Impact video of the bauer 9900 and the s19

[Havok19 0]

I was very surprise of the resault.I know you need to take it for what it is but i am really not sure about the s19 at this point.

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=...0479&ref=mf

[mik3 1]

That really shows nothing other than the s19 won't be able to be used again after that impact. But, you should replace a helmet after that level of impact anyway.

[tro 4]

I don't know what the part is called, but the piece with the logos on it, it hits it on the bauer and not on the easton, not sure if it makes a difference, but it seems to take some of the blow on the bauer hit.

Picking up the easton, I thought the same thing, "would this take a puck in the head?", it feels like the old jofa.

The angle of the puck is also different, could also change the damage to both helmets.

[Jarick 5]

I'm no physicist, but I'd guess the only thing a helmet can do for you in that case is disperse the force...pressure = force / area and all. If that's the case, the Easton did a better job while the Bauer was flimsier. Or in a more simple way to put it, the puck seemed to deform the Bauer helmet a lot more than the Easton, which would have transmitted more of the puck impact to the head. Obviously, the Easton being a lot stiffer, the material had less give, and that's probably why it broke.

I could be way off, but I'd actually put this one in the Easton column. And yeah I bet a 100 MPH shot to the head would hurt either way.

[raganblink 82]

jarick, it was 100 km/h. Big difference..

But regardless, this is an awesome move by Bauer's part. Super smart. The s19 is rigid as hell and in any normal situation would probably out perform every other helmet out there, however, at that ridiculous of a speed, the bauer appears to be better off. It doesn't matter what you are wearing at that speed, you are concussed and you'll need a new bucket if you still want to skate after that.

[jjmills22 0]

It looks like the puck caught the S19 in a bad spot, on the vent. If a puck hit a vent on the 9900 going 60+ mph i think it would break too

[VakarLajos 5]

I'd be interested to see the how much energy is transferred to what is inside each helmet.

[Chadd 916]

I'd be interested to see the how much energy is transferred to what is inside each helmet.

Exactly, which helmet dissipated more force before it reached the brain of the person wearing it.

[mik3 1]

Yeah, those sensors they use on mythbusters to show if Buster's brain would be damaged would work fine. But they don't show things as well as a hole in the outer shell does.....

[tamtamg 12]

purely speculation, but my guess is more energy is being dissipated by the s19. any time there is deformation of the material, there will be energy dissipated, like the crumple zones in cars. However, having sharp shards of plastic near my head probably wouldn't be good either.

still an interesting video, and a smart PR move by bauer.

[VakarLajos 5]

it's just more about shock value. You SHOULD replace your helmet if it gets hit like that, but many guys aren't going to unless it's completely unusable and non-reparable.

Good video for Bauer's PR, but I'm not overly impressed....I still love the 9900 fit though. :D

[sebseb 0]

The way I see it the Bauer performed better because it didn't break. The Easton dissipated a lot of energy, true, but you have to ask yourself what a helmet is meant to do. The comparison with the front of a car being destroyed at impact is not the best one because that is how the car is built to react. I don't think there is a company out there that designes a helmet with the idea in mind that at a strong hit it should break in that manner. Plus, the 9900 took the force from the impact and had an elastic deformation while the Easton had a plastic deformation, the argument with the vent is a poor one, tough luck S19 and bad design. To end it, the force from the impact on the 9900 was directed upwards while on the S19 at a 90 degres angle which caused the break, which if you think about it is just another design flaw. I guess from a hit like that it comes down to the inside of the helmet, either way you're fu*ked from an impact like that, the question is how bad.

My really long 2 cents

[Luminati 0]

Speaking of Mythbuster I'd love see them take on the challenge of analysis how much more damage/force can be generated by puck lunched at 100mph with different angular velocity and if in fact there could be substantially "harder" shot at the same speed.

[lohnman 0]

My experience with the S19 is it cant take every day use. I got one for my son and in only a few games it had several cracks in it. I took it back and he will be wearing a 9900 from here out. The S19 will not make in my opinion, the shell might be rigid but it is also wafer thin.

