Idea for gear developers: Padded pads

[vf-x 0]

I really like the CCM prototype pads. I do agree with Ron McLean that the protection from separated shoulders might be an issue, but I think it might be ideal for players in adult recreation leagues. I like the fact that its light, and looks pretty flexible so it won't restrict mobility.

When will a product like that come to market?

[Chadd 916]

I really like the CCM prototype pads. I do agree with Ron McLean that the protection from separated shoulders might be an issue, but I think it might be ideal for players in adult recreation leagues. I like the fact that its light, and looks pretty flexible so it won't restrict mobility.

When will a product like that come to market?

That's not a prototype, they are the pads that will be available at retail for 2012.

[vf-x 0]

That's not a prototype, they are the pads that will be available at retail for 2012.

Really? Do you have the model name/number?

And do the other manufacturers have similar products coming out?

I'm on the look out to replace my old Sherwood 905, pads from eons ago. Key considerations in my mind is protection, lightweight, mobility and breathability. The 905s are lacking in the latter.

[Tailboard Jockey 25]

There were used shoulder pads at the last San Jose Sharks equipment sale made with that exact type of foam.

[JR Boucicaut 3805]

CCM U+ CL.

Really? Do you have the model name/number?

And do the other manufacturers have similar products coming out?

I'm on the look out to replace my old Sherwood 905, pads from eons ago. Key considerations in my mind is protection, lightweight, mobility and breathability. The 905s are lacking in the latter.

[Fire Walker 22]

Do you know if the shoulders have a lining on them?

[Chadd 916]

Do you know if the shoulders have a lining on them?

No, that would defeat the design to some degree. Any lining would absorb sweat/water. With nothing but the protective foam, they will not gain weight over the course of a game.

[AlphaSierra 1]

I understand the change in regs and reason regarding foam on top of the shoulder caps, but what about the size restriction? Is there some science behind it or was it to reduce surface area? And if the NHL is moving in a direction to reduce head injuries with the new caps, why are there so few retail options available? Wouldn't they want to filter this safety mandate down into youth/junior/NCAA hockey? Hope this isn't too far off topic.

[DarkStar50 679]

I have to believe this is a work in progress. The bar keeps moving.

[Chadd 916]

Wouldn't they want to filter this safety mandate down into youth/junior/NCAA hockey?

Because there is extra material cost and extra labor cost to put padding on the outside of the shoulder caps. Safety isn't generally as much of a concern as cost and profit margin at retail, unless it's a potential legal liability. With shoulder pads, it wouldn't be the person buying them that got injured, so virtually no chance of liability as long as you don't make them spiked or something outrageous.

[DarkStar50 679]

Because there is extra material cost and extra labor cost to put padding on the outside of the shoulder caps. Safety isn't generally as much of a concern as cost and profit margin at retail, unless it's a potential legal liability. With shoulder pads, it wouldn't be the person buying them that got injured, so virtually no chance of liability as long as you don't make them spiked or something outrageous.

Seriously?

[theflash0000 0]

One would hope that "safer for you; safer for your fellow players" would be compelling enough to help these pads sell. Perhaps you're right that its neither a big concern for consumers nor the manufacturers--that's disappointing.

I also have to respectfully disagree that liability for injury to an opposing player would not necessarily extend to the manufacturer of the "hitting" player's pads. I think its a debatable question (and I certainly don't claim to be an expert), but modern developments in products liability law have extended remedies to anyone who could foreseeably be injured by the defectively-designed/built product.

[AIREAYE 248]

To a person playing contact, wouldn't you think that, at retail, they would purchase (assuming other conditions are the same) whichever pad offered THEM the most protection as opposed to their opponents? If a player has to choose between a bulkier top-of-the line pad (think Reebok 11K or something) and a slimmer NHL-spec top-of-the line pad (think Warrior/CCM U+Pro), wouldn't they (or parents) choose the bulkier one solely because it seems more protective while the opposite might be true for the opponent?

Perhaps I'm being a bit cynical but what I'm thinking is that people would rather ensure that they themselves are fully protected by the best affordable product before thinking about others.

