The Problem with Snowsports Helmets
She got a concussion that probably lost her the World Cup, what brand and model helmet, and could it have been better? Or was it good enough?
Some of you are going to hate me for flogging a dead horse. Some of you are going to love the opportunity to rear your stallion and try to kick us into agreement with the helmet crusade. Either way I’ll give you the last word in the comments but I’m taking the bully pulpit for a moment. (Disclaimer: I’m not a physicist or a medical researcher, following is simply gleaned from lots of reading along with attempting to be realistic.)
First, we need to get straight on types of head injuries. To keep it simple (apologies to medical pros), we’ll divide the nuances into two types: Direct injury is a surface bruise, laceration, abrasion or skull fracture. These can include brain injury but not necessarily. The other type of injury is brain damage caused by your grey matter banging into the inside of your skull when your fast moving head quickly stops moving. In the latter (and sometimes former) case, the result is a “concussion,” simply meaning your brain gets bruised and damaged. Also, we should clarify that in this discussion we’re talking about a moving athlete hitting his or her head on something. Helmets also protect against things like rocks falling on your head, but that’s another subject altogether as it involves properties such as penetration resistance.
Scalp lacerations and surface bruises can be spectacular and painful. Blood. Stitches. But without associated concussion or other types of brain damage they heal with no lasting effects. Ski helmets do a great job of protecting you from such injuries.
Concussions are different. Each time you undergo a concussion, you get a poorly understood form of brain damage that is known to be cumulative. Eventually, your brain becomes more prone to concussion at lower impacts, and you begin to exhibit 24/7 brain damage symptoms. These effects are said to sometimes happen after as few as three concussions — even over fairly long periods of time. What is more, it doesn’t take much of a hit to cause a concussion.
When your head hits an object, the likelihood of concussion can be measured in G force of the deceleration. You get a possible concussion at 95 g’s, certain concussion at 150 g’s, and serious injury or death at 275 g’s.
Ski helmets are certified to the ASTM F2040 standard for snowsports helmets. This article refers to a study where they tried to emulate a real-life skiing accident and measure G forces on a helmet “protected” head. The testing was done as if the skier was moving at 30 kph, 18.6 mph. Such moderate speed is frequently attained by nearly any skier.
During the study, measured force at 18.6 mph was 333 g’s when the helmet/head hit a wooden post. That’s significantly above the threshold for serious injury or death. What is more, G force when the head hit hard icy snow was still up at 162 g’s.
That, my friends, is the problem with ski helmets.
So, why? As I mentioned in a comment, simple physics is the main reason why it’s tough to engineer better helmets. Put as simply as I can, the G force your brain is going to undergo in collision increases as a square of your speed. In other words, a helmet that definitely protects you at 10 mph needs four times the protecting at 20 mph and fully SIXTEEN times the protection if you’re going 40 mph (not an uncommon speed for good skiers). You can even reverse the math for the study I used, and realize that if you’re moving at half of the 18.6 mph, around 9 mph, you’d have 1/4 the G force (is my math correct?), thus, yeah, that helmet would possibly work when you hit that fence post at 9 mph and got 83 g’s on your brain. Though that still sounds iffy, since the lower threshold for concussion is 95 g’s.
What is more, it is common but misleading to assume that a helmet protects you by spreading out force like hardshell knee pads do. Yes, if a rock falls on your head the helmet needs to resist penetration and subsequently spread out the force. But in the case of hitting something, spreading out the force does zilch to change the deceleration that causes concussion. Thus, though it is somewhat of a paradigm shift, try to put out of your mind that the shell of your helmet spreading force over your head is in any way protecting you from concussion. The only thing that protects you from concussion is to increase the time your head takes to decelerate. This is usually accomplished by the crushing of foam inside the helmet, or sometimes by a suspension system releasing or stretching.
Conclusion? Wear a helmet if you choose; good ones do offer a small amount of protection. But even with ASTM certified snowsport helmet protection the possibility of receiving a brain concussion is very real in even low speed accidents. As for helmet evangelism, exhorting others to take up the helmet crusade looks a bit ridiculous in light of all this. Yes, once they’ve got better helmets on the market by all means shout it out. Till then, perhaps all the shouting should be at the helmet industry to make better product, rather than at other folks to buy one and thus perpetuate the status quo.
Following is from the study as quoted in the article I refer to above:
A simulation using a 50th percentile male anthropometric device (Scher, Richards and Carhart, 2005) was done of a snowboarder going 30 kph, catching an edge and falling headfirst onto soft snow, icy snow and a fixed object (a 28-cm upright wooden post). This simulation was done to assess the effect of wearing a helmet or not under the three different impact conditions. The helmet in question met the requirements of ASTM F2040. The g-loads to the head-form were measured and the associated Head Injury Criterion (HIC) values were computed. HIC is a time-weighted acceleration measure used widely in the automotive industry to measure impact severity as it relates to head injury. This study found that if the impact is onto a soft-snow surface, both the measured g-loads (under 100 g) and the computed HIC values (less than 220) are well within acceptable limits regardless of whether or not a helmet is used. When the impact was onto simulated hard, icy snow, the helmet reduced the average measured g-load from 329 to 162, and the HIC value from 2,235 to 965. When the impact was against the fixed object, the helmet reduced the values from 696 to 333, and the HIC from 12,185 to 3,299.
Comments
186 Responses to “The Problem with Snowsports Helmets”
Got something to say? Please do so.
