18 replies to this topic

[Kart15]

I want to know about the veracity of a story about Mika Hakkinen being disqualified of a F3 race, because he was wearing a motorcycle Arai helmet. I saw some videos of Mika racing in F3, in the beggining fo the 90s and his helmet really looks like a motorcycle´s helmet.. Does anyone know if this is true?

[mfd]

I want to know about the veracity of a story about Mika Hakkinen being disqualified of a F3 race, because he was wearing a motorcycle Arai helmet. I saw some videos of Mika racing in F3, in the beggining fo the 90s and his helmet really looks like a motorcycle´s helmet.. Does anyone know if this is true?

I don't know the story about an F3 disqualification but he did wear an Arai Motor Cycle helmet when he first arrived in Formula Ford, then F-Vauxhall Lotus.
http://www.google.co...=1t:429,r:3,s:0

By the time he was in F3 with Dragon he was wearing an Arai GP2 which is a car helmet

[jcbc3]

This perplexes me a bit. If the story is true, I must question Mika's intelligence.

AFAIK, when you present yourself for scrutineering (at least it was thus in karting which Mika did extensively) you present your driving equipment too. The scrutineers then decide if it is to the standard laid down in the regulations for the particular race series. The way of checking the helmet is if it has the appropriate sticker/patch sown in to the lining confirming its compliance with crash standards. ECE or others. Now, would anyone of sound mind even go to a meeting without an approved crash helmet? And if they did what would that say?

[D-Type]

If he had presented a non-compliant helmet at scrutineering, surely he would have not been allowed to start rather than being disqualified afterwards?

The only scenario leading to a disqualification would be to present a conforming helmet at scrutineering and then race in another one, in which case the disqualification would have to be considered to be a punishment. This seems unlikely.

The plausibility gap is wide.

Edited by D-Type, 21 March 2012 - 12:01.

[jcbc3]

...
The only scenario leading to a disqualification would be to present a conforming helmet at scrutineering and then race in another one, in which case the disqualification would have to be considered to be a punishment. This seems unlikely.
...

I am not sure I follow you.

I agree that your above scenario seems most likely. What we can then ask is 'why' did he race another and illegal helmet?
Let's say the strap broke on his original helmet so he needed another one. I have been to hundreds of race meetings and am pretty certain that if that had happened to me, I could have borrowed a compliant one from another driver.

But the situation, hypothetically, being as described I can't see what the punishment should otherwise be than a DQ? Draconian, yes. But isn't safety the most paramount thing we want in motorsport. There should be no leeway on that. IMHO.

[Kart15]

I think in those days the scrutineering was a little bit "relaxed" about questions like that. In 1981 or 1982, I dont remember very well, Nelson Piquet wore a Nava motorcycle helmet, because this was more lighter than his Bell XFM1 and Nelson felt a lot of pain in his neck muscles, because of the long Jacarepagua´s circuit corners. But why Mika wore an motorcycle helmet instead an auto helmet? Maybe he did not have enough money (with the Marlboro sponsorship?) to buy one in those days?

Interesting to see that he only wore that kind of balaclava with two holes for the eyes, exactly when he raced with the motorcycle helmet, maybe to provide more safety in case of fire, because motorcycle helmets doesn´t have the nomex lining. When he raced with the normal Arai auto helmet, he wore the more normal open faced balaclava.

Maybe Mika bought the motorcycle helmet thinking that it was an auto helmet, because in the end of the 80s, the Arai GP-N auto helmet was very similar to other Arai motorcycle helmets.

Edited by Kart15, 21 March 2012 - 17:16.

[mfd]

Maybe Mika bought the motorcycle helmet thinking that it was an auto helmet, because in the end of the 80s, the Arai GP-N auto helmet was very similar to other Arai motorcycle helmets.

No he didn't make an error - it was all they could afford. The family were just normal working folk. When he was at Donington for the Marlboro test he had his "bus" in the paddock...part transporter part living.

[Paul Rochdale]

I was puzzled as I didn't realise there was a difference between a motorcycle and a car full face helmet but I guess the Nomex lining and ACU sticker differentiates them?

[jcbc3]

No he didn't make an error - it was all they could afford. The family were just normal working folk. When he was at Donington for the Marlboro test he had his "bus" in the paddock...part transporter part living.

He and I were karting at the same time. I can assure you that Mika would know that he just couldn't race a non-approved helmet. And if he had a bus and a drive the cost of a helmet can not have been insurmountable.

This story just doesn't make sense to me at all.

[bigears]

Is there anything about his helmet in the photos from this website?

http://home.wxs.nl/~...me/beforef1.htm

[D-Type]

~
But the situation, hypothetically, being as described I can't see what the punishment should otherwise be than a DQ? Draconian, yes. But isn't safety the most paramount thing we want in motorsport. There should be no leeway on that. IMHO.

Given this is a hypothetical scenario, let's look a little deeper at the issues. I agree that safety should not be compromised. But if a driver puts his own life at risk, and nobody else's, disqualification is an overly heavy response, a fine would be more appropriate.

