After sunday's autocross a novice asked on our region's message board about getting a cheap helmet. He got replies ranging from links where you could get an M2000 helmet for $60 and one even $49!

The site we raced at sunday was a military air strip with tall grass off the sides. The dirt wasn't always flat and smooth. In fact, yesterday and S2000 went off into the grass sideways-he wasn't the only one to go off into the grass. Now is it just me or this the kind of place where a good possibility of rolling over exists?

It just kind of disturbs me that people will recommend and use such cheap helmets. Am I being a little excessive here?

What's everyone's opinion on helmets in autocross?

MHO is that, if you buy a cheap helmet, you must not have much to protect anyway, so it's a great choice!

Helmets have always been (and probably always will be) one of those things that people just don't understand. If you spend the money for a good one, then never have to "use" it, it can seem like money down the drain. Sort of like car insurance - for most of our lives it's a useless waste of money . . . until our brakes go out and we put our car in a ditch! Then, we're glad we spent the money!!

People may not like it, but they just need to bite the bullet and get a good helmet.

You know what the REALLY funny part is? I've noticed that, most of the time, the same guys who are the ones to brag about how much they spent (read: "wasted") on their fenders, mufflers, and/or wings, are the same guys who skimp on safety equipment. But, they've always got that chrome fire extinguisher bolted to the windshield pillar! Good thing it's there, 'cause after they are thrown through the windshield (when their harness rips out of the sheet metal it's bolted to) and their brains are spilled on the pavement (about 2 feet away from the helmet that split in half while going through the windshield), they can always go back and reach inside the burning car to get the fire extinguisher that holds just enough fire-retardant to put out a match!

I don't see a problem with a cheap Snell-tested helmet. If it's passed the testing and fits properly, but the graphics or ventilation or lining isn't as nice, that's really a comfort issue, not a safety issue. I'd be more concerned about an old helmet that doesn't meet the latest standards or has been bumped around a lot.

One thing to keep in mind - helmets (no matter what they cost) are designed to absorb ONE impact. If you ever drop it, toss it in the trash even if it looks fine. THAT's really where being cheap can hurt you Also, if it doesn't fit properly, it won't help much.

My kevlar, Snell 2000 helmet only cost $60. I had no objection to paying more, even a lot more (and in fact I did pay more for the first helmet I bought and sold because it didn't fit right). The one I found that fit only cost $60, so that's what I paid. It meets the same standards as the $500 helmets.

I agree with Sean about the helmets. Snell 2000 is Snell 2000 cheap or expensive. As far as the safeness of a course designed so a car can go off the paved surface, I believe it is back to the drawing board. If the off-track surface is wet or bumpy, lookout. Two wheels can hook in that condition and over ya go.

It was an airport course, so there's little paved runoff room, and it had been raining.

I'll be running there at least once more soon, so my concession to safety will be a moratorium on setup changes. I'm sitting on my new Strano bars until I can get to an event in a large lot. They (like every other suspension change) may be better or may be worse, but they'll still be different, and I want to keep the predictable "devil I know" until I can safely test the change.

Where a lot of people get confused is on the M vs. SA rating. For the 2000 ratings, there is only one testing difference. This test simulates an impact with a rollbar. Otherwise the main difference is in the lining (SA requires fire retardant materials, but many of the M helmets have this even though not required). For me, since I don't have a rollbar/cage, I go with M rated helmets which have a couple of benefits. One, they are less expensive, and two, they have a larger opening on the full face units (part of the SA standard dictates a smaller opening).

Also, keep in mind that helmets are only good for 2 certification cycles (certification occurrs every 5 years). For example, if you have a M/SA95 helmet, it will no longer be accepted once the 2005 certification comes out.

Totally agree, if it meets the spec then it meets the spec. I've never cut open a helmet to see, but I presume most of the extra cost is for more breathable fabric and better padding. I use a $100 helmet and I'll buy my girlfreind a $100 helmet. I would like to see more testing data because I know they test these things. So I would like to see a impact rating for helmet, so when you go to buy one it would say "design is impact tested to 3,000 lb over a 1 second deration" or something rating like that. That would let you know if a more expensive helmet is really better, other wise it is just a guess with little to back it up.