I ski trees a lot. Branches hurt less when they hit my helmet instead of my head. The helmet still offers SOME protection, more than a hat anyway. It is better than nothing. I am still wearing it.
Chris, I think branches would fall into the category of something smaller hitting you, which Lou admitted is something helmets are good for.
Lou nice writeup. I think you’re spot on. Helmets give me piece of mind for things like glancing branches (like those encountered during fast skiing tight trees at the resort) or rocks during a couloir climb where the helmet protects from the object and there is not deceleration of the brain involved. If my head is the moving object, all bets are off.
I’m one of those multiple concussion folks. I wear a helmet at all times now and it has certainly helped in crash situations. In fact, I’ve had helmets, both ski and bike, crack outwards from the point of impact clearly doing what they are designed to do and distributing force and probably protecting my skull from further injury.
Study or not it makes common sense to me that if I have the choice of being hit in the head with a helmet on or with no helmet on, I would always choose the former.
” As for helmet evangelism, exhorting others to take up the helmet crusade looks a bit ridiculous in light of all this. ”
I don’t think so ,wearing a helmet MIGHT save you some injury while if you don’t wear a helmet you definetley won’t get any protection
IMO there is no downside to wearing a helmet ,also I find helmets warm comfortable and a good place to park my goggles …I can’t think of any downside to wearing a helmet right now as opposed to waiting till helmets are made better
But what would all the awesome snow bros mount their gopros too?
I thought April 1st was Friday…I better check my calendar.
I won’t take the helmet evangelist position, but I will say that studying how helmets work at certain speeds then comparing those speeds to a skier’s “normal” speeds is incomplete and misleading. Just because I am traveling 35mph doesn’t mean that I will impact at 35mph. If I go flying headfirst into a tree, sure, but if I fall to the icy hard surface, the impact will likely be way less than 35 mph (a snowboarder is more likely to catch an edge and pivot their speed toward the ground, but that doesn’t often happen to skiers). Moreover, many falls may occur in difficult terrain with slower speeds, where the helmet would be very beneficial to have. I have no doubt that helmets don’t offer as much protection as I’d like while cruising the groomers, but that is just one portion of what people do on skis.
While I agree that helmets could do a better job of offering protection, and certainly don’t think everyone must be required to wear one, wearing one is demonstrably safer than not wearing one. Your post seems to obfuscate that simple fact. Maybe people shouldn’t have to wear seatbelts in the car, maybe motorcycle riders shouldn’t have to wear helmets, these are philosophical debates. But your post seems to attempt to justify a philosophical stance by using a factual attack, but the facts — while they could be better for the pro-helmet crowd — don’t really back you up as much as you seem to think they do.
I choose to wear a helmet. You can do whatever you like.
Motorcycle helmets have saved my life a few times. I’ve been knocked out inside full coverage helmets, made giant grindos in them that would’ve gone through my skull…the first real concussion I got was skiing without a helmet. I’ll never ski alpine again without a helmet again. (not that I intend to ski alpine) Helmets are great for avoiding simple pain, like when you slam your head on ice. I fantasize about a foldable packable helmet for backcountry. There is no logical argument against helmets for saftey and comfort. Sure if you wack your head on a fence post at 40 mph the helmet probably won’t help much but some one will be able to find your head easier when it’s torn from your neck.
Lou,
I’m a huge fan, but this is my first comment…
Nice piece. There’s always a lot of debate, and I’m not current on the literature at this time. Its also a small segment of the sports world to study head injuries in the skiing public, so the statistics can easily be skewed.
There is a large segment of catastrophic head injuries that was excluded from your piece. While most athletes suffer concussions at some point in their career. We also have to consider Diffuse Axonal Injuries, intraparenchymal bleeding, epidural, subdural and subarrachnoid bleeding. All of which have a much higher degree of morbidity and mortality than the common concussion.
I have the opportunity to see a large number of skiers and snowboarders every winter in the time immediately post concussion. More and more skiers and snowboarders are wearing helmets, and anecdotally, I can say that we see a much smaller percentage of those high acuity injuries than in past years. I would also argue that your average rider with a concussion is a grade higher with a equivalent mechanism of injury if unhelmeted. Whether you use the Cantu, Colorado Medical Society, or American Academy of Neurology guidelines for grading, the patterns are all similar, and this means that the downstream effects of the injury are also potentially greater for the patient.
Possibly the greatest risk associated with a concussion, and something that we are just beginning to understand is second impact syndrome, which is the increased damage done by a second concussion during the healing time following an initial injury. This is a big topic in team sports, and physicians place a very conservative limit on return to activity for athletes with potential for repeat injury. We are applying these same concepts to individual sports like skiing as well.
All of that aside, I agree that the ASTM standards for snow sports helmet testing are somewhat optimistic. As helmets get lighter and more development goes into their construction, I’ve noticed a trend towards more broken shells and compressed liners. This means that the material does absorb some of the larger impacts, and thereby reduce the energy transmitted to the wearer. It also means that ski helmets are becoming more like bike helmets, and that they will need replacing after a large impact.
In terms of reducing morbidity and mortality, simply reducing the severity of an injury can be just as important as preventing one all together.
I think its best to just be informed and manage your own risk accordingly. I wear a helmet to ski at the ski resort, but not in the backcountry (unless the objective includes technical mountaineering, and then I wear a climbing helmet.)
Anything you do can causes some risk. We now know that up to 30-36% of age related dementia can be attributed to alcohol consumption, but I still drink beer.