[duch 0]

I agree with Jarek on this one. The Easton helmet toke a direct hit on the top portion of the helmet right beside the vent hence the crack in the helmet. If you watch closely though the 9900 takes a hit off the decal,( on the side part of the helmet that slides to adjust it) and then rebounds onto the top portion of the helmet. That in my opinion dissipates some of the energy before it deflects to the top section of the helmet. You also need to take in consideration that the decal section of the Bauer helmet overlaps the other section, so that part of the helmet ,is basically a double thickness at that point because of the overlap. I also agree either way you end up with a concussion regardless of what helmet your wearing judging from the distortion of the helmets in these tests. Regardless, I would use either helmet because they're both excellent products.

[Andoy 5]

Before seeing this video I have a personal opinion of replacing your helmet anytime you get a big hit to the head regardless of whether or not there is visual damage (you can make a case that with VN helmets you don't have to). That said, even after seeing this I would replace my helmet if it took a hit like that still even if it's a 9900.

I would like to see an impact test at around the occipital area (back of the head) of the helmet as it seems like most blows to the head are around that area (head snapping back, falling down with back of head rebounding on the ice). It's highly unlikely (but not impossible) that you'll take a 100 km/hr shot to that part of the head.

[jimmy 194]

Are you kidding. A video by "Bauer Hockey", oh that isn't biased/staged at all. How about some independent testing. If Easton posted a video of the Total One exploding after a shot, I doubt people would take that as gospel.

Get real folks. Marketing BS, that's all it is.

[JR Boucicaut 3789]

No offense, but did you watch it?

It was done at the Univ of Ottawa - same place that tested FBV. An independent study - in their defense they could've done it at St-Jerome. I've seen the testing done there, but they didn't do it there.

IMO - it exploited the vent.

[Chadd 916]

IMO - it exploited the vent.

Good catch.

That's exactly what happened, the shot hit right at the edge of the vent. It may be an optical illusion created by the shadow but it also looks like the shot on the Bauer Helmet caught the rounded area on the way in. Again, it may simply be an optical illusion created by the shadow. It would be interesting to see what would happen if the puck hit on the edge of one of the smaller Bauer vents though.

[skarbro 0]

Not only did it exploit the vent, but if you look carefully, the camera angle for the S19 is more angled, making the impact look like it is deeper than the 9900. The 9900 appears to be filmed at a more 90 degree angle.

EDIT: Added Screenshot

You can clearly see that the 9900 is more at a 90 degree angle to the camera than the S19 (Notice how much helmet can be seen behind each puck; Notice how much of the back of of each helmet can be seen; Notice the foam areas; Notice the differences in the locations of the vertical lines in the background). On the 2-dimensional image, it makes the 9900 look like it received a less powerful impact than it actually did. I also suspect that they cropped off the front of the helmet so as to not give this away - and they DID crop the film as you can see.

The intent is clearly there to be biased to the 9900. Although the vent does appear to be something that should be engineered better on future versions of the S19, the true results of the 9900 have been extremely downplayed in this video.

[jsykes 35]

I think it also is exposing the difference between a more pliable shell and a rigid one. Easton has gone to great lengths to show us the rigidity of their helmet and when something rigid takes an impact, it has a tendency to break. A shell that has a lot of give and is pliable, can absorb the impact and return to shape without actually breaking.

Both may have absorbed the impact force equally and protected the wearer. Both may also be equally non-usable after the shot. But what we see is the hard shell absorbing the impact through the breakage, much like a crumple zone of a car as someone mentioned, the other did it with a shell and liner that flexed and moved and absorbed the impact without actually breaking.

Ultimately, the only thing that really counts is how much force transmitted to the head, and that was not shared with us through these vids.

[mug25 2]

If this was shown to an uneducated consumer it would definitely sway them into buying the Bauer. I'd like to see a much more thorough test done — almost Mythbuster style in fact (as someone mentioned earlier). We'd need to see more variables/results than just a slow-mo video of a puck hitting in two different angles and a slightly different area of a helmet to find out which is indeed "safer".

[Chadd 916]

If this was shown to an uneducated consumer it would definitely sway them into buying the Bauer.

And that's exactly why it was released.

[DarkStar50 679]

For the record, Easton presented the same type of video evidence favoring their products over Bauer at the Easton Road Show last fall for dealers. All the companies do this.

[LivHockey84 0]

thats a pretty neat video, but the easton probably wouldn't have done that if the vent wasn't right there.