I would also go to say that since these things are designed and tested for cars with rollbar's, that they build hemlets to pass that test. What I care about is rollover since I don't have a rollbar in my current car and one design of helmet that is good for protecting in hitting your head on a rollbar may not do so well in a rollover. I know I'm being a little course on my judment, but my point is that asumming a more expensive helmet is better for you is like saying the most expensive tire is the best; which is not always the case and we have a ton more data on tires then we do on helmet's.



For SCCA Solo 2 it is 3 cycles, so when 2005 comes out then 90 will be out the door.

Sean makes a good point. If it meets the standards (really meets them, no fudging allowed) then I guess it's "good enough". I always thought "if you have a $60 head, you buy a $60 helmet". But, if it is certified then I guess they trust it. I still may not. I bought a Bell when I needed a helmet I think it was about $260 or so (retail as I remember, I worked at Jegs at the time and got a discount).

Hmm, I thought SCCA was 2 Cycles as well, did they change it sometime within the past 5 years? Oh well, not a big deal, but be aware that some roadcourse and other clubs are only 2 cycles.

As to the testing procedure, here's some links:
http://www.smf.org/testing.html

M2000 standard:
http://www.smf.org/standards/m2000std.html

SA2000 standard:
http://www.smf.org/standards/sa20std.html

All Snell Standards (including Draft):
http://www.smf.org/stds.html

First of all, ya'll are right - more expensive does not always equal better.

Second, the Snell ratings are very similar to governmental crash ratings for cars. For a company to sell the car, it must meet MINIMUM crash ratings. However, many car makers design their cars to EXCEED these standards. Similarly, many of the "cheaper" helmets simply MEET the Snell standards. However, quite a few "more expensive" helmets exceed these standards.

I have no idea which manufacturer it was, but I know that I read it somewhere (Bell, maybe). They said that, while Snell only required an satisfactory impact rating for 1 impact occurence, they guaranteed thiers for 2 impacts. This is quite nice, as when a car rolls over, you will usually hit your head (helmet) more than once. This is a good example of the EXCEEDS part. Of course, if I remember correctly, you would have to pay for it - the helmet was like $400 or something.

Also, I think that most of you are right. This is for autocross. Speeds are not what they are in road racing. There are no other cars on the course. There is "usually" enough runoff room to where you won't contact any immovable objects. Taking this into account, as long as your helmet can absorb a relatively hard hit with the roof/door jamb, or steering wheel, or other in-car place, I think you'll be fine.

I will add that if it was possible for me to walk into a store stocked with "good" helmets and find one that really fit properly, cost wouldn't be a deciding factor.

However, my attempt at mail order fitting wasn't very successful. Helmet sizes, even if they were standardized, are still only based on circumference, not head shape. I tried on quite a few helmets to find one that fit right, but the available selection in this area doesn't include any motorsport helmets other than for dirt bikes and ATVs (and hundreds of DOT).

I would rather be wearing a properly fit cheap helmet (even just DOT) in a crash than a poor-fitting "good" helmet, even if the good helmet really is better. If it doesn't fit, it doesn't protect.

i don't feel any need to tell someone that they are taking a chance that could hurt them..

it's not your responsibility


there is risk in everything.. cheap, expensive, it doesn't matter as long as it passes tech inspection



if you want to really take an active role in telling people that they are ignorant.. then i would suggest by starting with motorcycle riders that don't wear helmets at all

Sounds like you've been in Ohio.

I'd like to suggest an alternative to trying to talk to those morons. Just run 'em off the road. They'll figure it out. (Maybe we should call that the George Carlin approach, it sounds like a suggestion he'd make).

Ok, maybe not.

I never understood the no helmet school of thought. As a person who has been in a high speed motorcycle accident, I am the poster child for helmets. I will tell anyone and everyone to wear one. I am quite certain that a helmet is the only reason I'm still here (and yes, I threw it away after the accident). And, it seems that we lose about 1-2 riders a month during the Summer from accidents with no helmet. Many at 25mph or less it seems. Sad.....

