Virginia Tech STAR rating system being developed for hockey helmets

[DRR 112]

On 6/2/2017 at 7:27 PM, marka said:

I still think the best way to pick a helmet today is to start at the top of the VT rankings and work down the list until you find a helmet that fits well / is comfortable and that you can afford.

 

 

Mark, I do not disagree with this at all, but it also begs the question - if you work your way down the VT rankings until you find one that fits, then you're saying the rankings have little to no worth. If the helmet that fits your head the best is the one at the bottom of the VT rankings, you buy that one? Then what's the point of considering the rankings in the first place? In this statement you're ranking the criteria, fit, comfort, affordability, VT rankings? (Which is basically how I would rank the criteria, fwiw).

 

 

[marka 518]

Howdy,

19 minutes ago, DRR said:

 

Mark, I do not disagree with this at all, but it also begs the question - if you work your way down the VT rankings until you find one that fits, then you're saying the rankings have little to no worth. If the helmet that fits your head the best is the one at the bottom of the VT rankings, you buy that one? Then what's the point of considering the rankings in the first place? In this statement you're ranking the criteria, fit, comfort, affordability, VT rankings? (Which is basically how I would rank the criteria, fwiw).

 

 

 

I think its very, very unlikely that I'll (or anyone), will reach the end of the list before finding a helmet that fits well.

Basically, I use the ratings as a way to order the helmets to try for comfort/fit.  I'm not doing that because I believe that fit is important to safety (I don't know), but rather because I have enough experience with myself to know that a helmet I hate to put on isn't worth what I'm guessing will be a marginal safety improvement (again, assumption here is that there will be enough helmets at a particular rating area that I'll find one that fits well).

I'm less sensitive to price on something like a helmet, but I will do a similar thing in that if the two helmets are very similarly ranked and both fit well, I'll pick the cheaper one.  FWIW, that's one of the reasons I'm really interested in results from the new 710... If its a four star helmet it not only gives me another option in terms of fit, its also a LOT cheaper than the ReAkt 200.

I treat the VT rankings as an important decision making criteria, but not the only one.

Mark

 

[stick9 881]

Pretty much my view of independent test ratings.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mEB7WbTTlu4

[flip12 699]

1 hour ago, stick9 said:

Pretty much my view of independent test ratings.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mEB7WbTTlu4

But the "independent" here, do you see that as a bad thing? Would a dependent test rating be better in your view?

[stick9 881]

1 hour ago, flip12 said:

But the "independent" here, do you see that as a bad thing? Would a dependent test rating be better in your view?

Maybe not bad, more like flawed or incomplete.

Other independent testing agencies (UL, CE, CSA and the dozens I have forgot or don't feel like listing) have set standards and guidelines in place. If a manufacturer doesn't follow those standards and fails testing, the agency does not grant approval. In most cases that means you are not allowed to sell your product in a certain market. This is done before the product is released to the public, not after the fact.

The data is the data, but data can be very subjective. Look, it seems like they want the right thing, but does their testing tell the whole story. How do their findings relate to the real world? Does a 5 star helmet actually reduce the risk of concussions on everyone who wears it? Hockey isn't played in a lab so how effective is their testing? I've played for a long and have yet to have a giant hammer pop out and hit me in the side of the head.

Ideally, VT should work on creating a metric or baseline along with a test procedure that all manufacturers can follow. That would allow companies to use those metrics and procedures during the R&D phase. New materials and assembly methods could be vetted before even going to market.

Edited June 4, 2017 by stick9

[Kgbeast 195]

3 hours ago, DRR said:

I disagree with this bolded part. Heads and helmets are three dimensional objects. Even if you only go by round vs oval, you're only taking into account two dimensions. I played with this guy who had a very tall head - his helmet always looked like it was sitting too high on his head.  The helmet wasn't too big or too small, but it looked like it was fitted too poorly for his head shape. Because of this he had trouble getting a facemask that fit - the vertical distance from the mount point in the helmet to the chin cup was greater than any facemask he could find. This is another example of "if it doesn't fit right to begin with, it won't work right." If you have a head that's exactly the same as the last they use to make the helmet you're in good shape. But the farther you deviate from this, the less effective the helmet, or any other piece of equipment, is going to be.  I was using the 9 year old as an exaggerated example, but the bottom line is if it doesn't fit right, it won't work as designed.

That's why even pants come in +1 and +2 sizes to help accommodate different body shapes and provide the correct amount of coverage. I'm a taller, skinny guy. Medium pants fit around the waist but they leave a large gap in coverage above the kneecap. Large pants fit length-wise, but they don't fit around the waist and the hip pads don't line up with my hips. It needs to fit right to work, just like a helmet. I don't understand why some think this is debatable. Fit comes first.

