<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 12 (filtered medium)">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I guess it’s a moot point if your sanctioning body
requires snell certification. As stated, IMO, 2005 snell standards are
too rigid. There doesn’t seem to be definitive data that the
Drs can look at to see where things really stand and I certainly don’t
pretend to have info they don’t have. I certainly have never held
myself out as a safety equipment expert. I am guessing the article George
mentions can be found at:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><a
href="http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html">http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html</a><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I think it’s a 2005 article and therefore dated, but it’s
a good read and is the basis for my mentioned opinion. I ride a bike, not
race a car, so I understand that there might be different goals here as a 300 g
helmet strike while on a bike is probably going to be pretty rough on other
important internal organs. In a car, you have the luxury of being
strapped in and that should help out your torso but might also require hits to
the exact same spot of a roll cage, etc. Hopefully you’ve
covered those with the proper type of foam.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>I will say that snell has apparently reduced its g standards
from 300 gs to 275 gs in the 2010 standards but what’s +/- 25 gs to
your brain. My main point was that Styrofoam in helmets can be too dense
and snell seems to be on board with that thought. Form your own opinions
and choose the 2005 or the 2010 standards and by all means ignore mine.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
color:#1F497D'>rick<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<div style='border:none;border-top:solid #B5C4DF 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>From:</span></b><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Tahoma","sans-serif"'>
se-r-bounces@se-r-list.org [mailto:se-r-bounces@se-r-list.org] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Tim
Rogers<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Monday, August 24, 2009 12:39 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> se-r list<br>
<b>Subject:</b> Re: racing helmet<o:p></o:p></span></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><strong>Rick wrote:</strong><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><strong>IMO, don't buy a helmet with a snell rating. Snell
has too rigid of standards on G forces and to get that standard, the
manufacturer needs to use Styrofoam that is too rigid and won't crush enough
and slow the deacceleration of your brain properly.</strong> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>Rick wrote the above as a matter of opinion. Unless
Rick wants to let us know which part of the safety equipment industry he is in
and has the numerical test data to prove the above statement, I suggest that
everyone ignore that statement.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>The reason for the upgrading of the stiffness of the foam is
this; the foam in the older helmets actually compressed too much and let the
head essentially come in contact with the shell. Since the usage of the
helmet is based on the idea of the helmet striking something solid (roll bar,
steering wheel, door frame, etc.) then the head was basically striking that
solid object. The stiffer foam does a better job of not over compressing
and cusions the load better in high G impact situations. Just because the
newer Snell rated helmets give better protection in high G impacts does not
mean they give worse protection in low G impacts.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>I know the Snell rating system may not be perfect for
every accident / equipment scenario but right now, it is the best we have.<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal> <o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'>Tim Rogers<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal>On Mon, Aug 24, 2009 at 9:48 AM, Frey, Richard K <<a
href="mailto:rfrey@iupui.edu">rfrey@iupui.edu</a>> wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
The advice saying you need to try on helmets is right on. Brand is
insignificant really. Fit is more important. When trying on
helmets, grab the back of the helmet and see if you can peel it off, forward
over your head. You'd be surprised at how many helmets can be pulled off
that way. If you can, obviously it isn't going to work for you.
IMO, don't buy a helmet with a snell rating. Snell has too rigid of
standards on G forces and to get that standard, the manufacturer needs to use
Styrofoam that is too rigid and won't crush enough and slow the deacceleration
of your brain properly. The motorcycle guys have debated this for awhile
and seem to prefer DOT or European standards. Interestingly, Snell 2010
standards have been relaxed to conform to DOT and European standards,
therefore, requiring softer Styrofoam. They had to succumb to the
argument that their Styrofoam was too stiff. Snell 2010 helmets are
supposed to be out in October '09. Avoid Snell unless its 2010 s<br>
tandards. Zues, Shark, HJC, Zox, Scorpion are brands that come in
for lower prices, check 'em out. Obviously, protect your brain, but
spending money on the name brands doesn't necessarily do that. ECE (euro)
standards are the most certain but harder to find here the States. If it
meets those it is a proper helmet IMO. If I were buying a helmet today, I'd
seek the ECE standard, they're available here. If you can wait for Snell
2010 you'd get the safety that is advertised, something a DOT rating might not
provide. I am also a fan of the plastic shells rather than fiberglass or
carbon fiber. They're cheaper and dent rather than fracture. You can buy
a lot of protection for not much cash these days.<br>
<br>
The graphics are up to you, :)<br>
<br>
rick<br>
<br>
<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:se-r-bounces@se-r-list.org">se-r-bounces@se-r-list.org</a>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:se-r-bounces@se-r-list.org">se-r-bounces@se-r-list.org</a>]
On Behalf Of Jon<br>
Sent: Friday, August 21, 2009 10:31 PM<br>
To: se-r list<br>
Subject: racing helmet<br>
<br>
Anyone have a helmet they really like that would be good for auto-x or<br>
road race events? I have a Shoei motorcycle helmet that I like pretty<br>
well, but it is time to replace it. I am limited to about an hour in<br>
most helmets and my forehead starts to get sore. I don't mind spending<br>
some jack to get something nice... but I don't like putting out money to<br>
have a name brand on my head.<br>
<br>
thanks,<br>
<br>
Jon Davis<br>
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+<br>
The mailing list home page is <a href="http://www.se-r-list.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.se-r-list.org/</a><br>
To modify your subscription, go to <a
href="http://www.se-r-list.org/mailman/listinfo/se-r" target="_blank">http://www.se-r-list.org/mailman/listinfo/se-r</a><br>
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+<br>
The mailing list home page is <a href="http://www.se-r-list.org/"
target="_blank">http://www.se-r-list.org/</a><br>
To modify your subscription, go to <a
href="http://www.se-r-list.org/mailman/listinfo/se-r" target="_blank">http://www.se-r-list.org/mailman/listinfo/se-r</a><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
<br clear=all>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><br>
-- <br>
Tim<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>