Man you guys worry a lot..
I cant remember what brand my helmet is, but I would be real suprised if there was any de-lamming going on, and it is 3 decades old..
Funny how no helmet maker , ever guarantees a helmet to work and do its job..
I am staying away from them full face jobs, I have seen how it makes them guys ride................................. 
.. lots of people dying with them things on...
I always wondered what made those riders drive like that, now I know!
Does anyone here remember [my idol when a kid] roadracer Rusty Bradley on Kawi in the early '70s? He once slid off the track under the side-wire (those are gone today), and the wire plucked his full-face Bell clean off his head. At the time, there was a national debate going on (much like this
oil helmet thread, about whether the open-face was safer because it could be more easily removed, or should full-face come with quick-disconnects? All the 'damage' Rusty had was a red spot on his chin. Roadracers were split about 50/50 on open face or full-face helmets then.
In 1972 or 1973, I think it was Cycle Magazine that sponsored (or maybe just reported the results of) a wide test of lots of brands of helmets, just before the DOT got involved (NY standard Z90 was king, then). They were drop tested on flat things, sharp things, knife-edged things and pointy things, in accordance with the whole industriy's standard test practices, sort of as a "journalistic verification test" after Rusty Bradley's incident. The shell damages were carefully examined and the deceleration was monitored with instruments (accelerometers were REAL expensive in those days, today they cost $5). The protective elements inside (styrofoam or the better foams that are molded into place, made from 2-part urethanes and the like) were tested with water, gasoline, oil, and intesnse UV light (presuming, I guess, that you would leave your helmet on the helmet holder and the sun or rain would get it, or you would mistake it for your gas cap or oil filler hole...) to see if the linings would suffer damage.
The final analysis: with a NEW helmet, all of the tests were passed on every brand during the 3 shock tests (i.e. on something flat, something sharp, something pointy), with the styrofoam liners all showing some degree of permanent deformation after the impact(s) and replacement was recommended. All of the helmets made with resilient liners (urethane in those days) recovered their 'dents' after 48 hours. Of those that were then retested, the 'dents' returned, but the deceleration remained nearly the same (with 5%) on the second tests. None of the styrofoam-lined helmets were second-tested, as the liners were at minimum depth after the first tests. All of the polycarbonate shells suffered permanent damage from the drop tests, all of the fiberglass helmets received minor scratches. The moral of their story: if you have the cheaper poly-shelled, styro-lined helmet, replaced after every incident. If you have the more expensive fiberglass shelled, resilient-liner types, inspect after 48 hours to see if the dents recover and the shell shows no further cracking. No recommendation was made to replace any of the more expensive varieties after these tests.
The best of the best in those tests were Bell, Arai, Shoei. The least expensive were Wal-Mart, K-Mart and Western Auto stores' own brands (my, how times have changed!).
...come to think of it, I think the AMA sponsored this test...they were young, then...
