Impact video of the bauer 9900 and the s19

[Jarick 5]

A Mythbusters type test would be awesome. We have a few new helmet technologies making a lot of claims (Messier with the honeycomb technology, Easton with the crush test, Bauer now with the puck video)...but at the end of the day, which tech prevents injury the most, and do any of them do a better job than a standard 4500 VN?

[skarbro 0]

The S19's weight is it's main selling point IMO. It should be a very adequate helmet in protection. I'm more concerned with what happens to the head than the helmet. And I think that hitting the ice or boards is way more common than getting hit by a puck at the side of the head.

Besides, with an S19 being so freakishly light, you should be able to deke your head away from a 100kph puck and never get hit in the first place.

<_<

[thorbs 2]

Doesn't look good for Easton, but the video does look slightly dodgy

[tareatingrat 4]

I have a hard time believing either of those helmets would be a bad choice, regardless of the video.

[duch 0]

I completely agree with you tareatingrat. As I previously stated I would buy either one of these helmets without hesitation. They are both great products from two very good equipment suppliers.

[furlanitalia 1]

Both great products but I have to say the dummy wearing the S19 looked like it didn't got moved around as much. The helmet might have broke but I would wager it dispersed the energy better than the 9900, simply because the neck and head doesn't get kicked back as much. Just my thought as a consumer, definitely don't have any real knowledge to support my theory.

[retroXvertigo 4]

Good ol' marketing propaganda.

[jimmy 194]

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.

If U of O did the "study", then they should be chastised for poor test methods. Totally amateurish. No controls, no accepted test methodology? I'm not a fan of any manufacturer sponsored tests, regardless of who the manufacturer is. If we are going to have these kinds of things, then all biases have to be removed and test parameters have to be equal. Pucks hitting different areas of a helmet at different angles, well, those comparisons have to be thrown out. All test parameters have to be equal. Controlled "experiments" are essential to determining the truth. Even the basic high school science student knows this.

[dsjunior1388 81]

If U of O did the "study", then they should be chastised for poor test methods. Totally amateurish. No controls, no accepted test methodology? I'm not a fan of any manufacturer sponsored tests, regardless of who the manufacturer is. If we are going to have these kinds of things, then all biases have to be removed and test parameters have to be equal. Pucks hitting different areas of a helmet at different angles, well, those comparisons have to be thrown out. All test parameters have to be equal. Controlled "experiments" are essential to determining the truth. Even the basic high school science student knows this.

It was a commercial based on the tests. I highly doubt the 30 seconds we saw was the entire experiment. Bauer used what they wanted, out of what I would guess is every major helmet, several speeds, several angles, and lots of other variables accounted for. Universities don't set these things up to shoot two pucks and call it a study.

[skarbro 0]

Exactly. The Unoiversity can't be blamed as biased since the full study is missing. Bauer was the one who edited that video and added the cropping and selective angles.

[Martin88 0]

Doesn't this type of study get published for peer review? If someone were to contact the U of O science department they might be able to get their hands on the full written report. That would solve all our complaining.

[jimmy 194]

Doesn't this type of study get published for peer review? If someone were to contact the U of O science department they might be able to get their hands on the full written report. That would solve all our complaining.

Not always, especially if the funding is done by a manufacturer and that manufacturer doesn't want to release to public.

[Martin88 0]

I suppose that makes sense. I don't believe that a university would accept to perform independent product testing funded by one of the manufacturers though...

[#96 0]

I like the responses by the users on the video...aren't some of them product reps???

Anyway, good point by one of them, that it was shot at a point of weakness (the hole in the S19) as opposed to solid spot on the Bauer. Shoot the puck at a vent on the Bauer and see what happens.

[JR Boucicaut 3810]

Not one rep has posted in this thread.

[skarbro 0]

Not one rep has posted in this thread.

I think he means on the FB page.

[countryboy88 0]

it could go either way but from what i heard the reason for the s19 breaking like that is beacuse the shell for the helmet is one piece and is very inconsistent with how thick the shell is hence how light they made it. but it couldve been a faulty helmet or it couldve hit in the wrong spot but either way just like everyone else said it doesnt look good for easton.

[JR Boucicaut 3810]

#96 - yes, even for another brand...

[DarkStar50 680]

Why don't we get past the bitching and look at a result? Whether it was the Bauer or the Easton helmet, one of them failed on a puck shot at 62 mph!! That is what the point of the discussion should be.

[#96 0]

Why don't we get past the bitching and look at a result? Whether it was the Bauer or the Easton helmet, one of them failed on a puck shot at 62 mph!! That is what the point of the discussion should be.

It should be, you're right! It's shameless advertising.

I've been playing ice and roller long enough to see equipment fail in many ways. I've seen a mylec ball get lodged in the cage of the old street hockey Koho (Roy) helmets, I've seen cages get bent from a puck hit to almost breaking and I've seen chassis get bent behind recognition by just getting hit with a pass. I'm sure plenty of guys have seen shin guards get cracked from shots and slashes.

Catastrophic failure.

[BenderHockey 127]

Why don't we get past the bitching and look at a result? Whether it was the Bauer or the Easton helmet, one of them failed on a puck shot at 62 mph!! That is what the point of the discussion should be.

It looks like a fail from that video, but we don't know what would have happened to the head/brain. That is what would indicate a fail to me.

[skarbro 0]

It looks like a fail from that video, but we don't know what would have happened to the head/brain. That is what would indicate a fail to me.

Exactly. What happens to the outside of the helmet is not as important as what happened to the head. Of course, Easton didn't release any info on this in their PR stuff either.

The video is there to make the 9900 look good and this is worth talking about also. We don't know what happens to the head in an impact like that with the 9900. We just know that the plastic didn't crack. But like I pointed out before, the impact is heavily downplayed by using a very selective camera angle that doesn't show exactly how DEEP the impact was.

Even though the Easton cracked, how DEEP the impact was compared to the 9900 (including the foam) is not known. Therefore, the only thing we can conclude from this video is that the S19 is cosmetically/structurally damaged at the vent and needs to be replaced. We do not know if the S19 head received any more of an impact than the 9900 head.

[DarkStar50 680]

There is no measurement for depth of impact. Concussions are not measured in only terms of a "catastrophic hit." Concussions can occur with even a low energy impact hit. Therefore, the fact that a helmet cracks when hit by the puck is the problem here. Whether the player receives a severe impact to the head or a minor impact to the head, it is the ability of the helmet to perform that is important. How a helmet that cracked on puck impact can be considered to have performed safely at any level of security is a bit beyond me.

[skarbro 0]

If there is no such thing as a measure of impact to the head, then none of the tests done on helmets really mean anything.

I would pick a helmet that cracks on impact, but protects the head more than a helmet that doesn't crack and protects the head less.

I'm not saying that the S19 is any better than the 9900 at all. I'm just saying that we can't really conclude that it is worse on impact just because it cracked. All we can say is that it cracked.

[VakarLajos 5]

I'd rather have the helmet that cracks and absorbs more energy than one that stays in tact, but stops less of the impact from reaching my body.

Unfortunately, this test doesn't help me make that decision.

This and the fact that the puck hits two different parts on the helmets makes me wary of the test.

What would happen to a 9900 if it were to take a hit to the vents?