Anyway, just a few thoughts to fuel the discussion…
Graham Kane
Critical Care Paramedic – Eagle County Ambulance
Flight Paramedic – TriState CareFlight
Former AMGA certified ski guide
Frequent slayer of powder…
The reason I ski with lead gonad shields, is because I can so why not? Wearing them is safer than not wearing them, and they really don’t weigh all that much.
http://www.pnwx.com/Accessories/LeadProducts/GonadShields/?Sr=Go&gclid=CL3Q4uKU8qcCFUUUKgodtV0qfg
Thanks Graham, I know I simplified the injuries part of my essay, but I figured doing so worked okay for the thrust of my point, which is about concussions, how serious they are, and how little snowsports helmets offer to protect us from such.
Darnit while you were posting this i was ranting for a couple of single spaced pages on the other thread…
Harry, just cut/paste your comments over to this one if you want…
The difference between a helmet and the proverbial lead gonad shield is simple – your balls heal better than your brain. As a social worker who has worked with people with traumatic brain injuries I have seen first hand how a crack to the head can take a well mannered father of two with a wife and career and reduce him to a temperamental equivalent of a 13 year old. It’s not pretty.
My helmet has saved me more than once from falling ice/rocks, tree limbs, etc. In the mountains you underestimate the ability of a falling rock or chunk of ice to kill/maim you. A falling rock can do a lot more than give you a laceration. They can easily give you a fractured skull or a concussion. The helmets on the market today are very very effective at protecting against these types of injuries. I have never been hit by falling debris in a resort (other than snow balls thrown by kids on the lift) but I have been hit by falling debris in the mountains and I think the article dismisses the severity of these injuries as though they are nothing more than a little pain and blood.
Mountains like to throw rocks down on people. My retired helmet collection is proof of that. I’ve also torn the hell out of two helmets in bad falls. Did I avoid a concussion because I was wearing a helmet or because I got lucky. I’ll never know but I do know that in each of these examples the helmet was broken and I wasn’t. Well, my head wasn’t. The falling rock bounced off my head and hit my shoulder and that hurt like hell.
My current helmet is a long long way from perfect. But, the weight is genuinely inconsequential (unlike lead gonad shields) and I am more than confident that it provides more protection than the fleece cap I could wear.
One final thought. As a bald guy, I rather appreciate their warmth.
I like seeing the motorcycle helmet comparison, since motorcycle helmets have similar issues. Both are engineered to protect you in a way that is, ah, not necessarily helpful.
A few years back, motorcyclist wrote a long and detailed article about motorcycle helmets and testing, its not about skiing, but it has some pretty good information.
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html
Re” Diffuse Axonal Injuries, intraparenchymal bleeding, epidural, subdural and subarrachnoid bleeding”
I thought the mechanism of injury for those bleeds was brain deceleration? So they are exactly the sort of worrying injury that Lou is referring to?
Where does all this leave bicycle and rando racing style helmets? They are very light, and they certainly look like they would deform in a way that would reduce the speed of deceleration in a fall.
Andy! Far from it, I state in the article that I’m not talking about protection from falling objects… that’s a whole other subject and I’d tend to agree that the correct type of helmet (good shell without a bunch of holes) does provide quite a bit of protection from smaller objects (though helmets have their limits in that kind of protection as well, read Steve House autobio for anecdotal evidence.
As for the lead shields, cancer from radiation is as serious a problem as head injury. Why are all you guys just blowing that concept off? Everyone does not end up like Lance.
uhhh… errr… debate about helmets? really? You’ve got one head. Why risk it if you don’t have to?
My POV – Enjoy the outdoors, relax, take some pictures, hike up to that saddle, find some powder, race your brother for a run, but for crissake slow down!!! If you’re repeatedly cracking your helmet, you need to reevaluate how you have fun, because skiing is awesome, but brain damage is serious s#!t. My 2.
Um, if you’ve got the time, check out this article!
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html
My problem is with your conclusion.
“Conclusion? Wear a helmet if you choose; good ones do offer a small amount of protection. But even with ASTM certified snowsport helmet protection the possibility of receiving a brain concussion is very real in even low speed accidents. As for helmet evangelism, exhorting others to take up the helmet crusade looks a bit ridiculous in light of all this.”
Concluding that the “helmet crusade” looks a little ridiculous, because helmets have some known deficiencies (which should be acknowledged and addressed) is simply not supported by the facts.
Helmets do provide significant protection from real injuries. People are going to enjoy the mountains in their own way. But making broad conclusions based on a sub-set of the discussion is a great way to rationalize a pre-existing belief. People point to the limitations of helmets (which are real) and then conclude they are useless. Seat belts aren’t perfect either, but when I drive down the highway I wear one because it is better than the alternative (not wearing one).
Hi Lou. You and Graham make some solid points here. For me the takeaway is to wear a helmet because some protection is better than no protection, but we have a long way to go before they’re a cure all.
This is off subject, but have you ever discussed avalanche transceivers causing rib fractures in this space? (A search didn’t pull anything up.) Just happened to me last week in a stupid little fall. Another four people I bumped into on the trip had done the same thing in the past.
Thoughts? Or can you point me in the right direction?
Hey Lou,
I’ve got to agree with you on the ski hard hat issue. I worked ski patrol at a big Tahoe ski resort and we had plenty of really messed up people with bad head injuries, wearing helmets at the time of their crash. I’ve always thought helmets are great at keeping the accident scene clean but don’t do a damn thing to protect people from head injuries at the speeds that average people ski. That said, the worst concussion I ever had was skate skiing. I wear a helmet while cycling and on my motorbike but never skiing.
