81 replies to this topic

[Shiftin]

A question that has been on my mind for years. Looks unsafe cause you might break jaw or teeth in high speed accidents. Is this something nostalgic or does it serve a purpose...? I am aware that not all have these open helmets but many do. You just never see these helmets in other forms of racing.... Aren's there any rules by the FIA considering this?

bye bye teeth....?

[Enkei]

I doubt they will ever hit the wheel since they're tightly strapped up in their belts, but some rally drivers do use closed helmets, iirc Marko Martin uses a closed helmet, without visor ofcourse

[NSV]

Originally posted by Shiftin
A question that has been on my mind for years. Looks unsafe cause you might break jaw or teeth in high speed accidents. Is this something nostalgic or does it serve a purpose...? I am aware that not all have these open helmets but many do. You just never see these helmets in other forms of racing.... Aren's there any rules by the FIA considering this?

bye bye teeth....?

Maybe because of the heat ?

[xype]

Dirt?

[wagner]

Maybe it's the drivers must communicate with each other, even when headphone fails ... or do they use headphones between the drivers?

[Dolph]

Originally posted by Enkei
I doubt they will ever hit the wheel since they're tightly strapped up in their belts

Didn't McRae break his jaw a few years ago in a WRC crash... How did that happen? Did the seatbelts fail?

[beanoid]

I'd always heard it was because WRC cars have windscreens, so there is much less chance of debris from the outside being chucked up and slamming the driver right in the face, unlike an F1 driver, whose face is exposed to all outdoors but for his closed helmet. Plus, it must get hot as hell inside one of those cars, so I would imagine the inconvenience of a closed helmet steaming up and obscuring vision, not to mention the danger of hyperthermia and breathing difficulties, must be immense.

[Shiftin]

Originally posted by beanoid
I'd always heard it was because WRC cars have windscreens, so there is much less chance of debris from the outside being chucked up and slamming the driver right in the face, unlike an F1 driver, whose face is exposed to all outdoors but for his closed helmet. Plus, it must get hot as hell inside one of those cars, so I would imagine the inconvenience of a closed helmet steaming up and obscuring vision, not to mention the danger of hyperthermia and breathing difficulties, must be immense.

Don't know about that....

I know the visors in F1 are like bulletproof. But to say that WRC drivers are protected because of the windscreen seems strange. I mean, is the windscreen bulletproof? Don't think so cause bulletproof glass is very thick and heavy. They might be stronger than our normal car-windscreens but what about big bricks and other obstacles along the way. Like trees, concrete poles etc. They can easily brake the glass and smash you in the face.

[FrankB]

Originally posted by Shiftin
Like trees, concrete poles etc. They can easily brake the glass and smash you in the face.

If something is big enough or hits a windscreen hard enough to break into the cabin, then it comes down to luck - does it hit you and break your neck or does it miss you and you get very dirty underwear? If something with that much energy hits you head on, having a visor on your helmet will make very little difference to the outcome.

Originally posted by Shiftin
I know the visors in F1 are like bulletproof.

- I don't think so - if the few millimetres of transparent material in a visor is bullet proof - why don't they use the same material for the entire helmet and not just the part that the driver looks through?

[Shiftin]

FrankB,

I once heard a small stone at 500 km/h cannot break the (transparant) visor of a F1 helmet.

But even so, I am not talking but small objects and this visor alone. The "chin-part" of a closed helmet also protects the face. I don't drive a motorbike but I reckon my chances of injuries in the face would be much slimmer in a crash with a closed helmet.

And to make sure we are all talking about the same here....

open helmet
closed helmet

[Shiftin]

Originally posted by FrankB
- I don't think so - if the few millimetres of transparent material in a visor is bullet proof - why don't they use the same material for the entire helmet and not just the part that the driver looks through?

Because, unlike the visor, the helmet doesn't need to be a few mm's thick (if it's even a mm).

[xype]

Originally posted by FrankB
- I don't think so - if the few millimetres of transparent material in a visor is bullet proof - why don't they use the same material for the entire helmet and not just the part that the driver looks through?

The material for the visor is more flexible than the rest of the helmet - and the rest of the modern Formula 1 helmet is pretty much bulletproof as it is. But while the visror needs special criteria in order to be moved around, it's really not a good thing if the rest of the helmet can be squished together (since that's not particularry good for the skull).

The French police special forces, afaik, also use a face-long bulletproof visor yet a different, harder material for the rest of the helmet.

Maybe the rally driver simply needs to have a bigger field of vision for all the instruments? I think I saw codrivers who had a "chin protecting" helmet.

[FrankB]

Originally posted by Shiftin
FrankB,

I once heard a small stone at 500 km/h cannot break the (transparant) visor of a F1 helmet.

