goblue9280

Loved the short lived miken kids line of sticks that had a similar concept... hopefully the play rite line sticks around (pun intended.)

Love the black/blue styling of the new nexus skates. Invokes the feel of the old Bauer Supreme Composites... even down to the black laces with blue highlights. Only missing the all black tuuk holder.

For every helmet they test, VTech purchases them off the shelf. Eliminates any bias from receiving free gear.

It's a good thing the helmet experts at USA Hockey, who know so much about individualized fit, would never put an entire team in the same helmet model. For those interested, the VT group already published a paper on the STAR hockey helmet rating, and it can be read for free, here: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10439-015-1278-7 Regarding fit, this section indicates to me indicates they are aware of the importance helmet fit plays with regards to not only lab testing but in real life head injuries. from page 10: The biofidelity of the impact model used for Hockey STAR was ensured through appropriate headform selection and comparison of acceleration traces with other data collected from hockey players. The NOCSAE headform was chosen because of its superior helmet fit at the base of the skull, and around the jaw, cheeks, and chin compared to that of the Hybrid III headform.11 A helmet that does not fit properly can shift on the head during tests, and if the contact area of the helmet padding with the headform varies from what is realistic, the effective stiffness of the padding will vary, potentially resulting in a mischaracterization of a helmet’s energy management capabilities.

That's not accurate, while it varies by journal, most all have a significant review process before being accepted for publication. The Annals of Biomedical Engineering is the official journal of the Biomedical Engineering Society... it's a very well regarded engineering society, so I would think their journal review process is significant. "We caution the hockey community against simply accepting Virginia Tech’s statement that hockey helmets are not safe and its conclusion that players should expect to sustain a certain number of concussions per season, depending upon the type of helmet that they wear." Come on Bauer, lol, if you have 100's of engineers and multiple experts working on helmet R&D, you should be able to read a rather standard results summary release and realize that Virginia Tech came to NEITHER of the above conclusions.

I don't think it's the study itself, but rather the way it's being reported. Personally I don't like the "Study Find Hockey Helmets Unsafe" headline that espn has on their front page... if you read the release on the VT website, it isn't so black and white. I agree with your comment about helmet fit should be the first concern. Hopefully within a few years, there will be numerous options rated 4/5 star so that LHS can continue focusing on optimal fit. But again, going back to manufacturers, I've never seen one detail what headshapes their helmet fits best... they always tout the adjustibility as a selling point, so shouldn't the helmet perform optimally even when a single headform is used? Just as an example, here's what Bauer says (from their website) about their Reakt 100 helmet: "A better fit means better protection. Spring-loaded side pads utilize Curv® composite and PORON® XRD™ foam creating the new YourFIT custom adjustment system." The manufacturers themselves are already guilty of implying and marketing helmets as one size fits all/most, which I know from stories on here creates a constant struggle for LHS employees... convincing customers to prioritize fit over marketing.

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.

So because one guy who is of the 0.001% that will play the game at the strongest/fastest level feels the game is too risky to justify the damage it will do to his body... and therefore that is indicative that the helmet improvements made as a result of rating system has failed to make the game less risky for the other 99.999% that play?

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.

Curious on your thoughts, JR? Odds this has as big of an impact (pun intended) as the football findings had on helmet manufacturers?

The owner answered a question about grinding wheel cost on kickstarter, thought others might be interested: "Randy & Kade - The grinding rings will cost $49.99 - So, $1 per sharpening on the default setting of 3 cycles per skate (6 passes) and $1.66 if you needed 5 cycles (10 passes) with every sharpening. 3 is typically right unless there is damage to the blade. In many cases it might take just a cycle or 2 to get the edge you need."

If you look at the kickstarter page, pledging $299 or more and you can select a Sparx Carrying Case as a reward. "SPARX CARRYING CASE A ruggedized travel case to protect your investment. High-quality, impact resistant, polypropylene exterior."

Thought I would throw my 2 cents in as this machine was made for me. I have two (soon to be three) kids playing hockey in a non-traditional market (Houston.) I use to have two options in town for getting their skates sharpened... #1 our home rink (at your own risk) or #2 had a friend with a wissota. Unfortunately two things happened this past offseason, my friend's kids now skate on a different team and our local rink closed in October. We then had to make the hour trek across town multiple times per week for my kids to play hockey. The new rink we were skating out of does not have a sharpener (have no idea why.) Taking their skates to one of the other rinks (again an hour or so away from where we live) is troublesome as they generally want you to leave your skates there and make you feel like garbage if you beg them to do them while you wait. I'm not picky... I'll wait up to an hour for them to get sharpened... still, they make you feel like you are asking the world of them. I also try to get my kids skates sharpened whenever we have a travel weekend in Dallas... but that usually means having to wait until after the first game to have them sharpened. I've looked into buying a X01 or wissota, but something always seems to come up to prevent me from putting down the $1000 plus. In addition there's learning to use the darn thing, and then finding the time to sharpen. Between running my kids across Houston multiple times per week, and the volunteer hours I put in for the org, it's hard for me to envision having the time to become proficient at and regularly sharpening the kids skates. This machine (if reliable) would be a godsend. Never having to worry about my kids having proper edges, and stressing over where to get them done. I'm sure I'll still get them done by a traditional sharpener when we are in Dallas 6-7 times a season (not to mention any profiling that may need to be done) but this machine would be perfect for the weeks in between. Plus, I'm sure my wife could use this thing with minimal effort... another plus for when I'm stuck at work. Like I said, this thing is made for me... so I put down my $550, and hope to have one sometime next season. As for doing others skates... I'm sure I will... and yeah, I'll either charge a small amount for supplies or trade for rides for my kids. My kids often get rides with teammates and I will either take their kids sometime or give them some gas money... when I give gas money, I never worry about the parents having a taxi license.

That actually brings up an interesting question... how to interpret the results with regards to kids. If you read any of the stuff that Dr. Stuart/Mayo Clinic presented to USA Hockey with regards to youth concussions, they talk about things like neck strength and kids under 12 being more susceptible to concussions. Looking at the VTech football methodology, the ratings are for adult helmets... so I'm assuming the neck strength they assumed and head weight are for an average adult. How would the results change if you considered the neck strength and head weight of an average peewee hockey player? I'm curious if there is a point at which the weight of added padding actually increases the risk of concussion for kids due to their weaker neck muscles and lower threshold for deceleration. Just found this on the FAQ section of the VTech website: Only adult helmets were evaluated. Can the results be extrapolated to youth helmets?Currently, it is unknown how youth helmets perform relative to adult helmets of the same name. Unfortunately, there are no data to indicate whether youth helmets perform better, worse, or the same as their adult counterparts. We anticipate having a paper published within the next year that will provide insight into this question. The STAR evaluation system was developed based on the head impact exposure of collegiate football players. Youth football players are likely to experience a different head impact exposure, which will require a modified evaluation system. We have begun to collect data from youth football players and recently published a journal article in the Annals of Biomedical Engineering describing the first dataset on youth head impact exposure. However, it may be two more years before we release youth specific ratings.Daniel et al. (2012):http://www.springerlink.com/content/r1w055654612u47j/?MUD=MP