Call me a nerd.
Jim
I guess the real problem with ski helmets is that we buy them assuming they are effective.
The information that is most beneficial, the theoretical energy transmitted to your brain in given situations, is not available for you to look at. Instead you have the assurance that the helmet passes a test that may or may not be an adequate representation of a (your) ski crash. Every helmet review I have ever read is about fit, ventilation, comfort, gadget compatibility and the like, I have never seen an impact test.
Lou……as a physician I area ski with a helmet always ……if meadow skipping or backcountry powder skiing I typically don’t…..ski mountaineering I do……..Yes you can poke some holes in some of the helmet/head injury “studies” re real world applicability to skiing, but the only neurologists and neurosurgeons I know that ski, only ski with helmets………are helmets pefect, no, but I personally and professionally think they do increase your odds of a much better “result” after a head trauma skiing……..your “conclusion: wear a helmet if you choose” justifies your position ……all the skiing neurologists and neurosurgeons I know “choose” to wear a helmet skiing…………….sincerely, Chet Roe, M.D.
The way avy transceivers are carried is frequently somewhat ridiculous. Including the way I carry mine. Seeing them strapped on the outside of people’s clothing, depending on one or two plastic buckles not to get ripped off in slide, would make me laugh if it wasn’t so tragic. Or, when I stick mine in the cigarette pocket up next to my sternum, I’m wondering about the equivalent of the legendary martial arts “death blow.” I try sticking it down on my thigh in my pants pocket, but then I’m worried about my femur and leg muscles getting abused, not to mention the beacon getting smashed on a rock. Sometimes my conclusion is that the best place for the thing is in my backpack, which is usually an Avalung rucksack I’m not planning on loosing in a slide, though I know having the beacon in your backpack is a sin. Shew.
The worst I’ve seen is someone marching up an avalanche slope holding their beacon in high in front of them like a priest holding a cross in a procession. Or am I imagining that?
Exactly. On that day, the snow was very hard (in Alaska). I considered shoving my transceiver in my pants pocket, but the thought of the pain I’d suffer in an easy fall made me strap it on traditionally. After I broke my ribs, someone mentioned throwing it in the avalung pack in the future. He whispered that it was a sin, too. Worth considering. Thanks Lou.
Hi Lou,
Longtime follower, firsttime poster.
I, like a previous poster, disagree with your conclusions. I’m a primary care and sports med physician in Mammoth, and doc for US Snowboarding. I see roughly 2000 ski/snowboard injuries per year. The bottom line is that helmets protect from injury, both minor and serious, in a variety of scenarios. The evidence is compelling enough that helmet use for snow sports (like bicycles) will likely become mandatory here in California for those under 18. That is why they are mandatory for FIS events. Work is ongoing on improving the kinetic absorption of current helmet models, but to say that they are imperfect and thus should not be used is unwise, particularly with modern helmets that are lighter, and more effective with less acoustic dampening. As with anything, it is a weighing of risk and in the backcountry risk of collision is less, although logistics of evacuation and assistance are more complex. Certainly in resort boundries, ski helmets are effective, and soon mandatory for youths here locally. For the terrain park afficionado subgroup it is critical to wear a properly fitting, lightweight helmet without a fixed protruding brim (i.e. Bern helmets that predispose to neck injuries) and with strap appropriately adjusted so that helmet covers forehead and occiput.
Consider the possibility that the opinions of those that dedicate their lives to the subject may produce different conclusions than your own cursory research, and may be more valid.
Thanks and keep up the good work!
Pete Clark M.D.
2 words: Safety Bar. If you ride the lifts, and end up riding with people you don’t know, at some point at least 1 of them will lower the safety bar without warning. If you have your helmet on, you’ll be oh-so-glad you did
About the methodology of the test as quoted above:
They say that it simulates a snowboarder catching an edge at 30kph. Does that mean that they were simulated the deltaV of the head as 30kph?
This is important because if you fall while skiing at 30kph, then hit your head, the event probably didn’t have a deltaV of 30kph, likely the deltaV at your head was smaller and you continued to slide. Also the force vector would be dependent on the slope you impacted, just like landing on a flat vs. a slope.
A similar effect applied for hitting the wooden post. Say were skiing at 45kph you fall on your side and are extended perpendicular to the direction of travel while sliding (as opposed to boots first like trying to ride out a rapid and that gonad protector would be great, or head first, in which case you’re screwed). Your slide slows you say 15kph before your head impacts the wooden post forehead first.
Your head does not slow from 30kph to 0kph during the even period. Your neck travels backwards and your head slides past the post and your fall continues. Given the g reductions quoted in the above study, it could even make the difference between certain death w/o a helmet, and not death. At 30kph.
Lou, in regards to some comments and questions you asked in the previous post I am cutting and pasting them here.
Repetitive brain injury. If you think of how much your brain can take in a lifetime as an account, then a helmet makes each withdrawal smaller.
Also, Lou, to address your question about how I evaluate my helmet choices for effectiveness, the simple answer is that I don’t. I don’t think there is anyone who can evaluate the relative effectiveness of helmets w/o highly calibrated destruction testing, as even multiple impact helmets are single use.