But even so, I am not talking but small objects and this visor alone. The "chin-part" of a closed helmet also protects the face. I don't drive a motorbike but I reckon my chances of injuries in the face would be much slimmer in a crash with a closed helmet.

But are we talking about small stones at 500 km/h (which might shatter the windscreen of a rally car but might not penetrate it) or bricks and concrete posts at 150 km/h (that almost certainly would penetrate a windscreen)?

I agree that a helmet with a chin guard will give more protection than an open helmet where the wearer might come into contact with the road or the steering wheel. But as Enkei pointed out, the driver is so tightly strapped into the car that it is unlikely that anything will impact on to the helmet, except in an accident where an object does penetrate the windscreen. But by the time you've got a 2 or 3 kg lump of rock coming through the windscreen at 100 km/h+ then the impact (whether it is on to a visor, chin guard, helmet or unprotected mouth) is going to result in catastrophic injuries.

[100cc]

Originally posted by Shiftin

I once heard a small stone at 500 km/h cannot break the (transparant) visor of a F1 helmet.

from smf.org:

"The faceshield shall be tested on the appropriate helmet, correctly deployed across the facial opening and under laboratory ambient conditions. A sharp, soft lead pellet weighing 1 +/-0.1 g with a diameter of 5.5 +/-0.1 mm and traveling at a velocity of 500 +/-20 km per hour shall strike the face shield normal to the surface. The face shield shall be tested in at least three different locations: the center line and 80 +/-5 mm to either side of the center line. The pellet must not penetrate to the interior of the helmet nor produce an indentation exceeding 2.5 mm as measured from the interior surface of the face shield."

and for motorcycle helmets certified to the Snell M2000 standar which in general have a thinner visor(2mm compared to 3mm) the last line is "The pellet must not penetrate to the interior of the helmet." - but otherwise the same test is conducted.

[FrankB]

Shiftin and xype - I realise that the reqirements for different parts of a helmet vary (whether it's a racing helmet or for riot police), and that weight as well as strength will be an important consideration. Perhaps instead of asking why the "like bulletproof" material used in a F1 visor isn't used for the entire helmet I should have asked why that same material isn't used to make, say, stab proof vests and so avoid the cumbersome and clumsy Michelin Man appearance that so many police officers display nowadays.

[xype]

Originally posted by FrankB
Shiftin and xype - I realise that the reqirements for different parts of a helmet vary (whether it's a racing helmet or for riot police), and that weight as well as strength will be an important consideration. Perhaps instead of asking why the "like bulletproof" material used in a F1 visor isn't used for the entire helmet I should have asked why that same material isn't used to make, say, stab proof vests and so avoid the cumbersome and clumsy Michelin Man appearance that so many police officers display nowadays.

I'm no expert and I was just guessing.

Maybe the material is too heavy or something like that? Dunno, would be interesting to know. But I think the police officers also require a certain amounf or free movement, maybe that's a reason also? When storming the house policemen often have bulletproof wests but I'd imagine being in a crowd of a few dozen people requires different solutions.

But I don't know enough about these things, probably someone from a special force unit could shed more light here. For all we know it could be just a matter of cost.

[FrankB]

Originally posted by xype
I'm no expert and I was just guessing.

Me too

When I asked "why isn't visor material more extensively used?", it wasn't because I think that it should be. In fact I was asking rhetorically, because I didn't believe that the visor material was truly "bullet proof" but was a very good compromise between strength and transparency. Having read 100cc's post I am now wondering if a 1g, 5.5mm diameter pellet travelling at 500 km/hr relates to a bullet and its muzzle velocity. I don't know anywhere near enough about shooting or ballistics to begin to answer this.

This has all gone way OT... my feeling is that rally drivers use open faced helmets because they are a compromise between comfort, ease of use / visibility and protection against the hazards that the wearer is likely to encounter in a "normal" rallying situation.

[100cc]

the visors are just polycarbonate.... which is plastic as far as i know.

I agree with FrankB's conclusion to the original question.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by Enkei
I doubt they will ever hit the wheel since they're tightly strapped up in their belts

I don't doubt it for a second. There is a tragedy waiting to happen. Someone will be killed and then full face helmets will be made mandatory. The explanation will be: "We just didn't know any better."

[FrankB]

Originally posted by McGuire
I don't doubt it for a second. There is a tragedy waiting to happen. Someone will be killed and then full face helmets will be made mandatory. The explanation will be: "We just didn't know any better."

