Random thought - why does autocross require current SA certed helmets?

In reply to Keith Tanner:

I know, I know... still... there is so little sense in the dates and no "rate of exposure" for cars that live in garages and the fact that the mfg's get to dictate the terms and costs...

I know you don't have any corruption where you are from but I live in a world that governs buy it. There is nothing trustworthy about an SFI sticker except that if you paid for one... you are not to be trusted in regards to when people should buy your E36 M3 again. It's like having the NFL coaches officiate the game ( or maybe the bookies directly ).

Where's the proof that your car lives in a garage versus others that live outside? How do you propose that be monitored? The UV tags mentioned in the other thread are actually an intelligent idea, although I expect that a lot of them would be covered up with duct tape to "extend" the life of the harness by cheap ass racers who don't want to spend $20 on a new net every two years.

In the absence of any documentation, you have to assume the worst case scenario. So the rated lifespan of safety equipment is thus conservative.

Anyhow, this thread is intended to be a bitch session without any actual facts. I apologize for trying to take it off course.

codrus wrote:

Gearheadotaku wrote: This ^^ track days etc, will ask for a SA though.

Track days that ask for SA are stupid, IMHO.  SA over SM buys you a fireproof liner, which is all well and good except that if you're not wearing a Nomex suit it's not going to make any difference.

I believe SA is rated for multiple impacts (your head hitting things several times during a roll over) while M is single impact (you drop the bike and hit the ground).

Gearheadotaku wrote:

codrus wrote:

Gearheadotaku wrote: This ^^ track days etc, will ask for a SA though.

Track days that ask for SA are stupid, IMHO.  SA over SM buys you a fireproof liner, which is all well and good except that if you're not wearing a Nomex suit it's not going to make any difference.

I believe SA is rated for multiple impacts (your head hitting things several times during a roll over) while M is single impact (you drop the bike and hit the ground).

Anything other than a slow low-side can very easily see you smacking your head off the pavement (or other objects) numerous times.

IIRC when I wrecked my bike at the track, you could 3 distinct impact "areas" on my helmet from when I got pitched about 70-75mph and tumbled through the infield.

SMF.org said: What are the differences between the SA, M and K standards? The SA standard was designed for competitive auto racing while the M standard was for motorcycling and other motorsports. The K standard was released to accommodate helmets used in karting. There are three major differences between them: 1.The SA standard requires flammability test while the M and K standards do not. 2.The SA and K standards allow for a narrower visual field than the M standard (Some SA and K certified helmets may not be street legal). 3.The SA and K standards include a rollbar multi-impact test while the M standard does not.

So they state that SA has a multi-roll bar impact, but without reading the full spec (because their site isn't working), I'm not sure how that differs from the M impact.

The first hit is the hard one. Any subsequent hit are minuscule in comparison. Ask me how I know.

The military doesn't replace helmets because helmets aren't sexy.

Whatever, fellas. Its just your head.

Part of the game is because while YOUR well cared for helmet might be fine, other helmets might have lived a more severe life of abuse and weather exposure.

mtownneon wrote: The big thing that degrades in all helmets is the closed cell foam impact liners. The problem is it becomes harder with time and use so it's ability absorb and distribute the energy of an impact becomes less effective.

Bingo. Virtually all auto racing helmets use expanded polystyrene or a similar thermoset plastic for the liner. They're like epoxy in that they start with a two part set of chemicals that they mix together, a resin and a hardener. And while the hardener slows down a lot after the helmet liner is initially molded, it never stops hardening the foam, and making the helmet less and less able to absorb energy.

As for why the military doesn't require replacing flight helmets? My guess is they're more to protect the crew from banging their heads when they encounter turbulance, so they apparently don't need to absorb as much energy. The whole reason the Snell foundation got started was when Pete Snell was killed thinking a flight helmet would be good enough for racing use.

I'm guessing it's equal parts conspiracy, safety, and making the insurance companies happy.

As far as allowing you to race in a 1974 Spitfire or MGB or older sports cars with original belts and such, good luck getting the membership to approve rules that allow or even gasp require updating older cars to modern safety specs, then think of the costs of doing so.