Louisiana has a "Population Control" law . . . I mean, a "No Helmet" law, also. I just can't believe that people would actually do that! I'll be glad to make a recommendation that they wear them, but if they want not to wear one, they're adults, go ahead!

Personally, when I see one of those guys in front of me, I get as far away from them as possible. I REALLY don't want to be picking their body parts out of my bumper.

I bought a cheap... open face G-force for OT, then bought a good full face SA Bell for my dirt tracking.

I agree that Snell is Snell...no matter the manufacturer and the G-Force helmet is every bit as good of quality as my Bell is.

I bought it at Racerwarehouse for like $99.

just get a helmet with Snell / DOT approval.
I use a motorcycle helmet and no need for any graphical stuff... plane black.
And I got a rollbar so in case something happens, the chances I live to talk about it are greater.

First helmet I had was black - BIG mistake. A real heat absorber!!

I won't scrimp on safety, period. I would rather have as much safety equipment as possible. It's tough sometimes, to decide on what to buy - better performance-related parts, or ensuring you as the driver are wearing quality safety equipment.

Better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

If you have a rollbar, then you need an SA helmet. They are specifically designed to protect your head against impact with a rollbar.

Yes that's the primary difference between SA and M helmets besides the liner. M helmets are tested with three anvils, whereas the SA helmets are tested against a fourth. The SA helmets are tested against a rollbar anvil and are struck 3 times in each test zone.

Refer to sections E4.1-E4.3

http://www.smf.org/standards/m2000std.html

http://www.smf.org/standards/sa20std.html

We're really mixing two entirely different questions together as if they were the same thing.

1) Should we cut corners on safety equipment? Clearly the answer is no.

2) Does paying more for a helmet (or other safety equipment) make it safer? That's not so clear (assuming everything considered meets the latest Snell standards and is an appropraite design for the application).

It's also important to remember that a lot of things affect safety, and sometimes the best of intentions makes things WORSE. For example:

a) using a harness without a rollcage, or even with a rollcage if the helmet protrudes above the cage,

b ) as already mentioned, using a great helmet that doesn't fit properly

c) using a large heavy helmet without a HANS devive or something similiar,

etc.

I cringe everytime I see a harness that's mounted below the shoulders. It's a spinal fracture begging to happen. No doubt the owner feels much safer, though.

I personally would like to see more dual-certified helmets.

The impact testing between SA and M helmets is mostly identical (same number of impacts, same energy, same flat, edge, and hemispherical anvils). The SA test does add a cylindrical rollbar anvil test, but this is not cumulative. In other words, it does not add any additional impacts to one site, it just uses a different type of anvil for an additional test on a different site.

The value of the SA flame-retardant requirement should be self evident.

I suppose the wider periphral vision requirements for M helmets might not be applicable to some forms of auto racing, but in general I think unobstructed vision reduces the likelyhood of an accident and is therefore safer.

I want a helmet that meets BOTH standards (and still fits).

That was something I had thought of, but forgot to bring up. I see tons of intelligent people at local autocrosses that have their shoulder harness mounted to the floor. I chuckle and think of Darwin. Maybe that is how I should look at all of this.

Well, I must admit that I've got a 5-pt harness, and no roll cage.

I will qualify that, however. One, it is attached to the "baby seat" holders on the rear deck. Those things are rated to hold about 60lbs, so I daresay that they'll rip out in the event of a bad crash. Plus, they're about 2 inches below my shoulders,and 5 feet back. I really don't think that I'm in danger of spine compression. I also wear my seat belt below my harness, just in case.

I really don't get the guys who bolt it to the rear seat bolts. They're both permanent and below the shoulders!

I'm sure they will hold more than 60 lbs. If that were true, I should be able to hook a strap to it and yank it out of the car (not happening). While I agree, you'll not be likely to see a spinal injury, you may see enough belt stretch to hit the steering wheel (if it ever came to that kind of impact). Not perfect, but only you can make that call.

