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

[dvt]

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, which was trimmed from this message.

> 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

 

[Sorni]

dvt wrote:
> 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, which was trimmed from this message.

They don't sell helmets among other cycling accessories on there?
(Newsgroup restored so no one missed this vital discussion.) And why did
you trim the OTHER groups?

>> 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.

But you yourself posted the above /exception/ to the rest of your post,
making it moot. Did you READ what you posted?!?

>> 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.

Don't mention it :-D

 

[Matt O'Toole]

On Mon, 08 May 2006 07:24:53 -0700, 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.

Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've all
seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from exposure to
the elements, but we forget they've been lying around outside for decades,
and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets may get a few hours a day of
exposure, a few times a week, if that. Newer ones have non-structural
plastic caps on them, and dyes in the styrofoam to protect from UV. So
the structural styrofoam is well protected. Basically this is not worth
worrying about.

Matt O.

 

[Neil Brooks]

What scares me most here is the near certainty that I'm the only one
who's reminded of that old Terry Jacks song;

We had joy
We had fun
We had helmets in the sun...

Man ... was that song a bag of downers or what?

 

[[email protected]]

Matt O'Toole wrote:
>
> Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've all
> seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from exposure to
> the elements, but we forget they've been lying around outside for decades,
> and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets may get a few hours a day of
> exposure, a few times a week, if that. Newer ones have non-structural
> plastic caps on them, and dyes in the styrofoam to protect from UV. So
> the structural styrofoam is well protected. Basically this is not worth
> worrying about.

I agree that foam breakdown from direct sunlight is unlikely to be a
problem.

OTOH, I had a person show me her helmet with a cracked "microshell."
The thin vacuum-formed plastic that carried the decorations seemed to
have gotten very brittle. Or perhaps it always was brittle. In any
case, a very minor bump (she dropped the helmet from about three feet)
caused a chunk of that plastic to break off, and it was obvious the
rest was fragile.

I wondered if this was intended to sell helmets. In her case, the
broken-out bit wasn't very conspicuous, but I could see the helmet
looking bad after a few repetitions. Some people might buy a new
helmet just because the first looked ratty. Others might become
convinced the magic had leaked out.

Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his VP
position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed) because
he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to degrade from UV
exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course. He never named
the company, and it was just a remark in passing.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>
>> Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've
>> all seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from
>> exposure to the elements, but we forget they've been lying around
>> outside for decades, and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets
>> may get a few hours a day of exposure, a few times a week, if that.
>> Newer ones have non-structural plastic caps on them, and dyes in the
>> styrofoam to protect from UV. So the structural styrofoam is well
>> protected. Basically this is not worth worrying about.
>
> I agree that foam breakdown from direct sunlight is unlikely to be a
> problem.
>
> OTOH, I had a person show me her helmet with a cracked "microshell."
> The thin vacuum-formed plastic that carried the decorations seemed to
> have gotten very brittle. Or perhaps it always was brittle. In any
> case, a very minor bump (she dropped the helmet from about three feet)
> caused a chunk of that plastic to break off, and it was obvious the
> rest was fragile.
>
> I wondered if this was intended to sell helmets. In her case, the
> broken-out bit wasn't very conspicuous, but I could see the helmet
> looking bad after a few repetitions. Some people might buy a new
> helmet just because the first looked ratty. Others might become
> convinced the magic had leaked out.
>
> Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his
> VP position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed)
> because he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to
> degrade from UV exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course.
> He never named the company, and it was just a remark in passing.

"She dropped the helmet from about three feet."

How convenient!

 

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 08 May 2006 11:48:05 -0400, "David L. Johnson"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>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.

Dear David,

I wonder what the result would be if we compared a
single-impact styrofoam helmet test with a similar bonk on a
plastic shower cap filled with Cheerios?

(In case a Cheerio is unfamiliar to our far-flung group,
it's a tiny semi-edible breakfast cereal ring with a hollow
center.)

