Skant

I'm currently using an old M90 rated helmet that a friend gifted to me when I got started. It's been getting me into autox, drag, and track day events. But I don't think it will much longer since the rating is old. Looking at upgrading now.

Besides the obvious things like being comfortable and fitting well, what are the features to look for and consider?

I'm looking at full face helmets. For several reasons, I really don't believe in the open face varieties.

The only places locally I have found for helmets are motorcycle shops... so most of the helmets are Snell M2000 rated. I have been under the impression that all of the events which require Snell 2000 will also allow M2000... I get the idea there's no real difference there. Is this so?

Or is this a bad time to buy a helmet anyway since Snell 2005 is coming out but isn't generally available yet? Maybe I aught to wait? If I can...

What other features might matter?

What brands do you guys like? Or dislike? And why?

I looked at a Shoei RF-1000 helmet today with a dragon graphic on it that tickled my fancy (beings as I'm a dragon nut). It has a Snell M2000 rating. Realizing it's somewhat more expensive because of the graphic... would this be a fine choice for a helmet?

- Skant

John Shiels

M = motorcycle and it is not for use in cars due to fire concerns. I like Simpson helmets If you have an accident you won't be worried about the date on the helmet. I would get one ASAP. I can't beleive the groups you run with let you use it.

2K3Z06

I have the Simpson Super Bandit and the Super Voyager. A nice lightweight helmet for around $500. I bought the Bandit first, because I liked the style, but I didn't really like the claustrophic feel of the small eyeport. Plus I wear glasses sometimes and the helmet presses on the temple bars of the glasses. For a closed cockpit, get a helmet with a large eyeport. It also seems to help with side vision and a little easier to see the gauges. I have some Arai motorcycle helmets which I love, but there SA rated helmets are around $900.

http://www.simpsonraceproducts.com/

rbeckham

M and S rated helmets are different (or at least pass different tests) in various ways. You should make the investment in at least looking into how this is done, and how they are certified:

http://www.smf.org/

Paras

Your Head!

Just had to add a smart a$$ comment when I saw this subject line...

Now back to your regularly scheduled programming...

AU N EGL

Yuppers your head.

SA = special application i.e. nomex liner and in many cases Kevlar shell.

Lighter the M or motorcycles helmets

SA 2000 or SA 2005 in Oct are the best choices.

freefall

In addition to what they've already said, I think SA has added rear impact resistance (for roll bars)...I believe one can have a wider field of view also (don't remember which). It's easy to spot the diff's in the two specs. The added cost is negligable when you think about brain damage or burns.

Skant

According to the Snell site... SA has fire proofing requirements. SA has an impact with roll bar test. And SA is allowed to have a smaller view port than M. These are the only differences.

I will not be wearing a nomex fire suit, so I don't see how a fireproof helmet is going to make any real difference to my safety. My car does not have a roll bar. And I don't see how a more restricted view is an additional safety feature.

I'm all for safety, but I'm not seeing how SA actually provides more protection than M in my application.

All else being equal, I'd just assume go for an overspec'd helmet anyway. The additional price does not concern me. But there are three things which do...

1) So far I haven't found any local shops that carry SA helmets. Historically, I've had trouble finding helmets that fit me properly... my head is huge and apparently not quite the typical shape. So mail order is not a real possibility. I need to try helmets out in person. Anyone know a good place near San Jose, CA?

2) Most of the SA helmets appear to have restricted vision. In this way, they're actually less safe than M helmets.

3) Most of the SA helmets I've seen pictures of seem to be... well... fugly. Most seem to come in white only. And they almost seem like they've been purposefully designed to be as aesthetically displeasing as possible. I don't need the slickest looking helmet in the world, but I hate to spend money on one that makes me look like a dork (I look like a dork enough as it is... I don't need the additional help... :P )

So those are my concerns about SA. M carries a concern that I might not be allowed in some events. But researching the various organizations, events, and tracks that I could do at my level in the foreseeable future, I don't see any of them that won't allow an M2000 helmet. Heck, even my current M90 is still good for a few more months yet.

I'm not trying to brush aside the advice that has been given so far on this thread. I'd prefer to have SA if I can find a good solution that doesn't suffer the problems I've mentioned above and for a reasonable price.

I'd also like to learn more about the gotchas. Like I wasn't aware of the restricted vision of some helmets. What else should I watch out for?


