Virginia Tech STAR rating system being developed for hockey helmets

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

Curious to see the push back from the helmet companies saying the testing was flawed or will they accept and adapt to it going forward.

As I have said from the start the VT testing is not realistic to the sport. The testing is very flawed and all of the companies know it. HECC NOCSAE and CSA are all working together to make things better and are working on rotational impact testing along with all manufacturers. VT is all about the money folks. Although the idea is valid and the initial plan was good now it is all about the funding and the talks the Prof is doing. He is getting rich while HECC and CSA are volunteer positions along with the manufactures that sit on the boards. If you think for a second Bauer and Reebok are not working extremely hard to solve rotational impact injuries you're dead wrong. When it comes to this topic all companies are working together as are the governing bodies as well as the government's safety councils.

[innotastic 12]

so now the hockey industry can choose to embrace these findings and strive towards better, safer helmets, or they can choose to poke holes in these findings and thus make no progress towards anything but reinforcing 'the way things have always been done'.

i don't think anyone will argue a helmet that fits is safer than a helmet that doesn't fit - apples to apples, so why can't we have a helmet that fits AND a helmet that is safe.

[goblue9280 33]

it is all about the funding and the talks the Prof is doing. He is getting rich while HECC and CSA are volunteer positions along with the manufactures that sit on the boards. If you think for a second Bauer and Reebok are not working extremely hard to solve rotational impact injuries you're dead wrong. When it comes to this topic all companies are working together as are the governing bodies as well as the government's safety councils.

All about the money? Pretty heavy accusations you're lobbing at this prof... anything to back it up? Most profs don't get into research for the money. The results are being published in a peer reviewed journal... along with any academic talks they give, they're going to face plenty of scrutiny from other scientists and engineers.

As for the money trail, who has been profiting the most? The manufacturers. Every year new models come out from the m11 to the reakt 100... all making new claims about break throughs in concussion reductions. Question, how many manufacturers have opened up their testing procedures and results to full peer review so that their claims can be independently retested? Every year the price of the top helmets go up despite little data to substantiate their protection improvements. Manufacturers are far from innocent with regards to profiting from the concussion scare.

The positive I see is that in the manufacturers rush to research and market concussion reducing designs and materials, they just might have some solid tech to build from. Hopefully this rating system forces them to put a bit more of their money into the R&D and a little less on marketing unsubstantiated claims.

[DarkStar50 680]

My money is on the guy inside the industry. OTG28.

Now there are how many 5 star helmets in football? And how has that effected concussion risk reduction in football? Not enough for Chris Borland to think playing more than one year in the NFL was worth any amount of money for his future.

[goblue9280 33]

My money is on the guy inside the industry. OTG28.

Now there are how many 5 star helmets in football? And how has that effected concussion risk reduction in football? Not enough for Chris Borland to think playing more than one year in the NFL was worth any amount of money for his future.

So because one guy who is of the 0.001% that will play the game at the strongest/fastest level feels the game is too risky to justify the damage it will do to his body... and therefore that is indicative that the helmet improvements made as a result of rating system has failed to make the game less risky for the other 99.999% that play?

[DarkStar50 680]

Every collision sport is a game of risk with your brain. The level of play, amateur, high school, collegiate, or professional does not make a difference in the opportunity to do damage to your brain. 8 year old Chris playing tackle football runs the same risk of concussion as 24 year old Chris in the NFL. The "other 99.999%" will always be at the same level of risk as Chris Borland was. The helmet improvements are just that, improvements. That is the purpose of all research design and development. However, these improvements have not and will not eliminate risk of concussions with helmets, football or hockey.

The numbers of enrollment for youth football have already been in decline as parents are becoming more acutely aware of the risk of concussions. Obviously, parents are not impressed by the improvements to helmets. Football is a dangerous game for your entire body.

I've been on the frontlines of these battles about helmets and safety as a sports retailer for over 35 years. Where once parents gave little or no thought to these sports and the risks, now they are looking at everything more clearly. Some, more than others, as I still hear the pushback on how expensive a helmet is. Seriously, how much is your head worth?

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

so now the hockey industry can choose to embrace these findings and strive towards better, safer helmets, or they can choose to poke holes in these findings and thus make no progress towards anything but reinforcing 'the way things have always been done'.

i don't think anyone will argue a helmet that fits is safer than a helmet that doesn't fit - apples to apples, so why can't we have a helmet that fits AND a helmet that is safe.

Nobody at CSA or HECC is against outside testing being done. It is the way it is being done and how it benefits the consumer.

In another thread I was accused of having an agenda against a company. Now here I am sticking up for that company because I KNOW what is being done to improve the safety and safe testing practices of CSA and HECC. and I know from the U of Ottawa how the VT tests do not correlate with the way the game is being played.

I helped TSN and the brain injury awareness people in Toronto produce the first helmet fitting video 6 years ago so to say I am anti fitting or anti testing is just ridiculous.

