Driver's Education
Club Racing
Member List
RSS
Help
02-18-2008, 05:26 AM
[user=128]AMoore[/user] wrote:
Aaron,
Price has nothing to do with it. No disrespect to Jack. And I find it laughable that people would worry about a helmet not being fireproof but think nothing about jumping in a car in a cotton tee-shirt...
MylesD55 wrote:
Myles,
That's true for some helmets, but I don't know you could say that for all helmets, at least based on my research back when the Snell 2000 rating was coming into play.
From what I've seen the biggest issue with wearing a helmet is the weight.
If you think about wearing a helmet on a bike the idea is to protect your head if (when) you fall off and it comes in contact with the ground, or another object. At this point the integrity of a helmet is very important and the weight is not too big an issue.
Now look at the use of a helmet in a car. The design of a car is such that it protects you from hitting the ground by keeping you inside the car and attached to the seat (sort of). This is where the problem arises. By confining you to your seat you are kept from hitting anything (a good thing). But that confinement means that your body has to be controlled and kept from striking anything, to do that automobile makers use seat belts and in newer cars air bags. All of which are meant to retard the movement of ones body, well, actually eliminate the impact with a hard surface. In a perfect world we would have lots of space to slow your movement but that’s not the case as the steering wheel is right there in front of you and the side pillar is right there in a side impact and so somewhere someone said let’s put helmets on these peoples head to help protect them. Which it does for impacts to the head but it creates a bigger threat to the neck and now the design of the seat belts is limiting the movement but you have this appendage with a weight on it that is not quite so easy to control. Hence the invention of the HANS device.
Ok, I got side tracked…. Where I’m going with this whole thing is the weight of the helmet is very important, in my opinion right behind the comfort of that helmet. If you are not going to be using a HANS type device buy the lightest helmet you can afford. And that will usually put you into a “M�? helmet. Because of volume they can build (read sell) a better/lighter “M�? helmet for less money than they can a “SA�?. It’s just a matter of marketing.
What does all this mean? I guess nothing other than think about what you are doing. Think about all of the variables that go into our activities. And then make an informed decision.
Quote:[user=63]ccm911[/user] wrote:Quote:By the way, I'd get a Bell Star for about $100. It may only be "M" rated, but it has the Snell Certification. OK for me.In the words of, I believe Jack Kramer, "Cheap helmets are for cheap heads." It is my understanding that the M helmets are not fireproof, which is why they are appropriate for motorcycles. I'll share at Shenandoah (probably too cold to sweat much anyway), and see if she wants her own helmet after that.
Aaron,
Price has nothing to do with it. No disrespect to Jack. And I find it laughable that people would worry about a helmet not being fireproof but think nothing about jumping in a car in a cotton tee-shirt...
MylesD55 wrote:
Quote:It is my understanding that the only physical difference is that the chin strap on an M helmet is not fire proof. I believe that testing M helmets for a Snell rating is one impact vs. multiple impacts on a motor sports helmet. The idea being that a motorcycle helmet will only have to take one big impact when the rider falls vs. the race car driver's helmet hitting the roll cage several times.
Myles,
That's true for some helmets, but I don't know you could say that for all helmets, at least based on my research back when the Snell 2000 rating was coming into play.
From what I've seen the biggest issue with wearing a helmet is the weight.
If you think about wearing a helmet on a bike the idea is to protect your head if (when) you fall off and it comes in contact with the ground, or another object. At this point the integrity of a helmet is very important and the weight is not too big an issue.
Now look at the use of a helmet in a car. The design of a car is such that it protects you from hitting the ground by keeping you inside the car and attached to the seat (sort of). This is where the problem arises. By confining you to your seat you are kept from hitting anything (a good thing). But that confinement means that your body has to be controlled and kept from striking anything, to do that automobile makers use seat belts and in newer cars air bags. All of which are meant to retard the movement of ones body, well, actually eliminate the impact with a hard surface. In a perfect world we would have lots of space to slow your movement but that’s not the case as the steering wheel is right there in front of you and the side pillar is right there in a side impact and so somewhere someone said let’s put helmets on these peoples head to help protect them. Which it does for impacts to the head but it creates a bigger threat to the neck and now the design of the seat belts is limiting the movement but you have this appendage with a weight on it that is not quite so easy to control. Hence the invention of the HANS device.
Ok, I got side tracked…. Where I’m going with this whole thing is the weight of the helmet is very important, in my opinion right behind the comfort of that helmet. If you are not going to be using a HANS type device buy the lightest helmet you can afford. And that will usually put you into a “M�? helmet. Because of volume they can build (read sell) a better/lighter “M�? helmet for less money than they can a “SA�?. It’s just a matter of marketing.
What does all this mean? I guess nothing other than think about what you are doing. Think about all of the variables that go into our activities. And then make an informed decision.
Michael Andrews