 

When I was making this comment, it was purely to defend VT test validity specifically to the areas that they test. It would be reduction of concussion due to impact such as fall on ice or being checked into the boards as well as general impact resistance of the helmet. Face-mask and chin strap is not a factor as it applies to the specific test conducted by VT. Marka for example does not appear to be discounting the importance of the proper fit. All he says, that he would grab the highest VT score and try it on, If it does not fit right, he would sling that off and try if the next one down in VT scoring would fits better. And so on, until it is a good fit helmet, yet still with VT score. I do not see that this method of selecting a helmet is flawed in any way. I see selecting of helmet purely based on fit and disregarding results of any safety testing as more flawed. I am pretty sure you can find a helmet that fits great but has zero protection against concussion when you bounce you head off the ice.

That said, I find VT test kind of like... For example if a test is performed for effects of a 50 yard shot from a 308 caliber rifle through a stack of 200 pages of copier paper vs. a stack of 2 empty pizza boxes; and it is concluded that 200 pages of paper offer a better protection against the bullet, the results of the test are not wrong, but it also does not mean that either object is adequate to be used as a bullet-proof vest. However, one can actually use this test as a bases for grabbing a pack of printer paper instead of a pizza to protect them selves from a 9mm handgun, and it actually can save the ones life depending of a distance and angle of the shot. So while VT is not testing for everything under the sun, they do gather, what I feel, an adequate amount of data for one to make some basic estimations of which helmet is safer. After all, it is not all about hard drives head first into the boards and bouncing heads on the ice, sometime it is just a stray wrist shot to the back of the head. Perhaps the difference is remaining sharp in the game vs, being a bit loopy for a few minutes. Hey, different strokes for different folks.

 

[stick9 881]

Kg, I think you inadvertently pointed out the flaw in VT testing. The end user will never take into account all the particulars of the test, merely assume that 200 pages of copier paper will stop a bullet. 

Mom & Dad go and buy junior helmet X for Christmas because they read on the inter web that it has a 5 star rating. Doesn't matter if it fits, how he wears it or what he does in it. The report says it will reduce concussions. 

[marka 518]

Howdy,

1 hour ago, stick9 said:

Kg, I think you inadvertently pointed out the flaw in VT testing. The end user will never take into account all the particulars of the test, merely assume that 200 pages of copier paper will stop a bullet. 

Mom & Dad go and buy junior helmet X for Christmas because they read on the inter web that it has a 5 star rating. Doesn't matter if it fits, how he wears it or what he does in it. The report says it will reduce concussions. 

 

Today that same Mom and Dad go and buy junior helmet X because its cheap, because they like how it looks, or because its the only one in the store that's yellow.

Said another way, its not the fault of the VT study if people are dumb.

Mark

[flip12 699]

1 hour ago, stick9 said:

Maybe not bad, more like flawed or incomplete.

Other independent testing agencies (UL, CE, CSA and the dozens I have forgot or don't feel like listing) have set standards and guidelines in place. If a manufacturer doesn't follow those standards and fails testing, the agency does not grant approval. In most cases that means you are not allowed to sell your product in a certain market. This is done before the product is released to the public, not after the fact.

The data is the data, but data can be very subjective. Look, it seems like they want the right thing, but does their testing tell the whole story. How do their findings relate to the real world? Does a 5 star helmet actually reduce the risk of concussions on everyone who wears it? Hockey isn't played in a lab so how effective is their testing? I've played for a long and have yet to have a giant hammer pop out and hit me in the side of the head.

Ideally, VT should work on creating a metric or baseline along with a test procedure that all manufacturers can follow. That would allow companies to use those metrics and procedures during the R&D phase. New materials and assembly methods could be vetted before even going to market.

You make a great point about the certification boards in your second paragraph. It seems, though, there is a key difference in the case of the VT study, which is, all of the helmets they're testing have been approved by those boards. What VT is looking at, then, is "How do these already certified helmets actually perform in terms of damping collision forces similar to those incurred by hockey players in full contact leagues." It's an interesting question to study, and while you're right that it's not the best for companies to develop with, since they're subjected to the lab's analysis after releasing a new helmet, it is interesting to see that high price and high tech in a helmet doesn't perfectly correlate to a high collision damping score. Without having an independent assessment of how these different designs perform, vendors could just increase the price and the tech at will. (Now, though, if they're smart they'll probably just reverse-engineer the best results and package them in the most expensive helmet in their lineup to use VT's ratings to their advantage...and sure enough, the first ≈$300 helmet has the VT lab's current hight score.) This reminds me of when the Bauer 5000 helmet with the stiffer styrofoam-looking padding came out, and how that was supposed to be provide superior concussion protection, but didn't it turn out to be worse than the traditional VN foam in the run-of-the-mill helmets of the late '90's?