I am currently wearing a smith vantage brim. I selected it because it is comfortable, light, and well vented, therefor I will really wear it, as opposed to own it and leave it behind because it is annoying to have on my head. I know it is not as effective as my POC Skull X I wear for races or cold days at the resort. Leaving aside POC’s claims to improved saftey, right off the bat its obvious that the POC covers more of my head, and fits more closely to my skull, decreasing contra-coup or secondary impact forces. My Smith is a medium, but i have it “adjusted” fairly small to fit my head. That adjustment just means it doesn’t fit right and won’t provide the best protection that helmet can even give me in the event of a backwards fall. The same is true of universal fit bike helmets.
But the POC is hot and tight and less comfortable and if that was my only option when I was having a mellow day, I just wouldn’t wear it. In that sense the Smith is much safer.
“male anthropometric device” . . . “gonad shields” – I thought this was a family-oriented website?
“The difference between a helmet and the proverbial lead gonad shield is simple – your balls heal better than your brain.”
- So a certain ski partner of mine, many years ago (before *anyone* wore ski helmets outside of true DH speed events), was skiing down a relatively mellow groomer, took a really freak fall at low speed, and somehow ended up with a concussion, complete with vomiting at night, etc. But he was fine the next morning and sustained no permanent brain damage. (Well, as far as we could tell!)
- Then a decade or so later, at a backcountry trailhead, the decision was made to skip the boot crampons. The skinning got steeper and slicker, so he decided to take out his ski crampons. But uh oh, the ski crampons were back at the car in his boot crampon pouch! He continued on, but lost grip, slipped, and started falling, feet first, on his stomach, legs spread, heading toward a rock of the “perfect” size. The subsequent hospital visit was not pleasant. But his wife is expecting now, so he healed!
Pete and all, many many thanks for your comments!
Jonathan, ha! But seriously, if you were working on those reactors in Japan you’d be wearing your lead, and the consequences of not doing so might not heal.
Lou I got my ski concussion from a simple almost stationary fall backwards. Wacked the back of my head on a branch. A helmet would’ve prevented THAT concussion for sure.
Well I’ll be… I believe this might very well be the first time I happen to disagree with you Lou! And I have been enjoying your blog for quite some time now.
Looking at the measurements derived from the impact onto hard snow, we find a drop in HIC value from 2,235 to 965 if wearing a helmet. For me these numbers had no meaning what so ever, so I did a little research. I found two articles which helped me understand the head injury criterion (HIC) a little better.
With a HIC value of 2,235, there is a 50% chance of death and an 80% chance to suffer at least critical head injury. If you’re feeling lucky, you have a 20% chance to get away with only moderate head injury (i.e. ‘Skull trauma with or without skull fracture and brief loss of consciousness; fracture of facial bones without dislocation; deep wound(s)’).
HIC value of 965, however, brings the risk of death to 0% and the risk of suffering a critical head injury to under 5%. [1] (Fig X.2.1)
While I agree that a helmet won’t help much if you hit your head hard enough, I still think that the simulation showed a clear advantage towards wearing a helmet. Even at a slow speed the impact can very well be life threatening if not wearing a helmet.
[1] http://www.playgroundadvisory.com/Documents/News%20and%20Articles/HIC%20&%20Severity%20and%20risk%20of%20injury.pdf
Recently I had some friends involved in an avalanche. Everything turned out okay for everyone involved. When I asked my friend who triggered the large slide if he heard his partners yelling and telling him which way to ski out he replied, “no, I couldn’t hear anything, I had my helmet on.” I asked if he thought he would have heard a whistle and he highly doubted it. Said he wasn’t going to stop skiing with the helmet, but was going to cut the ear flaps out.
I’m sure some helmets allow you to hear better than others. Since communication is such a large part of our backcountry travel, a helmet you can hear well out of might be a consideration if you are in the market.
And believe me, I’m not condoning that you should be able to hear in order to be steered out of an avalanche. Just an aspect of wearing a helmet that had not crossed my mind.
Dave, actually, I’ve had the bar hit my head several times with and without helm. Definitely a valid scenario, but probably in the “minor” injury category. Thanks!
Pete, I respect you and your credentials and experience, and thanks for posting. But I’d ask, if all those folks had better helmets, how many fewer would have you had to see in the first place? And though they survived, at least a few ended up with concussions, right? And since concussions have cumulative effect, perhaps there is more going on, in the future, than sending them home with a headache?
Also, and serious question, do you think snowsports helmets are adequate, or should they be improved?
Jeff, my son and I used to experiment with a radio earbud from our FRS radios, with a little throat mic. Actually the best solution but a bit geeky and fiddly. I’ve recently been more adamant about radio use in general. My wife and I are now nearly always using them, and I’m trying to get other companions into them now that I pretty much always have mine turned on. Channel 7 privacy code 11, by the way, if anyone sees us around Colorado or elsewhere.
I can’t believe no one has mentioned the largest downside to helmets (in my opinion). Helmet courage. What is the lesson learned for a kid that gives himself a minor concussion(often undiagnosed), but is able to ski away with no bruise or lasting pain to tell the kid that he had pushed it a little too far and should dial it back. Lasting brain damage occurs with repeated minor concussions (chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE). A condition that rose in the NFL when helmets became required. So yes, there is a downside to wearing a helmet. I ski tight New England trees daily (ski patrol) and i have never had an incident where i would have benefited from a helmet. For me, in my cost benefit analysis, they do no seem worthwhile. I also know that i have a high risk tolerance comparable to others and everyone should be free to make their own decision (ie please don’t start requiring them for resort employees).
Lou,
Undeniably snow sports helmets should be improved and there is much research ongoing as to precisely the best way to do this. Concussions (particularly amongst football atheletes) are a hot topic right now, and taken increasingly seriously by those that provide care to athletes. I don’t disagree with your premise that helmets are imperfect at protection from concussion but they are clearly better than no helmet, and useful in other trauma reduction.