I take your point that nothing should be dismissed as impossible, and that at some time there will be an accident where a rally driver's head / face hits the steering wheel. But isn't it also the case that if an accident involves such forces that the car and its roll cage are damaged to the extent that the seat and / or the steering wheel are displaced by getting on for 2 feet, then that accident is marginal for survivability (is there such a word?) any way? This would be due to the forces that the driver will be subjected to and the possibilty of crush or puncture injuries to the torso.

The higher levels of protection offered by a full face helmet (whether or not it is being used in conjunction with a visor) compared to an open helmet in such an extreme situation would be minimal IMO.

[daishi255]

Just did a quick search and found this : link

A bullet would seem to travel at between 335 (for a shotgun) and 1220 (for a 0.220 Swift rifle) meters per second. Doing the calulations, that works out at between 1200 and 5400 km per hour.

As for the topic itself, it does seem odd that some drivers wear the full closed helmet and some go for the open one, and this happens amongg the co-drivers aswell. While it is nice to be able to see the drivers' faces - unlike with f1 etc - it does look to me like a major safety issue. What do drivers in sports cars, saloon, touring cars etc wear? If they wear the closed helmets then i think that rally drivers should too cause rallying is far more dangerous and accidents are very different and worse than in those sports.

[FrankB]

Originally posted by Shiftin
Aren's there any rules by the FIA considering this?

FIA International Sporting Code, Appendix L, Chapter 3, para 1.1 "All drivers competing... in rally special stages... must wear crash helmets... listed in technical list No 25 of Appendix J"

http://www.fia.com/r...rds_helmets.pdf

[fumes]

Originally posted by FrankB
Shiftin and xype - I realise that the reqirements for different parts of a helmet vary (whether it's a racing helmet or for riot police), and that weight as well as strength will be an important consideration. Perhaps instead of asking why the "like bulletproof" material used in a F1 visor isn't used for the entire helmet I should have asked why that same material isn't used to make, say, stab proof vests and so avoid the cumbersome and clumsy Michelin Man appearance that so many police officers display nowadays.

Bear in mind that the "Michelin Man" vests do two things: a) prevent the penetration of a bullet; and b) absorb/spread the impact. If I hit you in the chest with a hammer, it wont penetrate, but it can break your ribs or stop your heart and it will definitely hurt. In the case of a helmet, there is obviously no padding behind the visor, but it is supported at the edges by the padding inside the helmet shell.

[AS110]

The helmets appear to be made specificaly for rally purposes,I guess they know what is needed...they aren't a cheap scooter riders helmet.A rally driver needs more visability and movement than other car racers,a motorcycle helmet has more visabilty and movement than an auto racing helmet,maybe they have found the open face offers what's needed.Considering their accidents are on a greater scale than most other motor sports,the injuries don't seem that great.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by FrankB
I take your point that nothing should be dismissed as impossible, and that at some time there will be an accident where a rally driver's head / face hits the steering wheel. But isn't it also the case that if an accident involves such forces that the car and its roll cage are damaged to the extent that the seat and / or the steering wheel are displaced by getting on for 2 feet, then that accident is marginal for survivability (is there such a word?) any way? This would be due to the forces that the driver will be subjected to and the possibilty of crush or puncture injuries to the torso.

The higher levels of protection offered by a full face helmet (whether or not it is being used in conjunction with a visor) compared to an open helmet in such an extreme situation would be minimal IMO.

I don't see how the technical safety issues in rallying are substantially any different than other saloon-based series, which have learned at great cost that open-faced helmets are not sufficient. In rallying they simply haven't had their learning opportunity yet, while ignoring the lessons learned in other series.

In rallying, there are many objects both inside and outside the car which can harm the driver in an impact. The steering wheel is only one of them. If anything the needs here are even more severe...trees penetrating the cockpit being just one which obviously comes to mind. Meanwhile, I fully expect that a driver could quite easily strike an undisplaced steering wheel while fully strapped in. I don't think people realize how much the human body can be contorted and tossed around in a high-g impact.

Nor am I particularly keen on the argument that full-coverage helmets are unnecessary because we might as well write off the driver anyway in the type of crashes where they could make a difference. That is not a logical approach to safety. That is the very same fatalist approach to safety which barred progress in motorsports for so many years.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by AS110
The helmets appear to be made specificaly for rally purposes,I guess they know what is needed...they aren't a cheap scooter riders helmet.A rally driver needs more visability and movement than other car racers,a motorcycle helmet has more visabilty and movement than an auto racing helmet,maybe they have found the open face offers what's needed.Considering their accidents are on a greater scale than most other motor sports,the injuries don't seem that great.

A properly designed and fitted full-face helmet does not restrict visibility.

All these arguments sound eerily like those which allowed open-face helmets to be used in NASCAR for so many years. Those helmets were specifically designed and approved for use in that series as well. Then a horrible tragedy caused the practice and the policy to be reexamined, and a number of others as well.

