JackOlsen

Two statements that are commonly accepted, but are generally not true at all:

1) SA helmets protect against impact better than M helmets.

2) SA helmets cost more because they're built to withstand multiple impacts.

I might have my head way up my butt, but I'd put more faith in the following:

The market for motorcycle helmets is pretty much the only reason there are helmet manufacturers. Look at the numbers. SA rated helmets are an insignificant piece of the helmet business. It would be crazy to design an SA helmet that wouldn't also pass the M tests. Outside of specialty racing manufacturers who make helmets for professional drivers, you design one helmet to pass all the tests. The only meaningful difference is Nomex -- since it increases manufacture cost -- and (as has already been pointed out) DE drivers are hardly ever wearing any fire protection anywhere else on their body. (No, cotton is not flame retardant.) The scrap of Nomex inside a helmet is only going to protect a wearer from the flames that either burn through or somehow slip inside the fiberglass shell of the helmet. It's probably safe to say that the number of drivers who have saved themselves from head burns while wearing no fire protection other than the lining inside their helmet is probably very close to zero.

I wear and recommend SA helmets because I can't see any downside to the use of an SA rated helmet. But I think it's a foolish statement to say that anyone is significantly increasing their risk of injury by wearing an M rated helmet in an automobile.

doc2s

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/b...hes_190180.htm

Greg Smith

I agree, very good points.
I would love to see data that proves this. Just because M helmets are tested at a lower standard doesn't mean they're less safe/strong.


-Guy who drove in the white run group with an M dirt bike helmet for years, and has tested several M helmets on rock and dirt.

Bob Rouleau

Nicely stated Jack and I agree completely.

todinlaw

I don't want to get into a dispute about the appropriate goal of a PCA track program, is it to fully fund the charity goals of the organization, or reconstitute the ongoing track program. I say it is a balance of both, yes the money earned should go to charitable goals, but you also have to set some money aside for proper safety equipment and to build a good track program. So take some of your track proceeds and set it aside for helmets. and so on.

Jimbo951

My experience matches BKS's: I originally bought an M because I didn't know the difference between an M & SA and an M was an easy way to save a few $$$. A few years later I wanted to attended a non-home region DE and the other region required an SA. I sent the helmet to Simpson and they relined it.

Several years ago, I reviewed the Snell tests and I recall there are 3 main differences between a M & SA:

1) M has a larger minimum eye opening.
2) SA is fire resistant.
3) SA has a multiple impact test to simulate hits against roll cages.

Since DE's don't require fire retardant clothing, issue 2 is a non-issue.

I think it would be perfectly reasonable to allow M's in a DE, unless the car has a rollcage, in which case an SA should be required.

If a newbie asked me, I'd recommend an SA over a M. Not because I think an SA is inherently safer. But because all regions accept an SA, but not all accept an M. An SA will just eliminate any future hassle and expense.

Greg Smith

This is the difference in impact tests.
M2005:
"There shall be two impacts at each site tested against the flat anvil."
"There shall be two impacts at each site tested against the hemispherical anvil."
"There shall be one impact at each site tested against the edge anvil."

SA/K2005:
"There shall be two impacts at each site tested against the flat anvil."
"There shall be two impacts at each site tested against the hemispherical anvil."
"There shall be three impacts at each site tested against the roll bar anvil."
"There shall be one impact at each site tested against the edge anvil."

And to give you an idea on the anvils used: