Can't Use Helmets in the Sun????



N

NYC XYZ

Guest
Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so
far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding
comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me
over yet or kicked me out. =)

Thing is, I actually like this helmet. It's so comfortable I not only
wouldn't mind wearing it if I had to, but I almost want to wear it just
for the heck of it! Maybe in winter-time I will, for a bit of head
warmth (which I really don't need, but it's a $100 helmet, after
all...). =D

Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading
manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all
Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or
indirect heat might damage the helmet.

Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet????

Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they
aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of
the styrofoam's molecular structure??? (Materials Science is such an
interesting field...they're building the world's biggest Neutron
Smasher or whatever-it's-called down in TN or somewhere...they hope to
come up with all kinds of exotic materials due to understanding and
then manipulating subatomic physics!)

I still hope no one forces me to wear a helemt...but this Giro Roc Loc
4 is so comfy I would hardly mind wearing one now. Just funny to think
that it might not do any good anyway due to prolonged exposure to
direct sunlight!
 
NYC XYZ wrote:
> Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so
> far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding
> comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me
> over yet or kicked me out. =)
>
> Thing is, I actually like this helmet. It's so comfortable I not only
> wouldn't mind wearing it if I had to, but I almost want to wear it just
> for the heck of it! Maybe in winter-time I will, for a bit of head
> warmth (which I really don't need, but it's a $100 helmet, after
> all...). =D
>
> Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading
> manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all
> Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or
> indirect heat might damage the helmet.
>
> Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet????
>
> Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they
> aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of
> the styrofoam's molecular structure??? (Materials Science is such an
> interesting field...they're building the world's biggest Neutron
> Smasher or whatever-it's-called down in TN or somewhere...they hope to
> come up with all kinds of exotic materials due to understanding and
> then manipulating subatomic physics!)
>
> I still hope no one forces me to wear a helemt...but this Giro Roc Loc
> 4 is so comfy I would hardly mind wearing one now. Just funny to think
> that it might not do any good anyway due to prolonged exposure to
> direct sunlight!


The marketeers would like you to believe that you should replace your
helmet if:

- You drop it
- You leave it in a hot car
- It is exposed to UV
- It is more than X years old
etc., etc.

The truth is that most helmets are *very* profitable and thay will say
and do nearly anything to get you to ditch the one you have now and buy
a new one.

Just use common sense
 
NYC XYZ wrote:
> Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so
> far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding
> comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me
> over yet or kicked me out. =)
>
> Thing is, I actually like this helmet. It's so comfortable I not only
> wouldn't mind wearing it if I had to, but I almost want to wear it just
> for the heck of it! Maybe in winter-time I will, for a bit of head
> warmth (which I really don't need, but it's a $100 helmet, after
> all...). =D
>
> Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading
> manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all
> Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or
> indirect heat might damage the helmet.
>
> Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet????
>
> Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they
> aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of
> the styrofoam's molecular structure??? (Materials Science is such an
> interesting field...they're building the world's biggest Neutron
> Smasher or whatever-it's-called down in TN or somewhere...they hope to
> come up with all kinds of exotic materials due to understanding and
> then manipulating subatomic physics!)
>
> I still hope no one forces me to wear a helemt...but this Giro Roc Loc
> 4 is so comfy I would hardly mind wearing one now. Just funny to think
> that it might not do any good anyway due to prolonged exposure to
> direct sunlight!
>


Well UV rays damage lots of things, the most important being your skin
plus rubber, plastics and painted surfaces, just to name a few. So it
sounds logical that the foam in your $100 plus helmet might be damaged
by those blasted UV rays also.

Ken
--
New cycling jersey: $49
new cycling shorts: $39
Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.
 
Ozark Bicycle wrote:
>
>
> The marketeers would like you to believe that you should replace your
> helmet if:
>
> - You drop it
> - You leave it in a hot car
> - It is exposed to UV
> - It is more than X years old
> etc., etc.
>
> The truth is that most helmets are *very* profitable and thay will say
> and do nearly anything to get you to ditch the one you have now and buy
> a new one.
>
> Just use common sense



Right -- I was only wondering, though, how they could sound as if
they're admitting that their helmets are useless! I mean, I was always
suspicious of mere styrofoam, but if even they themselves will say that
mere sunlight and heat can damage it -- and thus negate the whole point
of wearing one...well, I dunno, maybe helmets are for dummies who can't
see the contradiction in that!
 
Ken C. M. wrote:
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>
>
> Well UV rays damage lots of things, the most important being your skin
> plus rubber, plastics and painted surfaces, just to name a few. So it
> sounds logical that the foam in your $100 plus helmet might be damaged
> by those blasted UV rays also.
>
> Ken
> --
> New cycling jersey: $49
> new cycling shorts: $39
> Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.



Yes, I know, but for a helmet maker to say that is tantamount to saying
that the helmet is...basically useless! I mean, it's supposed to be a
critical part of one's riding gear, but it's got an undetermined "shelf
life!"
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> >
> >
> > The marketeers would like you to believe that you should replace your
> > helmet if:
> >
> > - You drop it
> > - You leave it in a hot car
> > - It is exposed to UV
> > - It is more than X years old
> > etc., etc.
> >
> > The truth is that most helmets are *very* profitable and thay will say
> > and do nearly anything to get you to ditch the one you have now and buy
> > a new one.
> >
> > Just use common sense

>
>
> Right -- I was only wondering, though, how they could sound as if
> they're admitting that their helmets are useless! I mean, I was always
> suspicious of mere styrofoam, but if even they themselves will say that
> mere sunlight and heat can damage it -- and thus negate the whole point
> of wearing one...well, I dunno, maybe helmets are for dummies who can't
> see the contradiction in that!


By "heat", I would assume that they're referring to what it might get
sitting on a steam radiator in your house, or on the dash of your
closed-up car in the middle of the summer. Not what it would get from
you wearing it during the summer.

--
Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
newsgroups if possible).
 
"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Ken C. M. wrote:
> > NYC XYZ wrote:
> >
> >
> > Well UV rays damage lots of things, the most important being your skin
> > plus rubber, plastics and painted surfaces, just to name a few. So it
> > sounds logical that the foam in your $100 plus helmet might be damaged
> > by those blasted UV rays also.
> >
> > Ken
> > --
> > New cycling jersey: $49
> > new cycling shorts: $39
> > Not being a slave to the petrol pump: priceless.

>
>
> Yes, I know, but for a helmet maker to say that is tantamount to saying
> that the helmet is...basically useless! I mean, it's supposed to be a
> critical part of one's riding gear, but it's got an undetermined "shelf
> life!"


Get a clue, NYC...many outdoor products have a "shelf life" (e.g., tents,
lawn furniture, etc.), due to the effects of UV and heat.

In the case of helmets, there's also the fact that they are designed to be
light and comfortable. You could probably design a stainless steel helmet
that was not subject to UV breakdown...but, you wouldn't want to wear it.

GG
 
GaryG wrote:

> In the case of helmets, there's also the fact that they are designed to be
> light and comfortable.


Relatively light and not especially uncomfortable is nearer the mark.

> You could probably design a stainless steel helmet
> that was not subject to UV breakdown...but, you wouldn't want to wear it.


Knowing the specification to which cycle helmets are built, and knowing
they are considerably less comfortable than a cotton cap, and knowing
they don't have any track record of saving serious injuries, I don't
really want to bother myself with the polystyrene ones as far as normal
road riding is concerned.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net [email protected] http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
 
GaryG wrote:
>
>
> Get a clue, NYC...many outdoor products have a "shelf life" (e.g., tents,
> lawn furniture, etc.), due to the effects of UV and heat.
>
> In the case of helmets, there's also the fact that they are designed to be
> light and comfortable. You could probably design a stainless steel helmet
> that was not subject to UV breakdown...but, you wouldn't want to wear it.
>
> GG



The point, again, is that this is a piece of safety equipment --
CRITICAL, to hear folks speak of it -- which can somehow fail simply
from being in "heat"...which I take to mean sunlight as well, most of
all. Considering that most biking is done in the summertime, in
daytime, etc., this characteristic seems to fundamentally contradict
the very purpose of the product!
 
