+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Helmet rules...not safe enough?

  1. #1

    Helmet rules...not safe enough?

    Hello all,

    As the Vice President of my club I've spent quite some time reading and rereading the rules, as I'm sure most of you have done, and I've found one particular thing particularly striking. How is it the rules for helmets aren't more explicit? My background is in bicycles and motorcycles, where I've worked in the bicycle industry for over 7 years, and in the two wheeled arena helmets are the number one priority when discussing the topic of safety, for obvious reasons. In those industries it is not uncommon for one to debate the topic from any number of angles regarding things like what certifications are necessary, how fitment is equally as important as the helmet itself, even concepts such as some certifications being excessive and thus dangerous for some applications (such as how if a certification absorbs a greater amount of energy it could potentially render a helmet useless at lower speeds - obviously it's more complex an issue than that but you see where it goes...).

    Anyhow, it seems to me Formula SAE prides itself on writing so many rules that it's nearly impossible for a team to compete with a car that isn't safe. My question then is, what good is any of that if one of the most exposed and fragile parts of the human body isn't adequately protected? What do I propose may be a problem? Well, in my field of 'expertise' (bicycles) it's widely accepted that helmets must be replaced after a given amount of use and a given time frame. The common perception is for helmets to be replaced every 5 years, regardless of whether it was used or not (this is also common in motorcycle racing, where helmets must have been manufactured within the last few years).

    Now, I'm not a fan of adding to the rule book because, frankly, I think it's a bit excessive as is. Unfortunately, I do feel as though some rules for helmets need to be outlined a bit better. What do I think should be added?

    -Helmets must be manufactured within the last 5 years (where 5 years is measured from the closest New Year date at the time of inspection)
    -Each driver must demonstrate the helmet they will be wearing in the dynamic events properly fits (with some specific example as to what this means being given)
    -Helmets must be in reasonable condition, defined by all non-static components being in operable condition as intended by the manufacturer
    -Interior foam of helmets must not have any large cracks (ones that go all the way through the foam for 2" or more)

    Being an individual who has crashed at triple digits I'm fairly certain my fortune of being aware of the safety concerns related to helmets, and my investment in a top of the line helmet, saved my life. Thus, it seems to me it is in the best interest of the students competing for FSAE to outline a more complete set of rules which ensure the helmets we are required to use are of adequate protection. It's possible this is already accounted for at competition, by why not explicitly state it if that is the case? It seems far too easy for a helmet which is too old or has been exposed to too many chemicals to have a compromised structure, and for this to not become apparent until too late - particularly if you weren't made aware of such concerns in the first place.


    Scott Schmitz
    Wazzu Racing Vice President
    Last edited by Gr8Flux; 03-04-2015 at 01:12 AM.

  2. #2
    Hi Scott,

    I am going to add some quick references here for the discussion. The current equipment rules are in ARTICLE 14: EQUIPMENT REQUIREMENTS.

    In T14.2 it states the helmet must be "well-fitting" which is a defensible rules against loose helmets.

    And 'T14.11 Driver’s Equipment Condition' states: "All driving apparel covered by ARTICLE 14: must be in good condition." Both of these rules essentially give the right to the competition organizers to impound any equipment which isn't deemed safe at technical inspection. I have personally seen cracked helmets, holey gloves, and torn driver suits all impounded for the duration of competitions.

    While I do very much agree with the time duration aspect you raise, I do think the organizers are trying to keep students relatively safe. They usually have no qualms with impounding sketchy looking gear.
    Jay Swift
    Combustion Powertrain
    Global Formula Racing 2013-2014

  3. #3
    I would object to a 5 year rule as I am not a motorbike rider. I have bought my own full face helmet for car driving only (hill climbs, track days in my own car, FSAE) so it only gets used 1 or 2 times a year. It goes back in the box and looks brand new. Now I need a replacement?

    Also there has been a push on this forum to reduce the complexity of the rule book, not increase it.