[bkalb]

If you think rally drivers face danger from open helmets, take a gander at the beginning of this story from Agence France Presse, on the send-off of a rally that starts today (Nov. 22) and will go through nine countries, including India and most of Southeast Asia.

"GUWAHATI, India, Nov 22 (AFP) - Indian officials warned drivers to use "maximum discretion" to dodge armed rebels, heroin traffickers, HIV-AIDS infection and mosquitoes in Southeast Asia's first car rally, which starts later on Monday.
Some 250 racers from 10 countries are taking part in the 20-day event which is due to be flagged off from Guwahati, the main city of northeastern Assam state, by Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh."

The story goes on to say that officials warned the drivers to show "maximum discretion," as they will pass through high-risk HIV zones. When they might have time to contract the disease, heaven knows, but the Indians obviously aren't taking any chances.

The drivers were also warned to cover their beds at night with mosquito nets, and to tuck the nets under the mattress, in order to guard against malaria. The drivers were all given anti-malaria medicine before starting the race.

The race starts in northeastern India, where some 30 separatist groups have been waging violent struggles for autonomy or independence for years. Tens of thousands of people have been killed in the region since Indian independence in 1947.

And we thought Formula One was dangerous.


Barry Kalb

[BRG]

When I have co-driven on rallies, I used a full-face helmet. But it did present some difficulties in mounting the microphone for the intercom optimally since it was closer to my mouth than it should be. IMO the reason many rallyists don’t use full-face helmets is because of heat and breathing issues.

The extra safety afforded by a full-face helmet is not perceived as significant – the chances of an accident where the choice of helmet made a difference are deemed to be so remote as to be not worth considering. Rally cars are pretty safe places to have an accident and the number of injuries of any consequence (let alone fatalities) per competitive kilometre each year are infinitesimal and almost certainly less than those in racing. So I think that rallying probably has this matter under control.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by BRG
When I have co-driven on rallies, I used a full-face helmet. But it did present some difficulties in mounting the microphone for the intercom optimally since it was closer to my mouth than it should be. IMO the reason many rallyists don’t use full-face helmets is because of heat and breathing issues.

The extra safety afforded by a full-face helmet is not perceived as significant – the chances of an accident where the choice of helmet made a difference are deemed to be so remote as to be not worth considering. Rally cars are pretty safe places to have an accident and the number of injuries of any consequence (let alone fatalities) per competitive kilometre each year are infinitesimal and almost certainly less than those in racing. So I think that rallying probably has this matter under control.

Full face helmets are used without problems in any number of racing series where radios are also used, from F1 on down. Also, it is doubtful that heat and breathing are greater issues in rallying than in NASCAR or DTM. Obviously these are issues of initial resistance for new users, rather than any defect in the full face helmet. Once again, I think we we have to separate the reasoning from the rationalizing.

I don't think safety should ever be framed in terms of "probably under control." Rather, the question is: can this undeniable and significant improvement in safety be instituted without causing other safety problems, or forcing undue hardship or cost on the competitors? Clearly, the answer is yes. So what is the holdup?

[BRG]

Originally posted by McGuire
this undeniable and significant improvement in safety ........
...So what is the holdup?

That it is is considered to be neither undeniable nor significant?

I suspect that you underestimate the heat point. It IS a bigger issue than in circuit racing. Bear in mind that average speeds in rallying are far lower - top speeds rarely exceed 130mph (200kph) or so and are often far lower, so in-car ventilation is a serious issue particularly when dust intrusion has to be consdiered as well. It is not for nothing that Peugeot experimented with air-conditioning on their WR cars last year. When did they try that in NASCAR or DTM? And when did a DTM race run in the sort of temperatures that the WRC encounters in Greece or Australia? Bear in mind that the WRC boys get an exemption on race overalls for the hotter rallies as well.

Given that the cost difference is negligible and that any WRC driver will have had several serious crashes in his career, which do tend to concentrate the mind somewhat, you have to consider that their continued preference for open-face helmets may have some sound foundation. Being safer when you crash after passing out due to the heat may not be a favoured option!

[Shiftin]

Thanks for the replies so far. They have been an interesting read although the "heat excuse" hasn't totally convinced me. The drivers just look vulnerable with an open visor....

But how is this for a compromis

[McGuire]

Originally posted by BRG
That it is is considered to be neither undeniable nor significant?

I suspect that you underestimate the heat point. It IS a bigger issue than in circuit racing. Bear in mind that average speeds in rallying are far lower - top speeds rarely exceed 130mph (200kph) or so and are often far lower, so in-car ventilation is a serious issue particularly when dust intrusion has to be consdiered as well. It is not for nothing that Peugeot experimented with air-conditioning on their WR cars last year. When did they try that in NASCAR or DTM? And when did a DTM race run in the sort of temperatures that the WRC encounters in Greece or Australia? Bear in mind that the WRC boys get an exemption on race overalls for the hotter rallies as well.

