 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@Thomasski, second that....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Pyramus wrote: |
| @Blackblade, thanks for the info. 12mph is rather slow, makes you wonder why its only 12mph that is used for the impact test. Any idea? |
Two reasons.
Firstly because your speed over the piste isn’t what matters unless you hit something like a tree or a ski lift pylon. In most incidents, your head will hit the piste and, irrespective of your horizontal velocity, the vertical velocity is likely under this speed. Think about falling over from standing still … that, plus some rotational impact, is what is really happening in most accidents. This is why lots of effort is now going into preventing rotational injuries (MIPS). So, there’s not really the need for much more direct impact protection.
Secondly, weight. Making a helmet that is much more impact resistant will result in something like a motorbike helmet. I don’t remember the impact speed test for those (despite being a biker) but, even there, you’d be surprised how low it is for the direct impact test. Once you start making helmets too heavy you then run the risk that the helmet breaks your neck !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@Red Leon, 18 mph in old money.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@Blackblade, ....spot on regarding rotational injury, which is not widely recognised outside the trauma community. And also weight. There was reported evidence of an increase in neck injuries in young children after widespread use of helmets:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ski-helmets-may-increase-neck-injuries-in-kids-study-1.523891
But having read the original 2005 research and Hagel's later analysis, this does not seem to be real. No later studies have found the same effect:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2831705/
As you say, helmets are very well designed these days (non grabby microshell, low weight, MIPS etc) and stats are in their favour, with no evidence of riskier behaviour.....
WARNING!!!!!
Helmet thread revival alert.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Two years into WW1, Britain introduced the Brodie pattern steel helmet. Prior to this, an ordinary cloth peaked hat was the battle headwear worn by troops. Upon introduction, it was noticed that there was suddenly a massive spike in injured soldiers needing medical treatment, way more than that had been seen prior to the use of the steel helmet. Immediately it was assumed from these statistics that somehow the helmets were causing the injuries, and that they needed to be recalled. Then someone pointed out that the amount of fatal head injuries had fallen by the same amount of (now) survivable trauma reported.
I'm not adding to the pro/con helmet discussion, just thought I'd chuck a bit of trivia out there.
Also, that a direct head impact of just 17/18+mph tends to be fatal, hence the motorcycle helmet safety test being 18+mph.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@MajorQ, ...indeed....and I like the story of the analysis of where to put armour on B17s. First analysis was of the position of flak holes - ah that's where it needs to go - until Abraham Wald said 'hang on, these are the aircraft which made it back....these holes are not where we need to put the armour...the REVERSE is true....'
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| andy from embsay wrote: |
| I think they’ve got the wrong piste - reading the article it says it was on a tight right bend - which there isn’t on Covagnes. I think it’s Starwars (Combe a Floret) as that has a “slow down” sign on a fairly sharp right turn just before the junction with the run that goes down to Ardent, and the trees there are pretty dense (and isn’t a great place to stop, if as the story says, he was trying to avoid a group who’d stopped). |
Definitely happened on Starwars as friends saw the aftermath and complete piste closure. RIP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| valais2 wrote: |
WARNING!!!!!
Helmet thread revival alert. |
In that case, I have questions  :
When they test MIPS do they test it in real world conditions with goggle straps and Go Pro mounts? If they do I have never found evidence and it seems to me that you'd need to test that way in order to know if it worked on snow or not.
30 years ago virtually nobody wore a helmet. Today nearly everyone does. From what I've read, the incidence of serious head injuries basically hasn't changed. OK grooming and equipment have improved, people are going a tad quicker, but surely you'd expect a dramatic reduction in SHIs? Non?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Avabrunch, better head protection offset by all the numpties and stupid behaviour?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| Quote: |
goggle straps and Go Pro mounts?
|
Why do you think these things make a difference? They test the helmets in a lab under very controlled conditions (dropping weights from certain heights onto certain positions). You could question how applicable it is to a real crash. But you are never going to be able to perfectly replicate crashes of which there are near infinite possibilities (horizontal speed, vertical speed, angle of impact, slope hardness, impact point on helmet etc.).
| Quote: |
OK grooming and equipment have improved, people are going a tad quicker
|
I think that's quite an understatement. Also you have to consider the rise of snow parks and how big some of the features are now made. (I wouldn't be surprised to find out a significant percentage of head injuries happen in the parks. Also much busier slopes now.
| Quote: |
surely you'd expect a dramatic reduction in SHIs?
|
It's very difficult to say definitely, as lots of confounding variables. However there is some pretty good evidence helmets reduce risk of head injury:
"A case-control, case-cross over study from Canada38 showed a 29% reduction in the risk of any head injury with helmet usage (adjusted OR: 0.71 (CI: 0.55 – 0.92)). For participants with more severe head injuries, the protective effect of helmet usage was even greater (adjusted OR: 0.44 (CI: 0.24 – 0.81), 56% reduction in risk). However, one of the critiques of this study has been the use of patients with other injury types as controls.39 In a case-control study from Norway,39 helmet use reduced the risk of any head injury by 60% (adjusted OR: 0.40 (CI: 0.30 – 0.55)), of head contusions and fractures by 53% (adjusted OR: 0.47 (CI: 0.33 – 0.66)), and of severe head injury by 57% (adjusted OR: 0.43 (CI: 0.25 – 0.77)). This study used a non-injured control group to minimize the effect of potential confounders.