As for the "money trail" I simply look at the work I and many others in the industry and meetings and conferences on it all done for FREE! While he is making thousands to say all the work that has been done is BS? Last time I checked Bauer or Reebok has not cut me a check for 1 cent! Yet I have spent almost 10 years working on the issue.

So because one guy who is of the 0.001% that will play the game at the strongest/fastest level feels the game is too risky to justify the damage it will do to his body... and therefore that is indicative that the helmet improvements made as a result of rating system has failed to make the game less risky for the other 99.999% that play?

If VT and the Helmet Testing group is so amazing.....Instead of testing to prove things are bad why haven't they showed or shared the data with the companies to help improve the products? Seems to me VT has the agenda not me. I am on the consumers and manufacturers side on this one.

[goblue9280 33]

...and I know from the U of Ottawa how the VT tests do not correlate with the way the game is being played.

The beauty of the peer review process: U of Ottawa can collaborate with VT on improving their study.

If VT and the Helmet Testing group is so amazing.....Instead of testing to prove things are bad why haven't they showed or shared the data with the companies to help improve the products? Seems to me VT has the agenda not me. I am on the consumers and manufacturers side on this one.

This is an academic study to be published in a peer reviewed journal... they have to remain unbiased which means remaining independent from the manufacturers. All of their data and procedures will be detailed in the published study, which according to the article will be in the April 2015 Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

[AIREAYE 248]

I for one, will be reserving judgement until that is published. In the meantime, I'm hoping that this study will push manufacturers to make safer helmets, while retailers should continue to champion that best fit = best protection.

Edited March 30, 2015 by AIREAYE

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

The beauty of the peer review process: U of Ottawa can collaborate with VT on improving their study.

This is an academic study to be published in a peer reviewed journal... they have to remain unbiased which means remaining independent from the manufacturers. All of their data and procedures will be detailed in the published study, which according to the article will be in the April 2015 Annals of Biomedical Engineering.

well this academic study is putting fear in people to possibly buy a product that does not fit and could cause further injuries. They use one singular headform for all studies. last time I checked everyone's head is different!!

[AIREAYE 248]

well this academic study is putting fear in people to possibly buy a product that does not fit and could cause further injuries. They use one singular headform for all studies. last time I checked everyone's head is different!!

Exactly, there are so many variables at play that it would make for an interesting read when it's out.

[goblue9280 33]

well this academic study is putting fear in people to possibly buy a product that does not fit and could cause further injuries. They use one singular headform for all studies. last time I checked everyone's head is different!!

I don't think it's the study itself, but rather the way it's being reported. Personally I don't like the "Study Find Hockey Helmets Unsafe" headline that espn has on their front page... if you read the release on the VT website, it isn't so black and white.

I agree with your comment about helmet fit should be the first concern. Hopefully within a few years, there will be numerous options rated 4/5 star so that LHS can continue focusing on optimal fit. But again, going back to manufacturers, I've never seen one detail what headshapes their helmet fits best... they always tout the adjustibility as a selling point, so shouldn't the helmet perform optimally even when a single headform is used? Just as an example, here's what Bauer says (from their website) about their Reakt 100 helmet: "A better fit means better protection. Spring-loaded side pads utilize Curv® composite and PORON® XRD™ foam creating the new YourFIT custom adjustment system." The manufacturers themselves are already guilty of implying and marketing helmets as one size fits all/most, which I know from stories on here creates a constant struggle for LHS employees... convincing customers to prioritize fit over marketing.

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

I don't think it's the study itself, but rather the way it's being reported. Personally I don't like the "Study Find Hockey Helmets Unsafe" headline that espn has on their front page... if you read the release on the VT website, it isn't so black and white.

I agree with your comment about helmet fit should be the first concern. Hopefully within a few years, there will be numerous options rated 4/5 star so that LHS can continue focusing on optimal fit. But again, going back to manufacturers, I've never seen one detail what headshapes their helmet fits best... they always tout the adjustibility as a selling point, so shouldn't the helmet perform optimally even when a single headform is used? Just as an example, here's what Bauer says (from their website) about their Reakt 100 helmet: "A better fit means better protection. Spring-loaded side pads utilize Curv® composite and PORON® XRD™ foam creating the new YourFIT custom adjustment system." The manufacturers themselves are already guilty of implying and marketing helmets as one size fits all/most, which I know from stories on here creates a constant struggle for LHS employees... convincing customers to prioritize fit over marketing.

Yes you are 100% correct. Hence that is why you are seeing less "we have a better fit" to the safety features themselves and more you should buy the best fit.

The headform issue in my mind is very key. When your doing rotational impact testing there is no way a hockey helmet will do well at the present state. But the way VT wants to fix it is to make the helmet the size and style of a football helmet. Well that is were you run into neck issues. Helmets can not be bigger for neck strength issues. And again the companies have been working on this for years now. We have worked on headforms that would possibly work better for rotational testing and tons more.