FWIW, the last drag strip I went to required SNELL rated helmets similar to SOLO rules for cars over a certain speed/ET I think. It's been a long time though, and never in a car fast enough for a strip to care about safety lol.

There's nothing wrong with my old helmet. Whaddya mean I can't use it?

True story - guy shows up at Tech with a Vietnam era USAF flight helmet and gets belligerent when told he'd have to use a loaner.

Will wrote: In reply to irish44j: I question how often helmets have saved a military pilot in a crash, at least in recent memory. As the one guy you talked to said, it sounds if it's as much a mount for other tech (visors, sights, O2 masks, etc.) as it is for protection. Edit: do tanker/transport pilots wear helmets, or are they only for guys who actually see combat?

They all wear helmets of some sort. The helmets are less for you crashing the plane into something (in which case a helmet won't help) and more for if you have to eject and/or have a canopy come off for some reason (it happens) and the helmet is the only thing protecting your head from things in the air going 500mph..

Again, I'm not arguing that a flight helmet is built the same way as a race helmet. I am more noting the difference in approaches to determining whether one is still "safe" or "usable" - actual inpection vs. arbitrary date that assumes we're all idiots who leave our gear out in the front yard in the sun and rain and snow.

David S. Wallens wrote: About 15 years ago I acquired a pretty rad FIA-rated helmet from a European manufacturer. The helmet spent more of its life in a bag inside our house. It was probably used two or maybe three times. I came across said helmet a few years ago, and the foam insides were coming apart. So take that for what it's worth.

It's why I brought up the ski boot comparison. They use very similar liner materials. In the early 90s, those materials degraded in ~10 years and started falling apart. Boots made after 2000 or so use a different kind of foam and it now being 2015, we've seen no indication of any of these having degredation issues (I've worked in the industry for almost 20 years), and ski boots live in much harsher conditions than helmets, IMO (and take much more impact). Material technology has come a long way in many other industries. If helmets now are falling apart after a decade, it's because they're being made with cheap/substandard material, or that the manufacturers are intentionally not using newer technology/materials, since it would hurt their bottom lines if race gear lasted longer.

another thought: for belts, if the issue is the actual webbing breaking down due to UV light, wouldn't the sensible solution be to simply cover the webbing with another material that absorbs UV light and doesn't allow it to pass through to the actual webbing (thus extending the lifespan of the webbing)?

Keith Tanner wrote: Where's the proof that your car lives in a garage versus others that live outside? How do you propose that be monitored? The UV tags mentioned in the other thread are actually an intelligent idea, although I expect that a lot of them would be covered up with duct tape to "extend" the life of the harness by cheap ass racers who don't want to spend $20 on a new net every two years. In the absence of any documentation, you have to assume the worst case scenario. So the rated lifespan of safety equipment is thus conservative. Anyhow, this thread is intended to be a bitch session without any actual facts. I apologize for trying to take it off course.

Keith,

The sad part is, when people find ways to get around the rules and kill or maim themselves, there is always someone who must pay. Often that someone is the very organization that was making a good faith effort to enforce the rules and keep them healthy in the first place.

Cheaters and tight asses seem to always have belligerent heirs!

Irish, I dont think the ski boot comparison really holds too much value. They are still different materials being engineered for different means. There is an economic value for the ski boot to last longer (marketing, yeah, I know they could go the other way and phase out as well, but they get a bad name that way). The ski boot us subjected to different forces and expected to do different things than helmets. I would bet that they are different processes.

As far as OEM car equipment. The reason car belts do not date out is, getting laws through that you federally have to replace your belt system every so many years isnt likely (aint nobodoy got money for that!). That being said, my Subaru does have a sticker saying that the airbag (and maybe SRS, so belts included) has to be inspected after 10 years at a dealer. (good way to CYA, Subaru, but not a federal requirement).

Federal safety laws are written to cover the greatest risks. For the most part the Fed expects cars to have a finite life. (probably less than 15 years) Especially life in terms of relevance to safety of the overall population of cars on the road. Being that they do have requirements for seat belt withstanding exposure to UV (regs state 100 hours exposure to carbon arc, then must test to at least 90% of strength) they are thinking that that window is covered for the most part. (does remind me to feel leery about the belts in my 95 Miata, though.)

This trickles down to autocross, why not make factory belts age out for motorsports? What % of cars driven by first time autocrossers are over 10 years old? What % would never try it over a few hundred dollars of seat belts? I think it would kill the sports intake of fresh blood. Basically "you mean I have to spend so much money on that before I can do this? eff dat!"

As far as why SNELL and not DOT? DOT is self-certify. Any helmet manufacturer can stick a label on there and sell it. That being said, they can then, after tests be sued and/or forced to recall their products. Snell helmets have to be tested to get the label. My money bets that the reason for Snell requirement has a lot to do with that. For some evidence on the DOT helmet thing, http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/seven-motorcycle-helmets-failed-2005-dot-tests-two-recalled-0 (I know, its older, but still a good example. TL;DR, 1 in 4 DOT helmets tested failed the DOT requirements!)

Another counter-point to you Irish, you have to write the rules to cover the worst case scenario. You think the cheapest (even snell rated) helmet still doesnt degrade? They have to cover that.

I will grant you, there is a bit of a disconnect. I kind of feel some stage is set for an argument of why have helmets in Stock/Street class autocross cars at all. I will still put on a helmet though.

Opps, wrote a book

Shorty post for belt information...

http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=ef6909e8db26391e7f8939dd11e24d2f&node=se49.6.571_1209&rgn=div8

do a find text there for "exposure" and you will see the light stuff (as well as the Abrasion and Micro-organism stuff)

Apexcarver wrote: Irish, I dont think the ski boot comparison really holds too much value. They are still different materials being engineered for different means. There is an economic value for the ski boot to last longer (marketing, yeah, I know they could go the other way and phase out as well, but they get a bad name that way). The ski boot us subjected to different forces and expected to do different things than helmets. I would bet that they are different processes. As far as OEM car equipment. The reason car belts do not date out is, getting laws through that you federally have to replace your belt system every so many years isnt likely (aint nobodoy got money for that!). That being said, my Subaru does have a sticker saying that the airbag (and maybe SRS, so belts included) has to be inspected after 10 years at a dealer. (good way to CYA, Subaru, but not a federal requirement). Federal safety laws are written to cover the greatest risks. For the most part the Fed expects cars to have a finite life. (probably less than 15 years) Especially life in terms of relevance to safety of the overall population of cars on the road. Being that they do have requirements for seat belt withstanding exposure to UV (regs state 100 hours exposure to carbon arc, then must test to at least 90% of strength) they are thinking that that window is covered for the most part. (does remind me to feel leery about the belts in my 95 Miata, though.) This trickles down to autocross, why not make factory belts age out for motorsports? What % of cars driven by first time autocrossers are over 10 years old? What % would never try it over a few hundred dollars of seat belts? I think it would kill the sports intake of fresh blood. Basically "you mean I have to spend so much money on that before I can do this? eff dat!" As far as why SNELL and not DOT? DOT is self-certify. Any helmet manufacturer can stick a label on there and sell it. That being said, they can then, after tests be sued and/or forced to recall their products. Snell helmets have to be tested to get the label. My money bets that the reason for Snell requirement has a lot to do with that. For some evidence on the DOT helmet thing, http://www.motorcyclecruiser.com/seven-motorcycle-helmets-failed-2005-dot-tests-two-recalled-0 (I know, its older, but still a good example. TL;DR, 1 in 4 DOT helmets tested failed the DOT requirements!) Another counter-point to you Irish, you have to write the rules to cover the worst case scenario. You think the cheapest (even snell rated) helmet still doesnt degrade? They have to cover that. I will grant you, there is a bit of a disconnect. I kind of feel some stage is set for an argument of why have helmets in Stock/Street class autocross cars at all. I will still put on a helmet though. Opps, wrote a book

Yeah, the ski boot comparison was really just to show an example of improved material technology in an industry that uses "similar" types of materials - not to suggest that ski boots use the exact same materials or that they have the exact same role, or should be rated the same as helmets or belts.

Perhaps the more appropriate original question is "why" haven't manufacturers developed materials that can last longer, with all the technology available in the world today?

