autox
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Potential new helmet rule would affect autocrossers

To: NER Solo postings <nersolo@ner.org>, NER <ner@ner.org>,
Subject: Re: Potential new helmet rule would affect autocrossers
From: Matt Murray <mattm@optonline.net>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 20:46:26 -0500
All true, but the fact remains that a supplemental restrain
System (SRS) or "airbag" delivers a tremendous amount of energy
in a small area. My guess is that the SRS will break that part of
the helmet and force it towards your jaw. There are extensive
warnings about those who sit too close to a steering wheel
equipped with a SRS that it can cause death (if the accident
doesn't).

I'm sure SCCA took into account that there would be a whole bunch
of helmets no longer available for use in all venues, not just
Solo 2.

I don't think you can "just pull a fuse" to disable the airbag.
That would generate a bunch of fault codes. You could pull the
steering wheel SRS, but that comes with its own inherent dangers
(BOOM!).

A "kill switch" for the steering wheel bag may also send a false
code. But, if they can install one on the right side, you could
probably do it to the left. It would be a home brew, since no
dealer or shop would want to engage in the potential liability
issues.

Matt Murray
Just remember, Morton-Thiokol supplies the propellant for most
SRSs. You remember Morton-Thiokol, they built the booster rockets
for the Shuttles.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Kevin Stevens"
To: "Rocky Entriken"
Cc: ".Team.Net"
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Potential new helmet rule would affect autocrossers


> On Wed, 17 Nov 2004, Rocky Entriken wrote:
>
> > SCCA is contemplating a new helmet rule -- full-face helmets
would not
> > be allowed in cars with airbags -- and has issued fair
warning:
> >
> > http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/AirbagAdvisory.pdf
> >
> > I think it is a good idea, but with a minor reservation. I
have written my
> > area director and SCCA to say so:
>
> Why does this sound like a good idea?  Under the circumstance
that
> "contact with the chin area of a full-face helmet can be so
powerful 'that
> the risk of fractures to the jaw cannot be ruled out'"(pretty
weaselly
> words, btw), isn't that *exactly* when I'd want to be wearing a
full-face
> helmet?  Even assuming that without the chin bar the bag impact
wouldn't
> break your jaw, the overall face/eye protection that the helmet
provided
> would be lost.
>
> This sounds like a very superficial analysis/reaction.
>
> KeS






<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>