    I have been saved by my bicycle helmet a few times. In FSAE I feel the risk is fire, and harness buckles not releasing properly. (Think about that).
    University of Tasmania (UTAS)

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    PERTH, Western Australia
    Posts
    208
    As I understand in Australia, the equipment we use all falls under CAMS requirements and we are subject to their rules for helmets, suits, boots etc.
    ex-UWA Motorsport

    General team member 2013-15, Vehicle Dynamics Team Lead 2012
    Project Manager 2011, Powertrain minion 2009/10

  5. #5
    I don't know about more helmet rules, but it would be nice to see Hans devices implemented. Unlike a motorcycle your strapped into an fsae car so a crash is more possible to damage your neck.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by NickFavazzo View Post
    As I understand in Australia, the equipment we use all falls under CAMS requirements and we are subject to their rules for helmets, suits, boots etc.
    Not quite. According to the FSAE-Australasia addendum mid 2014 all items had to be CAMS spec A or B. Under this, a regular helmet with AS sticker of any age still complies. And all soft items had to be FIA 8856-2000.

    However the addendum was updated to version 5 before the comp where the requirements where a mix of CAMS spec B and C. The helmet was not effected, but a older FIA 1986 suit was accepted.
    University of Tasmania (UTAS)

  7. #7
    In my opinion safety within formula student is mainly maintained by two things:

    1st: No wheel to wheel racing

    2nd: Racing only on tracks with lots of space around fast areas and sufficient measures to reduce speed in case runout areas can't be provided.

    For these reasons I think that energy absorbance is not the real issue for a Helmet in Formula student.
    Instead I think it is commonly agreed that the biggest danger in formulastudent competition comes from fire. Therefore the most important feature of a Helmet is fire resistance.

    From this point of view I think adding further rules which do not aim for fire prevention will not increase safety during dynamic competitions significantly.


    Regards
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    2008-2012 Aixtreme Racing (UAS Aachen)

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Lawrence, KS
    Posts
    151
    I don't know why this doesn't get brought up more every time there is a discussion about safety...

    How many impacts/collisions have there been at FSAE competitions? I can only remember hearing about one during the several years I was involved in FSAE, and it wasn't very significant. Even in teams' private testing outside of competition they are extremely rare.

    Now how many cars catch on fire? I have seen at least one at competitions every year (going to 2 competitions a year) and my own team has experienced several fire incidents during testing.

    But all the rule changes and forum discussions only address impact safety. Why is this? What is everyone imagining these cars running into?

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Perth Western Australia
    Posts
    211
    I agree fire is the biggest risk, but it should be noted, that in Australia at least, a worn out ancient, ill fitting motorcycle helmet would never pass tech inspection with the current rule set.
    Even though it is only the "good condition" rules that allow this, they are applied sensibly.

    I have just recently purchased a 'New old stock' Snell SA rated helmet. This cost me less than a good Aust Std motorcycle helmet, and is fire resistant, light, offers superior impact protection,and is brand new.

    I would be mighty upset if I could not wear it due to some new additional rule, that was intended to do something that is already happening, and instead forced me to wear an inferior helmet.
    Especially if I then got burnt by a helmet fire.

    Pete

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Perth, Western Australia
    Posts
    717
    Quote Originally Posted by JT A. View Post
    I don't know why this doesn't get brought up more every time there is a discussion about safety...

    How many impacts/collisions have there been at FSAE competitions? I can only remember hearing about one during the several years I was involved in FSAE, and it wasn't very significant. Even in teams' private testing outside of competition they are extremely rare.

    Now how many cars catch on fire? I have seen at least one at competitions every year (going to 2 competitions a year) and my own team has experienced several fire incidents during testing.

    But all the rule changes and forum discussions only address impact safety. Why is this? What is everyone imagining these cars running into?

    Couldn't agree more. Increasing the impact safety restrictions provides the illusion of making the comp safer, when we probably had acceptable standards in that area a long time ago.

    Kev

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts