Honda Rebel 250 & 450 Forum banner

New rider, just bought a 2007 Honda Rebel.

7K views 52 replies 17 participants last post by  Sparkman 
#1 ·
SO, I bought a rebel for $1000 from one of my parents friends, and it's only got 220 miles on it! Very stoked, very happy, as soon as I upgrade in a year or two, I'll definitely be able to get my money back for it. For some odd reason it seems like Honda Rebels DON'T EVER depreciate in value. Haha. Well, I'm a new rider though, and I'm soon about to take the MSF course at my local Harley Davidson store on August 1st, 3rd and 4th. I'm ecstatic anytime I get to ride with anyone, and I'm glad there's such a wonderful community here on Hondarebelforum.com. :D I'm gonna be posting updates on how my bike and riding is going hopefully. I'm just happy I got a great deal on this bike and my starting riding! Also bought a helmet, it's a bit old(1992) but it works until I really get riding. Helmets are pretty damn expensive! Oh! And I bought a leather jacket for colder riding, and I paid 60 bucks! It was used, but it's WIlson brand, which I looked up, and a very similar style is over 300 bucks! The leather is still very soft and the liner is all good. Not a single tear on any part of the thing! Well, that about sums up what's been going on with me for riding and buying a Rebel. :) Thanks for reading this thread, I hope to get some responses! Thanks!
-Micah
 

Attachments

See less See more
1
#6 ·
Pretty, pretty red bike. Ad my advice is get a new helmet, fresh out of motorcycle safety class and I will tell you, we learned that the padding and inner shell age over time and loose their ability to do the job of protecting those valuable brains you are tucking in there. Enjoy your ride

Maggie/2008 silver Rebel
 
#8 ·
Congrats on your new (to you) bike! In ref. to helmets, one other thing… it may not be the proper size for you either. Don’t get a used helmet and think it’s like all helmets. It must be the proper fit for you. Have fun in class … I too took the HD course and it’s very well done.
 
#10 ·
You'll be buying a new helmet after August 1st for sure, I promise. So, save up the money.
The MSF guys won't let you use a helmet that old, and they'll tell you to get a new one (but you can use one of theirs)

The general rules are:
Padding and plastics get old and become not as protective. Some say 2 years is maximum for helmets. I think they're being a bit extra cautious, but it's good advice.

If you EVER drop it more than 3 feet off the ground (even once), throw it away. The MSF guys will also tell you that.
If you buy a used helmet, you don't know if it's been dropped. Don't buy a used helmet, period.

It's your head. How much is it worth to you?

Trust me, you'll be saying the same things after you go to the MSF course.

There a lots of approved helmets for under $100, many that originally cost $300 and didn't sell and are now on clearance. Here are a couple good sites to find them:

Full Face Motorcycle Helmets | MotoSport
Men's Full-Face Street Motorcycle Helmets - Motorcycle Superstore
https://www.denniskirk.com/cruiser-motorcycle/helmets/119:7150.attrs/40.ipp/priceasc.srt
 
#12 ·
I'm only re-stating what all the MSF people said repeatedly in my courses.
The idea being that if you drop a helmet significantly enough (3 feet above ground is enough), it could become compromised and you may not be able to tell.

Here's the SNELL Foundation's statment:
"The Foundation recommends that if you suspect your helmet may be compromised, then replace it. If the helmet has been involved in an impact while in use, replace it."

I think the MSF folks are just being more on the cautious side of things.

SNELL says:
"Frequent dropping or spiking a helmet on the ground, or other hard surfaces may eventually degrade the helmet's performance."

I think the MSF folks are just saying, if you drop it, it MAY be compromised, so don't risk it at ALL.

On replacing helmets:
"Why replace your helmet every few years if it doesn't appear
damaged? Its protective qualities may deteriorate with time and wear.
The chin strap may fray or loosen at its attaching points; the shell
could be chipped or damaged. The best reason is that helmets keep
improving. Chances are that the helmet you buy in a couple of years
will be better – stronger, lighter, and more comfortable – than the one
you own now. It might even cost less!"
 
#13 ·
I want to also add this thought when you're considering whether or not a helmet is still good after dropping it...
A helmet is designed to work ONCE, only once, and not twice. If you dropped it, and there's a non-visible crack or deformity, or in some way could be compromised, you may have a useless helmet.
It's your decision, but if I'm going to hit something head-on, I really hope my helmet works.
 
#14 ·
yes, Snell says while it's in use,which means on your head
the compromised protection comes from the EPS being crushed between your head and the shell, which doesn't happen if your head isn't in the helmet
as for cracking the shell, I recently attempted to destroy a helmet by going at it with a sledgehammer
the accessories (visor, vents, etc) were destroyed, but the shell didn't even crack
I thank that says a lot about how tough the shells are

as for replacing it after 2 years, I think that might be excessive, but it is true that the EPS self degrades over time even if it never is in a wreck, and the points about straps and liners is sensible
I generally replace at 5 years or when it starts to feel loose (EPS degrading causes this to happen) but I won't replace a helmet that fell off the seat of a bike or that I dropped walking to the bike

I wouldn't use a used helmet, either, you have no idea what's up with it, and it may not fit right

and a helmet made in 95 is deffinately too old
 
#15 ·
Welcome to the board.

The leather is still very soft and the liner is all good. Not a single tear on any part of the thing!
Apologies if I rain on the parade --- if that's a designer style bomber jacket it will only offer marginally better protection than a T-shirt, and by marginally I mean only in cooler weather. Soft leather disintegrates when it hits the road, the stiffer leather resists abrasion better.
 
#16 · (Edited by Moderator)
Welcome to the board.



Apologies if I rain on the parade --- if that's a designer style bomber jacket it will only offer marginally better protection than a T-shirt, and by marginally I mean only in cooler weather. Soft leather disintegrates when it hits the road, the stiffer leather resists abrasion better.
Milwaukee Leather Asymmetrical-Zip Cycle Leather Jacket - Wilsons Leather

It looks almost identical to this. It's a legitimate motorcycle jacket, not one of their fancy shmancy jackets just for looks. :) Oh, and about the helmet I got, it will suffice. At least it's full face and gives me decent protection unlike the little cereal bowl I see some guys wearing with their big, obnoxious bikes, which are both dumb. Again, the helmet I bough will do until I find a great deal on a nicer/newer one.
 
#17 ·
well a 92 model is already 21 years old, so I hope you don't go down wearing it, but it's your head man
Of course they won't let you use it for the BRC, as already mentioned, but they have loaners I think
 
#18 ·
Well, the general consensus is that I sorta messed up with this purchase of the helmet. I'll just buy another. I'll go to the Harley Davidson store to try on a few ones that are online for cheap, and I'll come back and order one. I bought it just thinking a helmet is a helmet, and if it's dot and Snell approved, it's a better helmet. Although I don't even know why or where you'd get a non Snell + dot approved helmet.. But honestly, if I knew some of these helmets were this cheap on some of the websites that Jonelli posted(thanks!), I'd have just bought one online. Haha. Well, I'll just keep this one around just in case. Of what, I don't know. But just in case. :p And I'm not trying to sound edgy or anything, I just don't like buying useless things only to find out after the fact that they're useless. If anyone has any input, it's greatly appreciated! These responses put a huge, genuine smile on my face! :biggrin: Oh, and thank you for letting me know that they might not let me use that helmet for the course. Whatever happens, I'll figure it out.
 
#20 ·
Although I don't even know why or where you'd get a non Snell + dot approved helmet.
Odds are good you'll find some at the same Harley dealership. ;)

Google "novelty helmets". Most are the same price as a DOT approved half shell. Wrap your brain around that concept...after all most folks that wear those helmets usually wrap their brain around a tree.

They have no foam lining and often have a cheap plastic clasp (like you might find on a school backpack) to fasten the chin strap. When I was younger and didn't know any better I utilized one. Having sat in the 115° Vegas sun for a couple months, that clip got brittle and broke loose while riding down an inner city surface street. Those clips, even when new, work just as well when the helmet makes contact with the ground...and the helmets that manage to stay on the heads end up shattering when they make contact.

It's the equivalent of a paper maché bullet-proof vest: lighter, more comfortable, and completely useless.
 
#19 ·
Oh, and the guy only wore it for two years when he bought it new in '92 or '93. It sat in his garage the rest of the time. He used to have an old Honda Interceptor! :) Oh yeah, and helmet is an AGV Spectre. I never actually specified what the helmet was, if it really makes any difference. Haha.
 
#21 ·
Motorcycle helmet manufacturers recommend replacement in 5 years. That is a very conservative recommendation. If it is lightly used it may go safely on for long after that.
Mine will probably be getting quite worn by then so I will probably be shopping for a new one.

