Topic: Bell Prostar / Aerostar / GT etc. VS. Bell Star II

[Mars]

So I've been wanting a Bell Star II helmet. I want a vintage look but still full face. Now, Ive been seeing they go for $80ish on eBay, which in comparison to the $10 I could get any Aerostar, Prostar etc for (plus they are NOS) seems steep. I understand the Bell Star II's are collectable but what makes the other old Bell helmets so cheap?

[333]

They were top of the line helmets then.  But I wouldn't wear one of those now.  Fiberglass gets brittle with age.  The average life expectancy is about 5 years.

[Mars]

Shucks...

I want a full face vintage helmet. Am I better off buying something not DOT approved?

[medic09]

Shucks...

I want a full face vintage helmet. Am I better off buying something not DOT approved?

No.  You are better off wearing something that maximizes your chances of surviving neurologically intact after falling on your head at 70 mph.  Or after a chance rock gets tossed up by the truck in front of you (happened to me).  There are no guarantees, but an up to date helmet is your best bet of protecting your precious brain.

[333]

But if they are cheap, get one or two.  Just don't wear them riding.  Great decoration for the man cave.  I've seen lamps made out of them.

[srook]

Get ready for an unpopular opinion.  This is only my opinion.

Those old helmets do offer you a level of protection as long as they have never been dropped or impacted anything hard.  I have done some research into the 5 year lifespan thing and I can find no evidence that the protective layer, the EPS liner, deteriorates over time.  EPS is used in the construction industry as an insulating material.  Many tests have been done on its lifespan and resiliency.  Simply put EPS does not break down over time by itself.  EPS is not effected by temperature changes over time.  EPS does not absorb moisture over time at an alarming rate.  One study showed about 2% moisture absorbsion over 50 years and that the moisture had no effect on the EPS ability to absorb impact.  Simply put the EPS liner would still be effective 30 years after it was produced.  The only substances that break EPS down are petroleum based solvents.  So what does this mean for a vintage Bell Star (original, II, III, 120, or MOTO)?

OK the shell serves 2 purposes.  One, protect the EPS liner (and your head) from punctures.  Two, distribute the force of impact to the entire shell minimizing the possibility of a puncture.  The shell on those Bell Stars are fiberglass and MAY harden over time.  This doesn't happen by itself and is subject to many other factors such as heat, light, and moisture.  Many newer helmets are made from polycarbonate and MAY harden over time or not.  Consider the source of the shell hardening warning (usually helmet manufacturers).

Bell was the first to use EPS in their helmets and all the Stars have an EPS liner.  The EPS will crush upon impact.  It slows down the abrupt stop your head makes upon impact.  The danger is not from breaking or fracturing your skull but from having your brain slam into your skull and deform which causes brain damage and ultimately death.  If the EPS does not break down over time by itself then it can still perform the function it was meant too.  The problem is you have no idea if the helmet was ever dropped or in a previous accident.  You can still find some NOS Buco full face helmets on ebay for about the same as the Bell Stars.  That might be a better option and you have the piece of mind of knowing the helmet has never been in an accident.

So an old Bell Star offers the same level of protection as a new DOT approved helmet?  Not really.  Those old Bell Stars did not go through the testing that new helmets go through.  Yes they have EPS liners just like a brand new Aria, but the density and thickness of the EPS is not the same.  The density determines how fast or slow the head will stop upon impact.  Modern helmets are designed to stop the average human head from an impact of about 16 mph without causing brain injury.  That doesn't seem like alot and if you hit an object head on at 60 mph you will suffer brain injury.  The 16 mph impact was chosen for a few different reasons.  When you become separated from your bike you start to slow down very quickly, sometimes by half the speed you were traveling on the bike.  Most times the first impact your head has is with the pavement or a parallel plane.  Even if your body is traveling at 30 mph when you hit the ground and slide you don't hit it at 30 mph but much lower.  I don't know at what speed the old Bell Star EPS liner is designed to stop your head upon impact.  The major issue with any vintage helmet is that the EPS liner is too thin.  Old helmets look cool because they aren't as big as modern helmets.  Well the reasons modern helmets are bigger is to incorporate a thicker EPS liner that will actually save your life in impacts of 16 mph or less.

