PLEASE BRING HELMET TO TECH - Next race weekend 8/9

[dirkterrell]

I've been looking around for the date that the Shoei RF-1000 was introduced and the earliest reviews I've seen were 2004. I trashed my Arai last race weekend and my backup is the RF-1000 that I bought in 2006. The problem is that the date code is on a sticker on the inside of the chin and it is worn off because that's where my thumb goes to move the helmet up and down when I put it on. (Well, the month is there but the year is worn off.) Anyone know when the RF-1000 was introduced? If it was 2004, then obviously the helmet is less than 5 years old.

Dirk

[T Baggins]

there should be a separate sticker, on the foam part, under the liner near the top of your head. Not the SNELL sticker, but there is another sticker that actually shows the month and year of manufacture.

[dirkterrell]

there should be a separate sticker, on the foam part, under the liner near the top of your head. Not the SNELL sticker, but there is another sticker that actually shows the month and year of manufacture.

Thanks Tony. I'll look for that. I'm hoping to hold off buying another Arai until the RX-7 RR5 arrives in the States.

Dirk

[gsnyder828]

I've been looking around for the date that the Shoei RF-1000 was introduced and the earliest reviews I've seen were 2004. I trashed my Arai last race weekend and my backup is the RF-1000 that I bought in 2006. The problem is that the date code is on a sticker on the inside of the chin and it is worn off because that's where my thumb goes to move the helmet up and down when I put it on. (Well, the month is there but the year is worn off.) Anyone know when the RF-1000 was introduced? If it was 2004, then obviously the helmet is less than 5 years old.

Dirk

Dirk - I had the same problem with my RF1000... and called Shoei about it.

The actual date code is by the left ear, under the liner. There is a gold Snell sticker under the liner - and below that is a white, rectangular sticker with a date code on it that reads: YYMMDD (i.e. mine reads 040210 - meaning Feb 10th, 2004 is the mfg. date).

[dirkterrell]

Dirk - I had the same problem with my RF1000... and called Shoei about it.

The actual date code is by the left ear, under the liner. There is a gold Snell sticker under the liner - and below that is a white, rectangular sticker with a date code on it that reads: YYMMDD (i.e. mine reads 040210 - meaning Feb 10th, 2004 is the mfg. date).

Excellent. Thanks Geoff!

Dirk

[Ray-Ray]

The magic date is 04/26/03. If your helmet is older then that you WILL NOT BE ABLE TO RACE with that helmet. No Exceptions! Please make sure your helmet meets rule 6.2.7.1. If your helmet does not comply to this rule you will NOT get a tech sticker until you can prove you have a good helmet. I will also be placing a sticker on your helmet to verify the date code is OK so there will be NO question on pre-grid that your helmet is good or not.

You are also required to place your race number on the side of your helmet close to the chin area in contrasting colors so its clearly visible.

Faster has agreed to bring a limited supply of helmets to have on hand just in case you will need a new one. BUT don't wait until the last minute to realize you have an old helmet and check your helmet date before its to late.

Thanks,
Ray-Ray

[LEVIATHAN]

I was surprised to find out that several of my brand new helmets are already too old to be used in our club. Because they have never been worn, I wasn't too worried about 5 years of sweat breaking them down. I understand most rules...but this one still has me spinning :? .

The fact that a $75 helmet can and will pass tech over a brand new $750+ Arai Helmet because of the Mfg. date which even the AMA doesn't enforce....I mean, what would you trust in a full-on collision, honestly? The D.O.T. and SNELL approvals actually make sense. But theories on sweat + wear + years = ??WTF??

I'd love to see the lab studies on this. That lab must own a motorcycle shop with a fresh supply of helmets in Colorado :lol: .
Time to open up the old wallet one more time and B.O.H.I.C.A. (Bend Over Here It Comes Again!) :lol:

[cu260r6]

Good point. Can someone point to any objective evidence underlying this new regulation or was it contrived purely based on speculation? I emailed several helmet makers and the one that replied back said it was a misconception that the styrofoam would degrade enough in 5 years to compromise the safety value of the helmet.

[Wahooman]

I was surprised to find out that several of my brand new helmets are already too old to be used in our club. Because they have never been worn, I wasn't too worried about 5 years of sweat breaking them down. I understand most rules...but this one still has me spinning :? .

The fact that a $75 helmet can and will pass tech over a brand new $750+ Arai Helmet because of the Mfg. date which even the AMA doesn't enforce....I mean, what would you trust in a full-on collision, honestly? The D.O.T. and SNELL approvals actually make sense. But theories on sweat + wear + years = ??WTF??

I'd love to see the lab studies on this. That lab must own a motorcycle shop with a fresh supply of helmets in Colorado :lol: .
Time to open up the old wallet one more time and B.O.H.I.C.A. (Bend Over Here It Comes Again!) :lol:

That was the one thing that came to mind when I read this. Many of the stores, both local and online have helmets that are not "2008" being sold. My helmet was "BRAND NEW" this year---Suomy. However from the date code its already 3 years old with never being worn.
Your point with a $75.00 helmet is valid I believe.
Personally I would much rather trust my melon in a 5 year old good condition Suomy over a BRAND NEW $75.00 XXXX helmet!!
This might be something we want to re-look at come rule changes?

[polar x]

Why are you guys complaining about an OLD rule that is being enforced? :roll: If you don't like it then offer a change for next year.

Or just crash more (like me ops: ) and replace them every year. regardless of what your position is on this, ITS IN THE RULE BOOK and has been for a while. Now that Ray is enforcing it, is not the time to bitch about it...... your alittle late to the party.

(soap box pet peeve ) I am done now.

[hcr25]

[quote="LEVIATHAN"] The D.O.T. and SNELL approvals actually make sense. But theories on sweat + wear + years = ??WTF??

This is from the Snell website.........


Finally, the protective capability may diminish over time. Some
helmets are made of materials which deteriorate with age and therefore
have a limited life span. At the present time, the Foundation recommends
that motorcycle helmets be replaced after five (5) years, or less if
the manufacturer so recommends.

this info can be found here

http://smf.org/stds.html

2005 Helmet Standard For Use in Motorcycling. pdf file (1000 KB)

then look at the pdf file section 8

[LEVIATHAN]

Thanks a bunch. It's unfortunate that they still don't offer any actual evidence, only recomendations (how nice). It just tells me that the foundation holds stock in the helmet manufactures :lol:

And it still doesn't change the fact that my brand new Arai will protect me better than a taiwan piece of sh** made in the last 5 years which will pass tech.

Yes, I know it's a little late to be bitching........but hey, isn't that what the forum is for ? Discussions like these are educational and somewhat entertaining. I'm sure someone's laughing all the way to the bank.

Cheers

[dragos13]

I just wish I could keep a helmet long enough to expire. Lets see, second year racing and currently on my fourth helmet.

And some people say crashing isn't good for anything :twisted:

[The GECCO]

And it still doesn't change the fact that my brand new Arai will protect me better than a taiwan piece of sh** made in the last 5 years which will pass tech.

Not necessarily. Check out this excellent article http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/ge...iew/index.html Some of the best performing helmets they tested cost less than $100.00.

[LEVIATHAN]

Thanks Glenn, you are the man.

This is an AWESOME article and it clears up a lot of grey area with findings based on facts and testing. I believe this has the substance to base standards around.

No surprise that it never even touches on our 5 year degradation mystery theory which is now our standard........

-Ron

[The GECCO]

First, as has been pointed out numerous times, this is not "now" our standard, rules regarding helmet age have been in the book for as long as I can remember. Ray should not be villainized for, ya know, actually enforcing the rules.

Second, you're right, that article didn't touch on the time issue at all - proving OR disproving it. Your implication that the fact that they didn't address it automatically means it is invalid is shortsighted.

[LEVIATHAN]

Absolutely.

Ray is only enforcing the rule book and I am aiming nothing at him. He does an awesome job trying to keep us all in one peice.
I was only trying to figure out the basis behind this rule (probably long before my time) and why my helmets weren't GOOD ENOUGH.

At some point there had to be more than a Snell recomendation of "5 years" to make this the clubs standard. Especially when this article itself basically calls Snell a bad marketing sceme.

-Ron

[T Baggins]

The 5 years is, I'm sure, a combination of designed obsolescence and CYA. Pretty much everything degrades over time (even perhaps this discussion...? :lol: ) and the powers that be can ensure that they A) Reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits by "pointing" to a life-span recommendation (valid or not) that the helmet wearer chooses not to follow and B) Keep a steady flow of new, improved helmets on people's heads - by telling them their old one isn't good any more which obviously improves cash flow for the manufacturers. Kinda like the 3 months or 3000 miles thing with oil changes... good marketing, and not necessarily "wrong" to do.

As far as doing anything with our rulebook specifically - the rule needs to be written in such a was as to not put the club in a position of "certifying" whether or not a helmet is "safe"- which could make us liable if anything bad happened, and it must be "clear and enforceable". We're just saying that it's older than 5 years and so you can't use it - we are making no assertation as to the protective ability of the helmet.

If Snell/DOT says 5 years, then we would be foolish to establish a timeline that was different. Again, that would put us in the position of "experts in helmet safety" which certainly we are not - and would come with certain liabilities, which if exploited properly by the right douchebag attorney, would cause the club to simply go away because we have no resources to defend that type of lawsuit.

We also turned some away this weekend that were visibly damaged. The rulebook says get a certification letter from the manufacturer that states the damaged helmet is OK and safe to use; or get a new helmet. We're not saying it's safe or unsafe - we're just saying it's damaged and you can't use it without it being recertified.

Finally, consider that when you buy close-out or last year model helmets (at a substantial discount most times........) like I do, you can expect them to be at least a couple years old when you get them. This is the tradeoff I guess... Pay full price, and use if for 5 years - pay 1/2 price and use it for 3. I'll take the 3 please.

[LEVIATHAN]

and there it is.....the word has spoken.

I've enjoyed this brief but detailed topic discussion of helmet-ology. Maybe next time we can talk about the internal combustion engine, or building a home.

Thanks for your input Tony (and for the loaner helmet!).

[T Baggins]

Pretty much every stupid rule we have can be traced back to some issue of liability - and how we, as an organization, can provide our racers with the greatest amount of fun and safety - while limiting our liability as much as possible.

Common sense has no place in the courtroom any more. :cry:

Oh, and you're certainly welcome. Thank YOU for the new windscreen! :lol:

[kcecil]

As I started to peel the "tech" sticker off my helmet, I paused and thought to myself, "self, should I leave this sticker on here, because perhaps it'll save me from juggling my helmet at tech next month?"

So, will we be taking our helmets to tech at the remaining races of the season? If so, can we skip said step if we still have the sticker on from the last race?

[dragos13]

I'm pretty sure this is required at EVERY tech inspection. Just like teching the bike, how does Ray-Ray know you haven't since crashed your helmet.

[Ray-Ray]

Yes, helmets are required at tech for the rest of the season.

[Ashli]

Yes, helmets are required at tech for the rest of the season.

Just one more reason to get to see Ray Ray... grrrrrr baby.