Virginia Tech STAR rating system being developed for hockey helmets

[maximus91 7]

On 4/12/2019 at 5:55 AM, BenBreeg said:

Intresting that while pointing out one (potential) shortcoming in their test methodology claims are bring made that while may sound common sense are likewise backed up by no data (or at least no data presented).

Exactly, a lot of nonsense in this thread. The study is clear in its methods and some helmets are clearly dog shit. Preventing concussions is not an easy job and not exact science, but doing a study like this and validating some of these helmets is a great start. They use clear definitions and clear data points that you can measure. Saying that they do not apply in real world is nonsense.  

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

They use football headforns. There tests are not at all relatable to present hockey helmet testing methods. 

Not to mention a helmet does ZERO  to reduce/prevent concussions 

[BenBreeg 493]

8 hours ago, oldtrainerguy28 said:

They use football headforns. There tests are not at all relatable to present hockey helmet testing methods. 

Not to mention a helmet does ZERO  to reduce/prevent concussions 

Which are what and how have they been validated to give usable results?  I don't think that there is a lot a helmet can do against concussions (and that is just my opinion as someone who isn't an expert but a lot of the data presented seems to lean that way), but since forces are delivered in many ways, I can't say zero.

There may be a debate out there for and against this testing protocol, but I want to hear the arguments with data to back up assertions.

[stick9 890]

I think the tests are crap because it doesn't seem like the data or the ratings mean anything. You have old designs built with outdates materials outperforming new models. 

You can't tell me the old Bauer 4500 or a CCM V08 are better/safer helmet than my Tacks 710. 

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

Actually VN at testing would do better on slower impacts as it absorbs more energy in a localized area.  Epp is better at high impact. 

How many times in a game do you get hit in the head with a puck vs how many times in a game would a guy fore arm your head in the glass. 

Pucks need EPP forearms need VN. 

 

[flip12 714]

1 hour ago, stick9 said:

I think the tests are crap because it doesn't seem like the data or the ratings mean anything. You have old designs built with outdates materials outperforming new models. 

You can't tell me the old Bauer 4500 or a CCM V08 are better/safer helmet than my Tacks 710. 

No amount of incredulity is going to disprove data that are presented with a rigorously described procedure. If you’re unsure what the data mean then show a critique of the tests based on a thorough reading of the paper.

[cjpritch 62]

11 hours ago, oldtrainerguy28 said:

They use football headforns. There tests are not at all relatable to present hockey helmet testing methods.

This is the biggest take away for me, as we have discussed in this thread, a helmet that fits is more protective then one with 5 stars that doesn’t. This test works for football helmets cause they have air bladders that can help with the fit. 

[Medichef 7]

Plus, football helmets are smooth, round without exterior center channels/grooves that can get caught on anything to cause the player's head to be rotated

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

22 minutes ago, Medichef said:

Plus, football helmets are smooth, round without exterior center channels/grooves that can get caught on anything to cause the player's head to be rotated

Really?? Have you seen some of the new ones?? Not to mention rotational impacts usually have zero to do with helmets. They are caused by reckless players applying dirty hits. 

[IPv6Freely 2092]

God, I wish this thread would just die out. 

[stick9 890]

4 hours ago, flip12 said:

No amount of incredulity is going to disprove data that are presented with a rigorously described procedure. If you’re unsure what the data mean then show a critique of the tests based on a thorough reading of the paper.

I can gather a ton of data under the strictest of guidelines and present it manner that appears to be unquestionable. It doesn't mean the data is good or even valid.

VT openly admits that their rating system will not prevent the likely hood of suffering a concussion. So why do people put so much faith in it...

[IPv6Freely 2092]

 

3 minutes ago, stick9 said:

It doesn't mean the data is good or even valid.

 

On 6/2/2017 at 3:42 PM, IPv6Freely said:

Some people still put weight into it, regardless of the facts, because "it's all we have".

^ It appears nothing has changed in the years this thread has been active. 

[marka 526]

Howdy,

I agree that there's no new information here, on either side.  However:

5 minutes ago, stick9 said:

I can gather a ton of data under the strictest of guidelines and present it manner that appears to be unquestionable. It doesn't mean the data is good or even valid.

