CCM Super Tacks X Total Custom helmet

[IPv6Freely 2092]

On 11/4/2023 at 6:00 PM, Hills said:

Goalie helmets also aren't looking at the same impact tests than player helmets are. Majority of contacts is pucks and blunt force without the rotational part.

With that said, I tried on the Axis XF mask with NestTech in it and I wasn't comfortable enough with the density of the padding to try it myself.

I love it in concept, but holy good god is that ever an ugly mask.

 

[marka 526]

Howdy,

23 hours ago, VegasHockey said:

All hockey brands perform internal testing and then partner with other companies and universities for third party testing. The fact is, if a helmet gets CSA or HECC certification, that is genuinely all that matters. That is the standard. 

Think of it this way, there are many cars on the road. They all must pass crash safety testing. However, some cars have better results than others, this could be in all categories or in select categories. Regardless, if they pass, they are approved and sold. 

I like how they word this specifically: 

https://driving.ca/features/safety/2023-vehicles-worst-iihs-crash-tests

"ratings don’t mean they’re unsafe, but they could be better."

I'm at least passingly aware of how hockey helmet ratings work.  I, like lots of folks, would like something better than an outright pass/fail rating.

Using your parallel, you'll notice that the NHTSA implements a star / tiered rating system to help quantify differences between various car models and their performance in different tests like frontal, side, rollover, etc.  That's most similar to what VT is doing.  CSA and HECC is nothing whatsoever like that.  They're more like SNELL helmet ratings where you either get a pass or a fail.  I agree that's better than nothing and that its the 'standard', but like a lot of people I'd like to see that standard improved to be something more like the NHTSA testing you mention.

People also LOVE to say that an improperly fitted helmet can't provide good protection without, as far as I have ever seen, any actual evidence to back that up.  If you take that approach to the extreme, everyone will be out there wearing a wool beanie as their helmet, since those fit really, really well.

There's every chance that the custom Tacks X helmet is super comfortable because it uses really low density foams that conform to the head well and it JUST BARELY passes HECC / CSA certification.  But we'll never be exposed to that type of compromise design solution being chosen, at least not from the manufacturer.

Mark

[stick9 891]

So tell me again about these ratings.....

Quote

Yes, you can have a concussion if you didn't hit your head directly. While many concussions are caused by a blow to the head, you can also get a concussion from whiplash or jostling. In those cases, the brain slams against your skull, temporarily damaging the cells and causing an inflammation response.

https://www.cognitivefxusa.com/blog/how-do-you-know-if-you-have-a-concussion#:~:text=Yes%2C you can have a,and causing an inflammation response. 

 

I have had that very thing happen to me. Never hit my head, clearly concussed. 

Edited November 6, 2023 by stick9

[flip12 715]

2 hours ago, stick9 said:

So tell me again about these ratings.....

I have had that very thing happen to me. Never hit my head, clearly concussed. 

You're right in that helmets can't protect against whiplash. But that's not to say there isn't substantial impact to the head where helmets can play a part in minimizing the damage, both to the skull and its contents. No helmet is concussion proof. But they are not created equal in how much they dissipate the impact to the head either.

Re: the helmet has to fit for it to work discussion, the VT STAR lab actually wrote a whole article talking about the importance of fit when assessing helmet performance in the lab and how that relates to real life: https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/publications.html#56

As usual, the story is more nuanced than the popular discussion. Also as usual, it's still not perfect. It never is.

[stick9 891]

I don't disagree flip. As an adult who doesn't play full contact. Ive made a conscious decision to wear something that may not be the most protective helmet on the market. At my level of play. A hockey helmet only needs to protect me from the basics. Wearing the Tacks X isnt all that different then rolling out there with a Bauer 4500 or a CCM V08. Which a ton of adults do.

FWIW, had I not tried the Tacks X I would have bought another 710 which Ive worn since it's release. Both of which are 1 star rated.

Now if you ask me what helmet I'd put a 13 year old in. That's a completely different story.

[Hills 712]

22 hours ago, flip12 said:

You're right in that helmets can't protect against whiplash. But that's not to say there isn't substantial impact to the head where helmets can play a part in minimizing the damage, both to the skull and its contents. No helmet is concussion proof. But they are not created equal in how much they dissipate the impact to the head either.

Re: the helmet has to fit for it to work discussion, the VT STAR lab actually wrote a whole article talking about the importance of fit when assessing helmet performance in the lab and how that relates to real life: https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/publications.html#56

As usual, the story is more nuanced than the popular discussion. Also as usual, it's still not perfect. It never is.

They mention how important fit is, and yet still go by the larger helmet if the head form fits inside a range of 2 sizes. They also don't try on multiple helmets sizes to get the best fit either.

VT could easily make things better by showing the helmet fitting process for each model they use.

