Virginia Tech STAR rating system being developed for hockey helmets

[Chadd 916]

No such thing as bad publicity. Take a negative and turn it into a positive. What I would call into question is how is the $ amount figured? Off of retail cost? If so it costs a fraction of that $475k to look like good guys. :)

In any case free product to get more kids playing hockey is good for hockey. Period.

Suggested retail price would be my guess, that would be one hell of a discount.

[talkintothemike 4]

I know that many on here do not like the VA Tech testing protocol, and probably even more do not like the results.  I have tried to keep an open mind and use the info from the tests as just another component of trying to select the best helmet.

I have not had a chance to see the new CCM Tacks 710 or the 310 yet.  Employees at our LHS are talking up the 710 in a big way, including saying that CCM believes these helmets will score better than the new Bauer Re-Akt 200 in the VA Tech testing.

Does anyone know if VA Tech will be testing these new CCM helmets?

[nutters 218]

2 hours ago, talkintothemike said:

I know that many on here do not like the VA Tech testing protocol, and probably even more do not like the results.  I have tried to keep an open mind and use the info from the tests as just another component of trying to select the best helmet.

I have not had a chance to see the new CCM Tacks 710 or the 310 yet.  Employees at our LHS are talking up the 710 in a big way, including saying that CCM believes these helmets will score better than the new Bauer Re-Akt 200 in the VA Tech testing.

Does anyone know if VA Tech will be testing these new CCM helmets?

Those who do a little more research than the average consumer know the flaws of the VA Tech ratings and realize the importance of a proper fit. Unfortunately, when news comes out with something like the VA study and it creates a buzz with the average consumer. "WOW a university has found out the safest helmets out there!!! Here's my money!!!" Companies now have to consider the study because despite it being heavily debunked, most just read the headlines and here we are.

[IPv6Freely 2092]

I've used this analogy a few times and I think it fits well. It's no different from people thinking vaccines cause autism, despite the study that linked the two being debunked. Some people still put weight into it, regardless of the facts, because "it's all we have". There's not much you can say to sway those people. The best you can do is educate the uninformed (those who may not know it's been debunked) and hope common sense takes over.

I guess all other things being equal (fit, price, weight, materials, looks... in that order) then yea sure go ahead and use the VT score as a tie breaker. I like to think one of the first couple items in the list would have broken the tie long before then, though. 

[marka 526]

Howdy,

37 minutes ago, IPv6Freely said:

I've used this analogy a few times and I think it fits well. It's no different from people thinking vaccines cause autism, despite the study that linked the two being debunked. Some people still put weight into it, regardless of the facts, because "it's all we have". There's not much you can say to sway those people. The best you can do is educate the uninformed (those who may not know it's been debunked) and hope common sense takes over.

I guess all other things being equal (fit, price, weight, materials, looks... in that order) then yea sure go ahead and use the VT score as a tie breaker. I like to think one of the first couple items in the list would have broken the tie long before then, though. 

Links to the studies / tests / data debunking the VT tests?  I'm looking for something beyond the statements like "the old Bauer scored better than the new Bauer" or "The CCM scored worse even though its the same helmet as the Reebok that scored better.  Well, except for the padding differences."

I still think the best way to pick a helmet today is to start at the top of the VT rankings and work down the list until you find a helmet that fits well / is comfortable and that you can afford.

But neither of us is going to convince the other, at least not until there are additional actual studies / tests performed.  :-)

The question still remains.  Anyone know if the 310 / 710 helmets are going to be tested by VT any time soon?

Mark

[asgoodasdead 74]

2 hours ago, IPv6Freely said:

I've used this analogy a few times and I think it fits well. It's no different from people thinking vaccines cause autism, despite the study that linked the two being debunked.

there's also been former big pharma CEOs who've acknowledged the link between vaccines and autism and people claim that there was tons of studies and research proving the link but big pharma had it all destroyed. not saying i believe in it, but big pharma makes billions on vaccines and so do doctors. so who's got more of a reason to lie? the people making billions off vaccines or the people who are claiming they cause autism who make no money off it either way?

