From the MCC of NSW Australian Helmet Standard AS 1698 The Public Comment Period for the review of the Australian Helmet Standard is open. Please pass to your technical minded and retrieve comments. Comments are to be returned to Motorcycle Council of NSW BEFORE 15 January 2006. MCC of NSW is the "Sponsoring Body" for a representative to the Australian Standards Committee for Motorcycle Helmets and Protective Eyewear. I have not attached a copy of the current Draft, as to make sense of that, will require a copy of the original and then require a fair bit of work to identify the changes and discover what they mean. Anyone who wants to do that, please contact me. What I have provided is a brief list of the changes and further down, the reasons for them. The Committee has made a number of significant changes in this latest edition,. which is now open for public comment. The principal changes include the following: (a) Removal of the requirement for a shell with a hard outer surface (Clause 5.1). (b) Modification of the requirements for internal projections (Clause 5.3). (c) Addition of a requirement for ventilation (Clause 5.7). (d) Increase in the minimum number of helmets to be supplied for testing from four to six (Clause 6.1). (e) Addition to the test requirements providing a test sequence (Clause 7.1). (f) Addition of a dynamic test for helmet stability (Clause 7.3). (g) Replacement of the static test for the strength of retention systems with a dynamic test (Clause 7.6). (h) Specification of minimum letter sizes for marking and instructions for use and care (Clauses 8 and 9). (i) Revision of the marking requirements regarding a helmet which experiences a severe blow (Clause 8(f)(v)). (j) Addition to the marking requirements that visors attached to the helmet meet the requirements of AS 1609 (Clause 8(f)(vi)). (k) Addition to the instructions for use and care requirements. (l) That visors attached to the helmet meet the requirements of AS 1609. (m) That the suitability of communications devices be specified (Clause 9(e)). (n) Revision and amplification of the warning requirements with regard to painting and solvents (Clause 9). (o) Lowering of the test line following from the revision of AS 2512.1. What follows is a short introduction and a brief explanation of each change and why it is deemend necessary. In essence, the Australian Helmet Standard, AS 1698, has become frozen in time (last update 1988), largely as a result of legal action flowing from the testing failure of product from a local manufacturer and subsequent actions arising. Not all of this was good. However, it is now time to move on. The administrative framework surrounding AS 1698 means that in Australia, we can be assured of "consumer protection", in that the helmet we buy is extremely unlikely to be defective. This is due to the efforts to "batch test" helmets arriving for sale in Australia. This is one of the fundamental strengths of AS 1698 that sets it aside from other international regulations or standards. Debate continues on the requirement for the penetration test. This is a deeply problematical area, with insufficient data. The core of the debate is one of testing for and the degree of "shell integrity" versus lighter weight. For example, both AS 1698 and the EU Regulation are different compromises on achieving a relative combined protection from both shell and impact lining. Research projects are currently under way. This will be the subject of future work by the Helmets Committee. The current course of action is to update what we have, the current AS 1698 Standard. It has fallen behind in time and many tests require use of out dated other Standards (e.g. (o) below ) A little detail on the meaning of each change:- (a) Removal of the requirement for a shell with a hard outer surface (Clause 5.1). This was seen as "proscriptive", defining the "look" of a helmet and it is felt that this is a design limitation that has only cosmetic value, hence it is to be deleted, allowing a helmet to be made with a soft outer skin, as long as it still passes the strength and integrity tests. (b) Modification of the requirements for internal projections (Clause 5.3). This changes a requirement that any projection from the shell be limited to less than 5 mm internally or externally. (WAS 2mm for all but chin strap mounts). Also, that the projection is part of a mounting for a limited range of specific items (eye protection, ventilation, communications, retention systems (e.g. strap mounts), life support equipment) (c) Addition of a requirement for ventilation (Clause 5.7). This is a requirement for adequate ventilation to nose and mouth, particularly for strapless full face helmets that close around the neck or chin. (d) Increase in the minimum number of helmets to be supplied for testing from four to six (Clause 6.1). This is about statistical reliability, increase sample size increases reliability of tests. (e) Addition to the test requirements providing a test sequence (Clause 7.1). Commonsense dictated that the tests should be performed in an order that made sense, this simply states that. (e.g. test helmet stability on headform before doing strength tests on the strap system - the strap placement may be perfect, but after being tugged to the limit, it may not perform well in stability). (f) Addition of a dynamic