[Chadd 916]

I also have to respectfully disagree that liability for injury to an opposing player would not necessarily extend to the manufacturer of the "hitting" player's pads. I think its a debatable question (and I certainly don't claim to be an expert), but modern developments in products liability law have extended remedies to anyone who could foreseeably be injured by the defectively-designed/built product.

It would take an obviously poor/dangerous design to have any liability and no manufacturer is that stupid. It was a theoretical point.

Seriously?

Absolutely, and you know it. You know as well as anyone that you can't have every feature at every price point.

[theflash0000 0]

To a person playing contact, wouldn't you think that, at retail, they would purchase (assuming other conditions are the same) whichever pad offered THEM the most protection as opposed to their opponents? If a player has to choose between a bulkier top-of-the line pad (think Reebok 11K or something) and a slimmer NHL-spec top-of-the line pad (think Warrior/CCM U+Pro), wouldn't they (or parents) choose the bulkier one solely because it seems more protective while the opposite might be true for the opponent?

Perhaps I'm being a bit cynical but what I'm thinking is that people would rather ensure that they themselves are fully protected by the best affordable product before thinking about others.

I guess I just thought that was the point of this new direction--more protective for both players.

It would take an obviously poor/dangerous design to have any liability and no manufacturer is that stupid. It was a theoretical point.

Right, I see your point there.

[wrangler 157]

One would hope that "safer for you; safer for your fellow players" would be compelling enough to help these pads sell. Perhaps you're right that its neither a big concern for consumers nor the manufacturers--that's disappointing.

I also have to respectfully disagree that liability for injury to an opposing player would not necessarily extend to the manufacturer of the "hitting" player's pads. I think its a debatable question (and I certainly don't claim to be an expert), but modern developments in products liability law have extended remedies to anyone who could foreseeably be injured by the defectively-designed/built product.

Since there's no privity of contract, would that be under a third-party beneficiary theory?

To a person playing contact, wouldn't you think that, at retail, they would purchase (assuming other conditions are the same) whichever pad offered THEM the most protection as opposed to their opponents? If a player has to choose between a bulkier top-of-the line pad (think Reebok 11K or something) and a slimmer NHL-spec top-of-the line pad (think Warrior/CCM U+Pro), wouldn't they (or parents) choose the bulkier one solely because it seems more protective while the opposite might be true for the opponent?

Perhaps I'm being a bit cynical but what I'm thinking is that people would rather ensure that they themselves are fully protected by the best affordable product before thinking about others.

I don't know that that is necessarily cynical. When you go to the store to buy protection for your child, you're looking for a product to protect your child, first and foremost.

It would take an obviously poor/dangerous design to have any liability and no manufacturer is that stupid. It was a theoretical point.

And answered based on legal theory, which lawyers find interesting. Practically speaking, I'm not up on this stuff. Did the NHL find a solution to a non-existent problem, or were there injuries due to hard-shelled equipment?

[theflash0000 0]

Since there's no privity of contract, would that be under a third-party beneficiary theory?

Aw, come on--nobody on here wants to be bored by all that lawyer-speak :) I think its sufficient to say that the safety of all players on the ice should be the concern of parents, players, and the equipment manufacturers.

[AIREAYE 248]

Yeah, for sure wrangler, so that's why I don't think that the CL will do particularly well at the retail level. Consumers have been taught that better protection equals denser foams and the presence of a plastic insert of sorts. This is the obvious trend (for the most part) for all protective gear. If customers compare the CL (featuring dense foams in the shoulder caps) and another top level pad with a molded PU insert in the shoulder cap, they would probably choose the other pad since they perceive that insert + foam > foam,

[DarkStar50 679]

Absolutely, and you know it. You know as well as anyone that you can't have every feature at every price point.

I believe safety is never sacrificed in the design or cost of equipment, no matter the price point.Does the bottom price point offer the same level of protection as the professional model? Obviously not, however, not every player needs the professional level pads. I find your comment that "Safety isn't generally as much of a concern as cost and profit margin at retail," just a bit reckless. It sounds as if the vendors will put unsafe protective equipment in the market. I have never seen that in over thirty years in the industry. There will always be a minimum level of protection that no vendor would ever fall below in putting protective product in the market.