[IPv6Freely 2092]

Just now, asgoodasdead said:

there's also been former big pharma CEOs who've acknowledged the link between vaccines and autism and people claim that there was tons of studies and research proving the link but big pharma had it all destroyed. not saying i believe in it, but big pharma makes billions on vaccines and so do doctors. so who's got more of a reason to lie? the people making billions off vaccines or the people who are claiming they cause autism who make no money off it either way?

Seems like you and marka would get along. 

[kmfdm86 112]

3 hours ago, asgoodasdead said:

there's also been former big pharma CEOs who've acknowledged the link between vaccines and autism and people claim that there was tons of studies and research proving the link but big pharma had it all destroyed. not saying i believe in it, but big pharma makes billions on vaccines and so do doctors. so who's got more of a reason to lie? the people making billions off vaccines or the people who are claiming they cause autism who make no money off it either way?

Doctors don't make money on vaccines. They make more money treating for the illnesses the vaccines prevent.

As far as the VT study goes, they measure the transfer of force to the headform the helmet is on. They use the same headform for every test regardless of the head shape the helmet was meant for.

If you've ever had on a helmet that doesn't actually conform to your head you will immediately realize why this is a problem.

The study tells absolutely nothing worthwhile about helmets that don't fit the headform they used. The helmets that fit it well score well, the helmets that do not score poorly. 

[marka 526]

Howdy,

56 minutes ago, kmfdm86 said:

As far as the VT study goes, they measure the transfer of force to the headform the helmet is on. They use the same headform for every test regardless of the head shape the helmet was meant for.

If you've ever had on a helmet that doesn't actually conform to your head you will immediately realize why this is a problem.

The study tells absolutely nothing worthwhile about helmets that don't fit the headform they used. The helmets that fit it well score well, the helmets that do not score poorly. 

 

I've been wearing helmets of one form or another for nearly 30 years.  I've got lots of first hand experience that helmets built for a head shape that doesn't match mine are uncomfortable, putting excessive pressure on some areas of my head.

I don't have any experience that they don't still work to attenuate impacts.  Do you have any links to studies or data that shows that two otherwise equal helmets, one with a shell for a more oval head and one with a shell shape for a more round head transfer an impact to the same head differently?

You're making a supposition that the helmets that don't score well don't fit the headform well or aren't fit onto the headform well.  Do you have any evidence to back that assumption up?

Let me be clear... Fit type may well be a factor in how well the helmet performs in the VT test.  I don't know.  But I don't think anyone else knows either and disregarding the results wholesale is at absolute best throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

ipvfreely, I'd appreciate it if you would stop with the personal insults.  Your anti-vaxxer analogy is absurd.  If it were accurate, you would easily be able to point to studies that show the VT tests are crap.  Yet even after being repeatedly asked, you haven't provided any.  That situation does not mirror the anti-vaxxer one in any way.

I still would like to know if any knows when/if VT plans to test the 310/710.  Does anyone have info?

Mark

Edited June 3, 2017 by marka

[Davideo 99]

Currently we don't have the best understanding on what causes concussions and longer term brain damage. So developing safety tests is difficult. The biggest knock against the VT tests is that they only test linear forces and not rotational, which are known to play a large role. Factors such as fit and head shape intuitively seem like they would make a difference, but again there isn't much data that I'm aware off. It's also tough to perform real-world measurements when the result of accurate testing is brain damage (volunteers anyone?).

I wouldn't call them crap, but certainly not the gold standard. I play non-check adult hockey at this point and so don't worry about it. Though if I was still playing competitive, checking hockey I would probably mostly ignore them.

To address the OP's question, I have no idea about testing new models.

[kmfdm86 112]

If the helmet doesn't fit right when you make contact there's slippage. The helmet is touching the surface you're coming into contact with, your head is not. So the helmet begins to move in a direction related to the type of contact it's making while your head is still moving in the direction of your initial trajectory prior to contact. This obviously changes the transference of force. Which type of transference of force is better or worse is debatable. The problem is unless they're using the same helmets on two headforms for a head it fits and one it does not, the data essentially useless. All it tells you is "hey, if your head happens to be this shape, we think this one is better". They flat out ignored a pretty important variable. Whether or not the helmet moves when it's hit.

[IPv6Freely 2092]

It's not absurd. It's a very similar situation. 

