Painting a helmet

[Greenmonsters]

Awesome. I'd be concerned that it would scare her pitchers!

PS She just found next year's Halloween costume

 

[Eric F]

Awesome. I'd be concerned that it would scare her pitchers!

PS She just found next year's Halloween costume

Her starting pitcher for the Spring season doesn't scare easily - LOL. She tends to scare hitters, though. Between the two of them, it should be a good show. I told my DD that if she's going to wear a mask like this, she'd better be the best damned catcher in the league!

Last Halloween, she had her face painted in zombie makeup and wore her catcher gear - "softball catcher zombie".

 

[CoreSoftball20]

Nice looking hat right there man

 

[KCPRK]

I hear what you're saying, but I find it interesting that hockey goalies have been painting their masks for decades without worry, and they face much higher impact speeds than found in softball.

Also, it seems that the outside surface of most batting helmets are painted (maybe just a clear coat for some). The Rip-It helmet is certainly painted, so was my DD's previous Adidas helmet. Because of this, it would seem that decorative painting would have to penetrate through the factory paint layer to have a structural effect. This seems pretty unlikely to me.

Just out of curiosity, I have emailed Rip-It regarding spray-painting/airbrushing a helmet, and whether it will affect the safety or warranty of the helmet. I'll let y'all know what I hear.

I am a safety professional. The reason its not approved in industry is when the surface is painted the chemicals react to the sun rays and damage the structural integrity of the material. In hockey you dont have the sun rays.

Now saying its up to the manufacturer is the nice way of saying you have no protection. If the helmet or your skull is damaged they will pass the liability on to you. Their room full of lawyers will win that anyday. I am an expert witness in cases like these and the consumer never wins.

So at older ages I agree-dont alter the most important protection you have but at younger ages the risk is minimal and the kids like to be treated as kids. Paint away.

 

[KCPRK]

My DD's catcher helmet done up in her "skulls and rainbow flames" theme...

I like that! It looks like its going to eat you!

 

[Eric F]

I am a safety professional. The reason its not approved in industry is when the surface is painted the chemicals react to the sun rays and damage the structural integrity of the material. In hockey you dont have the sun rays.

Now saying its up to the manufacturer is the nice way of saying you have no protection. If the helmet or your skull is damaged they will pass the liability on to you. Their room full of lawyers will win that anyday. I am an expert witness in cases like these and the consumer never wins.

So at older ages I agree-dont alter the most important protection you have but at younger ages the risk is minimal and the kids like to be treated as kids. Paint away.

I hear what you're saying, and I have no doubt that you know what you're talking about, but it doesn't all make sense to me (some does, but not all). I agree that in a lawsuit situation, the chemicals of the paint attacking the structural integrity of the helmet would probably be the target of the defense. In the real world, I don't buy it - especially in a situation where the helmet already has a factory-applied layer of UV-resistant paint. If the airbrush paint was attacking the structural integrity of the helmet, I would expect to see signs of irregularity where the new paint was dissolving the factory finish.

As you said, at the 10U level, it's not really a concern (if there is one at all).

 

[CoreSoftball20]

I am an accountant for a huge auto dealer in my main job. Same BS when dealing with warranties.

 

[Eric F]

Just for the fun of it, here's the helmets (and bats) from my DD's All-Star team last year awaiting umpire inspection...

 

[Greenmonsters]

Just for the fun of it, here's the helmets (and bats) from my DD's All-Star team last year awaiting umpire inspection...

3rd from the right, may favorite. Call me old school.

 

[KCPRK]

I hear what you're saying, and I have no doubt that you know what you're talking about, but it doesn't all make sense to me (some does, but not all). I agree that in a lawsuit situation, the chemicals of the paint attacking the structural integrity of the helmet would probably be the target of the defense. In the real world, I don't buy it - especially in a situation where the helmet already has a factory-applied layer of UV-resistant paint. If the airbrush paint was attacking the structural integrity of the helmet, I would expect to see signs of irregularity where the new paint was dissolving the factory finish.

As you said, at the 10U level, it's not really a concern (if there is one at all).

I agree with you Eric. There are so many ways for a company to pass liability and/or not honor a warranty. In the end its about money and not exposure.

I would think a helmet or hard hat would become brittle in the painted area if there was a chemical reaction using the sun as a catalyst but they tell me since im not a scientist I cant argue with the scientist and common sense is not a defense