Remember that not everyone (intelligent or not) has your level of familiarity with vector addition.

My point was that sometimes it isn't obvious whether an action actually furthers your goals or not.

BTW, I can't bring myself to try a torso strap for autocross either. It just seems like it would be very dangerous in an accident. If it's placed high enough (mid sternum) it might be OK, but I'd still be worried about spinal damage.

While you are correct on the addition of the 4th test (roll bar), which is tested 3 times, the other tests are all exactly the same as the M standard and are either 1 or 2 impacts:
2 on flat anvil
2 on hemisperical anvil
1 on edge anvil




The rear seatbelt mounting point is far enough back that the angle created is acceptable to meet DOT restraint standards IF they are used with an appropriate restraint system like those from Schroth, which has a unique anti-sub-marining design ( http://www.schroth.com/products_en/asm.htm ). Unfortunately, I think many people have seen these belts in use like this in other cars and think they can use any harness safely like this, which is not the case.

Come to think of it, you're probably right (about the "holding 60 lbs" part). I asked one of the guys at the dealership, and he did some "research" and that was what he came back with. Of course, that may have just been how much change he had in his pocket, or the air temp that day.

I'm not overly worried about belt stretch, as I also wear my regular seat belt.

Thanks for the concern! I'm always open to suggestions!!

The role of the harness is to keep you firmly upright and in your seat (including your head). The role of the rollcage is to prevent the roof from meeting your head. Using the harness without the cage means your body can't move when the roof reaches your head

Ignoring that, though, you'd be better off with the belts anchored 2" ABOVE your shoulders. Even anchoring them at the same level causes compression as your body is thrown forward and increases the tension.

You might be better off making some kind of adaptor (from steel) that mounts temporarily to the childseat anchors, but raises the belt anchors. Another approach is the harness bar, but I'm not sure it's high enough either.

Interesting enough, simpson recomends the should straps be mounted below shoulder level.



I had always heard that it had to do the angle of shoulder strap, compared to the shoulders.

Well, I actually thought of another problem with my setup. I was betting that the anchors would give way in a serious crash, allowing me to move around freely when/if the roof gives way. However, if my regular seat belt holds me in, then I won't be thrown forward enough to break them. Which means that I'll be sitting straight up in a rollover.

Now, this risk MAY be worth it at my home races. The runway is bordered by trees. You go from concrete to wood wall. Not much chance of a rollover (you'd hit trees first). But, I'm going to really think about this for places with wide open runoffs into sand or dirt.

Question about the 2" above part. Is that "absolute 2" above your shoulders" or "relative 2" above your shoulders"? Meaning, if I were to sit straight up, they should be 2" above. But, I sit semi-reclined (not lowrider - more like 20-30 degrees from straight up). If you look at the angle formed by the belt as it comes over the seat, it forms about a 60-70 degree angle. So, in relation to my shoulders, the harness is actually above them. But, measured from the ground, it is below or even. Which is the preferred method?

Yes, as I said in my other post the 4th test is the difference-I didn't mean to imply the other impact tests were any different. I see I wasn't entirely clear there.

On to the belts...

My issue isn't with submarining (although I see how that could happen), but rather with spinal compression. It's funny you mention Schroth, because those are the belts some guys are using locally. I've seen them making a roughly 45* angle with the seat/floor. Ideal is around 5 to 10*.

Man I didn't expect this to turn into a long thread. And btw, I'm no safety nazi. In fact I find the safety program here at work (power plant) to be quite annoying at times.

You're on a good point there. The harness mounting point makes some difference.

But it seems to me, that my seat, with harness cutouts, defines the harness angle, relative to my shoulders....

And those cutouts are low. So any tension in the belt creates a downward force on my shoulders, no matter where the harness is anchored.

I think Simpson lists the 10 degree downward angle as a way to keep you from impacting the roof due to belt stretch. You begin to deal with the "lesser of two evils". Do you risk spinal damage or a head injury, etc? That may be the question and yet somehow, the solution?