UseNet via Cable Modem wrote:
>
>
> By "heat", I would assume that they're referring to what it might get
> sitting on a steam radiator in your house, or on the dash of your
> closed-up car in the middle of the summer. Not what it would get from
> you wearing it during the summer.
>
> --
> Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
> newsgroups if possible).



That's the thing -- the exact wording is "direct or indirect heat" --
which I take to mean sunlight as well, and UV exposure in particular.

Just seems an astounding fine-print, if I'm reading this correctly! I
mean, we're talking about the most critical piece of safety equipment
for an activity that generally takes place at daytime in summer....
 
The "shelf life" of a helmet is VERY long. While sun and UV lights do
degrade a helmet, this degradation is very slow and only effects the
surface layers. Over time the foam does change it's characteristics but
that changes appear to be a wash as far as protection ability of the
helmet.

That being said a helmet offers almost no protection. Do NOT be fooled
into thinking that a helmet will protect your head in all but the very
slightest of accidents.

While 90% of all accidents fall into that catagory you should probably
be aware that just falling over and hitting your head against a curb
will substantially exceed the protective capacity of a helmet.

Wear a helmet if you prefer but don't let it take the place of
intelligent riding. Don't run stop signs. Always ride on the correct
side of the road. Remember that riding with others is perhaps the most
dangerous part of a ride since touching wheels will take you down
faster than anything else.
 
From http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html:

/Don't excessively cross-post/

* Cross-posting refers to posting a message to more than one group
at a time, in the same post.
* If a message truly belongs in multiple groups, by all means
cross-post. In fact it is better to cross-post than to post the same
message separately to different groups.
* Be careful when replying to a post. The initial post may have
been inappropriately cross-posted; if you do not edit the list of
newsgroups, your reply will also be inappropriately cross-posted.
* Consider setting "followups" to one group. Your post may be
relevant to 3 groups, but you can set followups to one group and then
the discussion will continue there. When using the followup header, it
is nice to put in the message somewhere "Followups set."

And from http://www.use-net.ch/netiquette_engl.html:

/Avoid posting to multiple newsgroups/
Few things annoy Usenet readers as much as multiple copies of a posting
appearing in multiple newsgroups.

NYCXYZ, please stop cross-posting or at least set the Followup-to for
one group. Thanks.

The followups to this message are set to rec.bicycles.misc, a group that
I rarely visit but seems most appropriate for this discussion.
 
NYC XYZ wrote:
> UseNet via Cable Modem wrote:
> >
> >
> > By "heat", I would assume that they're referring to what it might get
> > sitting on a steam radiator in your house, or on the dash of your
> > closed-up car in the middle of the summer. Not what it would get from
> > you wearing it during the summer.
> >
> > --
> > Remove the ns_ from if replying by e-mail (but keep posts in the
> > newsgroups if possible).

>
>
> That's the thing -- the exact wording is "direct or indirect heat" --
> which I take to mean sunlight as well, and UV exposure in particular.
>
> Just seems an astounding fine-print, if I'm reading this correctly! I
> mean, we're talking about the most critical piece of safety equipment
> for an activity that generally takes place at daytime in summer....


Uh, no...."the most critical piece of safety equipment" sits behind
your eyes and between your ears. Always take it with you, wherever you
go, whatever you do.
 
{newsgroups restored}

dvt wrote:
> From http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html:
>
> /Don't excessively cross-post/
>
> * Cross-posting refers to posting a message to more than one group
> at a time, in the same post.


> * If a message /truly belongs/ in multiple groups, by all means
> cross-post. In fact it is /better/ to cross-post than to post the same
> message separately to different groups. {italics added}


HELLO?!? Which of the groups above are inappropriate???

While I'm 92.3% sure the OP was a troll, it WAS on topic for the groups in
which it was...cast.

By posting your holier-than-thou admonition to just ONE group, people in the
others were deprived of your much-needed {netcop sarcams mode} wisdom.

Bill "and no, sarcams ain't no typo" S.

> The followups to this message are set to rec.bicycles.misc, a group
> that I rarely visit but seems most appropriate for this discussion.


