Impact video of the bauer 9900 and the s19

[cptjeff 0]

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.

Absolutely right. They pulled this same thing with the X:60 and the SE16 (Or was it a stealth?) skate a while back. The video makes the Bauer look good because it doesn't actively deform as much as the easton, but the active deformation is due to the energy absorption and is probably what you want.

That video makes me think that the Bauer would transfer more energy to the head, but it's impossible to tell without a sensor inside.

And I really, really hate 'science' being used like that.

[VakarLajos 5]

It was the S15 and the One95. IIRC, the puck hit the One95 towards the heel, and it hit the S15 right at the ankle bone. Thus, the One95 hit the stiffer part of the skate. I don't think the S17 would have looked better than the One95 if it was hit at the same point, but it just shows that the test wasn't a real great indicator.

I'm a huge fan of Bauer. most of my equipment is Bauer, but I just don't think this test really proves much to me.

[DarkStar50 680]

The helmets must meet HECC approval. Therefore, there is a standard level of protection that each must meet in order to get approval.

[stick9 908]

That video makes me think that the Bauer would transfer more energy to the head, but it's impossible to tell without a sensor inside.

I was thinking the same thing. Why not use a sensor....unless the data doesn't work to your advantage.

[Krev 86]

Since they didn't perform the tests evenly, this video/demonstration doesn't mean anything other than Bauer wanting to falsely prove their helmet is better.

Marketing bs, yet again.

[hrbekroenick 0]

Since they didn't perform the tests evenly, this video/demonstration doesn't mean anything other than Bauer wanting to falsely prove their helmet is better.

Marketing bs, yet again.

Yeah, I commented on the video. I'm surprised some hoser hasn't threatened my life yet!

[monoclub 5]

The assertion that the Easton better dissipates the energy seems a bit weak. Surely the helmet that doesn't crack is absorbing and dissipating the energy across the whole area? The hit on the vent and the angle do make a big difference, but I was really surprised by the ripple through the plastic of the material on the Easton 20sec in. No such thing on the Bauer, maybe it is also only because of the vent?

[skarbro 0]

The assertion that the Easton better dissipates the energy seems a bit weak. Surely the helmet that doesn't crack is absorbing and dissipating the energy across the whole area? The hit on the vent and the angle do make a big difference, but I was really surprised by the ripple through the plastic of the material on the Easton 20sec in. No such thing on the Bauer, maybe it is also only because of the vent?

Your assumption that the 9900 is "absorbing and dissipating the energy across the whole area" can't be made just because it didn't crack. All it means is that the plastic on the 9900 was pliable enough to bend in and bend back at the point of impact without cracking. To illustrate it better, picture the helmet made of rubber on the outside instead of plastic. The puck would cause the helmet to bend in and the head would absorb the impact, but the helmet would bend back out to shape without cracking - just like the 9900 did. But the REAL question is - what happened to the dude's head?? In this example, the head would surely be seriously damaged - but the helmet didn't crack! This is how I picture the results of the 9900 in that test.

IMO, the S19 probably absorbed more of the impact because of it's rigidity but was flawed at that one single point at the vent.

[DarkStar50 680]

This entire thread is a bunch of assumptions. None of us are scientists or experts on concussions, biophysics, or helmet construction and impact absorption upon said helmet.

Carry on.

[skarbro 0]

This entire thread is a bunch of assumptions. None of us are scientists or experts on concussions, biophysics, or helmet construction and impact absorption upon said helmet.

Carry on.

Yup. And that's what makes it a discussuion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and this IS a forum and the most appropriate place for opinions.

[monoclub 5]

To illustrate it better, picture the helmet made of rubber on the outside instead of plastic. The puck would cause the helmet to bend in and the head would absorb the impact, but the helmet would bend back out to shape without cracking - just like the 9900 did.

err...I don't need to "picture" it, the high speed photography does that very well and I don't see it bending in anything like what you are suggesting, certainly not enough to suggest a concussion. What I see is it taking the hit and dissipating it without bending at all. As I said it might be different if the puck was at an angle or hit a vent but I don't see how a cracked helmet is necessarily safer at all.

[skarbro 0]

err...I don't need to "picture" it, the high speed photography does that very well and I don't see it bending in anything like what you are suggesting, certainly not enough to suggest a concussion. What I see is it taking the hit and dissipating it without bending at all. As I said it might be different if the puck was at an angle or hit a vent but I don't see how a cracked helmet is necessarily safer at all.

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the camera angle for the 9900 is quite different than the camera angle for the S19. You can't tell from that 2D video just how deep the impact is on the 9900.

[DarkStar50 680]

Maybe the 9900 dissipated the shock better(in that example) and therefore, did not collapse on impact. Isn't the goal of the helmet not to crack? Isn't that a measure of safety? When Bauer builds helmets in St. Jerome, they test the production lots. If one in the lot fails, they are all removed from distribution. The production lot can be as high as 500 helmets.

[furlanitalia 1]

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the camera angle for the 9900 is quite different than the camera angle for the S19. You can't tell from that 2D video just how deep the impact is on the 9900.

Only in slow motion side by side. The original video has the camera at the same angle.