Given that the cost difference is negligible and that any WRC driver will have had several serious crashes in his career, which do tend to concentrate the mind somewhat, you have to consider that their continued preference for open-face helmets may have some sound foundation. Being safer when you crash after passing out due to the heat may not be a favoured option!

NASCAR runs a number a races in the American deep south and midwest, where temperatures of 95+ degrees F and humidity above 90% are ordinary conditions. Cabin temperatures run as high as 140 degrees F and the races can last 4 to 5 hours (with no breaks in the heat - the caution periods are hotter than the green flag runs). The cars invariably run evaporative air conditioning systems with an air tube to the driver, and on hotter days, skull caps and cooling vests. All this was the natural state of things BEFORE full face helmets became mandatory.

All the arguments here for not going to full face helmets are all the very same ones earlier cited in other series. Not a damn thing new here at all. They were mistaken then and they are mistaken now. Rallying, as one of the few remaining motor racing venues in the world which still allows open face helmets, is simply a holdout. In the end, full face helmets will be required. That change will come one of two ways: either series management will see the light, or God forbid there will be a tragedy and the change will be forced. Then everyone will ask why change did not come sooner and the officials and competitors will say: "We didn't know any better. What we had seemed safe enough at the time."

[BRG]

Your arguments are all very well, but lead to the inevitable conclusion - that motor sport is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed at all. Any other conclusion requires drawing a line somewhere and making a compromise between sport and safety. Not requiring full-face helmets happens to be where the line is for rallying and everyone seems to be content with it, except for you.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by BRG
Your arguments are all very well, but lead to the inevitable conclusion - that motor sport is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed at all. Any other conclusion requires drawing a line somewhere and making a compromise between sport and safety. Not requiring full-face helmets happens to be where the line is for rallying and everyone seems to be content with it, except for you.

Not in the least. In the full face helmet we have a safety advance that is easy, simple and cheap to adopt, and does not compromise the competition or even the aesthetics of the sport in any way. For any racer to use an open-face helmet at this point is to embrace the position that an injury to the top or back of the skull is undersirable and easily avoidable, but an injury to the front of the skull is not. Does that make sense to you?

That people may be "satisfied" with the status quo is never an acceptable rationale in safety. Many were satisifed with the status quo of F1 safety in the 1960s. They were wrong. People did not have to die in order to preserve the sport. But unfortunately, people did have to die in order for the improvements to be enacted. The "status quo" will only hold until there is a tragedy. Then people will demand to know why the all-too-obvious and available improvement was not adopted.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by BRG
Your arguments are all very well, but lead to the inevitable conclusion - that motor sport is dangerous and shouldn't be allowed at all. Any other conclusion requires drawing a line somewhere and making a compromise between sport and safety. Not requiring full-face helmets happens to be where the line is for rallying and everyone seems to be content with it, except for you.

As long as we are engaging in the reductionist fallacy, is there any safety improvement in history to which that argument could not have been applied, from seat belts to the HANS device? No, not really, and in fact it has been used in virtually every case. It was wrong then and it is wrong in this case too.

Seriously, where is the "compromise" beween sport and safety in drivers wearing full-face helmets? If a helmet maker or one of the auto manufacturers agreed to provide them, would you object to the drivers wearing them? And on what grounds? Where is your point of objection to the full face helmet? Do you believe it is less safe than the open face helmet, or "just as" safe? There are no data which suggest either one. Or do you simply believe that the open face helmet is "safe enough"? How and at what exact point do we draw that line? Especially when we already have a product we know is clearly superior?

If a better and safer open face helmet came along, wouldn't you want the drivers to use it? Of course you would, and that's all we have here.

[HP]

Originally posted by McGuire


Not in the least. In the full face helmet we have a safety advance that is easy, simple and cheap to adopt, and does not compromise the competition or even the aesthetics of the sport in any way. For any racer to use an open-face helmet at this point is to embrace the position that an injury to the top or back of the skull is undersirable and easily avoidable, but an injury to the front of the skull is not. Does that make sense to you?

That people may be "satisfied" with the status quo is never an acceptable rationale in safety. Many were satisifed with the status quo of F1 safety in the 1960s. They were wrong. People did not have to die in order to preserve the sport. But unfortunately, people did have to die in order for the improvements to be enacted. The "status quo" will only hold until there is a tragedy. Then people will demand to know why the all-too-obvious and available improvement was not adopted.