Btw... The suggestion of the Super Voyager is probably the best SA2000 possibility I've encountered so far. In the pictures, it's not bad looking. Actually comes in other colors besides white. And apparently has good vision. Price is right. But... I don't know where to find one locally to check out for fit and such. Mail order just isn't going to work for me. My head is just too nonstandard.

As of this moment, the 'best' option I'm looking at is still that Shoei M2000 helmet I tried on and it actually fit me and looked quite nice. If it were SA, it would be absolutely ideal.

Anyway... with more research and helpful hints from you guys... I'm sure I'll find the perfect solution eventually...

- Skant

StArrow68

If you can find a local who has Grassroots Motorsports Magazine they did a good article on differences in M and SA about two months ago, might be on web, I didn't check. Even without a roll bar you have a door jamb to the left and being tall my helmet hits it every so often and my Vette coupe has a B pillar that can be contacted if you are thrown back far enough. There are contact point in most everything. The SA is for those contacts.

Like one noted above I got the Simpson Super Voyager for the larger eye port and think it helps. I've used it in both the Vette and open wheel cars. I got it from http://www.helmetcity.com/
I used a seamstress tape, cloth, to measure head size and got an exact fit using their sizing chart.

The SA 2005 comes out in October I think and at that point most 1995 ratings will be obsolete.
Randy

Skant

Hmmm... doing more research... I've taken the time to read and compare the actual Snell standards for M2000, SA2000, M2005, and SA2005 myself. And I find it interesting that all four documents are virtually identical.

The M versions do lack the roll bar impact testing. But Snell tests both kinds of helmets with anvils that are harsher shapes than a roll bar anyway. It seems unlikely that M helmets would not survive the roll bar anvil impacts when they are tested to survive harsher impacts all over anyway... and these other impacts are identically specified for M and SA.

In fact, the only meaningful difference seems to be the inclusion or not of fireproofing tests. Which seems to be born out by the fact that many SA helmets also come in M versions for a little less money... just lined with something other than nomex but otherwise identical.

Another point of interest is that SA2005 requirements are actually _less than_ SA2000. The documents are basically identical except that if a manufacturer's helmet fails the test, Snell will test again but hit that type of helmet softer from then on... and pass it if it survives the softer tests! Nice.

I have found it interesting reading what people had to say on all sorts of forums all over the net about helmet ratings... and comparing that to the actual specifications. For instance, lots of people believe that the M helmets only have to survive one impact, where SA have to survive many. Which is not true. Excepting the 'roll bar' shaped anvil tests, they're both hit the same number of times (many!), in the same locations, and with the same force. There seem to be a lot things like this where folks imagine that the SA standard is much more stringent, but it's actually identical.

At the same time, there's a lot of movement to have the best safety equipment possible, regardless of cost or other factors. Obviously, this is not an entirely unreasonable notion. But... by and large, it turns out to be a big stack of money that gets only a perceived difference in safety. Much like the majority of airport security procedures have virtually no impact on terrorism, but they show the public that 'something is being done'. There is little practical benefit.

Nevertheless, organizations will march on with adopting and requiring the top standards, even if the differences are essentually meaningless to the particular event. Certainly, it fits in with the modern concept of 'Cover Your a$$' in a law suit happy country.

And you'll be required to toss out your SA2000 helmet in favor of a 'quality assurance relaxed' SA2005, since naturally newer ratings must be safer than older ones.

Anyway... there's not a whole lot of reason I'm writing this particular post. I just find it interesting to dig into how things actually work and what's really going on.

After more research and actually reading the specifications for the testing, I have zero concern about using an M helmet instead of an SA in terms of actual safety (except when worn in combination with full nomex gear... in which case, an M helmet becomes the weak link for fire resistance. However, an SA helmet and no other nomex gear does not make you fire resistant). However, because most people perceive a greater difference between the two ratings and tend to set requirements for their events accordingly, well... it's not wise to go against the flow.

So SA is the answer.

- Skant

AU N EGL

Good choice

The other thing is that many clubs here on the east cost as of Jan 2006 will only allow SA helmets, no more M helmets.

Ratings last 10 years . SOme companies will allow ppl to send there helmets back in and re-certify the helmet. I wonder if that means just put on a new sticker saying SA2005 ??

c4cruiser

I would think that if major sanctioning bodies ordered something like this, there would be a substantial drop in attendance at the grassroots level. A good helmet is expensive and you could find that a lot of people could not afford to replace say a year old helmet with a new one.

