your noggin...  You do that every day, helmet or no.  There is always risk.  You have to learn to manage risk.  If you want to minimize risk, stay off the bike and never leave your bunker.  I suspect that on the risk scale of measurement, wearing an old helmet is not very far away from a new helmet.  If the crash is severe enough, it won't matter anyway.  But, I suspect the new helmet will look better after the crash than the old one.

IMHO
Cheers,
Cheers,

[old750]

That is the problem with the current Snell testing, as it focuses on the survival of the helmet instead of the human head it is supposed to protect.

I would say that survival of the helmet is very important. If the helmet completely shatters and falls apart while your still tumbling and sliding on pavement at 60mph you've got nothing to protect you after the initial impact. And what makes you think they are only focused on the survival of the helmet?

[BobbyR]

There was a post that linked to an article about Snell vs DOT. Snell appears to be focused on resistance to shell penetration whereas DOT is concerned by energy absorbsion. The article tilted toward absorbsion as being more desirable. So as TT pointed out having the helmet shell self destruct may be a good thing, if I read him right.

[old750]

There was a post that linked to an article about Snell vs DOT. Snell appears to be focused on resistance to shell penetration whereas DOT is concerned by energy absorbsion. The article tilted toward absorbsion as being more desirable. So as TT pointed out having the helmet shell self destruct may be a good thing, if I read him right.

I wouldn't want my helmet to self destruct on the first bounce if I was hitting the ground at 60mph. There may be a need to absorb a second or third bounce. But then again if the hit is hard enough maybe I need all the absorption I can get. At what point do I need the helmet to break? I guess it's a delicate balance. I found the Snell methods of testing where can I find the DOT standards? I'm curious now.

[Jinxracing]

MotorCyclist Magazine did a test a few years ago comparing the merits of DOT vs. Snell testing; they came away with the opinion that while each testing procedure was different and had its merits, each had its flaws too. Type and/or speed of impact determines whether or not you'd be better off wearing a Snell or DOT helmet. Of course, a helmet that had achieved both Snell and DOT ratings was deemed optimum.

Is wearing an old fiberglass helmet more dangerous than wearing a new Snell/DOT approved helmet? Probably. On the other hand, I'm sure a scenario could be devised that would prove that an old and brittle helmet would give better protection than a new DOT/Snell helmet in a specific circumstance.

It's an imperfect world, leaving the house is dangerous, and little kids are bringing guns to school. Maybe we should be talking about bulletproof vests instead of helmets.

[andy750]

Excellent discussion and thanks to TT for the detailed reply (as usual). This is the kind of information I was curious about.

" It just needs to stay together long enough to distribute the energy not absorbed to the styrofoam liner that cushions my skull.  "

I agree completely with this statement. This is the main purpose of wearing a helmet after all. Once you crash with any helmet you should really replace it no matter what it cost or what safety rating it has.

cheers
Andy

[Triffecpa]

The problem with helmets as they age isn't related to the fiberglass, but to the EPS (expanded poly styrene) or styrofoam liner.  That hardens with age and will no longer work to adequately absorb the force of the impact.  In really old helmets, it can actually start to crumble due to age.

You can buy a low end SNELL/DOT approved helmet that will lack all the venting that the high end ones have, but will still be quite comfortable and very safe for around $100-125. 

If you read the Motorcyclist article, the one thing that it does say is that helmets have gotten safer than those last tested in the 70's or 80's.

I'd buy a new helmet.

Tracy

[old750]

Excellent discussion and thanks to TT for the detailed reply (as usual). This is the kind of information I was curious about.

" It just needs to stay together long enough to distribute the energy not absorbed to the styrofoam liner that cushions my skull.  "

I agree completely with this statement. This is the main purpose of wearing a helmet after all. Once you crash with any helmet you should really replace it no matter what it cost or what safety rating it has.

cheers
Andy

I like to think of real life scenarios on the street. If my head hits the ground once, and then   either bounces or hits something else (ie. a curb) I would like it to absord those secondary impacts.

[TwoTired]

I like to think of real life scenarios on the street. If my head hits the ground once, and then   either bounces or hits something else (ie. a curb) I would like it to absord those secondary impacts.