test for helmet stability (Clause 7.3). This is an important addition. Many helmets rotate forward off the head of the wearer in a crash. It is a fundamental test that was missing from the old Standard. You can also use a simple version of this test to tell if your helmet fits you properly too (see [URL]http://www.roadsafety.mccofnsw.org.au/a/74.html[/URL] ) (g) Replacement of the static test for the strength of retention systems with a dynamic test (Clause 7.6). An important change, to reflect the real world situation of the strap getting a sudden jerk, rather than a steadily increasing pull. (h) Specification of minimum letter sizes for marking and instructions for use and care (Clauses 8 and 9). A straightforward label requirement. Some riders need to wear glasses or use magnifying glasses to read some labels. At least now, you'll know it's not the print size. (i) Revision of the marking requirements regarding a helmet which experiences a severe blow (Clause 8(f)(v)). A rewrite to this: "(v) If helmet experiences a severe blow, destroy it and replace it." (j) Addition to the marking requirements that visors attached to the helmet meet the requirements of AS 1609 (Clause 8(f)(vi)). "A new phrase: (vi) Ensure that any visor attached to this helmet meets the requirements of AS 1609." This is "guidance" to the owner of the helmet. The clear visor that came with your full face will have an AS1609 (Eye protectors for Motorcyclists and Racing Car Drivers) Mark, as it is a legal requirement at point of sale. Now check out the Iridium vapour or tinted dark visor and look for markings. It was seen to be a little silly to embed this as an absolute requirement in use, as you can wear dark sun glasses (of ANY shade, shape or composition behind a clear visor, but not a tinted visor without sunnies. In essence, it is guidance on the strength of a visor. With no marking on the visor, there is no guarantee that it meets the minimum strength requirement. However, when your dark visor is made by the same company as made the approved clear one, you'd wonder if they felt it was OK to reduce the quality of the materials being fed to the moulding mnachine, but we still don't know officially whether the additives for colour have a negative effect upon the strength or not. Some on-going issues with the AS 1609 Standard may see a review of the tinting requirements. You may be aware that glass tinting is also a difficult area. (k) Addition to the instructions for use and care requirements. A fair bit of information to be put in a brochure or label to accompany a new helmet. As noted below:- (a) No helmet can protect the wearer against all possible impacts. (b) For maximum protection the helmet must fit firmly on the head, and the retention system must be securely fastened. With the retention system comfortably but firmlyadjusted, it should not be possible for the helmet to be removed from the head when pulled at the rear in an upward and forward direction. (c) Ensure that any visor attached to the helmet shall meet the requirements of AS 1609. (d) The helmet is suitable/unsuitable* for use with goggles. (e) The helmet is suitable/unsuitable* for use with communications devices. (If suitable for use with communications devices, list the appropriate devices.) (f) No attachments should be made to the helmet except those recommended by the helmet manufacturer. Do not drill or cut the shell. (g) The helmet is designed to absorb shock by partial destruction of the shell and liner. This damage may not be visible. Therefore if subjected to a severe blow, the helmet should be replaced even if it is apparently undamaged. (h) The liner is essential to the intended performance of the helmet. (i) The helmet has a limited lifespan in use and should be replaced when it shows obvious signs of wear, e.g. change of fit, cracks, rust or fraying." (l) That visors attached to the helmet meet the requirements of AS 1609. A simple change that clarifies this point. The visor in fact forms part of the overall helmet for the purposes of the Standard and hence this is made clear that the required Standard is AS1609. (m) That the suitability of communications devices be specified (Clause 9(e)). This is the one that may cause concern, as these devices are entering the market rapidly and retro-approval is unlikely. I would prefer to see this as a "class" of device or some form of broad definition. This may be limiting in the market if the helmet maker does not do this. (n) Revision and amplification of the warning requirements with regard to painting and solvents (Clause 9). A necessary addition to the label. Many are ignorant of the effects of painting upon structural integrity. Solvents in paints can cause chemical degradation of polycarbonate helmets (moulded helmets) and de-lamination of tri-layer types. Some glues used on stickers can also have this effect. (o) Lowering of the test line following from the revision of AS 2512.1. This is a "catch-up" item. Essentially, the old Imperial headforms (from the British Standard) have been superseded by different sized ISO headforms suitable for different size helmets and this leads to a number of numerical differences in the test methodology and also some shape differences, with one result being that the "test line" for measuring peripheral vision from a helmet has altered. - end -
