Current Helmet Standards

[TomoHawk]

What is the current helmet standard required for SCCA Solo I (for Autocross)?

According to the SCCA, these are the current helmet requirements:

SA95, M95, K98, SA2000, M2000, SA/K2005, or M2005, SFI 31.1A, 31.2A, 41.1A, and 41.2A (source: http://www.scca.com/documents/Solo%20Rules/SoloHelmetBulletin.pdf)

In general, you can use a helmet "meeting the current or two immediately

preceding Snell Foundation standards."

So I think that means you could use an SA2005 or SA200 helmet?

thxZ

[ggarrard]

Tomohawk - The Canadian Auto Sports Club (CASC) http://www.casc.on.ca/ (similar to the SCCA) requires at minimum M2000 or newer helmets for cars not equipped with rollbars and slicks, and SA 2000, SFI 31.1A or 31.2A, or BSI equivalent for cars in the modified classes. These rules apply for both SoloI (high speed time trials) and SoloII (auto slalom) events.

GWGarrard

[TomoHawk]

Yeah, Solo II is what I'm primarily interested in, but I might do a hot-lap occasionally.

It looks like the Canadian requirements are similar to the U.S. ones. Still, what is the current standard for Snell? Snell is more familiar and available to me than SFI.

FYI- Snell has proposed a new standard for 2010, but that shouldn't concern anybody for a while.

thxZ

[sopwith21]

I'll feel much better once I say this...

Racers everywhere should openly protest the helmet standards.

Helmet ratings are deliberately designed to artificially make perfectly good helmets obsolete in order to force racers to buy new ones.

Helmet structural integrity does not break down for more than seven years after manufacture, and then only in the areas of glue (affixing trim, etc.), liner material, etc. The actual protective capacity of the helmet does not deteriorate with any reasonable amount of age.

Even Snell, which provides the safety rating on helmets, openly admits that "the recommendation for... helmet replacement is a judgment call."

In other words, there is no scientific, independent data whatsoever to indicate that a 4-7 year old racing helmet will provide anything other than the full protection that it was designed to provide. And even if it did, its your head inside the helmet, not theirs, and you are far more capable of making your own safety decisions than anyone else. Still, many sanctioning bodies are mandating new helmets every third year, and in some cases, every second year.

The helmet standards mandated by racing organizations are fabricated. They are an unabashed racket and a shameful scam that only adds to the financial burden born by low budget, weekend enthusiasts.

Every racer should openly and repeatedly protest them until they are repealed by your sanctioning body.

Wow. I really do feel better now.

[TomoHawk]

I think the requirements for getting a helmet depends on how many generations or design evolutions have occured between when you got your and what it is currently. You might have a helmet that's been in a nice box in the closet for 10 years and s still perfectly new, but it could be two or more generations behind in design & construction, so for your safety, you are required to have a helmet that is closer to the current, most protective, standard.

It's not about having you constantly spending money. If it was, then you'd be required to buy new tires, spark plugs, and any other consumables more often than practical.

[LanceM]

I think the requirements for getting a helmet depends on how many generations or design evolutions have occured between when you got your and what it is currently. You might have a helmet that's been in a nice box in the closet for 10 years and s still perfectly new, but it could be two or more generations behind in design & construction, so for your safety, you are required to have a helmet that is closer to the current, most protective, standard.

It's not about having you constantly spending money. If it was, then you'd be required to buy new tires, spark plugs, and any other consumables more often than practical.

You are kidding right, you don't really believe that do you??? What you need to do is follow the money and you'll see the reason we are constantly having to spend money replacing things that are working just fine, and it's not just helmets.

[TomoHawk]

I went through all this with cycling helmets and gear in the 70s and 80s. At first, cycling helmets were just like leather pilots headgear. Every other year the helmets got more aero, protective and safer. We didn't mind getting better ones because it's your brain hitting on the concrete when you spill, so you gotta decide for yourself of you want to be safe or dead.

We were spending money hand-over-fist like was mentioned already because every year, new lighter metals, better gearing, stronger components, tighter clothes, etc. would come out, and it was not cheap to keep up with the pros and get the weight & drag down.

Lance-

You're welcome to be on your side of the fence.

[LanceM]

Maybe it's just old age but I'm full of doubt anymore anytime someone tells me I need to replace something that is working "for my own good", be it the government or some other sanctioning body. Anytime I have to spend my money replacing something "for my own good", deep research typically shows that the money going out of my pocket is filling someone else's, showing that money spent "for my own good" really ends up being for someone else's own good...

Something that comes to mind is tires BTW, last I heard, "they" say you need to replace tires once they are 6 years old, worn out or not... sounds like another way to get us to spend our money... I know, I know, it's for my own good.....

[sopwith21]

for your safety, you are required to have...

... the ability to make my own safety decisions. The notion that sanctioning body bureaucrats care more about me than I do is outrageous to the enth degree.

It's not about having you constantly spending money. If it was, then you'd be required to buy new tires, spark plugs, and any other consumables more often than practical.

You are. How many sanctioning bodies require that you buy only a certain brand of tire, and that you buy it from them or their approved distributor?

Any time someone begins a sentence with "For your safety" or ends a sentence with "Thank you for your cooperation," you can bet that whatever they said in between was none of their business.

Even the Snell foundation openly admits that their own ratings are a judgment call based on absolutely nothing. Zippo. Nada. Not a single, solitary shred of empirical data to demonstrate that a 6-year old helmet is incapable of doing the very same job that it was the day you bought it.

Let's not be gullible... the Snell rating and mandatory helmet buying racket is, indeed, a racket, a scam, a sham and a rip off. The only thing worse than the scam itself is that we, the victims, have been carefully conditioned to defend it.

[TomoHawk]

... Even the Snell foundation openly admits that their own ratings are a judgment call based on absolutely nothing. Zippo. Nada. Not a single, solitary shred of empirical data to demonstrate that a 6-year old helmet is incapable of doing the very same job that it was the day you bought it.

What's your source- you? When you make such a statement, you really need to cite your source.

[sopwith21]

The source was named in the very sentence you quoted... "Even the Snell foundation openly admits that their own ratings are a judgment call based on absolutely nothing."

Just look at Snell's own web site. Go to http://www.smf.org/, then click on FAQs, then click "Why Should You Replace Your Helmet Every Five Years?" Their answer, in their own words, is merely based on an arbitrary guess. Snell says "the recommendation for five year helmet replacement is a judgment call."

Then look up Snell's testing procedures and you'll see that they test for retention, stability, penetration and flame resistance, but they have no testing, no data and no empirical evidence whatsoever to test a helmet's integral degradation due to age. Nothing.

Then go to "Research and Funding" and look for anything related to age degradation research by Snell. Guess what you find? Nothing.

These are not my words, they are Snell's. I encourage you to look for yourself.

We should not accept the arbitrary judgment call of sanctioning bodies, manufacturers and the institutions with whom they closely work without question. The helmet replacement mandates imposed by sanctioning bodies are a racket and a scam. They force low-budget racers to take money that they cannot spare and make redundant purchases to replace items that are still perfectly suitable for their purpose.

Racers should protest the helmet mandates of sanctioning bodies and stop accepting the word of institutions without question.

[TomoHawk]

The second paragraph gives the (specific) source of the information.

thxZ