[althoma1 575]

To a person playing contact, wouldn't you think that, at retail, they would purchase (assuming other conditions are the same) whichever pad offered THEM the most protection as opposed to their opponents? If a player has to choose between a bulkier top-of-the line pad (think Reebok 11K or something) and a slimmer NHL-spec top-of-the line pad (think Warrior/CCM U+Pro), wouldn't they (or parents) choose the bulkier one solely because it seems more protective while the opposite might be true for the opponent?

Perhaps I'm being a bit cynical but what I'm thinking is that people would rather ensure that they themselves are fully protected by the best affordable product before thinking about others.

I think you're right when it comes to parents buying pads for their kids, but I think many older kids and adults who buy their own equipment will prioritize mobility, weight and a lack of bulk over protection (as long as there's decent protection of course). It's already been stated that the new CCM pads are lighter than anything out there, if they're also at least as mobile if not more then there should be a market for them. With that said, it may not be as large a market as the younger kids who have their parents buying their stuff because the non-gear whore older kids and adults aren't out there buying new pads every year or even every two years.

[Chadd 916]

Yeah, for sure wrangler, so that's why I don't think that the CL will do particularly well at the retail level. Consumers have been taught that better protection equals denser foams and the presence of a plastic insert of sorts. This is the obvious trend (for the most part) for all protective gear. If customers compare the CL (featuring dense foams in the shoulder caps) and another top level pad with a molded PU insert in the shoulder cap, they would probably choose the other pad since they perceive that insert + foam > foam,

The ccm pads do have inserts for the sternum and spine.

[wrangler 157]

Yeah, for sure wrangler, so that's why I don't think that the CL will do particularly well at the retail level. Consumers have been taught that better protection equals denser foams and the presence of a plastic insert of sorts. This is the obvious trend (for the most part) for all protective gear. If customers compare the CL (featuring dense foams in the shoulder caps) and another top level pad with a molded PU insert in the shoulder cap, they would probably choose the other pad since they perceive that insert + foam > foam,

There's certainly at least some inertia that a consumer must overcome to buy something different. And that consumer would want a reason for confidence that the different product will do the job better. If other manufacturers follow, that may be enough reason.

I believe safety is never sacrificed in the design or cost of equipment, no matter the price point.Does the bottom price point offer the same level of protection as the professional model? Obviously not, however, not every player needs the professional level pads. I find your comment that "Safety isn't generally as much of a concern as cost and profit margin at retail," just a bit reckless. It sounds as if the vendors will put unsafe protective equipment in the market. I have never seen that in over thirty years in the industry. There will always be a minimum level of protection that no vendor would ever fall below in putting protective product in the market.

Profit margin and price point are legitimate considerations. Without profit, there's no company, no product, and no protection for the player. And each ignored price point leaves a certain tier of player without any protection. A company has to try to provide some level of protection at affordable price points, at a profit margin that allows the business to survive.

Can you say that safety is sacrificed at lower price points? Of course. Likewise we can say that safety is sacrificed in the top level equipment, as no one is wrapped in a 100% protective cocoon. We have to sacrifice some degree of safety to get out there and play. Does that make some equipment "unsafe"? You could say that it's just a question of degree. I don't think you guys are really in disagreement, just differing in the words used to express ideas.

[Tailboard Jockey 25]

While watching the Sharks post-game locker room interview with Brent Burns, I noticed that he had the identical CCM shoulder pads from the HNIC video hanging in his locker stall.

They're already being used in the NHL.

[Chadd 916]

I believe safety is never sacrificed in the design or cost of equipment, no matter the price point.Does the bottom price point offer the same level of protection as the professional model? Obviously not, however, not every player needs the professional level pads. I find your comment that "Safety isn't generally as much of a concern as cost and profit margin at retail," just a bit reckless. It sounds as if the vendors will put unsafe protective equipment in the market. I have never seen that in over thirty years in the industry. There will always be a minimum level of protection that no vendor would ever fall below in putting protective product in the market.

Seriously?

Sherwood still sells the 5030 (that I wear) that has absolutely no protective value at all.

[MilleniumFalcon 5]

I don't care, will go with old good Jofa because it is BETTER