[start_today 770]

On 11/7/2023 at 3:36 PM, Hills said:

VT could easily make things better by showing the helmet fitting process for each model they use.

Pretty sure at this point they have zero interest in making the study better or relevant or useful. They’re just doing it and churning out results that people then haphazardly use. 

[flip12 715]

On 11/7/2023 at 9:36 PM, Hills said:

They mention how important fit is, and yet still go by the larger helmet if the head form fits inside a range of 2 sizes. They also don't try on multiple helmets sizes to get the best fit either.

VT could easily make things better by showing the helmet fitting process for each model they use.

Is it a bad thing if they opt for the bigger of two possible fits?

No one would read all of that if they had a breakdown of fitting each helmet. As it is now their work is too long for most people to read, judging by the accuracy of the bulk of the critique their work gets.

[Hills 712]

Just now, flip12 said:

Is it a bad thing if they opt for the bigger of two possible fits?

No one would read all of that if they had a breakdown of fitting each helmet. As it is now their work is too long for most people to read, judging by the accuracy of the bulk of the critique their work gets.

Obviously yes it is a bad thing they opt for the bigger size. Their data is measuring the rotational impacts, using a larger helmet means there will be more movement in the helmet if it isn't as snug as possible.

[start_today 770]

17 hours ago, flip12 said:

Is it a bad thing if they opt for the bigger of two possible fits?

No one would read all of that if they had a breakdown of fitting each helmet. As it is now their work is too long for most people to read, judging by the accuracy of the bulk of the critique their work gets.

It’s also wildly lazy “science.” If I wear a helmet that’s too big for me, and then complain that I got hurt, and you saw that the helmet fit improperly, you’d tell me “hey man, that sucks, but that helmet is obviously too big.” But, these guys as policy use helmets that are too big, give some inscrutable ratings, and have parents wringing their hands over terrible data. 

Your point that “no one would read all that” is a huge problem with this study. Their testing doesn’t do a good job testing for hockey injuries. It’s all buried in fine print and the results incredibly oversimplified. There are consumers making choices off of bad data. And now companies are chasing good ratings from this study, but the variables they test are so skewed it’s not even viable. 

We aren’t critiquing a highschool science fair project. If we were, I think people would be right in their “hey guys, they are doing their best and this seems like a neat idea” defense.  VT is pushing this as a rigorous study and it simply isn’t. Imagine if they were testing seatbelt safety, but some of the time just stuck the seatbelts into that cushions rather than latching them correctly. Personally, I’d see that and think I can’t trust anything they publish, because the methods are so flawed. But, instead, people are craving this ratings system even though it’s flawed the variables are wonky. 

[Sniper9 530]

3 hours ago, start_today said:

It’s also wildly lazy “science.” If I wear a helmet that’s too big for me, and then complain that I got hurt, and you saw that the helmet fit improperly, you’d tell me “hey man, that sucks, but that helmet is obviously too big.” But, these guys as policy use helmets that are too big, give some inscrutable ratings, and have parents wringing their hands over terrible data. 

Your point that “no one would read all that” is a huge problem with this study. Their testing doesn’t do a good job testing for hockey injuries. It’s all buried in fine print and the results incredibly oversimplified. There are consumers making choices off of bad data. And now companies are chasing good ratings from this study, but the variables they test are so skewed it’s not even viable. 

We aren’t critiquing a highschool science fair project. If we were, I think people would be right in their “hey guys, they are doing their best and this seems like a neat idea” defense.  VT is pushing this as a rigorous study and it simply isn’t. Imagine if they were testing seatbelt safety, but some of the time just stuck the seatbelts into that cushions rather than latching them correctly. Personally, I’d see that and think I can’t trust anything they publish, because the methods are so flawed. But, instead, people are craving this ratings system even though it’s flawed the variables are wonky. 

Honestly for rec and beer league that is no contact who cares about that's stupid ratings. 

[VegasHockey 1280]

2 hours ago, Sniper9 said:

Honestly for rec and beer league that is no contact who cares about that's stupid ratings. 

Head injuries and concussions don't always require high level hockey or full contact. You can catch an edge anytime and fall hard on the ice or into the boards.

One guy I often skate with played NCAA D1 and got tripped on a breakaway by a player on the opposing team. He was going full speed and the trip occurred about four feet in front of the goal. He went hard into the boards head first. Unable to slow himself, other than tucking his head into his hands, he couldn't protect himself from the boards. The end result was a broken clavicle and a significant concussion. 

 

Edited November 11, 2023 by VegasHockey

[flip12 715]

On 11/10/2023 at 7:56 PM, Hills said:

Obviously yes it is a bad thing they opt for the bigger size. Their data is measuring the rotational impacts, using a larger helmet means there will be more movement in the helmet if it isn't as snug as possible.