So what are your options?  First do your own research on EPS and make your own decisions.  I believe the 5 year lifespan is a marketing gimmick.  There are a few brand new Bell Star type helmets being manufactured today.  Check out the Bandit Integral, Retro Road Racer (and other Japanese remakes), and even the Bell Star Classic.  All the new retro full face helmets except for the Bell Star Classic are not DOT or ECE 2205 approved.  They are essentially remakes of the old full face helmets in every way.  There are a few advantages with them though.  The shells are brand new and will not have hardened over time.  You can know for sure that they have never been dropped or in an impact before.  They probably smell alot better than that old Bell Star II off ebay.  The Bell Star Classic is a remake of the old Bell Star helmet for auto racing.  The eyeport is smaller than the motorcycle helmets and may restrict your vision on a bike.  The Bell Star Classic is also flame retardant which is a requirement of auto racing helmets.  It is Snell certified to the Auto helmet standard which is much like the motorcycle helmet standard but includes the fire retardant testing.

Bandit Integral http://www.bandithelmets.com/


Retro Road Racer http://item.rakuten.co.jp/retroracing/10000062/


Bell Star Classic http://www.bellracing.info/starclassic.php


Another option and one I considered but ultimately decided against.  Buy an old Bell Star and pull out everything inside.  Get yourself a brand new DOT, ECE 2205, or Snell certified 3/4 helmet that fits great.  Pull out the EPS from the new 3/4 helmet and glue it into the old Bell Star shell.  Get the new/old Bell Star relined and you have essentially an old helmet that has a modern EPS liner.  The problem is you will probably have to trim the new EPS liner to fit in the old shell and there goes some of your modern protection.  This is a costly option and that is why I decided against it.  BTW the comfort liner or the soft stuff inside the helmet serves no protective purpose and is only there to make your head feel nice.  Beware of helmets that have been re-lined because the EPS has not been changed and could have actually been damaged by the person re-lining the helmet.

Scott

[333]

The EPS (Expanded Poly Styrene, or in more common terms, Styrofoam)is not the issue.  It is only the fiberglass.  Which does get brittle when exposed to UV.  Just ask anybody who owns a fiberglass boat that doesn't use an opaque cover.  And your assumption on the purpose of a fiberglass shell is a bit wrong.  It does not  distribute an impact, rather it absorbs impact by de-lamination.  Polycarbonate shelled helmets actually repel an impact, or "bounce",except when the impact exceeds that ability, and then shatters, leaving you with ONLY the EPS.  And poly helmets virtually never get the higher safety ratings.  The DOT rating is based solely on the EPS liner, and will suffice in the case of helmet laws, but not for much of racing.

The old Bell helmets did receive intense testing from The Snell Memorial Foundation, and have been Snell rated nearly from the beginning.  FYI, Snell was formed in the late 50s when an auto racer(William "Pete" Snell) was killed wearing a leather helmet.They continue to set the standard in a majority of racing today, with seperate standards for motorcycle("M") and auto("SA").  The biggest difference is that SA helmets have fire retardant Nomex liners.

You posed the question; "So an old Bell Star offers the same level of protection as a new DOT approved helmet?", and then answered "Not really.".  I would say just the opposite, and base my answer on the Snell testing that was done.  I would also go as far as to say that I would put an old school Bell (but new, of course) up against ANY poly helmet of ANY time.

[srook]

This addresses your arguments much better than I could.  From Motorcyclist, June, 2005, Blowing the Lid Off. http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html

"The helmet's shell also absorbs energy as it flexes in the case of a polycarbonate helmet, or flexes, crushes and delaminates in the case of a fiberglass composite helmet."