[flip12 712]

4 hours ago, kmfdm86 said:

Doctors don't make money on vaccines. They make more money treating for the illnesses the vaccines prevent.

As far as the VT study goes, they measure the transfer of force to the headform the helmet is on. They use the same headform for every test regardless of the head shape the helmet was meant for.

If you've ever had on a helmet that doesn't actually conform to your head you will immediately realize why this is a problem.

The study tells absolutely nothing worthwhile about helmets that don't fit the headform they used. The helmets that fit it well score well, the helmets that do not score poorly. 

They could easily fix this, gathering head shape data and creating 5 - 10 or 30 - 40 different dummies to conform to a range of headshapes to fit what people actually have and then show the scores for the various headshapes. You'd be able to see an average as well as which ones score best for the head shape you have.

2 hours ago, Davideo said:

Currently we don't have the best understanding on what causes concussions and longer term brain damage. So developing safety tests is difficult. The biggest knock against the VT tests is that they only test linear forces and not rotational, which are known to play a large role. Factors such as fit and head shape intuitively seem like they would make a difference, but again there isn't much data that I'm aware off. It's also tough to perform real-world measurements when the result of accurate testing is brain damage (volunteers anyone?).

I wouldn't call them crap, but certainly not the gold standard. I play non-check adult hockey at this point and so don't worry about it. Though if I was still playing competitive, checking hockey I would probably mostly ignore them.

To address the OP's question, I have no idea about testing new models.

But they do though! It's clearly stated already in the abstract of their article for the hockey helmet study: "Injury risk is determined using a multivariate injury risk function that incorporates both linear and rotational head acceleration measurements." (source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10439-015-1278-7)

[clarkiestooth 235]

11 hours ago, marka said:

Howdy,

I still think the best way to pick a helmet today is to start at the top of the VT rankings and work down the list until you find a helmet that fits well / is comfortable and that you can afford.

Mark

........and that's a fine way to systematically go about picking a helmet. You just have to remember that the function of a helmet is to prevent skull fracture, and that they all work. And you can't realistically expect the first helmet on the list to protect against concussions any more than the 50th helmet on the list.

[JR Boucicaut 3793]

19 hours ago, talkintothemike said:

Does anyone know if VA Tech will be testing these new CCM helmets?

Virginia Tech buys the helmets when they are available and then tests them.  So, I would imagine that would be ongoing now.  The helmet technically has been out for a week.

[beerleaguecaptain 999]

Great....  we have a vaccine-autism link conspiracy theorist supporter (debunked by the very "doctor" that started it - he admitted he was paid to release that info) and a VT helmet test supporter in the same thread.  Can they occupy the same space?  The world may be coming to an end!

 

Edited June 3, 2017 by dkmiller3356

[DarkStar50 679]

Here is another analogy to placing too much emphasis on the VT results: just as they run crash tests with cars to determine the "safest" car in an accident, the fact of the matter is that you are still in an accident !! Chances are good that at some point in playing hockey you are going to get hit in the head. Buy the helmet that fits your noggin the best.

[DRR 112]

8 hours ago, marka said:

I don't have any experience that they don't still work to attenuate impacts.  Do you have any links to studies or data that shows that two otherwise equal helmets, one with a shell for a more oval head and one with a shell shape for a more round head transfer an impact to the same head differently?

 

It's just common sense? I can put my helmet on my 9 year old, would you expect it to work the same as on my head? Of course not. I think there's too much call for evidence and studies and not enough common sense. A poorly fitting helmet will not work as well as it was intended. I don't need a study to tell me that.

When I choose a helmet I see what fits first, then consider price point, then read the reviews, and may see if there's supplemental data (VT study). I think it's fine to consider the study as one factor in the decision making process, but for me it's the last.

If a study finds a particular helmet scores the best but it does not fit your head, would you buy it?

 

 

[Stryker 37]

I love when people come into the store while raving about the VT findings. It just means I can hand them the re-akt 200 helmet and walk away, as they don't care about how it fits. Easiest sale ever!

 

[Davideo 99]

6 hours ago, flip12 said:

They could easily fix this, gathering head shape data and creating 5 - 10 or 30 - 40 different dummies to conform to a range of headshapes to fit what people actually have and then show the scores for the various headshapes. You'd be able to see an average as well as which ones score best for the head shape you have.