While some of your comments regarding helmets and standards make sense, the two standards (M and SA) are really for entirely different situations. The way the impact happens during an accident is different. In a car, your helmet bounces around against roll bars (assuming your car has a bar/cage) while a motorcycle accident is usually a single hit or a couple and then it provides protection from a sliding action as the rider slows down on the pavement.

Fire protection, to me, is the big issue. A fire in a car is much more of a possibility compared to a motorcycle accident. The Nomex lining helps but that also assumes a driver is wearing Nomex over the rest of his body.

Most auto racing sanctioning bodies specifiy an SA helmet. There are some exceptions where either an M or SA rated helmet can be used, but for automobile motorsports, the SA helmet is the way to go. Another thing I had noticed is how my state law handles helmets. For example here in WA, an SA rated helmet without a "DOT" sticker is not legal for motorcycle use on public roads.

A number of years ago, there was a thread on helmet buying with comments on what is best, what is the most economical, cheapest, etc. One of the replies basicaly stated that you should always get the best helmet possible. The poster said "If you have a $10 head, buy a $10 helmet". I thought that was petty sage advice.

StArrow68

Don't know other areas but west coast seems to always allow the current and prior certifications so when SA2005 comes in the allowed helmets are '05 and SA2000 for the next five years. That doesn't seem to limit helmets to a short usage life, maybe 6 years at the least. I am seeing that most organizations like NASA require SA but some smaller groups will allow M for an event or two with encouragement to get something newer if you expect to continue in the future.

As to lower cert requirements for '05, I'm working from memory, but I think they said the impacts were tested or a slightly larger area than in the past, FWIW. Having never yet found any walls but having been tagged in open wheel, I'm just glad to have all the protection I can get.
Randy

Skant

I'm sure that it does. The actual requirements are essentually unchanged over the years. So manufacturers can just continue to produce the same helmets they have been, and there's no reason why their previous helmets wouldn't also be SA2005 certified as is.


As far as I've seen, basically every organization allows at least the current rating and the previous rating. Which means a new helmet will be good for 5 years at a minimum. 10 years at most. (Without being recertified)

I think I'd go with Snell on that one though. They don't trust a helmet that's more than 5 years old with active use. I'd replace it even if it still looks okay and the rules technically allowed it.


Agreed. My point is, however, that M and SA impact testing is essentually identical. So even though the purpose of each standard is theoretically different, they actually specify the same impact resistance. Any difference in actual impact protection is just being assumed by the customer.


Agreed. To me it would make the most sense if SA helmets were required at the same level that other nomex gear is required.


That's because SA allows more restricted vision than M does. While M is effectively a superset of DOT requirements, SA actually isn't.


I absolutely agree. I'm willing to spend the money on protecting my noggin. My point is, however, that looking into the actual rating requirements, I am unable to see where spending more money on an SA helmet will actually provide me more safety than an M helmet in my application. And, indeed, many of the SA helmets would actually be less safe than M helmets in a non-open wheel race car application.


Now... all this being said, I don't want to imply that Snell standards are useless or weak. I'm even more impressed with them after reading the actual specs... the testing requires both M and SA helmets to survive _many_ repeated impacts even against relatively sharp shapes. Even against potential weak points like ventilation holes. They even test visors by shooting them with bullets! 3 times!

It's pretty clear, I think, that Snell requirements haven't materially changed over multiple iterations of the specifications because they were already high enough. How many accidents have you heard of where inadequacy of a Snell helmet (of any automotive certification) was the weak link that allowed the driver to suffer serious injury or death? Snell has had a good thing going for a long time. And I'm glad they exist.

- Skant

Skant

*looks over the specs* Oh. I had missed that. The test line at the back of the helmet has been lowered 10mm. No changes at the front. Okay... I'm glad to find out that something improved (if only slightly) for the 2005 specs.

I still don't like the introduction of softer testing for random samples in 2005 though. Overall, the 2005 specs look weaker to me than the 2000 ones. Essentually, they've relaxed the testing with regards to making sure that the actual helmets that customers buy are as tough as the original helmets they were sent to test by the manufacturers. That is... as of 2005, the helmet you buy in the store doesn't actually have to be as tough as the one the manufacturer originally sent to Snell for testing.

Isn't that nice? :P

- Skant