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

EDIT: I was reminded that M-rated helmets are ok too. The point was more about 10-year rule than the actual rating organization :)

As I was cleaning out a cabinet in the garage and seeing a bunch of perfectly-good, but entirely useless helmets with "SCCA 2001" stickers on the side and such, from my days of autocrossing....it annoyed me to no end.

Autocross you can bring some jalopy from 1974 with its original seatbelts and wood dashboard and no crumple zone, and lack of modern safety gear, and that's perfectly fine for a motorsport in which there is a miniscule possibility of collision with anything. Yet your helmet, which was perfectly allowable and safe last year is suddenly not safe the next year.

Why do so many motorsports groups buy into the FIA/Snell bullE36 M3 at the expense of their drivers/members?

EDIT #2: Obviously this is a largely rhetorical question as the real answer lies somewhere between actual safety concerns and manufacturer profit concerns. So the question was really just a random rant about a subject that there is not a snowball's chance in hell of changing.

Because the manufacturers get to help write the rules.

also, insurance companies and lawyers want to see the latest and greatest safety standards even if they really don't mean much for the particular style of racing being done.

Helmets do degrade with time, so the protection does get worse. You have to draw the line somewhere.

I was once almost turned away from a Corvette autox because my FIA rated harnesses were a year too old. Meanwhile, I was racing against an X1/9 that had the original belts. The material is different, they do age differently - but it was frustrating. They let me run but only that one time.

In reply to novaderrik:

Event insurance is the logical answer.

Autocross doesn't require SA, they require M. Yes they date out after 10 years of use. I'm actually OK with that because 10 years of use makes for a nasty helmet anyway.

This ^^

track days etc, will ask for a SA though.

Keith Tanner wrote: Helmets do degrade with time, so the protection does get worse. You have to draw the line somewhere.

If helmet manufacturers are using materials that degrade to an unsafe point within 10 years (with 99.9% of that time the helmets being stored in a bag indoors), that doesn't give me much confidence in the materials that they are using in the first place.

Would love to know exactly what materials in a helmet degrade within 10 years. My 1994-vintage Bieffe motorcycle helmet, which has sat in my garage for over 15 years, shows no signs of degradation in the liner or shell). It does show signs of really gaudy graphics, however.

Toyman01 wrote: Because the manufacturers get to help write the rules.

This is the obvious answer, of course.

All the other responses here are all just giving the reasons that the manufacturers give, lol. Which are largely bullE36 M3.

It is possible that the helmet manufacturers know more about helmets than we do.

I have an old helmet that belonged to my uncle. The interior materials are literally falling apart and crumbly. You can see it in old bicycle helmets as well. They do degrade. So do belts. The event organizers have no control over how the helmets are stored, so they have to assume they're kept in the car in the sun as a worst case.

Having to buy a new helmet every 10 years doesn't seem so terrible to me.

Keith Tanner wrote: I have an old helmet that belonged to my uncle. The interior materials are literally falling apart and crumbly. They do degrade. So do belts. The event organizers have no control over how the helmets are stored, so they have to assume they're kept in the car in the sun as a worst case. Having to buy a new helmet every 10 years doesn't seem so terrible to me.

I'm sure there's a million anecdotes we could all throw out, there's no doubt about it.

Working in the ski industry, I've seen the MASSIVE material changes in ski boots from the early 90s to present - and most of these materials are similar to those used in helmets (both the exterior plastics and the padding/foam). It's a night and day difference in terms of material breakdown over two decades of material development. And I literally see thousands of used ski boots every year, which are all subjected to far harsher conditions than pretty much any helmet.

My problem is the assumption that a standard created decades ago for a certain level of technology (assuming 10 years was TRULY the maximum effective life of a helmet when these rules were created) continues to be used even though material technology has advanced greatly in the interim. Are we to believe that helmet manufacturers don't currently use materials that can't hold up for, say, 50% longer than materials could in 1985?

I have no problem with having a standard, but as technology has changed, the standard (and its allowed lifespan) should change to suit as well.

Keith - no, buying a new helmet every 10 years isn't "so terrible" by itself. But the cost of motorsports continues to rise with more and more equipment needed - so it's death by a thousand pinpricks when half your gear expires every x years, even if it's been sitting in a closed case for 99% of that time in a climate-controlled house and is in mint condition (like many harnesses, HANS, helmets, etc).

Keith Tanner wrote: It is possible that the helmet manufacturers know more about helmets than we do.

I certainly hope so. And I'm sure all of these companies have completely altruistic motives as well, lol.....

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.