VT openly admits that their rating system will not prevent the likely hood of suffering a concussion. So why do people put so much faith in it...

What they actually say is "Helmets with more stars provide a reduction in concussion risk compared to helmets with less stars."

Along with the lawyer words:

"Any player in any sport can sustain a head injury with even the very best head protection. This analysis is based on data trends and probabilities, and therefore a specific person’s risk may vary. This variation is likely dominated by genetic differences, health history, and impact factors such as muscle activation."

Mark

[BenBreeg 493]

48 minutes ago, stick9 said:

I can gather a ton of data under the strictest of guidelines and present it manner that appears to be unquestionable. It doesn't mean the data is good or even valid.

VT openly admits that their rating system will not prevent the likely hood of suffering a concussion. So why do people put so much faith in it...

If the data is as collected properly the data is good and valid, you may disagree with the connections made  and conclusions drawn.

3 hours ago, cjpritch said:

This is the biggest take away for me, as we have discussed in this thread, a helmet that fits is more protective then one with 5 stars that doesn’t. This test works for football helmets cause they have air bladders that can help with the fit. 

I would ask where the data is that determines proper fit?  Should a helmet fit the same on all parts of the head?  I would argue that most people don’t try on 10 different models of helmets, the pick a model and buy it.  They may find it so uncomfortable they try a second model but as far as perusing model upon model I doubt it.  I see college and national teams all wearing the same models, they can’t all have the same shaped melon.

2 hours ago, Medichef said:

Plus, football helmets are smooth, round without exterior center channels/grooves that can get caught on anything to cause the player's head to be rotated

Well, football helmets have face masks which can catch on things.  I saw a design years ago that was presented to the nfl with a seamless face mask to address this but it never went anywhere.

 

[chippa13 1844]

How can you possibly "properly collect data" from a testing procedure that is flawed by its very nature?

[Leif 161]

15 hours ago, oldtrainerguy28 said:

They use football headforns. There tests are not at all relatable to present hockey helmet testing methods. 

Not to mention a helmet does ZERO  to reduce/prevent concussions 

A helmet will protect you from concussion due to a puck, or even a stick, hitting your helmet. I’ve had a slap shot bounce off my helmet, and barely noticed it. Without the helmet I would have sustained a nasty head wound and possibly brain damage. I’ve also gone into the boards, and my helmet has protected my head from concussion. What you perhaps mean is that a major cause of concussion is due to the deceleration associated with the head coming to a sudden stop, as seen often in contact hockey, but rarely in the hockey I participate in. I am sure we can agree that a helmet will not prevent concussion in such circumstances, but I don’t think you have scientific data to prove that a helmet cannot mitigate concussion ie reduce the severity. And neither do I, but I suspect it can reduce the deceleration, and absorb some of the shock waves from the impact. I suspect brain damage can result from shock waves moving through the brain. 

For my part I know from experience that the Reakt 200 is more protective than the 4500. Maybe not always, but enough to know that I won’t wear a 4500 again. 

Don’t Bauer argue with the VT results, and say that they perform their own rigorous testing? 

Sadly, a lot of this thread is “I think that” rather than “Studies show that ... “. You’d think governments would sponsor such testing on public health grounds. 

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

@Leif to answer your question yes I do have scientific data to support this. I am on the CSA board that conducts the saftey tests for helmets.  I got in involved because I am also on the board of Stopconcussions a not for profit with Ketih and Wayne Primeau.  Also was the first brain donor for the Canadian Brain bank similar to the one in Boston.  

Although not a medical Dr I have had 13 concussions documented and almost died from my last major one playing Football in 1985 for the Slough Silverbacks of the Budweiser league in the UK. I feel these experiences and board positions give me an adequate amount of understanding of how helmets work as well as what can and cannot prevent a concussion.  

Example: 4 years ago one of my players wearing a top helmet was hit with a shoulder and not even the hard cap in the side of the head as she turned to go up the ice. She was knocked out. She didnt skate again till October and didnt return to play till November and this was in April. Another time Jennifer Botteril was playing shinny as I was the equipment manager and Raffi Torres was out there with some buddies. Jen turned up ice and ran into him all by accident   bit she was out for 2 months. Helmets do not prevent concussions.  Period.