[TomMc#4 0]

err...I don't need to "picture" it, the high speed photography does that very well and I don't see it bending in anything like what you are suggesting, certainly not enough to suggest a concussion. What I see is it taking the hit and dissipating it without bending at all. As I said it might be different if the puck was at an angle or hit a vent but I don't see how a cracked helmet is necessarily safer at all.

with regards to how something breaking is safer, the car crumple zone is the perfect example. obviously the cracked helmet is useless afterwards, but its already done its job. the failure of the material dissipates the energy before any of it can be transfed to your head. obviously the 9900 still dissipates energy. does it prevent transfer of energy from the puck to your head as much as the s19? i doubt it.

[furlanitalia 1]

with regards to how something breaking is safer, the car crumple zone is the perfect example. obviously the cracked helmet is useless afterwards, but its already done its job. the failure of the material dissipates the energy before any of it can be transfed to your head. obviously the 9900 still dissipates energy. does it prevent transfer of energy from the puck to your head as much as the s19? i doubt it.

That's a great point. Think about how badly you would be tossed in an accident if a car didn't absorb the energy. I think the problem here though is that the s19 doesn't exactly have "crumple" zones like cars do. But it's still crazy to see a helmet of that rigidity break, even if it was on a vent.

[monoclub 5]

with regards to how something breaking is safer, the car crumple zone is the perfect example. obviously the cracked helmet is useless afterwards, but its already done its job. the failure of the material dissipates the energy before any of it can be transfed to your head. obviously the 9900 still dissipates energy. does it prevent transfer of energy from the puck to your head as much as the s19? i doubt it.

This specific design in a car has the driver sitting within a high tensile steel cage while everything extending beyond that is designed to crumple to the point that it comes up against the cage and then it is supposed to stop! Is what has been designed into the S19? is this what the manufacturer is claiming or just more blind assumptions? There has surely been selective editing with the angle and the hit against the vent which makes this an unfair comparision in most respects, but I still don't see the 9900 plastic rippling like the S19, which to me means a lot less pressure is being felt on the inside on that point of impact.

[cptjeff 0]

The rippling plastic means that he shell is better at spreading the energy throughout the entire body. It's a good thing, not a bad one, becuase that means the helmet can absorb more energy overall by spreading it out.

With the Bauer, the energy that would go towards rippling the easton would be going into the head of the wearer, which is precisely what you're trying to avoid. The more energy transfered to the helmet, the less energy transferred to the head.

[TBLfan 25]

The rippling plastic means that he shell is better at spreading the energy throughout the entire body. It's a good thing, not a bad one, becuase that means the helmet can absorb more energy overall by spreading it out.

With the Bauer, the energy that would go towards rippling the easton would be going into the head of the wearer, which is precisely what you're trying to avoid. The more energy transfered to the helmet, the less energy transferred to the head.

I'm curious if that is true, because on one side, that could very well be correct... but on the other, if the helmet shell stays intact would the energy better transfer throughout the shell by flexing instead of failing?

I tend to lean towards it failing is better for dissipating impact but I'm not really sure.

[Chadd 916]

This entire thread is a bunch of assumptions. None of us are scientists or experts on concussions, biophysics, or helmet construction and impact absorption upon said helmet.

Carry on.

Until manufacturers start publishing real data on product testing, we're left with assumptions and guesses.

[cptjeff 0]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. The shell will not fail without flexing first, the failure means that the deflection in that spot exceeded what that material and configuration could withstand while remaining elastic. If it cracks, the material has to have deformed first.

[zebra_steve 11]

From what I've read, the Easton shell is a polycarbonate - maybe sorta kinda like what yer visor is made of? Anyone here ever shatter a visor in the middle where there are no holes or vents to precipitate a tear or fracture? I haven't, but I have had a pretty serious slap shot (Tier I AAA U18 game) tipped into one w\o breaking it. The Easton shell is designed to be stiffer and got hit in the EXACT spot that would cause force to be directed to a location where the vent was at a sharp angle. I don't care if it was accidental or on purpose - in my mind, I believe that shell did it's job. It basically directed the force around\across the shell and to the edge of the vent and it ripped it. The picture looks worse because what looks like a big hole in the helmet is mostly vent hole. Being that they're both CSA\HECC approved, they meet the minimum standard for all of you to use them. any way you look at it, you take that shot on the side of your head and you're not going back on the ice until you pass a post concussion test.

Truthfully, If I could get it, I kinda want one of the S19 shells with the Cascade M11 padding system in it.... like that could ever happen. I may change my mind once I get a chance to try one on, but there's probably a 50/50 chance that I'll end up with one of these buckets at some point. (It's nice to be able to write off stuff like Skates, helmets, visors, and under armour as business expenses... problem is affording to pay for them up front).

[skarbro 0]

Until manufacturers start publishing real data on product testing, we're left with assumptions and guesses.

I agree. Although I am just noticing now that on Easton's site they are claiming that the S19 has the "best in class impact absorption numbers in certification testing". That's a pretty bold statement.

[Chadd 916]

I agree. Although I am just noticing now that on Easton's site they are claiming that the S19 has the "best in class impact absorption numbers in certification testing". That's a pretty bold statement.

They all make similar statements when they put out a new helmet, yet nobody has ever published the numbers. That's something HECC or CSA should be doing if the manufacturers aren't.

[TBLfan 25]

I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. The shell will not fail without flexing first, the failure means that the deflection in that spot exceeded what that material and configuration could withstand while remaining elastic. If it cracks, the material has to have deformed first.

but flexing a failing stops the flexing properties upon failing, keeping in tact may allow the energy to dissipate more evenly and controlled. The idea is to absorb and/or deflect impact, there is a possibility that flexing and staying in tact is better for this.