Currrently all USSA athletes take a lengthy neurocognitive test called an ImPact test (impacttest.com) at the beginning of the season which is then compared to a post-injury ImPact score in the event of a definite or even suspected concussion. One common feature of elite athletes is that they are often symptom minimizers and this provides an objective yardstick to measure return of function. We have a graded return to snow protocol that much thought has been put into. Although hold outs remain, It is becoming increasingly rare and “old-school” for concussions to be minimized as “a headache” amongst coaches, trainers, physicians and event organizers. This mindfullness needs to trickle down to the general sporting population and awareness is rising.
Thanks for breaching the topic.
Oh, P.S. To comment on Chris’s previous post, I suspect that soon the day will come that they are mandatory for resort employees while sliding on snow, because while your acceptance of risk may be different, from a workman’s compensation insurance perspective the tolerance of risk is much lower.
Great Pete, thanks!
Chris, in the old days when you got a minor concussion without a helmet it frequently included a severe scalp bleed and was scary. Taught you a lesson. Now you might feel weird for a few days but no overt gross stuff going on. That’s my point. You don’t get the cut scalp but your brain still whangs against the inside or your skull.
MM, yes, of course!
BTW all, in thinking back on my life of kinetic sports, the most severe injury I got while mountain biking, and one that still affects me with chronic pain, was a neck injury from being cloths lined at slow speed under a fallen tree. The helmet made no difference, and I almost broke my neck. A neck brace would have helped as I’d rather have been immediately knocked off the bike than undergo the slow backwards lever that must have been what it’s like to be on a malfunctioning gallows. There you go, some anecdotal evidence.
The helmet courage thing has been mentioned. I don’t personally buy into it. I think our sport is faster high stronger because of other equipment advanced independent of helmet adoption. There are more people pushing the outer edge of an increasingly large envelope because new equipment makes the learning curve of getting their shorter, snow therefore more people get there.
I have never felt an injury to cause me to loose confidence in the long run or make me recalculate my cost benefit analysis, probably because none of my injuries occurred while being reckless. You simply cannot anticipate every possibility in a given situation. Sometimes you are caught out even though you made reasonable decisions. It isn’t a matter of fatalism, it is just acknowledging that you don’t have control over all of the variables, or have perfect knowledge.
When people push it I don’t think anyone looks at a line and says “well, im probably going to fall and hit my head, good thing I wear a helmet!” or for that matter “the risk of a slide is high, thats a big terrain trap, but what the heck, I have a beacon, my buddies will dig me out”
They use the sum of their experience and say “I can do that” and sometimes fail. Or it happens when you are doing something you have done a thousand times in seemingly identical circumstances but for one unseen variable that causes a different outcome. Like the lotto, hey you never know.
Hmmm… not sure what the fuss is really. Having a helmet is better than not having one, whatever the stats or the debate is.
Clearly, lugging/wearing a helmet is more of a hassle than not lugging/wearing a helmet. But that does not change the empirical conclusion that it is safer to wear one than not to wear one.
I personally do not wear one, but it would be naive of me to believe that it is because there is no safety difference. I just try to be more careful, that is all.
My opinion is that helmet courage is axiomatic. At a certain point of having safety gear in place, a human will ramp up what they are doing that that safety gear is intended to help with. This effect might not be remarkable or obvious, but in my opinion it totally exists and if all of you are going to use anecdotal evidence to prove helmets are great, I’ll use anecdotal evidence to show that safety frequently contributes to the risk level people take. One obvious example is avalanche danger. You have to have been around before beacons to see the difference, but believe me because I was, beacons obviously influenced the level of avalanche danger skiers are willing to accept. It’s as obvious as a face shot or the rising sun. Ironic part of that is of course that beacons are unreliable in terms of saving lives. But the perception vs. reality is quite different.
I am looking for a place to train this weekend for an AT race, can someone suggest a place within 2 hours of Boston
Wachusett is friendly toward skinning during nonoperational hours, but unfortunately they open at 8:00 in the morning, and sometimes even more like 7:50. This is their last weekend though.
Berkshire East is now closed for the season, and I’ve never had any post-season skinning problems there.
Lou, I think your opinion is in the majority and mine cuts across the grain. It is even more difficult to develop a test to determine than helmet effectiveness. I have no more proof than my own way of thinking, and cannot know the mind of others.
How about an injury story post when things get slow in the off season? Set it up like the scar scene from Jaws. We can all hum the tune of “Spanish Ladies” while we reply.
Is it true that chicks dig scars? Is that why I’ve been married for a quarter century?
We hear stuff like this from old crusty dudes riding steel bikes with Campy Chorus 9-speed in the cycling world all the time…”oh helmets, they are too hot, don’t fit my head, and won’t save your life in a crash”.
I can’t comment on the difference in standards for snow helmets vs. cycling helmets, but the bottom line is that when they are a part of your daily routine, they take nothing away from your experience. I don’t see any reason not to use a helmet, regardless of what the study shows.
In this case, I’m positive that you crusty old guys with 3-buckle boots and dynafits mounted on sub-95 waisted skis are going start chiming in and say all the same things that the crusty Campy Chorus 9-speed guys in cycling do!
Bryan, second time the age accusation has come up. Hmmm, I’d better shave my beard!
Sorry…I had to. Don’t forget about Just for Men’s mustache and beard coloring!