 

[Leif 161]

oldtrainerguy28: Thank you for the response, you clearly have an informd viewpoint. Are the CSA test methodologies for hockey helmets online? 

[BenBreeg 493]

4 hours ago, chippa13 said:

How can you possibly "properly collect data" from a testing procedure that is flawed by its very nature?

You can collect data on whatever you are measuring.  Sensors can collect force delivered to a spot, the direction of the force can be measured.  That data would be valid.  The interpretation of how that data would translate into something as complex as concussion prevention is something different.  That is why when you read the news the headline is usually some big leap of logic suggesting that science has found the answer or something ridiculous and when you read the story the scientist merely says, "We have data that could suggest blah blah blah but more studies are needed."

People collect valid data all the time and misinterpret the results.

[chippa13 1844]

Now we're arguing the semantics of "data"? If the testing method is flawed then the data collected from that method is meaningless.

"If something hits this helmet right here then there is this much force associated."

"What does that mean for my head?"

"Fuck if I know, good luck."

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

Here is the issue. Nobody's brain or skulls are the same. There brain trauma is all different. So ok matter the helmet foam construction or anything. None of it .matters in the end because if the person wearing the helmet has had 5 conks vs subject B that has had zero the brain damage coukd actually be equal because subject B didnt drink near enough water and was actually more severely injured.  There is absolutely no way a helmet can do anything to alter the outcomes of brain damage in a hockey incident. 

I were talking fractured skulls... ok then we can discuss best product for dollars. 

Concussions.  Nothing....

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

1 minute ago, Leif said:

oldtrainerguy28: Thank you for the response, you clearly have an informd viewpoint. Are the CSA test methodologies for hockey helmets online? 

No, I do not believe they are actually. And please do not take it as a "Hey I know more than you message in the last post". It's just we have been trying to figure out how to best test for rotational impact for the last 5 years and I believe. And we have still not come up with a conclusive test to get the measurements! When your playing with someone's brain you want to get it right and not second guess or use football head forms on hockey helmets. 

 

Hence why nobody at CSA or HECC fins this study has any validity! 

[BenBreeg 493]

2 hours ago, chippa13 said:

Now we're arguing the semantics of "data"? If the testing method is flawed then the data collected from that method is meaningless.

"If something hits this helmet right here then there is this much force associated."

"What does that mean for my head?"

"Fuck if I know, good luck."

Since we are debating testing methods then it isn’t a question of meaningless semantics, not that difficult a concept.  

[marka 526]

Howdy,

2 hours ago, chippa13 said:

Now we're arguing the semantics of "data"? If the testing method is flawed then the data collected from that method is meaningless.

"If something hits this helmet right here then there is this much force associated."

"What does that mean for my head?"

"Fuck if I know, good luck."

You missed a step or two.  I.e.:

"but if we hit this other helmet exactly the same way, significantly less force is associated"

"does that mean that helmet is better?"

"Maybe?  It means that for that type of impact, less force gets transmitted to the head which is likely a good thing, but there are other factors to consider as well."

"But what if that helmet is uncomfortable and looks ugly?"

"Sounds like some of those other factors bud.  Good luck.  Be sure to rant and rave on the internet either way though!"

Mark

[Leif 161]

5 hours ago, oldtrainerguy28 said:

No, I do not believe they are actually. And please do not take it as a "Hey I know more than you message in the last post". It's just we have been trying to figure out how to best test for rotational impact for the last 5 years and I believe. And we have still not come up with a conclusive test to get the measurements! When your playing with someone's brain you want to get it right and not second guess or use football head forms on hockey helmets. 

 

Hence why nobody at CSA or HECC fins this study has any validity! 

I’m not sure what you mean by football headform. 

A quick search found this:

https://nocsae.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/NOCSAE_Football-Helmet-Standards-Overview-_May-2018.pdf

However, if I understand correctly, the above is saying that rotational forces are the ones that cause the most damage, and a helmet does nothing to reduce those. Was it an earlier link that said that ~124 out of 125 NHL brains studied had significant damage (CTE) from repeated traumas?