Think about the effects of inertia.  Speed or a fall does not hurt you.  It is the sudden change in speed that body components have problems handling.

The skull is the helmet for the brain.  If the skull and brain are doing 50 mph and the skull suddenly stops, the brain continues on until impacting the skull.  This can result in concussion or a bruising of the brain.  If blood vessel are broken, uh, very bad news.  Just the swelling after impact can outright kill you, or make severe personality changes if you do survive.

I see the main desired function of the helmet as to slow the deceleration rate of the helmet contents.
 A rigid outer shell that stops abruptly on impact only distributes the impact forces over a broader area of the skull.  The compression of the styrofoam controls the deceleration of the skull and softens the impact of the brain into the skull.  Worse, a rigid shell that stays intact will often rebound and add inertia forces toward the direction of the skull.

On the other hand, if the outer helmet shell absorbs energy and disintegrates/crumbles on impact the inertial forces are expended in the break up, and the rebound forces direct less energy opposite the brain deceleration path.

Generally speaking, the initial impact generates greater inertial change forces than secondary, and tertiary impacts.  The intial impact should also cause the greatest compression of the styrofoam liners.  This compression is permanent.  This foam does not spring back once deformed.  If the secondary impact is at the same helmet site, deceleration effects are largely reduced and a rigid helmet offers little added protection other than distributing the impact area over a greater area of the skull.

While I can understand that some injection molded may split and separate with large force impacts, fiberglass impacts generally cause the resin binders to fracture and the glass fibers remain intact.  The other shell loses some rigidity at this point, but the shell remains intact to hold the styrofoam in place around the skull.  This is what I refer to when I say I want helmet destruction on impact.  I don't want Helmet rebound or bounce I want it to crumble and absorb the impact energy.  Statistically, a secondary helmet impact should be in a different helmet location with uncompressed styrofoam between outer shell and skull.

My beef against Snell is that they began to focus on maintaining outer helmet shell integrity on ever greater impacts forces.  Rebound effects and brain deceleration rates were, at best, secondary goals.   They developed an impact resistance test which applicants must adhere to for Snell approval.  This test is NOT coupled with a brain organ energy absorption test.

I have not reviewed Snell test changes over the last year or so.  But, at the time, they were trying to distinguish themselves as being superior to DOT testing, and the impact resistance test was the marketing differentiator.  I think they went in the wrong direction and sold a disservice to consumers.

IMHO

Cheers,

[old750]

A sudden stop at 50mph will kill you no matter what helmet you are wearing 

Are you saying that it's actually better to have a brittle (ie. old) helmet so that it may shatter more easily upon impact?

If you want your helmet to crumble, have it glass coated and see how well it serves you after it's fallen apart on the first impact at 60mph you're face is now grinding ashphalt    And you may run into other things ie. curbs, cars or lightpoles. If you want it super rigid, make it out of steel. Now it's useless. If your Snell shell is too rigid it's of no use at low speeds anyways. The same goes for DOT. If they are too soft, you don't get maximum absorption at higher speeds. Like I said, there is a fine balance with these things. I like to look at the practicality of it.

I understand what your saying. I think you may have read this article:

http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/Article_Page.aspx?ArticleID=1021&Page=1

Because they said this: "Snell also uses an edged anvil that specifically tests the integrity of the helmet's shell" I think the author misinterpreted what Snell is all about.

Snell is focused on racing, where there is a higher impact. DOT is good enough for street use, and it's probably better to use a DOT only helmet on the street, because they are optimized for lesser impacts. Unless of course you've got an irresponsible manufacturer that doesn't build to spec, like the article mentioned, DOT is based on an HONOR system. What a JOKE.

If you look closely at the Snell standard, ALL helmets that meet Snell should meet DOT. So if you're looking for a good helmet for the street, a helmet that failed Snell but actually passed DOT might be the right range. But again, DOT helmets do not always actually get tested. Some manufacturers cheat, so I would always go with Snell to be safe.

[yoomit]

thanks, Bob (first guy to respond w/info i was looking for).