Sure, helmets won't prevent concussions from whiplash. But that raises the question, what percentage of hockey head injuries are from whiplash? What would the potential benefits be to players if they had optimal collision damping in concussion prone incidents? Is there a difference of degree in concussion symptoms and could the effects of concussions be minimized by better understanding how to soften the blows hockey subjects players to? Almost all that gets discussed with the VT study is concussions, but are there potential benefits for the long-term brain health of hockey players by minimizing the brunt of the repetitive sub-concussive impacts that are more common and get less notice?

In spite of helmets being mainly engineered to prevent skull fractures, the list of NHL players who've frantically tried the latest-and-greatest helmet in hopes to avoid an early retirement due to concussions shows there is a yearning for better brain protection. How to achieve that is tough to say, as concussions and brain health are areas of growing knowledge. That is to say, whether it can even be achieved, it is too early to tell. I'm no concussion expert, but these are just bits I've absorbed along the way in trying to keep somewhat informed. It could be drastically off-base. But I appreciate what the VT lab is asking.

[Kgbeast 195]

4 hours ago, stick9 said:

Kg, I think you inadvertently pointed out the flaw in VT testing. The end user will never take into account all the particulars of the test, merely assume that 200 pages of copier paper will stop a bullet. 

Mom & Dad go and buy junior helmet X for Christmas because they read on the inter web that it has a 5 star rating. Doesn't matter if it fits, how he wears it or what he does in it. The report says it will reduce concussions. 

Well regardless if they understand it or not, they will be getting a safer helmet... Once again not SAFE helmet, but safer. Without rating, they will just get one that looks like "my little pony" or "r2d2". I think the world is a better place when there is something that can sway parents from buying those :-).

[DRR 112]

18 hours ago, Kgbeast said:

 All he says, that he would grab the highest VT score and try it on, If it does not fit right, he would sling that off and try if the next one down in VT scoring would fits better. And so on, until it is a good fit helmet, yet still with VT score. I do not see that this method of selecting a helmet is flawed in any way. I see selecting of helmet purely based on fit and disregarding results of any safety testing as more flawed. I am pretty sure you can find a helmet that fits great but has zero protection against concussion when you bounce you head off the ice.

 

I never said base your decision solely on fit, just that I believe it's the #1 consideration. I am happy to take any data into consideration, even random online user reviews, however I do not place a lot of stock into these unless I find something that I consider a dealbreaker.

As for Marka's selection criteria that you describe above, I do see a problem with it. Let's say he goes to his LHS and there are 10 helmet models to try on. He tries on #1, doesn't fit, #2, fits OK, #3, fits. It's an acceptable price, comes in the right color, so he buys it. What about helmets 4-10? Without trying those on, he doesn't know if any of them fit any better than #3. He's comparing the fit of #3 with only two other helmets.

I would try on all 10 helmets, throw out the ones that don't fit, narrow it down to 2 or 3 choices, and then consult other resources (are they reviewed well by other users? How do they rank in the VT study? etc). That way I know I am getting the best option available of the 10. 

The selection process Marka describes places undue weight on the VT study and has the potential to exclude a better fitting, more comfortable helmet which may be a much better option for him - all because he put too much faith in the ranking of the study to choose.

 

[clarkiestooth 235]

As this thread has degraded into a spiraling chain of repeated statements and a soap box for helmet fit, I suggest a motion to give this thread a rest for a few months. The internet needs the space.

[JR Boucicaut 3759]

https://www.beam.vt.edu/helmet/helmets_hockey.php

And we have the first 5-Star helmet in the CCM FL500.

[althoma1 574]

As soon as marka reads this he's going to be on his way to a shop to grab a CCM FL500 

[GoalForFun 169]

15 minutes ago, JR Boucicaut said:

https://www.beam.vt.edu/helmet/helmets_hockey.php

And we have the first 5-Star helmet in the CCM FL500.

AND it costs $0!

[althoma1 574]

They need to put in the price - I see it's $199US at the major US e-tailers. That's not cheap, but it's $100 less than the 4 star Reakt 200.