What a maroon...
 
> NYC XYZ wrote:
>> Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so
>> far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding
>> comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me
>> over yet or kicked me out. =)
>>
>> Thing is, I actually like this helmet. It's so comfortable I not only
>> wouldn't mind wearing it if I had to, but I almost want to wear it just
>> for the heck of it! Maybe in winter-time I will, for a bit of head
>> warmth (which I really don't need, but it's a $100 helmet, after
>> all...). =D
>>
>> Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading
>> manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all
>> Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or
>> indirect heat might damage the helmet.
>>
>> Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet????
>>
>> Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they
>> aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of
>> the styrofoam's molecular structure??? (Materials Science is such an
>> interesting field...they're building the world's biggest Neutron
>> Smasher or whatever-it's-called down in TN or somewhere...they hope to
>> come up with all kinds of exotic materials due to understanding and
>> then manipulating subatomic physics!)
>>
>> I still hope no one forces me to wear a helemt...but this Giro Roc Loc
>> 4 is so comfy I would hardly mind wearing one now. Just funny to think
>> that it might not do any good anyway due to prolonged exposure to
>> direct sunlight!
>>

>
> Well UV rays damage lots of things, the most important being your skin plus
> rubber, plastics and painted surfaces, just to name a few. So it sounds
> logical that the foam in your $100 plus helmet might be damaged by those
> blasted UV rays also.
>
> Ken


The UV rays will not reach the foam inside your helmet.....


--
Posted by news://news.nb.nu
 
On Mon, 08 May 2006 06:15:09 -0700, NYC XYZ wrote:

> Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading
> manuals with his cereal??


You're supposed to read the cereal box.

> Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they
> aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of
> the styrofoam's molecular structure???


The helmet manufacturers would love you to think that. For me, it's so
hard to get one that fits that I wear it until the straps decompose.
Which, last time, was only a couple years.

--

David L. Johnson

__o | "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored
_`\(,_ | by little statesmen and philosophers and divines." --Ralph Waldo
(_)/ (_) | Emerson
 
> Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading
> manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all
> Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or
> indirect heat might damage the helmet.
>
> Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet????


No. What it means is that it may, in fact, "melt" if left in your car with
the windows rolled up. This does happen; car interiors can get incredibly
hot under certain conditions. Worse things happen than melted helmets inside
cars. Giro, and probably most other helmet manufacturers, get a lot of
claims (warranty demands) for helmets that were subject to such heat. The
materials used in a helmet are chosen for suitability in the environment
they're normally used.

But it absolutely, positively will not be rendered useless by riding in
normal conditions. If you were doing a tour on Mercury or Venus? Yeah, it
would probably melt. Don't do that.

As for warnings that the helmet is useless for any and all purposes, those
are standard disclaimers found on many safety products, meant to deflect
lawyers who would argue the absurd notion that the helmet should have been
able to protect in virtually any foreseeable circumstance; thus, helmets are
marketed as much as a fashion item as they are anything having to do with
protecting your skull. Don't blame the helmet companies for that one; in
general, the easiest way to be a target is to manufacture something,
anything, and claim it will make you safer.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com


"NYC XYZ" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so
> far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding
> comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me
> over yet or kicked me out. =)
>
> Thing is, I actually like this helmet. It's so comfortable I not only
> wouldn't mind wearing it if I had to, but I almost want to wear it just
> for the heck of it! Maybe in winter-time I will, for a bit of head
> warmth (which I really don't need, but it's a $100 helmet, after
> all...). =D
>
> Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading
> manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all
> Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or
> indirect heat might damage the helmet.
>
> Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet????
>
> Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they
> aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of
> the styrofoam's molecular structure??? (Materials Science is such an
> interesting field...they're building the world's biggest Neutron
> Smasher or whatever-it's-called down in TN or somewhere...they hope to
> come up with all kinds of exotic materials due to understanding and
> then manipulating subatomic physics!)
>
> I still hope no one forces me to wear a helemt...but this Giro Roc Loc
> 4 is so comfy I would hardly mind wearing one now. Just funny to think
> that it might not do any good anyway due to prolonged exposure to
> direct sunlight!
>
 