First of all, I said 2" above because you said 2" below. I was just trying to make the point that "almost horizontal" is not good enough. I'm was not trying to imply that 2" is the magic number - I don't want to lead anyone astray.

That Simpson picture shows the belt anchored below the shoulders (apparently to keep your head off the roof), but assuming it's reasonably to scale, the angle from pelvis to shoulders to belt anchor is still significantly greater than 90* to reduce the risk of compression fractures.

Ignoring the issue of keeping you in your seat, it's the relative angle of the belt compared to the spine that matters for protecting your spine.

What the heck, it's a good topic to discuss every now and then.

that is the way I had always understood it should be at a 90* angle compared to the spine, but being that most of us do not sit with our spines vertical, the mounting does end up being below shoulder level.

Safety Nazi has always been my job. Just ask Mitch

I've seen installation diagrams before (in addition to the Simpson pic) that show the shoulder belt mount 90* to the line formed by the shoulder belt as worn by the driver. The 90* mount causes the load on the belt to be in a straight line during an accident, not pulling down on the spine as it would at greater than 90, or allowing the body to rotate forward, as it would at less than 90.

My understanding of the submarine strap is to prevent the lap belt from riding up on the drivers torso. During an accident, the body pivots forward, the shoulders want to rotate away from the seat. As the body rotates, the rear mounting point for the shoulder harness stays stationary (we hope), effectively lengthening the distance from rear mount to the shoulder, shortening the distance from shoulder to lap. The shortened distance from shoulder to lap wants to pull the lap belt up on the torso, allowing the body to slip under the lap belt.

A properly installed sub strap (I think parallel to the line of the shoulder belts) keeps the lab belt placed across the hips.

Well, Sean, I think I'm safe. But, I am gong to take it to a shop that installs these things for local drag cars. They will be able to look and see. Thanks for bringing it up! I'd MUCH rather question what I am doing than just drive around ignorant!!

Here's pics of my helmet after a 40mph highside. Happened a little over 4 years ago.





I can't find pics of my leather jacket after the event. It was in pretty rough shape as well. I walked away, though with a noticable limp from re-establishing contact with the pavement right hip first.

does that mean I need to get another helmet ????

brings back memories of my heads-on @ 85 on my bike.
My leather took a beating (thank God I looked like a PowerRanger) and walked away with just some bruises.

ttt

Well, if there's any way for your helmet to hit a rollbar in a crash, you need an SA. Unless all the bars are very far from the helmet, the answer is "probably".

However, it's also worth considering that Snell doesn't require flame-retardant linings in M2000, only SA2000.

I would really like to see the standards merge. I want the M peripheral vision (accident AVOIDANCE) with the SA rollbar test and flame retardancy.

To start out I just run autocross and happen to be a motorcycle enthusiast. I bought a Shuberth motorcycle helmet which happens to be German made. It is DOT approved but not Snell. At the last autocross I ran I got thrown out of tech inspection since my helmet was not Snell. The ironic part of it was I had just broken off two wheel studs right before I went to tech. (that's a whole other story). They never even noticed that. They spent the whole time ripping my helmet apart trying to find the Snell sticker. I ended up using my old Arai which was about 13 years old. I guess I was really safe on that particular day

I'm 20 years old.

I saved up for 4 years to pay cash for my car.

If it rolls over.... do I really want to live?

Seriously though, I don't see a lot of rollover risk in autocross. Open tracking is another story. Rolover mostly happens when you are going sideways then your inside tires grab something like a dip in the terrain (like you didn't already know that much) and that sort of terrain change isn't really much of a threat in most autocross situations.

Now, my GF and I were watching a bunch of guys in mostly 240SXs and Civics doing their ricer drifts and e-brake slides one time around a U shaped coned off track, and thise guys were wearing no helmets, approaching curbs at excessive speeds, and hanging their arms out of the windows. THAT isn't safe. The problem is that the general public can't tell the difference between that and autocross, and when they see those guys being unsafe they think that all racers (ricers?) are the same way.