I know that Cheerios do get stale and hard if left in the
sun.

But what exactly is the effect of the sun or heat on
styrofoam? Does the stuff get harder? Crack?

Cheer(io)s,

Carl Fogel

 

[Werehatrack]

On Mon, 08 May 2006 18:31:34 GMT, Neil Brooks <[email protected]>
wrote:

>What scares me most here is the near certainty that I'm the only one
>who's reminded of that old Terry Jacks song;
>
>We had joy
>We had fun
>We had helmets in the sun...
>
>Man ... was that song a bag of downers or what?

Ummm, no, you weren't the only one.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Sorni" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Matt O'Toole wrote:
>>>
>>> Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've
>>> all seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from
>>> exposure to the elements, but we forget they've been lying around
>>> outside for decades, and exposed to worse things than UV. Helmets
>>> may get a few hours a day of exposure, a few times a week, if that.
>>> Newer ones have non-structural plastic caps on them, and dyes in the
>>> styrofoam to protect from UV. So the structural styrofoam is well
>>> protected. Basically this is not worth worrying about.
>>
>> I agree that foam breakdown from direct sunlight is unlikely to be a
>> problem.
>>
>> OTOH, I had a person show me her helmet with a cracked "microshell."
>> The thin vacuum-formed plastic that carried the decorations seemed to
>> have gotten very brittle. Or perhaps it always was brittle. In any
>> case, a very minor bump (she dropped the helmet from about three feet)
>> caused a chunk of that plastic to break off, and it was obvious the
>> rest was fragile.
>>
>> I wondered if this was intended to sell helmets. In her case, the
>> broken-out bit wasn't very conspicuous, but I could see the helmet
>> looking bad after a few repetitions. Some people might buy a new
>> helmet just because the first looked ratty. Others might become
>> convinced the magic had leaked out.
>>
>> Note, I recall reading an article where a man talked of quitting his
>> VP position at a consumer products company, in part (he claimed)
>> because he found out they purposely compounded plastic items to
>> degrade from UV exposure. Can't say for sure it was true, of course.
>> He never named the company, and it was just a remark in passing.
>
> "She dropped the helmet from about three feet."
>
> How convenient!

I've seen the same thing. 3' just happens to be the approximate height of
the helmet if you sit it on the handlebars as some riders do or hook it over
the lever.

 

[NYC XYZ]

More wife, less usenet.

Problem solved. Two cents, please.



Paul Hobson wrote:
>
>
> Honestly, NYC XYZ annoys the **** out of me. It boggles my mind that
> people reply to this "former NYC messenger's" asinine questions. That
> said, I'm confident that these posts belong neither in rec.bikes.tech or
> rec.bikes.marketplace.
>
> Maybe they do. Who knows?
> \\paul

 

[NYC XYZ]

Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
>
>
> 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



Um, I doubt they'd get away with a disclaimer which disavows the
intended use of the product!

 

[NYC XYZ]

Wearing the helmet on your ass voids the warranty.



Martin Borsje wrote:
>
>
> The UV rays will not reach the foam inside your helmet.....
>
>
> --
> Posted by news://news.nb.nu

 

[Werehatrack]

On Mon, 08 May 2006 13:26:13 -0600, [email protected] wrote:

>But what exactly is the effect of the sun or heat on
>styrofoam? Does the stuff get harder? Crack?

Styrofoam, exposed to UV, depolymerizes from the surface inward; the
material literally turns to gritty dust. I have not tried to
determine if the dust continues to decompose and/or what the products
may be. Exposed to sufficient heat, it sags, shrinks, and forms beads
of polystyrene. It would be inadvisable to be wearing the helmet at
these temps, as the heat would do bad things to your skin and hair.
(As in, things beyond the ability of even high-priced moisturizers to
rectify.)