Gotta agree, there is no good argument for an open helmet. Cooling for a closed helmet shouldn't be an issue anymore. They solved this already for my standard quality helmet. Sure if it's cooler under an open helmet, but I live in tropic climate, and drive motorcycle with a full helmet, and a closed visor, in the city, so cooling from airflow is next to 0 (Helmets are mandatory here). I'm not as fitnesses trained as a rally driver. If I can make it, then those guys can make it with a snap, else they shouldn't be driving in rallies. In the very hot summer months I sweat like crazy under the helmet, but I drink a lot of liquid. Never had any problems because of that. I usually have dehydration problems in the cooler "winter" months. And many locals have it the same way.

Sideway impacts to the helmet are also lessened with a closed helmet as there is added stability. As for visibility, its the same for both versions.

And finally I prefer a closed helmet, not only because of safety reasons, but personally I've found open helmets moving slightly around when wearing them, and I can't stand that. That is distracting me, and that *is* dangerous for me. Unless borrowing a helmet, I've never had a problem with a closed helmet moving however.

A final thought, there are rally drivers that use closed helmets. That means there is no good reason to use open helmets appart from special condition.

[BRG]

Much of what you say is true but you seem unwilling to accept that there may be legitimate objections to a full-face helmet that have led both leading competitors and the sporting authorities to agree that it would not be helpful to regulate in this instance. Given that motor sport authorities are rarely reluctant to regulate, these must be compelling objections. As previously stated, I believe that they relate mainly to the heat issue. IMO the fear that a heat-affected driver would leave the road and potentially mow down spectators is considered a far greater possible risk than the added safety of a full-face helmet.

There is little reluctance in rallying to accept genuinely positive safety measures - head supporting seats, neck collars and so on have all been introduced with rather less resistance than in other branches of the sport. But it seems that many of the people seated inside a steel bodyshell, reinforced with a substantial rollcage, with a laminated windscreen, a six-point harness and highly robust seating, feel that they are already sufficiently protected without needing a full face helmet as well..

[FrankB]

Originally posted by McGuire
Seriously, where is the "compromise" beween sport and safety in drivers wearing full-face helmets? If a helmet maker or one of the auto manufacturers agreed to provide them, would you object to the drivers wearing them? And on what grounds? Where is your point of objection to the full face helmet? Do you believe it is less safe than the open face helmet, or "just as" safe? There are no data which suggest either one. Or do you simply believe that the open face helmet is "safe enough"? How and at what exact point do we draw that line? Especially when we already have a product we know is clearly superior?

I think the intention of this thread was to ask the question "Why do rally drivers use open helmets...(when full face helmets are available)?"

Much of the comment posted here has been along the lines of "the car and its safety structures provide a high degree of protection already, and the additional protection provided by a full face as opposed to an open helmet is minimal by comparison"

I agree that the sport as a whole should strive to remove risk wherever possible, and that we should not accept a hazard simply because "that's the way motor racing has always been"

You ask "If a helmet maker or one of the auto manufacturers agreed to provide them, would you object to the drivers wearing them?" Helmets are available to FIA standards, they are worn by some rally drivers and I have no objections to their provision or their wearing

"Where is your point of objection to the full face helmet?" I don't have an objection to full face helmets"

"Do you believe it is less safe than the open face helmet, or "just as" safe?" No I don't believe a full face helmet to be less safe than an open face design. In some situations the open face helmet may be less safe than a full face one (you state that there are no data to support either argument and I accept your statement).

"Or do you simply believe that the open face helmet is "safe enough"?" Given the protective cell that rally drivers operate in, yes.

"How and at what exact point do we draw that line?" In a correctly strengthened, scrutineerd rally car - if the driver wants to wear an approved open face helmet (whatever his reasons for making that choice) then that is fine with me. Please note, I don't think anyone here has advocated making open face helmets mandatory for rally drivers and navigators.

"Especially when we already have a product we know is clearly superior? " see earlier reply concerning which design is more or less safe than the other.

[GBarclay]

Just a few points from my perspective. I race, as a driver, and always use a full face helmet. I also co-drive in a rally car and use an open face helmet. My primary reason for this is safety. In the event of an intercom failure, I am still able to scream the rally instructions. - just not possible with a full face helmet. The perceived safety of a full face helmet does not compare to the real safety of adequate communication in certain situations.

An interesting note - SCCA is considering (nothing has happened yet) banning full face helmets in cars equipped with airbags. This would apply to autocross, time trials and circuit racing for those with cars whose airbags are still active. The reasoning behind this proposal, is that in cars with airbags, there is an increased risk of mandibular fractures when wearing a full face helmet.

Like I said, just a proposal at this stage.