But they do though! It's clearly stated already in the abstract of their article for the hockey helmet study: "Injury risk is determined using a multivariate injury risk function that incorporates both linear and rotational head acceleration measurements." (source: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10439-015-1278-7)

I stand corrected, thank you. I was confusing it with the football study. The abstract states they added rotational measurements to the hockey study to help address this critique of the football study.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Davideo

[Larry54 243]

14 hours ago, asgoodasdead said:

there's also been former big pharma CEOs who've acknowledged the link between vaccines and autism and people claim that there was tons of studies and research proving the link but big pharma had it all destroyed. not saying i believe in it, but big pharma makes billions on vaccines and so do doctors. so who's got more of a reason to lie? the people making billions off vaccines or the people who are claiming they cause autism who make no money off it either way?

The doctor who fraudulently claimed there was link sure made a killing from it, and he was planning on making more.

I wonder if VA Tech will be testing tinfoil lined helmets soon. I know at least one guy who might be interested.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Larry54

[flip12 712]

1 hour ago, Davideo said:

I stand corrected, thank you. I was confusing it with the football study. The abstract states they added rotational measurements to the hockey study to help address this critique of the football study.

What's good about that is, they're not impervious to critique. I'd be surprised if they haven't considered the headform issue. I haven't read through their literature end to end so it could be buried in there.

My view--sure it's a flawed study, perhaps more so than would be ideal at this point (everything and every study is going to have its limitations), but it's a step in the right direction by a team that shows it's open to improvements. Doubtless, the peer-review process has raised some issues as well. I wish journals published the peer-review referees' comments as an appendix to each article. It would raise a lot of the major points that may be missed by curious readers who aren't expert in the particular topic, as well as indicate the degree to which the debate around an issue points in various directions of concern.

[Kgbeast 195]

7 hours ago, DRR said:

It's just common sense? I can put my helmet on my 9 year old, would you expect it to work the same as on my head? Of course not. I think there's too much call for evidence and studies and not enough common sense...

 

I am pretty sure he is talking shape of the head not size. In other words, size of helmet is right, it fits tight and does not move around... just a bit uncomfortable because it has higher pressure points here and there. In this case the helmet will protect as well as the same helmet that follows the head shape a bit better. Since dummy head does not feel pain and discomfort, it is good to go for testing less that perfectly fitting helmets and results would be valid. All they need to make sure is that they get the size of the helmet right.

[IPv6Freely 2092]

If it's the wrong shape, then it doesn't fit correctly. And this is far FAR more important to a buying decision then the results of a flawed study should ever be.

[DRR 112]

15 hours ago, Kgbeast said:

I am pretty sure he is talking shape of the head not size. In other words, size of helmet is right, it fits tight and does not move around... just a bit uncomfortable because it has higher pressure points here and there. In this case the helmet will protect as well as the same helmet that follows the head shape a bit better. Since dummy head does not feel pain and discomfort, it is good to go for testing less that perfectly fitting helmets and results would be valid. All they need to make sure is that they get the size of the helmet right.

I disagree with this bolded part. Heads and helmets are three dimensional objects. Even if you only go by round vs oval, you're only taking into account two dimensions. I played with this guy who had a very tall head - his helmet always looked like it was sitting too high on his head.  The helmet wasn't too big or too small, but it looked like it was fitted too poorly for his head shape. Because of this he had trouble getting a facemask that fit - the vertical distance from the mount point in the helmet to the chin cup was greater than any facemask he could find. This is another example of "if it doesn't fit right to begin with, it won't work right." If you have a head that's exactly the same as the last they use to make the helmet you're in good shape. But the farther you deviate from this, the less effective the helmet, or any other piece of equipment, is going to be.  I was using the 9 year old as an exaggerated example, but the bottom line is if it doesn't fit right, it won't work as designed.

That's why even pants come in +1 and +2 sizes to help accommodate different body shapes and provide the correct amount of coverage. I'm a taller, skinny guy. Medium pants fit around the waist but they leave a large gap in coverage above the kneecap. Large pants fit length-wise, but they don't fit around the waist and the hip pads don't line up with my hips. It needs to fit right to work, just like a helmet. I don't understand why some think this is debatable. Fit comes first.