[marka 518]

Howdy,

4 hours ago, althoma1 said:

As soon as marka reads this he's going to be on his way to a shop to grab a CCM FL500 

I'll certainly try it on.  :-)

But I will say that I'm pretty happy with my Re-Akt 200.

Nice to see manufacturers making steps to make their helmets objectively better.

Mark

[Oilers97 20]

6 hours ago, JR Boucicaut said:

https://www.beam.vt.edu/helmet/helmets_hockey.php

And we have the first 5-Star helmet in the CCM FL500.

I saw a photo floating around of this guy a month or so back. interested to see how popular it is. I don't see many pros wearing the reakt 200 if any so we will see. definitely will  sell for minor leagues with kids. But in here all honesty I'm still not buying the ratings fully. I've had a 0,1,1 and a 3 and have had concussions in all. I say go with what fits best they are for skull fracture s. 

[IPv6Freely 2082]

2 hours ago, marka said:

Howdy,

I'll certainly try it on.  :-)

But I will say that I'm pretty happy with my Re-Akt 200.

Nice to see manufacturers making steps to make their helmets objectively better.

Mark

That’s the issue though; they aren’t making them objectively better. They are making them to score high on the tests. 

57 minutes ago, Oilers97 said:

I saw a photo floating around of this guy a month or so back. interested to see how popular it is. I don't see many pros wearing the reakt 200 if any so we will see. definitely will  sell for minor leagues with kids. But in here all honesty I'm still not buying the ratings fully. I've had a 0,1,1 and a 3 and have had concussions in all. I say go with what fits best they are for skull fracture s. 

As I’ve said before: getting a concussion doesn’t make a helmet bad, and not getting a concussion doesn’t make a helmet good. 

[shoot_the_goalie 277]

Interesting to see that the majority of the higher star rated helmets are pretty much doing away with high density foams, and going back to mid-density foams or using the specialty foams like Poron and D30.  I wonder if that means the shells themselves are bigger to accommodate that.

Quote

That’s the issue though; they aren’t making them objectively better. They are making them to score high on the tests. 

I agree...  until there's an official standard established, the VT scores don't necessarily mean that much.  But at least it is a start to maybe something better down the road in terms of official certification.

[Davideo 99]

Technically they are objectively better. The objective is to score well in the test. The correlation between the test and the real world is the unknown.

[IPv6Freely 2082]

28 minutes ago, Davideo said:

Technically they are objectively better. The objective is to score well in the test. The correlation between the test and the real world is the unknown.

Sort of but not really. Making tweaks just to score a higher rating without being any safer doesn’t mean much.

[flip12 699]

8 hours ago, IPv6Freely said:

Sort of but not really. Making tweaks just to score a higher rating without being any safer doesn’t mean much.

How are they not safer if they score better at damping impact forces?

[Leif 160]

13 hours ago, shoot_the_goalie said:

Interesting to see that the majority of the higher star rated helmets are pretty much doing away with high density foams, and going back to mid-density foams or using the specialty foams like Poron and D30.  I wonder if that means the shells themselves are bigger to accommodate that.

Not necessarily. I have some padded shorts that I use for public skating and they have a D30 insert. It's thinner than the foams typically used in impact shorts, presumably because it is more effective at absorbing shock. The foam in my Bauer helmet - the old 4500 that scores poorly - is quite thick, and much thicker than the D30 pad in my shorts. D30 is quite expensive, so that would add significantly to the cost of the helmet.

What strikes me (no pun intended) is that although the padding would spread the shock, it surely would have an insignificant impact (no pun intended) on the deceleration forces experienced by the brain. In other words, an unprotected head would on hitting ice suffer a shock wave  and a deceleration. A good helmet would reduce the shock wave, but have little effect on the deceleration. I'd like to be proven wrong.

I must admit I do wonder about helmets. I play non contact hockey, but a week back when going slowly I had someone skate into me at full pelt, and I recall the sound of my helmet hitting his, followed by me falling backwards. I had a headache the following day. These bangs do concern me, and I'd happily pay more if I knew the helmet provided more protection from head injury.

[marka 518]

Howdy,

Acceleration by definition is a change in velocity over time.  So while it it completely true that any helmet (or no helmet) won't have an effect on the starting velocity or the ending velocity of a head for a particular impact, it very well could have an effect on the time it takes for the head to change velocity.  A longer time means less acceleration, which is better for your noggin.

For example...

If your head goes from 5 meters/second to 0 over .01 seconds, you experience ~50g.  If you increase that time to .015 seconds, you experience ~33g.  That's just 5 milliseconds different and my butt says that's within the realm of what different padding can do.

Mark