Don't believe for an instant that a rally driver well secured cannot hit his head on the steering wheel or dash. Seat belts stretch in an impact, and it is possible they can stretch enough to allow contact with the wheel. Just look at Jason Priestley's Infiniti Series crash (albeit in a single seater).

But in an accident severe enough to cause face contact with the wheel - I would worry more about the possibility of a basular skull fracture (cause of death in the Earnhardt accident due to a faulty seat belt install). Maybe mandatory HANS devices are the next step.

Just MHO.

[HP]

Originally posted by BRG
Much of what you say is true but you seem unwilling to accept that there may be legitimate objections to a full-face helmet that have led both leading competitors and the sporting authorities to agree that it would not be helpful to regulate in this instance. Given that motor sport authorities are rarely reluctant to regulate, these must be compelling objections. As previously stated, I believe that they relate mainly to the heat issue. IMO the fear that a heat-affected driver would leave the road and potentially mow down spectators is considered a far greater possible risk than the added safety of a full-face helmet.

The biggest problem with a closed helm is to breathe the air just exhaled. Helmets certainly can be improved in that area. However the problem in that case is more evident in open surroundings, where the air just exhaled is being pushed upwards by the fresh outside air, back into the nose. Inside a car, they won't get this effect as badly. There they have to make sure the air inside the cell is getting refreshed.

However, in this discussion we haven't even touched the issue of a car on fire. I for one can't remember a driver wearing an open helmet and balaclava. A balaclava generates much more heat problems than a helmet, and has much more breathing related concerns, as I know from experience. Yet I rarely have read about complaints from racing series where they need to wear a balaclava. Also, in series where drivers are exposed to the sun directly, like F1, the helmet heats up much faster.

I would say if heat really is an issue for rally drivers, then they need to look at how to improve the airflow inside the cars, because it would improve the situation no matter which type of helmet they are wearing.

Personally, I don't believe the main issue is one of heat. I've tried to wear helmets in a car, and have one thing to say. Uugh, it felt incredible strange at first and I was being to feel claustrophobic. Got used to it after a while, but being "double caged in", still has a strange feeling to it. And that certainly is a condition that would justify an exemption, if an individual would start to panic with a closed helmet while driving a car.

[HP]

Originally posted by GBarclay
Just a few points from my perspective. I race, as a driver, and always use a full face helmet. I also co-drive in a rally car and use an open face helmet. My primary reason for this is safety. In the event of an intercom failure, I am still able to scream the rally instructions. - just not possible with a full face helmet. The perceived safety of a full face helmet does not compare to the real safety of adequate communication in certain situations.

I have seen helmets that are convertible from open to closed helmets and back. Wonder how far they have progressed in usabilty. That would be a good compromise.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by BRG
Much of what you say is true but you seem unwilling to accept that there may be legitimate objections to a full-face helmet that have led both leading competitors and the sporting authorities to agree that it would not be helpful to regulate in this instance. Given that motor sport authorities are rarely reluctant to regulate, these must be compelling objections.

Then you are going to have to state those objections. Of those already stated, we have heard them all before: as in each case full-face helmets were intitially resisted by some competitors and then adopted in the majority of the world's racing organizations. Rallying must be argued as some type of special case and frankly, I just don't see it.

[BRG]

Excess ive heat
Breathing difficulties
Communications
Existing safety deemed completely adequate

Just because you want to discount these, doesn't mean that they aren't legitimate reasons. You seem to imagine that there is some debate in rallying about this, that it is a cause celebre . It isn't. Rally competitors and the sporting authorities all seem to be content with the current situation. This is the only place that I have ever seen anyone question it.

If a competitor wants to use a full-face helmet, they are completely at liberty to do so. But there comes a point where safety measures cross the line into nanny-ism - where they are addressing a safety risk that simply doesn't exist or is infinitesimal. Like demanding that children wear safety goggles when playing conkers. And I think you are on or around that line.

[FrankB]

Originally posted by BRG
You seem to imagine that there is some debate in rallying about this, that it is a cause celebre . It isn't.

I tried to point this out earlier - I am sure that this thread was started out of curiosity, not because Shiftin thought that full face helmets should be worn. In the spirit of the original question many people have speculated why rally drivers choose one type of a helmet or another. Generally no one has stated that only one type should be used.

While I take on board McGuire's thoughts on there always being the possibility of an extreme accident where all the safety features in the car fail to give "normal" protection and a full face helmet could prevent serious injury where an open face helmet would not. But all safety measures are limited - as we can imagine an extreme accident in a rally car, let's also consider some recent safety measures in F1. There is a conceivable accident where if the cockpit surround was 2mm thicker or 10mm higher then a serious injury could be avoided - should we enlarge those components now? What if there is a pitlane fire, and subsequent investigations show that if the fuel flow had been less, the fire would be less intense and an injury could have been avoided. Should we now have a reduced rate of fuel flow in anticipation of this "possible" incident?