This may not be indicative of what a bike helmet will do when exposed
to UV or excessive heat, however, because numerous polymer resin foams
are used in their manufacture, not just polystyrene foam. I doubt
that any of them would respond by turning into sentient evil
brain-sucking creatures, but perhaps it might be best to err on the
side of prudence and avoid such risks, however small they may be.
--
Typoes are a feature, not a bug.
Some gardening required to reply via email.
Words processed in a facility that contains nuts.

 

[Chalo]

NYC XYZ wrote:
>
> 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!

Energy-absorbing car bumpers are made from EPS foam, like helmets.
Automakers don't seem terribly concerned about the implications of
exposing a car bumper to environmental levels of heat. Of course, they
know if they tell you "replace your bumper if it gets hot", then that
will make you less inclined to buy their particular product again,
whereas the functional monopoly on bike helmets makes any helmet
replacement an overwhelmingly likely sale for Bell Sports (who make
both Bell and Giro helmets).

Chalo Colina

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per Matt O'Toole:
>Gary, it takes *a lot* of UV exposure to break down plastics. We've all
>seen styrofoam cups, coolers, and beach toys crumbling from exposure to
>the elements....

The rule of thumb that I hear for mylar windsurfing sails is about 300 hours.
Obviously simplistic bc it doesn't take latitude into account... but at least
it's a ballpark figure. After 300 hours, the material will acquire more and
more of a tendency to tear almost spontaneously.

And I've got to think that mylar is a *lot* more fragile that what they coat a
helmet with....
--
PeteCresswell

 

[Sid]

> 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.


Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.

Sid

 

[Sorni]

Sid wrote:
{somone else wrote}

>> 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.

> Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit
> my hit while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.

But...but...you haven't STUDIED THE ISSUE. (Apparently it supplants common
sense after a while.)

HTH, BS

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

Sid wrote:
> > 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.
>
>
> Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
> while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.
>
>

Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?

 

[Mark Janeba]

[email protected] wrote:
> But what exactly is the effect of the sun or heat on
> styrofoam? Does the stuff get harder? Crack?

As I recall, the problem with high heat wasn't for the styro, but for
the semi-flexi, semi-hard shells around them.

At least when the first super-thin-hardshell* helmets first appeared,
there were reports from people who had left them on the dashboard or in
the trunk in a closed car in summer sun and found the outer shell had
warped badly and come detached.

Well, maybe it hurts the styro as well, but this is the only anecdote
I've heard.

[*] Not the thick shells like the original Bell Bikers or V1-pros, but
the thin shells that are about as thick as a plastic slurpee cup. Don't
know how else to describe the distinction, sorry.

Mark

 

[[email protected]]

Ozark Bicycle wrote:
> Sid wrote:
> >
> > Yeah, OK. So, what is your point. I would rather fall over and hit my hit
> > while wearing a helmet than while not wearing a helmet.
>
> Seems so commonsensical, doesn't it? I am amazed at those who can't
> grasp this simple point. Are they blinded by their anti-helmet agenda?

I'd describe the point as "simplistic" rather than "simple."

Ozark and Sorni are big fans of reducing complex issues down to levels
they can understand. That seems to preclude actually learning anything
- hence Sorni's mockery of study, and Ozark's refusal to consider that
"common sense" is often wrong.

So we have the above pair, quite content to strenuously defend a device
that is obviously under-designed, because - what? It's better than
nothing, even if it's no good for its advertised purpose?

And to advocate its use only for cycling - why? Because cycling is
responsible for such a tiny number of head injuries, compared to other
sources?

Of course, they haven't assimilated the fact that the best data
indicates these things don't work, and aren't generally needed anyway -
how could they? That would require reading!

But they laugh at the idea of taking any time to read any serious
studies on this issue - why? Because they need all their time to
blather on Usenet?

I'd suggest learning enough about this issue to at _least_ defend your
views logically, based on real-world facts instead of overconfident
daydreams. But I know that won't happen.

- Frank Krygowski