Jump to content
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble
Slate Blackcurrant Watermelon Strawberry Orange Banana Apple Emerald Chocolate Marble

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

puckhoggy

Nike Bauer being sued

Recommended Posts

I find it hard to believe that people are agreeing that bauer is at fault when they do extensive research and we only have hearsay on this subject, was anyone here at the game when the injury was taken. What type of hit was it? side?front?behind? how old is the helmet? what is the victims prior health history? Bauer and all the manufacturers construct helmets to protect from high impacts which from people in the industry state most impacts aren't coming from but more so low impact hits but at akward angles where the neck and skull turn and are not in a stable position because there is no way to really test for that type of hit where a guy is blind sided. The blind sided hits which the NHL are trying to get away from i.e a player going north-south and getting hit from an east-west position so the player is unaware of it coming and is unable to brace himself for the impact.

Yes a fit on a helmet making sure whichever helmet your wearing is properly fitted like in the video oldtrainerguy did which was very well done and thorough, helmets are never concussion proof or injury proof if they were we would be playing hocked in a padded room on shoes with cushions all around us, look at football for example there head gear is similar in protection to hockey but concussions are still a common occurence but would someone down there get upset about it if someone got a major concussion probably not as much because the head impacts are greater there then in hockey.

This is just my opinion and I have read through all the pages here and have gotten information to come up with this reply. In closing im sorry but I can see now way for Bauer to be liable for this type of injury since they do not make claims there helmet is concussion proof I would go back to the store and blame the salesperson if they informed the customer the helmet was concussion proof because that's just asking for a lawsuit waiting to happen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ + 1. And I would only add any helmet provider, not just Bauer, does their research on any helmet before putting it in the marketplace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it hard to believe that people are agreeing that bauer is at fault when they do extensive research and we only have hearsay on this subject, was anyone here at the game when the injury was taken.

True, but in this instance the hearsay would be admissible, as it was a party admission to his medical condition, and the circumstances pertaining to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^ + 1. And I would only add any helmet provider, not just Bauer, does their research on any helmet before putting it in the marketplace.

There's no doubt about that, the last thing any manufacturer wants is a lawsuit over an injury due to one of their products and the negative PR that inevitably accompanies it. The only part I find interesting is targeting of CSA. I would really like to see helmets designed more for concussion prevention and not focused solely on preventing skull fractures. I've seen far more evidence that EPP leads to more concussions than it prevents, unfortunately all evidence is anecdotal as nobody publishes any useful information on the subject.

It would be nice to see the CSA, Hockey Canada, USA Hockey and/or the manufacturers fund a study to find ways to reduce concussions. Something a bit more sophisticated than the drop tests they currently use to certify products.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's no doubt about that, the last thing any manufacturer wants is a lawsuit over an injury due to one of their products and the negative PR that inevitably accompanies it. The only part I find interesting is targeting of CSA. I would really like to see helmets designed more for concussion prevention and not focused solely on preventing skull fractures. I've seen far more evidence that EPP leads to more concussions than it prevents, unfortunately all evidence is anecdotal as nobody publishes any useful information on the subject.

It would be nice to see the CSA, Hockey Canada, USA Hockey and/or the manufacturers fund a study to find ways to reduce concussions. Something a bit more sophisticated than the drop tests they currently use to certify products.

How about VN Foam or fxpp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was in comparison to VN

I'm glad you clarified because the statement, "...EPP leads to more concussions than it prevents." has a completely different meaning to me than what you just said.

What is your evidence based on that you mention in your other post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm glad you clarified because the statement, "...EPP leads to more concussions than it prevents." has a completely different meaning to me than what you just said.

What is your evidence based on that you mention in your other post?

It's all anecdotal evidence, nothing that can be quantified or proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then why is it that every top of the line helmet introduced since 1997 has EPP and not VN foam as the main padding system?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cost of the material? Amount of Waste material during production? Ease of production? Production techniques allowing for "innovative" designs appealing to player vanity?