Are you sure they aren’t getting the same snugness they would in the smaller size?

Another possibility is they’re erring on the side of best possible rating for a given helmet model. A larger helmet that’s mostly closed will have more shell overlap and more mass overall than a smaller helmet of the same model that’s mostly open, once both sizes are adjusted to the same head circumference (mass won’t change but the degree of overlap will). Both shell overlap and greater mass would contribute positively to impact dissipation.

[flip12 715]

9 hours ago, start_today said:

It’s also wildly lazy “science.” If I wear a helmet that’s too big for me, and then complain that I got hurt, and you saw that the helmet fit improperly, you’d tell me “hey man, that sucks, but that helmet is obviously too big.” But, these guys as policy use helmets that are too big, give some inscrutable ratings, and have parents wringing their hands over terrible data. 

Your point that “no one would read all that” is a huge problem with this study. Their testing doesn’t do a good job testing for hockey injuries. It’s all buried in fine print and the results incredibly oversimplified. There are consumers making choices off of bad data. And now companies are chasing good ratings from this study, but the variables they test are so skewed it’s not even viable. 

We aren’t critiquing a highschool science fair project. If we were, I think people would be right in their “hey guys, they are doing their best and this seems like a neat idea” defense.  VT is pushing this as a rigorous study and it simply isn’t. Imagine if they were testing seatbelt safety, but some of the time just stuck the seatbelts into that cushions rather than latching them correctly. Personally, I’d see that and think I can’t trust anything they publish, because the methods are so flawed. But, instead, people are craving this ratings system even though it’s flawed the variables are wonky. 

Is their policy (“protocol” might fit better) to test helmets that are too big? Where do they say that?

”Hockey injuries” is a broad category. On the other hand, it’s also narrower than the scope of the Hockey STAR rating system when it comes to cumulative brain impact: when most people talk about brain protection in hockey, they talk about concussions. Hockey STAR isn’t just modeling exposure to concussion-inducing impacts, they model the probable exposure to brain trauma at a given level of hockey (depending on age, competitiveness of the league, etc.) The research on the impact of brain trauma on athletes lives is all relatively new, but it seems concussions get all of the attention and overall brain trauma isn’t even considered in the popular discourse; hence the chestnut, “you don’t even have to hit your head to get a concussion, so these ratings are meaningless.” That’s like saying birth control isn’t 100% effective so there’s no point in seeing how effective various methods are, to the best of our knowledge.

I agree with almost everything you say in your second paragraph. I don’t think the problem you outline is particular to this lab’s work, but rather the crux of the issue in the interface between research and the rest of the world. Research often involves much more nuance than the general public and its information disseminating apparatuses tend to have a taste for. This slants the public representation of a lot of research results towards tidy boxes that are crude reflections of the dynamics at play in the raw material, and rewards researchers whose production lends itself to crude boxing. The financial mess entailing that boxing function is a ferocious beast.

Edited November 11, 2023 by flip12

[IPv6Freely 2092]

Okay, time to get back on topic. 

[stick9 891]

Since we're back on topic.

After a handful of skates I'm still kinda meh. I never feel like it sits where it's supposed to. Yeah, it's comfortable. Not enough to live up to the hype, least not for me. 

It does look really good and it's much lighter than my other helmets. 

Im gonna try a 720 and a 910 the next time I am at a shop.

[Stewie 721]

2 hours ago, stick9 said:

Since we're back on topic.

After a handful of skates I'm still kinda meh. I never feel like it sits where it's supposed to. Yeah, it's comfortable. Not enough to live up to the hype, least not for me. 

It does look really good and it's much lighter than my other helmets. 

Im gonna try a 720 and a 910 the next time I am at a shop.

Yours a custom? Or retail?  

[stick9 891]

20 hours ago, Stewie said:

Yours a custom? Or retail?  

Retail. I bought it on sideline, new without packaging. Decent enough deal to give it a try. 

Edited November 26, 2023 by stick9

[shoot_the_goalie 281]

I find that the real comfort from the X is evident if you have it on for a long time. (more than 2 hours, etc).  Whereas my old helmet (Fitlite 3DS) would develop hot spots around the temples, the X does not.

[stick9 891]

I tried both the 720 & 910 at PH. I was horribly disappointed with the 720. The helmet would not collapse below 1/3. The liner and padding placement prevented it. I wanted so badly for it to fit too. It had the makings of a great bucket.

I ended up with a 910. Just a much more secure fit than the X. The X never sat right. It's was always moving and I was constantly F-ing with it. 

The X was cool to see and try. For the price, I'd pass regardless of fit. If I were going to spend that type of money on a helmet. I'd spend the extra $$ and get the custom version.