They may have, but short it being required all of them won't necessarily do it.

Like I said, you have to write the rules to the worst case scenario, which is the cheapest of the cheap.

Rupert wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: Where's the proof that your car lives in a garage versus others that live outside? How do you propose that be monitored? The UV tags mentioned in the other thread are actually an intelligent idea, although I expect that a lot of them would be covered up with duct tape to "extend" the life of the harness by cheap ass racers who don't want to spend $20 on a new net every two years. In the absence of any documentation, you have to assume the worst case scenario. So the rated lifespan of safety equipment is thus conservative. Anyhow, this thread is intended to be a bitch session without any actual facts. I apologize for trying to take it off course.

Keith, The sad part is, when people find ways to get around the rules and kill or maim themselves, there is always someone who must pay. Often that someone is the very organization that was making a good faith effort to enforce the rules and keep them healthy in the first place. Cheaters and tight asses seem to always have belligerent heirs!

And without lazy, tightasses who constantly try to find cheaper and easier ways to do things while still achieving the same result, we don't get many cool new improvements.

Not saying a helmet is a place to cheap out, but I do think it is probably a worth wile endeavor to see if technology improvements in helmets might also make them last longer. I am also not the right person to test that.

Although, we could drop a line into Stanford or Duke. I know they both have labs actively working on cutting edge helmet/concussion safety.

FYI, in the Motorcycle world I regularly see it suggested that helmets be replaced every 5 years- my dirt helmets only make it 3 years or so before I replace them due to crash damage, and my street helmet gets exposed to lots of UV and head sweat- enough that I would believe it degrades after 5 years of use. I think the rule of thumb is based on the worst case scenario, but my observation is that severe usage can certainly render a helmet less safe that quickly. Hell, I know a guy who replaces his annually!

Whether one is even necessary for autocross is an entirely different discussion.

NONACK wrote: FYI, in the Motorcycle world I regularly see it suggested that helmets be replaced every 5 years- my dirt helmets only make it 3 years or so before I replace them due to crash damage, and my street helmet gets exposed to lots of UV and head sweat- enough that I would believe it degrades after 5 years of use. I think the rule of thumb is based on the worst case scenario, but my observation is that severe usage can certainly render a helmet less safe that quickly. Hell, I know a guy who replaces his annually! Whether one is even necessary for autocross is an entirely different discussion.

In the 100+ autocrosses I've been to in my life (SCCA, CDC, BMWCCA, and others) I think my helmet has been checked maybe three times total. I'm quite certain I could take the SA95 helmet in my garage (which is a normal-looking Bell almost identical to my SA2010 helmet), and autocross with it. If you don't have a helmet in the car, tech just assumes that you're going to use a loaner, I suppose.

Why not petition your sanctioning body to extend the Snell allowance? I mean its that simple. Talk to the SCCA/NASA/Your local car club and find out why they have the rule and go from there. If you can show that a Snell 2000 helmet still would pass the Snell 2000 tests due to improved materials I see no reason to not to continue accepting them.

Same thing with SFI type stuff. Show contrary data that proves the safety equipment functions the same after the current expiration and then you can ask for it to be expanded.

I know at least with belts and seats there is a reasonable basis for Age out replacement (UV and other degradation on belts and fatigue on highly stresses seat joints) and the fuel cell bladder probably has similar basis. However some contrary testing may show absurdity.

In reply to irish44j:

SCCA puts year long stickers on. At national events they use a barcode on helmet that is scanned before runs. I am. Not sure if this is to ensure inspected helmet or another purpose but they will not put the sticker on without validation of the helmet for use during tech inspection.

Thinking also about how HANS are usually only good for 5 years as well. Seeing as HANS are solid materials (vice fabrics), I'd love to know the rationale behind that. Maybe they could require that the little straps going to the helmet be replaced, but why the entire assembly (I think ours is made of carbon-fiber - not sure that breaks down such a short time period).

In other oddness of rules, did you all know that for Rally America, you can drive wearing any shoes you want? No requirement for Nomex shoes or socks (though you have to have a suit). Also RA has no date expiry for window nets.