A case-control study from United States12 showed a 15% reduction in head injury with the use of helmets (adjusted OR: 0.85 (CI: 0.76 – 0.95)). However, this study didn’t analyze outcomes with regards to the severity of head injury. Another case-control study from Canada5 in children < 13 years of age showed that failure to wear a helmet increased the risk of head, neck or face injury (relative risk (RR): 2.24 (CI: 1.23 – 4.12), corrected RR for activity: 1.77 (CI: 0.98 – 3.19)). However, this study had a low statistical power because of its small sample size (n=70), and the analysis didn’t control for confounding factors. A retrospective cohort study from United States40 showed a decreased incidence of loss of consciousness in case of striking a fixed object while wearing a safety helmet ((χ2: 5.8; p < 0.05).
Results of a cross-sectional study in Austria41 were suggestive of the protective effect of helmets in head injury; 196 snowboarders (7.6%) wore a helmet and had no head injury, while 0.7% of snowboarders without a helmet suffered a head injury. However, the study didn’t report any OR for the association. A recent meta-analysis added 0.5 to the cells of the 2x2 table with data from Machold et al and reported an unadjusted odds ratio of 0.34 (CI: 0.02 – 5.74) for the effect of helmets on head injury for this study.42 In a retrospective study in children presenting to the hospital with head injuries incurred during skiing or snowboarding,43 more non-helmeted participants had a skull fracture as compared to helmeted participants (36.8% vs. 5.3%, p = 0.009). Children not wearing a helmet also had a higher incidence of overall craniofacial fractures ((44.7% vs. 15.8%, p = 0.03). The OR of a skull fracture in non-helmeted skiers and snowboarders presenting to the hospital was 10.5 (95% CI 1.26 – 87.4) as compared to helmet users. However, more children wearing helmets experienced loss of consciousness as compared to non-helmeted children, although the association was not significant (68.4% vs. 57.9%, p = 0.32)."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3989528/#R38
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| Quote: |
goggle straps and Go Pro mounts?
|
Why do you think these things make a difference? They test the helmets in a lab under very controlled conditions (dropping weights from certain heights onto certain positions). You could question how applicable it is to a real crash. But you are never going to be able to perfectly replicate crashes of which there are near infinite possibilities (horizontal speed, vertical speed, angle of impact, slope hardness, impact point on helmet |
Maybe not “perfectly replicated”, but it’s a valid question whether those attachments affect the effectiveness of the currently “optimally designed” helmet.
Example, the outside of the helmets are smooth to allow it to slide smoothly on snow. Adding goggle straps may negatively affects that. If it can be verified to be the case, perhaps a better design can be have to either hide the goggle straps, or make the straps slippery.
Go Pro mounts, how strong are the mounts? Will the Go Pro break away or will it snap the neck of the helmet wearer?
Had any of these question been studied? However “imperfectly”?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've seen enough yard sales where goggles go flying off and helmets stay on to think it's probably not a concern. If you are worried wear the goggle strap under the helmet.
Pretty sure GoPro mounts would breakaway at anything like the forces required for a serious head injury. The adhesive is just not that strong. There was a bit of a conspiracy theory that a helmet camera was the cause of Schumachers injury, but there was never really any good evidence to support that.
GoPro:
"Our mounts are not designed to withstand significant impact, in the event that you do significantly impact your helmet the mounting parts and adhesive would likely not stay or adversely affect the performance of the helmet."
Contour:
"All of our mounts for helmets are secured with double-sided adhesive tape. The mounts themselves are of plastic construction. Whilst both are strong enough to hold the cameras in place, during an impact directly on the mount, the mount will usually break. The adhesive has been selected as it is the least reactive when applied to various hard surfaces.
Helmet manufacturers, understandably, will always turn down a claim if an unofficial accessory is fitted and causes injury to the wearer. This even includes visors that are not from the manufacturer. It’s a “belts and braces” way to avoid litigation.
I hope that helps you a bit. As for specifics as to the testing carried out, I am unable to release these publically, but I can assure you that they are designed with safety in mind."
Giro:
"We studied this issue thoroughly, including significant testing at our in-house DOME test lab with both Go-Pro and Contour units that are used on cycling, snow, and powersports helmets. We’ve also helped to initiate an ASTM standards subcommittee to collaborate with others scientists and our competitors on this topic. Our mounts cause no significant additional loads for the neck nor brain rotation due to well designed breakaway features"
https://velo.outsideonline.com/road/road-racing/technical-faq-are-helmet-cams-saf/?scope=anon
Of course you can argue that's exactly what they would say. But without any good evidence to the contrary (and helmet cams have been around long enough you think we would have some case studies of them causing injury by now), I think we have to take them at their word.
Of course if you are concerned don't attach a mount to your helmet. That would certainly be your helmet manufacturers recommendations. But I don't think the majority are wearing helmet cams anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
I can see the helmet manufacturer’s point of disallowing any claim of defective helmet if it’s got a go-pro mounted on.
On the other hand, almost all helmet are shaped with helmet strap slots. So they’d better had done testing with goggles/straps. Especially those MISP helmets, on the effect of goggle and straps on the rotation force.
Not that I’m particularly concern myself. I just don’t fall much at all. And as I often say, I’m mostly wearing helmet as a “warmer hat” on cold days. Or when I’m skiing in the trees, as helmet deflects low branches better than a wooly hat (have had my hat “taken” by a low branch pre-helmet, had to side step back up to retrieve it).
Last edited by You know it makes sense. on Sun 31-03-24 23:11; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
I just don't see a helmet strap being that strong. Just look at how many people lose goggles in falls. If the opposite was true we'd see neck injuries before goggles ever left the helmet. At the kind of forces needed for injury I just can't see how it's going to prevent MIPS allowing some rotation of the helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@abc, My helmet has a camera mount, so presumably that would be OK.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