[Sniper9 530]

On 11/25/2023 at 6:09 PM, shoot_the_goalie said:

I find that the real comfort from the X is evident if you have it on for a long time. (more than 2 hours, etc).  Whereas my old helmet (Fitlite 3DS) would develop hot spots around the temples, the X does not.

Never had hot spots with the 710 or 310

[Sniper9 530]

2 hours ago, stick9 said:

I tried both the 720 & 910 at PH. I was horribly disappointed with the 720. The helmet would not collapse below 1/3. The liner and padding placement prevented it. I wanted so badly for it to fit too. It had the makings of a great bucket.

I ended up with a 910. Just a much more secure fit than the X. The X never sat right. It's was always moving and I was constantly F-ing with it. 

The X was cool to see and try. For the price, I'd pass regardless of fit. If I were going to spend that type of money on a helmet. I'd spend the extra $$ and get the custom version.

The 910 and 720 fit completely diff. Hell, the 720 fit nothing like 310 or 710 either. I was very disappointed in the 720 as well. 

[shoot_the_goalie 281]

Update.  I got a Total Custom Tacks X, and I have to say, it's quite possibly the most comfortable and form fitting helmet I have ever worn (no negative space).  It's night and day vs the retail version, and the retail version is a pretty comfortable bucket.  Interestingly enough too, the liner in the custom seems more robust than the retail version.  Much less concern about any of the nest tech lattice getting "broken".  The custom liner also deals better with sweat vs the retail.  Now, if I were contemplating buying a retail X vs a custom X, for the price difference I would go for the custom.  However, is the custom that game changing for the price if a $200 bucket works pretty well for someone....not so sure about that.

[xstartxtodayx 343]

16 hours ago, stick9 said:

I tried both the 720 & 910 at PH. I was horribly disappointed with the 720. The helmet would not collapse below 1/3. The liner and padding placement prevented it. I wanted so badly for it to fit too. It had the makings of a great bucket.

I ended up with a 910. Just a much more secure fit than the X. The X never sat right. It's was always moving and I was constantly F-ing with it. 

The X was cool to see and try. For the price, I'd pass regardless of fit. If I were going to spend that type of money on a helmet. I'd spend the extra $$ and get the custom version.

 

13 hours ago, Sniper9 said:

The 910 and 720 fit completely diff. Hell, the 720 fit nothing like 310 or 710 either. I was very disappointed in the 720 as well. 

I too found this, the 910, 720, and X all fit pretty different even though they have the same shell which was surprising.  I've worn 910's for a few years now, they fit great but every now and then I get hot spots near the temples (I found this was wore before I removed the ear guards, once those were removed it created a touch more room and made it better but it still happens just not as painful).  I bought a couple Tacks X, one in my normal CCM size, small, which ended up being way too tight.  I then tried a medium which fit but felt like my head got swallowed u too much, like my head felt way too deep inside the helmet, so I sold that one too.  I recently tried on a 720 at Pure Hockey (I really liked the idea of a little less weight but also more airflow and maybe eliminating that temple hot spot), unfortunately the 720 was not right either, the small was the right size (matched the 910) BUT it felt like it swallowed my head too much like the X did, just felt awkward in how low it sat (and how much the top of my ears would stick out if the display model didn't have ear guards on which crushed my ears, which are not that big lol, I'm not dumbo I swear haha).  So for now I'll stick with my 910s' and maybe try to find a way to tweak the temple area to eliminate the hot spots.

[shoot_the_goalie 281]

2 hours ago, xstartxtodayx said:

 

I too found this, the 910, 720, and X all fit pretty different even though they have the same shell which was surprising.  I've worn 910's for a few years now, they fit great but every now and then I get hot spots near the temples (I found this was wore before I removed the ear guards, once those were removed it created a touch more room and made it better but it still happens just not as painful).  I bought a couple Tacks X, one in my normal CCM size, small, which ended up being way too tight.  I then tried a medium which fit but felt like my head got swallowed u too much, like my head felt way too deep inside the helmet, so I sold that one too.  I recently tried on a 720 at Pure Hockey (I really liked the idea of a little less weight but also more airflow and maybe eliminating that temple hot spot), unfortunately the 720 was not right either, the small was the right size (matched the 910) BUT it felt like it swallowed my head too much like the X did, just felt awkward in how low it sat (and how much the top of my ears would stick out if the display model didn't have ear guards on which crushed my ears, which are not that big lol, I'm not dumbo I swear haha).  So for now I'll stick with my 910s' and maybe try to find a way to tweak the temple area to eliminate the hot spots.

If you get hot spots in the temple you can “train” the shell to widen by taking any object that will apply pressure to both sides and leave it there when helmet not in use.  I did this with my 3DS and used a small dumbbell.