Leaderboard

Anyone else see the irony of a user named "Ulf" with Samuelsson's picture clamoring for safety in hockey?

Working a short week on afternoons (5:30p-4a), but still making more than I made last week in a full week thanks to 4 hours of double time Good Friday morning.

A helmet that doesn't fit is not a better alternative, regardless of how well it is supposedly rated. The problem I have is that these "results" are public without being validated and now people are going to make potentially bad decisions based on them.

All about the money? Pretty heavy accusations you're lobbing at this prof... anything to back it up? Most profs don't get into research for the money. The results are being published in a peer reviewed journal... along with any academic talks they give, they're going to face plenty of scrutiny from other scientists and engineers. As for the money trail, who has been profiting the most? The manufacturers. Every year new models come out from the m11 to the reakt 100... all making new claims about break throughs in concussion reductions. Question, how many manufacturers have opened up their testing procedures and results to full peer review so that their claims can be independently retested? Every year the price of the top helmets go up despite little data to substantiate their protection improvements. Manufacturers are far from innocent with regards to profiting from the concussion scare. The positive I see is that in the manufacturers rush to research and market concussion reducing designs and materials, they just might have some solid tech to build from. Hopefully this rating system forces them to put a bit more of their money into the R&D and a little less on marketing unsubstantiated claims.

He wasn't pointing out inconsistencies so much as he was indicating deficiencies.

I give credit to Dr. Stuart at USA Hockey for clearly writing a review of a few of the inconsistencies in the STAR rating system. Unfortunately, ESPN has let the horse out of the barn with their article.

I don't have a problem with the way VT did the testing but do take exception to their inference that every player suffers a number of concussions each season. That's what sets the fear of every parent in motion. My hope is that studies like this help direct the R & D to further improvements, which as a consumer I have confidence that it will. What will probably not change is that you will continue to have those customers that: 1) Will buy the most expensive helmet regardless of fit because it must be the most protective based on the price tag. 2) Will buy the cheapest helmet regardless of fit because they do not want to spend money on a helmet 3) Will buy the one that they think they look better in regardless or price and fit. Retailers should just stick with recommending helmet based on fit and hope the consumer takes the information presented into their decision making process.

Maybe someone will design a helmet with Zorbium padding..........

We sold 2 Krown helmets today, both to parents who stopped by without their kids, who directly cited this report as the reason for changing helmets. Both times I tried to explain how proper fit works, and how one helmet is not the most protective for everyone. Both times, the parents shrugged off my recommendations and left with their new shiny helmet. This is the major issue with the study, everyone is so quick to term one helmet a champion, and people refuse to listen to the guys working in stores, that have been fitting helmets for many years. At this point, the damage is already done. No matter the methods (flawed or not) of the study, the media has ran with it and people are now in a shock and awe stage. Fucking frustrating that people dont want to listen anymore

The easton helmet is interesting although it looks too heavy and cumbersome for use in our game. If you look at the models of football helmets that are rated as 5 stars a lot of them come with inflatable padding to adjust the fit and portions of the helmet that flex with the impact keeping the padding on the head, so a lot is going to depend on proper fitting and proper wear of the helmet. As far as the article goes I agree that any outside testing is good so long as the information and research methods are sound. I will be more interested in the peer review of the study and what possible issues are brought up. The biggest things I can see is that football and hockey while both contact sports deal with different types of hits. In hockey you stand a much higher chance of multiple impacts in the same over all hit (i.e secondary impacts of you being checked and then your head slamming into the boards or slamming your head on the ice). As other have said and I will reiterate there is no way to ever prevent a concussion fully. Also since a concussion is essentially your brain hitting the inside of your skull any blow could cause a concussion, hell soccer players get them when going up for headers during the game. Since the brain sits in the skull surrounded by a thin layer of CSF (cerebrospinal fluid) it has space to move and hit the inside of your skull. I think the article released by ESPN is rather irresponsible but it is typical of most news stories these days in that they are looking for the shock factor of the news story than actually presenting the full story. The article, or at least the tone and bias of the article seem like they are designed to shock/scare your average reader. Also found this article on the methods used in the research for the hockey helmet study http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/285/art%253A10.1007%252Fs10439-015-1278-7.pdf?auth66=1427756208_103e2542c16650245c5b11e419ef201d&ext=.pdf

HECC and CSA, to the best of my knowledge, have never published any of the actual numbers from their testing. When combined with the influence of the manufacturers on the board, that leaves some people with a lot of questions. Secrecy creates doubt, it's that simple. I hope it's ok for me to disclose this, as it was pretty common knowledge in the industry a couple years ago. Easton had a helmet in the works that was based on the RIddell football helmet that got a five star rating, but it never made it to market. It was large and heavy, so I had concerns about increased neck and whiplash type injuries with it. I think having an independent agency doing the testing is a good thing and I think publishing the methodology and results is a great thing. I also think the video segment was borderline criminal in the way that it is trying to scare parents.

Here is the other thing. The research has yet to go through peer review but the gist is still making headlines. Regardless of how the research fares after scrutiny the "damage" has been done.

Until they find a way to get foam between the brain and the skull, the manufacturers have their work cut out for themselves.

The beauty of the peer review process: U of Ottawa can collaborate with VT on improving their study. This is an academic study to be published in a peer reviewed journal... they have to remain unbiased which means remaining independent from the manufacturers. All of their data and procedures will be detailed in the published study, which according to the article will be in the April 2015 Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

After about 100 minutes of hockey tonight, 3 periods and 6 over times, my son buried a slap shot to win the Championship for his beer league team. Fun stuff!

I noticed that there was a 27K tapered shaft (as well as a 25K traditional shaft, which I am not interested in) in the ReebokCCM 2014 catalogue, and then this shaft seems to have been removed in the CCM 2015 catalogue. Did this product get ditched? I am interested in trying a RibCor shaft, although I am not aware of one existing at the moment.

I'll be on wheels for the first time in 14 years. Mounted to NXG, with heel lifts.

Drove a car today for the first time in something like 8 years. Instructor was patient. My technique is horrendous but I didn't destroy anything and it was a lot less traumatic than anticipated.

Bam. Best 15 dollar thrift shop purchase in my life.