Ah, now that is a good tip!
Hey all, BTW, what do you think of Lindsey and her helmet?
All roses in article linked below , but now, not exactly the best PR for Briko. Are do people just not get it?
http://www.skiracing.com/?q=node/8902
I don’t wear a helmet (see above post) and while I am telemark I hope I am not considered old at 33 and have not skied anything under 95 (BD Kilos) all winter. But other than that your post was still pretty lame bryan
Stay above tree line and you won’t hit any trees. Problem solved.
rocks are way more of an issue for me than are trees.
“Tell me how you are going to crash and I will build a helmet that will protect your head.”
http://motocrossactionmag.com/Main/News/1584.aspx
not sure about the accuracy of all the content (seems to be some opinion mixed in) but it raises some interesting points about the different types of crashes and different impact forces. This is motocross specific but speed, big airs and big impacts seem like they could be similar for some skiers.
I think a simple, light, cheap, comfortable helmet is a valuable piece of gear to use for many types of skiing, even if it depends primarily on 1″ of eps foam for protection. I use mine most (but not all) the time I’m skiing.
If some one comes up with a better helmet that does not give up too much in cost or usability to achieve better protection, I’ll use it. My suggestion for a possible minor improvement would be a carbon/Kevlar shell in place of the ubiquitous microshell. I made such a helmet 20 years ago from one of the old bike helmets that had a fabric cover over the foam. It was light and I’m glad to say I never got to give it a real test.
But I really think the population of users that needs a lot more protection than current helmets provide is primarily younger shredders who have the sense of indestructibility that comes with youth, and may be influenced in a not entirely healthy way by all the extreme imagery that is a part of modern life. Not helmet courage, but what used to be called Kodachrome courage, and now might best be referred to as GoPro or YouTube courage.
So, I repeat, do we perhaps have less a helmet problem, and more a culture problem?
Main concept I got from a ton of reading is that a “soft” helmet is what’s going to save your brain in the majority of incidents, and helmets would work better if they were somewhat softer. If Lindsey Vonn had been using a softer helmet, perhaps she would be sitting at home looking at a crystal globe.
See, the cultural problem you referred to did not exist before helmets. We could have a little chicken or the egg argument here but I’m pretty sure Jamie Pierre would not be hucking 250 foot cliffs if he didn’t have a helmet on. Not that the helmet is going help him if he bounces his head off anything hard.
Hi Lou, If you separated skiing head injuries from snowboarding head injuries and
just looked at the skiing part, would the statistics be as compelling for helmet use? I see snowboarders falling and really smacking their heads against the snow all the time.
Dave, interesting point…
I don’t think a single layer of hybrid (carbon and Kevlar) cloth would make the helmet a lot harder, but it would protect the foam during handling and keep the helmet in one piece in a multiple impact scenario, without making it a lot heavier.
If softer is better, we need reformulated foam.
Thanks,
See
I wear one, but I am with you on the level of protection they provide. I witnessed a slow fall on soft snow with a good incline young lady was wearing a helmet and still the result was a concussions. What about whiplash? We need better options.
The negative responses you have gotten are not surprising. Why is questioning the effectiveness of them a reason to assume the queries are made by people who careless about safety instead of more?
Sunny, I know, some of the reaction is puzzling. But most of the folks commenting here make good points.
Risk management is an important part of backcountry skiing. If you have a party of 5 skiers, and, expose only 1 at a time to avalanche hazards; you have reduced your risk by 80%. So how much risk reduction is afforded by a helmet? Skiing is statistically a relatively safe sport, and, head injuries are a minor category. I agree that head injuries can be serious, but I do not ski in terrain parks or ski at resorts very often. The risks of a serious head injury while backcountry skiing are fairly low, so I think that it is a reasonable decision to ski without a helmet. I wear a helmet while mountain biking, but I doubt it offers much protection against the more serious inherent risks versus backcountry skiing.
Another puzzling thing: Snowsports helmets, their quality and use, is an ongoing issue. But google Lindsey Vonn and Briko helmets, and nada. I can’t find any discussion, editorial, or anything about her helmet and concussion. Really weird. Of course helmet evangelists are going to chime in and say “without a helmet she would have been worse.” Probably true, but even with the helmet she lost first in the Wold Cup and got a concussion that obviously contributed greatly to her not getting first. What actually happened and what might have been are two different things. My point is, look what happened (a serious injury), and could it have been prevented?
Lou,
After you intro I was prepared for some surprising data that substantiates that helmets didn’t help much, but this…
“When the impact was onto simulated hard, icy snow, the helmet reduced the average measured g-load from 329 to 162, and the HIC value from 2,235 to 965. When the impact was against the fixed object, the helmet reduced the values from 696 to 333, and the HIC from 12,185 to 3,299.”
Wow – you just made the case for wearing helmets!
For my part, I don’t wear a helmet all the time, but I’m wearing it alot more often than I used to. I wear it 100% at the resort and about 75% in the BC.
From all the discussion, the biggest argument against advocating helmet use seems to be overconfidence when using them will lead users to take bigger risks. This may be true in many situations, but I would guess this is the exception rather than the rule. It seems to me that in general risk takers take risks and cautious people avoid them. I would think that most helmet users fall into the latter category.
The statistics from the study seem to present a pretty convincing argument that significant injury and even death can be avoided by wearing a helmet in MANY situations. Of course, not all, but it’s not fair to characterize the benefits using the most extreme scenarios.