Isn't VN cut from sheets and EPP able to be sprayed into a mold? Just these two factors - if the material properties were acceptable - would give the edge to EPP for easier production and allowing for bling design factor... FWIW VN helmets have always been more comfortable (for me) than EPP helmets until I shave foam out under pressure points.... I was serious when I said I wanted a hard shell helmet with the Cascade M11 padding.... I believe it would be comfortable, reasonably protective, and more easily adjustable for different head shapes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No sir... I'm saying that they found something that is easier to produce\allows them more flexibility in their designs that still meets their safety standards.... Remember that they definitely want to make a safe product, but they still want to make it as inexpensively and cost efficiently as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just checking, Steve, because as a referee, it is always safety first on the ice! "Coach, make sure the chin straps are buckled, ear pieces are on the helmets, and the players have mouthguards. This is about safety. It is not open for discussion."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

furlanitalia,

Remember that I'm from the school of thought that a hockey helmet will do very little to prevent a concussion and that I (emphasis on my personal opinion) believe that it's purpose is to limit the chance of cuts, contusions, and fractures. Same with the cage - as long as it's fitted and worn properly. My personal opinion was formed through discussions with a doctor involved in sports medicine and concussion research at UPMC - but it is still just my opinion.

I won't debate whether one or the other is better at preventing concussions, only that they meet or exceed the applicable CSA and HECC standards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The book on concussions is literally being written and rewritten right now. It hasn't been that long since the NFL and the NHL began really looking at concussions, their causes, the damage done - short and long term, cumulative effect, possible ways to prevent them....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I won't debate whether one or the other is better at preventing concussions, only that they meet or exceed the applicable CSA and HECC standards.

And part of the lawsuit that I thought had some merit was that the standards are not sufficient.

Then why is it that every top of the line helmet introduced since 1997 has EPP and not VN foam as the main padding system?

Because it produces better numbers in the tests that aren't really applicable to concussions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since you answered the question with a question, then you do not have an answer.

That's the answer I was given when I asked. I have never claimed to have first hand knowledge of the numbers, it's something I have been asking about for years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So does anyone have a copy of the test procedures and a synopsis of what the testing is trying to document? Has anyone considered that the tests are measuring something that is absolutely valid, just not what WE think it is measuring?

HECC testing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Player Helmets

The following criteria are evaluated for Ice Hockey Players helmets: area of coverage, extent and form of protective material, strength and elongation of the retention system, and shock absorption. The standard utilized for assessment of players helmets is ASTM F1045 "Standard Performance Specification for Ice Hockey Helmets." This standard requires minimum areas of the head that the helmet must cover and protect. In addition to the coverage requirements, the standard stipulates where and how large openings in the helmet can be."

Since concussions cannot be prevented by any helmet, therefore, by reading the statement, there is no mention of concussion prevention(since it cannot be done) as a standard to be met by HECC testing. As Steve says, what the criteria for testing and standards actually are and what we think they may be are not likely one and the same.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW.... you can BUY a copy of the ASTM F1045 standard for ice hockey helmets directly from the ASTM for about $40-$50.... It would probably include the testing procedures and the pass\fail parameters for each portion of the test.

ASTM F1045 standard

Soccor headband testing but has data for hockey helmets used as part of their testing

THE FORCEFIELDTM HEADBAND – IMPACT TESTING

The ForceFieldTM headband was tested under the same rigid test conditions that a hockey helmet is tested.

The test method used was ASTM F 1045 titled "Standard Performance Specification for Ice Hockey Helmets". In that test, the hockey helmet is a complete product containing a liner of shock absorbing material covered with a hard plastic shell which gives the helmet its form and helps spread out the initial impact over a larger area. No single impact can exceed 300Gs.

The velocity of the 41-inch drop was 4.48 meters per second.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since concussions cannot be prevented by any helmet...

That's a big assumption to make and I have never seen anyone in a position of authority state that.

Obviously the concussions that come from blows to the jaw can never be addressed via helmet design. All I have been saying is that there should be more of an attempt to do so from HECC and CSA. The fact that the standard doesn't currently address the real world use of the helmet, is exactly my point. The helmets today are fantastic, what's wrong with wanting to make them better and safer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...