PS all the above are my own opinions and do are not the thoughts of the CSA in anyway shape or form. Some general information may have been learned by CSA but are public record.

[Cove 39]

At a first glance it would appear that any amount of $$ Bauer dedicates to marketing has payed off 10 fold. I feel the rotational impact rhetoric that is being abused in hockey marketing has a lot to do with how visible Crosbys concussion (NECK PROBLEMS) was a few years ago. There are angles where the neck is unsafe and no helmet or amount of tech will ever be able to reduce that damage. The unfortunate reality about impact sports is damage comes with them. The videos and science will allow us a lot more then a page of blank stars and what looks like the grand marketing machine at play. I for one will be looking at a Bauer 5100 :D

Edited March 30, 2015 by Cove

[chippa13 1844]

All about the money? Pretty heavy accusations you're lobbing at this prof... anything to back it up? Most profs don't get into research for the money. The results are being published in a peer reviewed journal... along with any academic talks they give, they're going to face plenty of scrutiny from other scientists and engineers.

As for the money trail, who has been profiting the most? The manufacturers. Every year new models come out from the m11 to the reakt 100... all making new claims about break throughs in concussion reductions. Question, how many manufacturers have opened up their testing procedures and results to full peer review so that their claims can be independently retested? Every year the price of the top helmets go up despite little data to substantiate their protection improvements. Manufacturers are far from innocent with regards to profiting from the concussion scare.

The positive I see is that in the manufacturers rush to research and market concussion reducing designs and materials, they just might have some solid tech to build from. Hopefully this rating system forces them to put a bit more of their money into the R&D and a little less on marketing unsubstantiated claims.

For research academics, it is about getting published. That is what brings money and notoriety to universities. There have been plenty of stories through the ages of published and peer reviewed papers turning out to be false or doctored.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/fabricated-peer-reviews-prompt-scientific-journal-to-retract-43-papers-systematic-scheme-may-affect-other-journals/

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

Let us see if we can agree on a few main points.

1. Any testing that would result in a better product is good.

2. The manufactures while aiming to make profit are doing so with the intention and the knowledge and the R and D to make a safe product.

3. There is at this time no way a hockey helmet will prevent, or lesson the possibility of a ROTATIONAL impact concussion. (IE the Crosby hit in the outdoor game).

I think everyone here is an agreement on this.

[chippa13 1844]

Until they find a way to get foam between the brain and the skull, the manufacturers have their work cut out for themselves.

[Cove 39]

Atheletes have gotten to big and too strong for this type of stuff to be avoidable. Chris Borland from the 49ers RT'd something from neil degrasse tyson saying that a 250lb player moving at like 10-15mph has the same velocity as a bullet (SOMETHING LIKE THAT)... Athletic training has gotten TO GOOD!!

[oldtrainerguy28 478]

At a first glance it would appear that any amount of $$ Bauer dedicates to marketing has payed off 10 fold. I feel the rotational impact rhetoric that is being abused in hockey marketing has a lot to do with how visible Crosbys concussion (NECK PROBLEMS) was a few years ago. There are angles where the neck is unsafe and no helmet or amount of tech will ever be able to reduce that damage. The unfortunate reality about impact sports is damage comes with them. The videos and science will allow us a lot more then a page of blank stars and what looks like the grand marketing machine at play. I for one will be looking at a Bauer 5100 :D

I have always like the 5100 and felt it was the most comfortable and fit the majority of heads. Both my kids use this helmet and neither have been injured at all so far. However that says they haven't been hit hard enough yet maybe?

[Cove 39]

Also a lack of physical training in young hockey players could be a root problem here... When you're 15/16 and you're legs are getting strong but perhaps not the rest of you, you won't be able to take impacts safely. I had a friend who wouldn't lift weight with me while training for CIS football, he went into an exhibition game and got levelled and was out half the season.

[minnsy 15]

A lot of opinions being thrown about "it being just about the money", "the testing is crap", etc...

As an academic, let me ask the obvious question:

Has anyone here actually READ the publications? And NOT through a second/third hand source i.e. news article?

We should all start there before we start dropping opinions that are ostrich-head-in-the-sand-y.

[AIREAYE 248]

A lot of opinions being thrown about "it being just about the money", "the testing is crap", etc...

As an academic, let me ask the obvious question:

Has anyone here actually READ the publications? And NOT through a second/third hand source i.e. news article?

We should all start there before we start dropping opinions that are ostrich-head-in-the-sand-y.

It's not released yet?

[Cove 39]

isn't that what most people have agreed upon in most of the posts above? And Academia is not immune to capitalism so don't try and argue that for even a second. In todays world its hard to understand the motives when most of the opinions are easily for sale, thats all thats being said.

[minnsy 15]

It's not released yet?

I'm gonna start my research here:

http://www.beam.vt.edu/helmet/pubs.php

Hopefully an informed opinion can come from it.

[AIREAYE 248]

Let us know what you find!