On 8 May 2006 06:15:09 -0700, "NYC XYZ" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>
>Okay, so I got a nice new helmet for club rides and such. Luckily, so
>far, no one's been a Helmet Nazi about it -- just mild chiding
>comments, but I just smile and keep pedalling and no one's pulled me
>over yet or kicked me out. =)


<mode="snarky">

Shouldn't that be <=) now? No, wait, it's a Giro, make it {=)

>Thing is, I actually like this helmet. It's so comfortable I not only
>wouldn't mind wearing it if I had to, but I almost want to wear it just
>for the heck of it!


Mantra: This will not prevent STDs.

Oh, wait, it will prevent the *cause* of STDs. Unless she's...no,
let's not go there.

>Maybe in winter-time I will, for a bit of head
>warmth (which I really don't need, but it's a $100 helmet, after
>all...). =D


Damn, that's more than I've paid for every bike helmet I've ever had,
altogether.

>Anyway, I'm reading the manual -- am I the only guy who likes reading
>manuals with his cereal?? -- and I notice in Giro's one-size-fits-all
>Owner's Manual that they explictly state *twice* that direct or
>indirect heat might damage the helmet.


Giro is reportedly owned by Bell. Such exactness is therefore
expected. Or else, obviously, the only safe way to store or use the
helmet is in the absence of heat, i.e. at 0 K, which would necessitate
that the wearer would need to be similarly cool-headed. Perhaps this
could afford us the opportunity to investigate Niven's postulate that
the brain might become a superconductor at that temp. Inquiring minds
want to know!

>Could that mean that the summer sun's going to damage the helmet????


If you're in the habit or parking under magnifying glasses, quite
possibly.

>Are we supposed to replace our helmets every year or two, even if they
>aren't banged up, simply due to, I dunno, UV-induced deterioration of
>the styrofoam's molecular structure???


This message brought to you by the marketing department of the Sirius
Cybernetics Corporation.

>(Materials Science is such an
>interesting field...they're building the world's biggest Neutron
>Smasher or whatever-it's-called down in TN or somewhere...they hope to
>come up with all kinds of exotic materials due to understanding and
>then manipulating subatomic physics!)


Sigh.

>I still hope no one forces me to wear a helemt...


I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either."
I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either."
I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either."
I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either."
I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either."
I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either."
I Will Refrain From Saying "Or A Helmet, Either."
Really, I will. I promise.

>but this Giro Roc Loc
>4 is so comfy I would hardly mind wearing one now.


I -do not- want to know what you were doing when you wrote that. In
fact, I am reasonably certain that I actively want to -not know- what
you were doing, and have a strong interest in failing to investigate
whether that is an accurate perception.

>Just funny to think
>that it might not do any good anyway due to prolonged exposure to
>direct sunlight!


Oh, the opportunities.

</mode> (regrettably, I am unable to find an example of a "rolling
the eyes and shaking the head" smiley.)

Remember: The important part of the helmet is the part on your head,
not the box or the propaganda.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.
 
Sorni wrote:
> dvt wrote:
>> From http://www.newsreaders.com/guide/netiquette.html:
>>
>> /Don't excessively cross-post/
>>
>> * Cross-posting refers to posting a message to more than one group
>> at a time, in the same post.

>
>> * If a message /truly belongs/ in multiple groups, by all means
>> cross-post. In fact it is /better/ to cross-post than to post the same
>> message separately to different groups. {italics added}

>
> HELLO?!? Which of the groups above are inappropriate???


r.b.marketplace.

> While I'm 92.3% sure the OP was a troll, it WAS on topic for the groups in
> which it was...cast.


No, it was not on topic. See above. And thanks for snipping the other,
more pertinent parts of my post.

> By posting your holier-than-thou admonition to just ONE group, people in the
> others were deprived of your much-needed {netcop sarcams mode} wisdom.


> What a maroon...


Thanks, Bill.

--
Dave
dvt at psu dot edu
 
We had joy, we had fun, we wore helmets in the sun,
But the pedals we could reach wouldn't take us to the beach.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.