The inexorable march of technology has enabled sportbikes to progress farther and quicker in overall performance than anyone could have ever imagined. Unreal horsepower and torque, light weight (although that trend seems to be backtracking somewhat lately), suspension that would be competitive in the racing arena only five or so years ago, chassis that are competitive in the racing crucible, and now electronic rider aids such as traction control and electronically adjustable suspension.
The same could be said for advancements in rider protection. Back in the '70s, hard armor was non-existent; now, if even the most basic jacket or suit doesn't have armor in the shoulders and elbows, it's surely a dead duck on the sales floor. Inflatable airbag protection is making its way into racing suits, and it's only a matter of time before those innovations make their way into normal street gear. Lorica, a form of synthetic leather that is actually stronger and more abrasion resistant than the natural material, now dominates boot construction.
There's one piece of protective gear, however, that seemingly hasn't made any advances in basic design or technology: the helmet. Sure, there are all sorts of interesting and functional features that have come along in recent years; internal venting, anti-fogging faceshields, and even aerodynamics have improved drastically over the last decade. Comfort and fit among the vast variety in the market have improved by leaps and bounds as well.
But a helmet's basic structural design-an expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam liner encased in a hard fiberglass-based shell-hasn't really changed much since the crash helmet's inception back in the '50s.
Unlike other protective gear, helmets have to pass certain test standards before they can be sold to the public. And the obvious reason that the basic construction and materials used in helmets hasn't changed is because they have passed those tests for years. If it ain't broke, why fix it?
EPS has numerous benefits that have made it the standard material for the inner liner. The main advantage is that it is cheap and relatively easy to manufacture, an important consideration when you realize the volume of the worldwide helmet market-when you're a company making 300,000 or more helmets a year, production difficulties can be a major obstacle (any surprise at the influx of cheap Chinese helmets?). It is also lightweight, another important asset for a product that must be atop your head for possibly hours at a time.
EPS obviously works well as an impact absorption medium. Because the foam crushes upon impact, it helps cushion the blow and reduce the chances of head injury. It also doesn't bounce back when it bottoms out, which could cause further injury when the impact g-loads are severe.
But is it really that ideal? The human body suspends the brain in fluid inside the cranial cavity as its own natural impact defense mechanism; you'd think nature would have developed its own type of crushable foam for the brain if that were the perfect material. And think about the reason airbags were developed as crash impact defense mechanisms in automobiles. Why not just encase the areas where a possibility of impact exists with crushable foam?
Fact is, there are much better materials and methods of impact energy management for a helmet (and the human head) than crushable foam. There are surely weight and space concerns to deal with when it comes to finding a suitable material for the inner liner of a helmet, but they're not impossibly difficult to overcome with the many technologically advanced products on the market today. My brilliant friend Kaz Yoshima once suggested something similar to the airbag principle; separate air "pouches" that use bleed-off valves to help cushion the blow, plus prevent the aforementioned bounce back that might occur under severe loads. Or perhaps there are gels that don't have the density (and thus weight penalty) of liquid while still having the properties required for bleeding off the energy of a hard impact better than foam.
Every time I've brought this up with helmet manufacturer reps in the past, they've either replied with the company line of "our extensive research indicates that EPS is still the optimum material..." or that they're "still researching other alternatives." Come on, guys...it's been nearly 60 years of stagnation. I've seen too many innovative new materials being introduced to believe that EPS is still the best choice. And with some high-end helmets now retailing for upwards of $900, I can't see manufacturing cost as being much of an excuse anymore.
Think of the marketing value of being able to say that you were the first company in 60 years to step out of the box.