By definition disqualification occurs after (or, at a pinch, during) a race and not beforehand. I cannot think of any other circumstance other than the one I put forward that could lead to a disqualification and I consider that one to be implausible. If he had a strap break or his helmet stolen or any other circumstance where he had to borrow a helmet, I am sure that he would have borrowed a compliant one. After all it is his head that will be in it.

If he had turned up with a motorcycle helmet, he might have not been allowed to race. Or, rephrased, his entry might have been rejected. But that is not a disqualification.

So,on the balance of probabilities, I consider the original story highly unlikely.

Edited by D-Type, 21 March 2012 - 22:22.

[Lee Nicolle]

I do not know about the UK but here in Oz an Australian Standard or Snell standard helmet is legal in most forms of motorsport and most are road helmets, inc ones with FIA labels. Not all are nomex lined. And they are legal for bikes and cars. My current helmet is FAI approved and is not nomex lined. It is legal for both speedway and circuit racing. great helmet BUT is far bulkier than my previous one making the 'horse collar' very uncomfortable. If fact my head is on the head restraint most of the time. Which could be a problem with some seats.
In 1981 I doubt there was very many nomex lined helmets, and some did not comply with the appropriate standards anyway. At one time here Bells did not, and it was for valid reasons.
Really the only so called 'bike' helmet is a motorcross helmet and they do comply anyway,

[ryan86]

Given this is a hypothetical scenario, let's look a little deeper at the issues. I agree that safety should not be compromised. But if a driver puts his own life at risk, and nobody else's, disqualification is an overly heavy response, a fine would be more appropriate.

I tend to agree with that basic premise, though I guess in these times there is a desire to makes things mandatory save the backlash when things go wrong and people believe you could have avoided it. On a sort of related note, I was by all accounts the best goalkeeper in my year at school, but I never played for the team because of their insistance that all goalkeepers must wear gloves for safety reason. This despite the fact that I never played with gloves on prior to being "called up" or that goalkeepers aren't actually required to wear gloves under the laws of the game. I was perfectly willing to put my hands in more danger (and if we're honest 10 years of football with only one dislocated thumb is hardly a case of consistent injuries).

[Duc-Man]

From todays perspective: wouldn't a motorcycle helmet be safer than a car helmet anyway (apart from the nomex lining for fire resistance)?
It's much more likely that a bike rider falls off and hits the ground with his head than a car flipping over.

Also, if he showed up with an illegal helmet he should have been rejected before rather than disqualified during or after. Even back then.

[Kart15]

No, auto helmets are much more safer than motorcycle helmets. All auto helmets are kevlar/carbon fiber/composite made and motorcycle helmets are made of a kind of plastic and motorcycle visors come off easily in a crash. In a motorcycle accident, the rider tends to "roll over the tarmac" and in an auto crash is more easy to have a impact direct in your head.

Edited by Kart15, 23 March 2012 - 18:17.

[Lee Nicolle]

No, auto helmets are much more safer than motorcycle helmets. All auto helmets are kevlar/carbon fiber/composite made and motorcycle helmets are made of a kind of plastic and motorcycle visors come off easily in a crash. In a motorcycle accident, the rider tends to "roll over the tarmac" and in an auto crash is more easy to have a impact direct in your head.

That is incorrect, a lot are and they are generally accepted as the best as the helmet deforms better on impact. Most bike racers actually use them though they tend to be a lot heavier and expensive than a moulded plastic helmet. Which generally is stronger actually but bounces, not absorbs inpact. Though with the amount of padding in them these days it really makes little difference as the foam absorbs the impact.
Bikers can have some voilent impacts when the start cartwheeling. Wheras in a car these days at least with the seats used,the belts used, the body work on open wheelers the body seldom moves very far at all.
Also Kevlar helmets absorb less impact as they are stronger and less flexible than fibreglass.
In 1981 a Bell and similar were fibreglass, no kevlar then. But at least here in Oz the standards allowed then allowed all Australian standard, Snell etc helmets to be used. That is still the case, or at least for tintops.
My current FIA approved helmet is moulded plastic and as I said before is a lot bulkier than my previous, and also unfortunatly a bit heavier though still lighter than a composite one. And half the price also.

[Kart15]

what is your current helmet?

[Doug Nye]

Aren't motor-cycling helmets cut higher at the back of the neck to permit the rider to keep his head up comfortably and without restriction when hunched right down over the tank? I remember having inadvertently taken the wrong helmet to a meeting and having it confiscated by the MSA scrutineer there because a) it was about ten years out of date and b) he dismissed it as being only a 'high cut' m/c helmet in any case. I know I was given quite a bollocking for "...not taking the regs seriously and thinking you can just breeze along ignoring rules made for your own good, not our's".

Funny, I thought recent helmet regs had been made as much as a revenue-earning exercise and as an insurance arse-coverer as for any genuine good they confer upon the competitor.... Or perhaps that thought is just too subversive?

DCN

Edited by Doug Nye, 24 March 2012 - 07:25.

[ensign14]

Bienvenue, M Etancelin.