Well, then we’re down to this from the USAT rulebook:
1.4 Rules Exceptions and Additions. For any particular event, a race director may request from USA Triathlon a specific exception or addition to these Rules. Any such request should be made with the consideration of the participant’s safety as the highest priority. All requests for Rule changes must be made in writing. All exceptions or additions to these Rules must be expressly approved in writing by the Executive Director of USA Triathlon and must be announced to all participants prior to the event.
So this race director needs to be asked if he can provide the written permission to add to the rules.
Well how most of the people talk on this forum they love to get new gear every year…So these people will never have this happen to them…they will have a new helmet with in the 3 years…
Yeah, I’m actually a little pissed that you all are proving the rule to be wrong! Here I was thinking, “sweet I can tell my wife it’s MANDATORY to buy a new helmet every three years” and then I would run out and buy one this weekend just to be ahead of the curve. Damn it, I’ll have to find something else…
The link you posted writes that there’s no compelling reason to replace an undamaged helmet. I recall reading a similar conclusion in Consumer Reports. Their conclusions seem logical. Aren’t most helmets polystyrene? Wiki writes it’s a very stable, closed-cell foam that goes unchanged for decades unless exposed to heat, UV rays, certain chemicals or high pressure. Why chuck one perfectly good helmet into a landfill every three years? Why waste our cash? Why pollute more than we have to?
Its also kinda funny cause people are like well my helmet is fine and ive had it for 5 years… yeah well you really dont know if its fine till you take a patch of concreate to the head so do you really want to risk it.<<
I tested this out three weeks ago. Bell helmet that is 3 or 4 years old at least, maybe 5. Busted the helmet. Head was basically fine (minor concussion).
Until aero helmets are made with a frangible tail or soft sponge rubber tail (perhaps it would fair with the cross wind like a weather vane and be more aero) they are not as safe as regular helmets.
Subject: streamlined helmet ejection To: ASTM F08.53 Chairman: P. David Halstead From: Hugh H. Hurt, Jr, Head Protection Research Laboratory
During the last couple of years, the technical staff at HPRL has encountered an interesting-and possibly dangerous-problem with the aerodynamic-shaped or streamlined bicycle helmets. These popular helmets have a teardrop design which tapers to a wedge at the rear of the helmet, supposedly reducing aerodynamic drag along with increased ventilation through the many openings in the shell.
The adverse effect of this aerodynamic shape is that the wedge at the back of the helmet tends to deflect and rotate the helmet on the head when impact occurs there. Any impact at the front or sides of the streamlined helmet is no different from other helmet shapes, but any impact on the rear wedge tends to rotate the helmet on the head, probably deflecting the helmet to expose the bare head to impact, and at worst ejecting the helmet completely from the head. Actually, everybody who has tested these streamlined helmets over the past years has encountered the problem of these helmets being displaced during impact testing at the rear wedge. Usually additional tape was required to maintain the helmet in place during rear impact tests; usually the basic retention system alone could not keep the helmet in place during impact testing on the rear of the helmet.
Unfortunately, the implication of helmet displacement and possible ejection in an actual accident impact did not register as a real hazard in previous years of testing, but now there are accident cases appearing that show this to be a genuine hazard for bicycle riders wearing these streamlined helmets. Accident impacts at the rear of these streamlined helmets can cause the helmet to rotate away and expose the head to injury, or eject the helmet completely. The forces generated from the wedge effect can stretch the chinstraps very easily, and even break the retention devices.
We request that F08.53 committee study this problem and develop advisory information for both manufacturers of these streamlined helmets and consumer bicyclists who now own and wear such helmets. There is a definite hazard for displacement or ejection from impact on the rear wedge of these helmets, and bicyclists should be warned of this danger by an authority such as ASTM.
s/Hugh H. Hurt, Jr
Professor Emeritus-USC
President, Head Protection Research Laboratory