......

"The Snell sticker," continued Newman, "has become a marketing gimmick. By spending 60 cents [paid to the Snell foundation], a manufacturer puts that sticker in his helmet and he can increase the price by $30 or $40. Or even $60 or $100.

"Because there's this allure, this charisma, this image associated with a Snell sticker that says, 'Hey, this is a better helmet, and therefore must be worth a whole lot more money.' And in spite of the very best intentions of everybody at Snell, they did not have the field data [on actual accidents] that we have now [when they devised the standard]. And although that data has been around a long time, they have chosen, at this point, not to take it into consideration."

.......

"Conventional helmet-biz wisdom says fiberglass construction is somehow better at absorbing energy than plastic—something about the energy of the crash being used up in delaminating the shell. And that a stiffer shell lets a designer use softer foam inside—which might absorb energy better."

"Our results showed the exact opposite—that plastic-shelled helmets actually performed better than fiberglass. In our big 3-meter hit—the high-energy kind of bash one might expect would show the supposed weaknesses of a plastic shell—the plastic helmets transferred an average of 20 fewer Gs compared with their fiberglass brothers, which were presumably designed by the same engineers to meet the same standards, and built in the same factories by the same people."

"Why is this? We're guessing—but it's a really good guess: The EPS liner inside the shell is better at absorbing energy than the shell. The polycarbonate shells flex rather than crush and delaminate, and this flexing, far from being a problem, actually lets the EPS do more of its job of energy absorption while transferring less energy to the head."

Scott

[Mars]

This is very good information and I really wanted to get this debate going so I would hear both sides of it. In practical terms, regarding my specific case, I have found a bunch of NOS helmets on eBay in box so I feel they have not degraded as a used one would have.

[srook]

Just remember the EPS liner in those NOS helmets is not as thick as the liner in new helmets.  This means in the event of an impact your head and brain may come to an abrupt stop quicker than with a new helmet.  Here's a pic of Yoshi's helmet collection.  You can see the new Bell Star Classic next to an old Bell Star (up 3 cubes from Yoshi's head and 1 to the left).  Notice the new helmet is bigger than the old one.  This is to incorporate a thicker EPS liner that is capable of meeting the new Snell standards.



Those vintage Bells did meet the Snell standard at the time.  There were 1970 standards and 1975 standards but ask yourself what those standards were based on.  The Hurt report came out in 1981 which was the first study to use real motorcycle crash data.  What were those 70 & 75 Snell standards based on?  If those early standards were so comprehensive then why did motorcycle helmet design and standards change rapidly in the 1980s, after the Hurt report?  Do your research and be sure of what you are doing.  Again this is only my opinion.  I am in no way an expert on motorcycle helmets, plastics, fiberglass, or EPS.  I merely wanted to get a vintage Bell Star II and started to research exactly what I could expext in terms of protection.  For me a vintage helmet just isn't worth it.
Scott

[333]

Back in 1985, when I had my first job in the industry, we had a polycarbonate shell, minus the EPS liner.  We would drop it on a hard tile floor from chest height.  It would bounce back, just as high.  Obviously, doing this with a fiberglass shell would get expensive, as you could only do that demo once per shell.  The other item we had was a complete polycarbonate helmet, cracked in half, showing what happens when poly's abilities to resist impact are exceeded.  I don't think polycarbonate technology has changed to the point that makes it absorb impact any more than it did.

Now, the Motorcyclist article may have some valid points regarding what Snell may have become.  But it does not address the OP's question regarding aging fiberglass.  And it doesn't convince me, because it mentions price as a factor.  There are some things that money shouldn't factor into.  The article doesn't say composite helmets aren't better than poly helmets.  They just complain that the Snell sticker can add $30 to $100 to the price of a helmet.  Isn't your head worth more than you could ever pay for a helmet?  Mine is.