We previously posted on the old forum that the S1 Lifer tinted visor meets the requirements of the WFTDA Risk Management Guidelines.
Triple 8’s tinted visor also meets the requirements.
We have approved the wording on both these products, and wanted to make sure that skaters and officials knew that these are appropriate for use.
What I’ve struggled with is that while the S1 visor (and now Triple 8) are allowable, that doesn’t mean any visor attached to one of those helmets is. (And people can get their S1/Triple8 un-tinted visors tinted darker after-market.)
The Triple 8 one has the logo on it, I am unsure of the S1 but I think it does. If the mounting looks different then that’s an indicator. Also, at any point if the tint is too dark for the venue you can ask them to remove the visor.
There are issues like this that we will have to figure out as we try to better accommodate skaters with visual disturbances.
That seems like a very different message than “these visors are approved”. If we have to assess whether an approved visor is acceptable in a specific venue’s lighting, what’s the point of saying that they’re approved?
This is exactly why I think we should stick to the “eyes visible” metric.