Cheap helmets for autocross, Does this sound wrong to anybody else? Options

[robz71lm7]

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?

[00 Trans Ram]

MHO is that, if you buy a cheap helmet, you must not have much to protect anyway, so it's a great choice! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

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! (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

[sgarnett]

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 (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) 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.

[CMC #37]

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.

[sgarnett]

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.

[LT4Firehawk]

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.

[pknowles]

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.

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.

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.

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

[trackbird]

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).

[LT4Firehawk]

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

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

[00 Trans Ram]

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.

[sgarnett]

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.

[prockbp]

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

[trackbird]

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.....

[00 Trans Ram]

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.

[AllZWay]

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.

[Crazy Canuck]

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.

[Rob Hood]

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. (IMG:http://www.frrax.com/rrforum/style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[sgarnett]

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.

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

[robz71lm7]

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

[sgarnett]

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.

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.