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. The SCCA allows current and previous 2 certifications for Solo competition. Straight from the 2014 SCCA Solo Rule book:

All helmets meeting the latest or two immediately preceding Snell Foundation standards (SA2010, SAH2010, SA2005, SA2000, M2010, M2005, M2000, K2010, K2005, K98), SFI standards 31.1, 41.1, 31.1A, 31.2A, 41.1A, 41.2A or British spec BS6658-85 type A/FR are acceptable.

Personally I will never put a helmet on my head that is older than 5 years old.

Just out of curiosity, when I posted this, I also shot off some emails to military pilots I work with (a mix of fighter pilots, helo pilots, and other military aircraft) about how long military flight helmets are rated for. Here's a couple responses I got back:

"When I flew the helmet stayed the same but the technology connected to the helmet was upgraded (I.e. NVGs)" (Navy SH-60 helo pilot)

"In the AF we have an inspection schedule and a maintenance schedule and it can be used as long as it is serviceable" (USAF AWACS crew)

I think it's silly that helmets are required to begin with, myself. All they would seem to be good for would be increasing the risk of spinal compression in the event of a rollover, since it reduces your clearance to the roof by that little bit extra.

Give your old autocross helmets to kids and they'll want to grow up to be drivers.

I just wanna be thrown clear.

I do find it funny that I can drag race door-to-door with another car in 11.5 seconds @120 MPH through a quarter mile with an open-faced helmet made before I was born, but I need a 10-year or newer helmet to do 50MPH in a parking lot in case I hit a cone...

One more response from a buddy who has been a US Coast Guard Jayhawk pilot for the last 15 years:

"We replace our helmets when they don't pass inspection (primarily if the shell cracks from being dropped from a height). Some guys fly w the same helmet for 20 plus years. Same w the navy. Army helo pilots use the same helmets that we do."

All this begs the question: The US military, which has a monster budget and LOVES replacing items that don't need to be replaced, seems to be confident that their helmets can last for 20+ years and still protect pilots if they have to crash a plane or helicopter falling out of the sky, or ejecting through a canopy. So either military helmets are using a different material that doesn't "disintegrate" as motorsport helmet-makers would have us believe, or the military doesn't care about the safety of highly-trained pilots flying aircraft that cost hundreds of millions of dollars (where the cost of a new helmet ever 5 or 10 years is virtually nothing). I find the latter hard to believe, personally.

So if the military has had the technology for decades to make helmets that "last," why is it motorsport helmet manufacturers, who make helmets that can cost hundreds or thousands of dollars, can't?

I would submit that they can (or do), but saying so wouldn't be much of a business model by eliminating the mandatory replacement of their product every X number of years. And while organizations like Snell were founded with an altruistic goal, let's face the fact that were they to admit such a fact, their raison d'etre would essentially be diminished (along with their substantial funding that comes directly from putting that little "SA2010" sticker on your helmet, or harness.

--

Along those lines, I just sent all of them back a question about whether their harnesses in aircraft have a similar shelf-life. After all, those harnesses are in daylight far more than ones in a racecar (probably daily), and have to hold pilots in place during aircraft carrier traps and other maneuvers creating extended g-loads. Will be interesting to see what that answer is as well.

Find out what the material for harnesses are if you're asking that question. There are at least three different kinds of material with three very different lifespans used in automotive applications.

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.

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?

The answer is probably that the SFI has the ear of the insurance company.

I have to say... on other straight up racing forums I participate on this subject is akin to "harleys suck" or "what oil should I use" in frequency and there has never been a satisfactory answer. It is completely absurd that you can wear a 1970 orange crush open face motorcycle helmet on an actual berkeleying motorcycle as long as it has it's original DOT sticker but you need a brand-spankin' new lid to drive a car with all it's modern safety features and stock seat belts in a motherberkeleying parking lot. We all know this. The answer is follow the money.

I race with the BMWCCA. We have to change our window and center nets every 2 years (and belts 5, fuel cell bladder 5, HANS at the discretion of HANS every 5, seat every 5 unless back brace of questionable safety, then 10). The SFI is a berkeleying cartel and if we were left to our druthers we would have all of our organizations make sensible rules based on sound engineering rather than a pile of manufacturers who pay thru the ass for a sticker to dictate when their stuff expires with no actual scientific basis for the date. Unfortunately, we are not left to our druthers. We are at the mercy of insurance and insurance wants specifications. That opens the door for cartels to form.

Somewhere in my archives I have a picture I sent to tech of me towing my race car up the steep hill in front of my house on an open trailer with only the window net between the trailer and the hitch with the subject of "Yup, time to replace these worn out nets!".

I'm still waiting for the reply.

We've discussed nylon and polyester belt degradation in the past.

http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/forum/grm/schroth-harness-lifespan/34480/page1/