[Shiftin]

Originally posted by FrankB


I tried to point this out earlier - I am sure that this thread was started out of curiosity, not because Shiftin thought that full face helmets should be worn.

I was just curious, that's right. But to be honest, I don't think "full" face helmets should be worn but I do think open helmets are unsafe. It just seems odd that they have the choice and the FIA never made a standard about it.

And also... I joked a little with the American Football helmet but I think it's very well possible to have some sort of unique rally helmet, like a hybrid. In other words, you can have full face - protection, have cooling and be able to make yourself heard in case of a communication failure.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by BRG
If a competitor wants to use a full-face helmet, they are completely at liberty to do so. But there comes a point where safety measures cross the line into nanny-ism - where they are addressing a safety risk that simply doesn't exist or is infinitesimal. Like demanding that children wear safety goggles when playing conkers. And I think you are on or around that line.

I totally agree with you about "nanny-ism." However, this is not that line. It's not even close; in fact the suggestion is silly. We are not talking about changing the nature or the aesthetics of the sport, the cars, or the courses in any way. Full face helmets cost essentially the same and offer far greater protection. Essentially, there is no signicant downside for the sport.

As for there being "no risk" to the use of the open face helmet, that's simply blind. It offers no protection to the jaw, face and the front of the skull, period. These are bad things. Next question. Take the photo at the top of this thread and show it to any acknowledged authority on safety in motorsports, and ask what kind of helmets they would advise these individuals to wear. Do you believe there is any doubt what the answer will be?

Back to safety "nanny-ism" and its causes. In every case, it can be quite predictably charted: a period of inaction due to a perception of "adequate safety," followed by a tragedy, followed by hysteria and overreaction.

[McGuire]

Originally posted by BRG
Excess ive heat
Breathing difficulties
Communications
Existing safety deemed completely adequate

Just because you want to discount these, doesn't mean that they aren't legitimate reasons. You seem to imagine that there is some debate in rallying about this, that it is a cause celebre . It isn't. Rally competitors and the sporting authorities all seem to be content with the current situation. This is the only place that I have ever seen anyone question it.

I never said it was a cause celebre and I don't care if it is. It is also totally immaterial to me if the authorities are "satisified" with the current state. The main thing that tells me is they aren't very aggressive about safety, because as an easy and painless area for improvement this one is a slam dunk. And if you ask me, "content with the current situation" is a horrible rationalization for any policy in any business, let alone anything to do with safety. I am a little amazed it is offered here as a serious justification.

No, my position is incredibly simple: the drivers will be safer in full face helmets.

Some rally participants wear full face helmets while others don't. Those who don't are clearly making a misstep in judgement in my opinion. Please note I haven't called for the series to make full face helmets mandatory or called for any other steps at all. With all due respect, I believe you are the reactionary here, not me. What do you imagine you are defending?

[BRG]

I'm not defending anything - except maybe a bit of common sense and flexibility. You suggest that it is just inertia that is stopping the FIA mandating full-face helmets for rallying. I disagree.

After all, the FIA are not slow to regulate and have done so in just this way in other parts of the sport. Yet they haven't in rallying. Which surely implies that there are other issues which conflict with this and which have been judged to take precedence. There are continual safety revisions and improvements in rallying - to suggest that there is complacency is nonsense. The difference between safety now and 20-30 years ago in rallying is as great as in racing.

As I said at the start of my first post in this thread, as a co-driver I used a full-face helmet for very many years. That was my decision. But I never competed in the sort of conditions that the WRC often encounters. The hottest rally I ever did was during one British summer when the thermometer that was mounted on the dashboard showed temperatures in the cabin of 55 degrees C. We were having to drive on the road sections holding both the doors open to try to cool off! I would have loved to have had an open face helmet that day....

[FrankB]

Perhaps we should find a rallying equivalent of AtlasF1 and ask those who are closely involved in that branch of the sport these questions...

If you use an open face rather than a full face helmet - what factors influenced your personal choice?

Is it known why the FIA has not made full face helmets mandatory?

[FrankB]

Originally posted by McGuire
Please note I haven't called for the series to make full face helmets mandatory or called for any other steps at all.

If you are not calling for the mandatory wearing of full face helmets (or the banning of open face helmets which is in effect the same thing), what are you suggesting the authorities should do in this quote from the same post?

Originally posted by McGuire
It is also totally immaterial to me if the authorities are "satisified" with the current state. The main thing that tells me is they aren't very aggressive about safety, because as an easy and painless area for improvement this one is a slam dunk.