I would take serious issue with anyone recommending discarding a helmet after it fell off a motorcycle seat for example. The only damage caused by such a fall would be to the paint. The hard foam inside the helmet would be not affected at all, and the outer shell would suffer only cosmetic damage. These things are designed to take serious impacts with the weight of a human body behind it.
 
#22 ·
Actually, NO. To be DOT approved they only have to survive a 14mph impact. I don't know about you, but if I'm traveling at 7mph and the car is also traveling at 7mph it's going to have a hard time hitting me as I avoid the impact.

Check the internet for Snell requirements and you will see a chart that also includes DOT approval where helmets are only required to survive a fall from 3.6m approximately 10', absolutely useless IMHO.

Martin
 
#23 · (Edited)
Snell was a good idea when it first started up. Now it's close to a racket. They charge the manufactures a bundle to be certified and there is serious question about some of their standards in light of current research. I'm much more impressed by an European cirt. than Snell.
 
#24 ·
I think I wasn't clear in my post, Snell's requirements weren't any better as far as I'm concerned. Statistically most motorcycle accident deaths occur from bodily injuries, not head injuries whether wearing a helmet or not. It's people in cars that die from head injuries as their bodies are so well protected. If the government was really interested in saving lives it should be mandatory to wear a helmet in a car not on a motorcycle. But that will never happen as the ladies (this includes men) screaming motorcycles are so dangerous care more about their hairdos than the truth.

Martin
 
#28 · (Edited)
Additional data from the United States reveals that there are over four million motorcycles registered in the United States. Motorcycle fatalities represent approximately five percent of all highway fatalities each year, yet motorcycles represent just two percent of all registered vehicles in the United States. One of the main reasons motorcyclists are killed in crashes is because the motorcycle itself provides virtually no protection in a crash. For example, approximately 80 percent of reported motorcycle crashes result in injury or death; a comparable figure for automobiles is about 20 percent.

"In the above, do you think 80% of all riders go without helmets?"

Information from death certificates issued in 2010 show that 29 percent of motorcycle traffic fatalities were associated with a traumatic brain injury, 35 percent with injuries to multiple body regions, 30 percent with injuries to unspecified body regions, and 9 percent with injuries to the thorax.
Unfortunately, death certificates provide limited information about the nature of injuries; therefore, nearly 100 percent of certificates cited at least one unspecified injury as an immediate or contributing cause of death.
For nonfatal injuries among motorcycle riders that required hospitalization from 2007 to 2009, injuries to the lower extremities were responsible for the highest percentage of hospitalizations at 35 percent, followed by traumatic brain injuries and torso injuries each at 20 percent.
The two most common types of principal injuries sustained in nonfatal motorcycle crashes requiring hospitalization were fractures (67 percent) and injuries to internal organs (23 percent)

"If you will notice, head injuries in all cases accounted for a lower percentage than lower bodily injuries."

"Not to mention my oldest brother died from helmet torque breaking his neck while making a 5mph u-turn at the end of his residential street. Sand in the road caused him to lay his bike down, I'll take my chances with being observant and skill thank you."

"I should point out the above is an excerpt from the Florida DOT."

"I don't visit forums to argue so this is the last I will say on this matter."
 
#29 · (Edited)
Are you citing data from a LPSL website? I'm just not finding any of that, especially anything relating to that 80% death rate.

For example, approximately 80 percent of reported motorcycle crashes result in injury or death; a comparable figure for automobiles is about 20 percent.

"In the above, do you think 80% of all riders go without helmets?"
From the Hurt Report --- "The Hurt Report"

37. The likelihood of injury is extremely high in these motorcycle accidents-98% of the multiple vehicle collisions and 96% of the single vehicle accidents resulted in some kind of injury to the motorcycle rider; 45% resulted in more than a minor injury.

38. Half of the injuries to the somatic regions were to the ankle-foot, lower leg, knee, and thigh-upper leg.

41. Groin injuries were sustained by the motorcyclist in at least 13% of the accidents, which typified by multiple vehicle collision in frontal impact at higher than average speed.

44. Approximately 50% of the motorcycle riders in traffic were using safety helmets but only 40% of the accident-involved motorcycle riders were wearing helmets at the time of the accident.

45. Voluntary safety helmet use by those accident-involved motorcycle riders was lowest for untrained, uneducated, young motorcycle riders on hot days and short trips.

46. The most deadly injuries to the accident victims were injuries to the chest and head.

47. The use of the safety helmet is the single critical factor in the prevention of reduction of head injury; the safety helmet which complies with FMVSS 218 is a significantly effective injury countermeasure.

48. Safety helmet use caused no attenuation of critical traffic sounds, no limitation of precrash visual field, and no fatigue or loss of attention; no element of accident causation was related to helmet use.


49. FMVSS 218 provides a high level of protection in traffic accidents, and needs modification only to increase coverage at the back of the head and demonstrate impact protection of the front of full facial coverage helmets, and insure all adult sizes for traffic use are covered by the standard.

50. Helmeted riders and passengers showed significantly lower head and neck injury for all types of injury, at all levels of injury severity.

51. The increased coverage of the full facial coverage helmet increases protection, and significantly reduces face injuries.

52. There is no liability for neck injury by wearing a safety helmet; helmeted riders had less neck injuries than unhelmeted riders. Only four minor injuries were attributable to helmet use, and in each case the helmet prevented possible critical or fatal head injury.

53. Sixty percent of the motorcyclists were not wearing safety helmets at the time of the accident. Of this group, 26% said they did not wear helmets because they were uncomfortable and inconvenient, and 53% simply had no expectation of accident involvement.
As far as the helmet drop test goes, the typical fall is a sideways fall. Regardless of forward velocity, that sideways velocity averages 5-10mph. It's that impact with the ground that is typical, hence the basic requirement. And as anyone knows, DOT approval is always based on the bare minimums...hence you want something that not only meets those standards but EXCEEDS them.
 
#30 · (Edited)
Hmmm, well I stirred up a nice debate! Here's my input: what sounds safer? Having your skull hit the ground, or have ANY helmet on your head? Any helmet protects your head better than no helmet at all. Case closed. :p. I just paid for the bike today and got the title! :). There was a "poker run"? Where about sixty guys from a motorcycle club went to five different elks lodges and drew playing cards to try and get a good poker hand. It was a fun day! Their trip totaled 180 miles!
 
#31 · (Edited)
Any helmet protects your head better than no helmet at all. Case closed.
Unfortunately it isn't that simple of a case to close.

Novelty helmets disintegrate on impact, so when your head hits the ground it's the same as not wearing a helmet. That assumes the cheap plastic snap clip holding the chin strap doesn't break before that non-protective shell hits the ground.

Also, a full face helmet is less likely to get pulled off your head than an open face helmet.
 
#34 · (Edited)
There are no edit time stamps here, just a certain time frame that a post can be edited (watch this, I'll go edit the post you just responded to). Suffice it to say the edits weren't there when I responded, or I would have asked those same questions earlier about links to FL DOT stats so I could compare them. I'll concede you may have made the edits as/after I posted if you can concede that it's still a valid question regardless of when the edits were actually made: links so I can compare. ;)
 
#35 ·
Apparently your reading comprehension skills are lacking or maybe you're calling me a liar. As I stated I made the edits as I was typing the original post. I am new to the site and had no way of knowing there were no time stamps, this should tell you I'm speaking the truth. I visit many forums and this is the only one I've ever been on that doesn't time stamp edits. Either way I really don't care, I'm done going over this issue. You asked for statistics so I provided them. Life is way too short and I have better things to worry about than another stupid helmet thread.

Martin

 
#37 ·
Apparently your reading comprehension skills are lacking or maybe you're calling me a liar.
Neither one is the case.

As I stated I made the edits as I was typing the original post.
Okay which is it now, you made the edits as you were typing the original i.e. before posting i.e. before hitting "submit reply", or...

The edits were put in before any response to my post, check the time of the edits.
???

Either you made the edits before submitting the post or you went back and edited the post afterwards thereby leaving what you presumed would be a time stamp.

I already conceded the possibility that the latter happened while I was responding with my own reply.

You asked for statistics
Several times now.

so I provided them.
No you haven't. You simply typed something and claimed it was cited from somewhere, time and again you have failed to actually provide that info. All I wanted was a citation where those stats come from so that way I can compare them to other states' data --- not just a simple "It's from the FL DOT" because I can google "FL DOT" and get thousands of pages to sift through. One link citing the actual content you're quoting would have been much nicer. This isn't a rocket science issue or a reading comprehension issue, it's a simple request for the information source. But it's obvious now that you'd rather debate (or in your words, argue) logistics than the actual issue, so you're right about one thing: this isn't going anywhere.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top