Certainly, we all want helmet technology to get better, but if companies are going to work toward that goal they need to have people buying their product and asking for safer helmets.
I think the more dangerous attitude to have toward helmets is “they really don’t do anything so why should I wear one?” I realize you’re not actually saying this, Lou, but those who are on the fence looking to rationalize not wearing one will run with it.
The kinetic energy of a moving object increases as the square of its velocity. The momentum of a moving object is proportional to its velocity.
If a braking force is applied to the object (brains, cars, trains), the stopping distance is proportional to the kinetic energy – it increases as the square of the initial velocity.
If an object is required to stop in the same distance (say, the helmet thickness cannot be increased), the force involved must increase as the square of the initial velocity.
What must equal the increased kinetic energy in this situation is the product of force _times_ distance. With a thicker helmet, you can use a softer foam. With a less durable helmet (as is done with bike helmets), you can use a foam that irreversibly compresses/breaks to help spread out the impact over the longest possible distance/time.
Would people use a ski helmet that had the durability and thickness of a bike/motorcycle helmet?
Paul above has the right idea – helmets aren’t perfect, but they definitely take the sharp edge off any collision. Concussions are harder to prevent than catastrophic skull fractures. No helmet will protect you as well as avoiding the collision entirely.
Lou, I look forward to your post on seat belts.
But seriously, I’m not touching this one. Anyway, I wear a helmet to stay warm.
Interesting discussion. I fall into the ‘helmets are good’ group. I grew up wearing a toque and goggles. I have had a few bad falls that did not involve whacking my noggin. I started wearing a helmet after they came into vogue and have never looked back. I also bring it on ski tours when there is chance of rockfall, lots of tree skiing, or a wet-and-refrozen snowpack with lots of tree-bombs. What the heck, a tree bomb ladden with ice can really hurt!
I think that it might be quite more useful for back country skiing than some admit as even avalanche survivors have said that the head trauma they would have received on the way down through rock and/or trees would have killed them without a helmet.
A few years ago I had the honor of being a chaufer (taxi) for a guy that had a brain injury that he sustained after a few beers with friends and some local night-skiing. His injury was caused when he fell backwards and whacked his skull on an icy patch. He has been in a ‘care’ facility for people with brain damage ever since. He is able to care for himself with the guidance of others but remains quite impaired and will never live on his own again.
I’m not going to wear a helmet as I tour up that mellow logging road or make a traverse through trees. When the going gets more exciting, I’ll probably don the helmet and still enjoy the ride.
I really want to keep a light tone here…….but I hope the overwhelming benefits of wearing helmets are as clear as the overwhelming evidence of human induced climate change. Thanks to those with quality info that shared! Use your protected brain!!! Only question is…..tin foil or POC??
I hope helmet manufacturers are reading this and come up with improvements. So long as they don’t then make them prohibitively expensive.
From personal experience, on ice they do bugger all.
However I wear a helmet nearly all the time. I find it more convenient than a hat. I can take the ear pieces off in the same time it takes for a hat. I can wear my goggles on top all the time and not get hot. The only time it gets too hot is boot packing later in the season. It’s pretty light. I’ve never had a problem hearing anything with it on. It’s got flowers on it and chicks dig that.
Anyway, I wouldn’t get too wound up with all this, you’ve got more chance of dying of heart attack and back country skiing is a good way to prevent that – with or without a helmet.
I have survived a 15 meters free fall, falling on my back (protected by stuffed backpack) and a head (in a climbing helmet). Helmet had several deep bruises after that, but my head none, neither I had not concussion. I expect that the speed at the end of this free fall was around 40-50 km/h (air resistance, height error), thus 25-30 m/h. But collision was not a central one, and I continued falling.
I am a theoretical physicist (still can do the job after this :-/ ) and know that simple toy models are not alway valid ones. If you want a helmet to protect your head hitting centrally a fence, at the speed of 30 mph, you certainly do not have one. But there are many other possible situations when the existing ones are good enough.
For skimo I wear the same model of climbing helmet. I do not ski fast in a difficult terrain, but sometimes we do not have much snow and there are rocks just under the surface. Or icy conditions, really not much powder. For resort skiing I wear a fancy full head helmet, people are crazy there, and I achieve higher speeds. For cycling… err not always, although I had two unpleasant accidents. Nor for rock climbing, but for mountaineering yes.
Greetings from the other side of the ocean, from the old reader.
Hi Lou,
I’m a big fan and respect your opinions on everything, even these “helmetic” -thoughts.
Still, coming from a country, where most skiers and boarders use helmets I do not really see any reasons stated here why not to wear a helmet?
Are they too heavy compared to a beanie?
Are they too hot?
Well, as I carry a lot of “heavy” safety stuff in my backpack or strapped around torso, a helmet goes along well in my sack and of course I only wear it when going down…
Hm, NOT wearing a helmet cannot harm anybody else, so in my opinion every one should be free to choose – helmet or not.
Greetings from Finland!
PS
In Italy it seems odd if you do not ski bareheaded;)
Ok, I’ll hit seat belts. Ralph Nader spoke up years ago and said the public was being sold a bill of goods by the car makers, and the cars should be safer. The cars got safer. But still, around 30,000 folks die every year in car crashes, and car accidents are the leading cause of death for children and teenagers.
If I was an old phlegmatic reactionary (look up both words) I’d say cars are good enough and people should drive safer. Instead, I take a progressive view and I say cars should be safer AND people should drive safer as well.
Reactionaries say ski helmets are effective and provide adequate protection. Meanwhile, people skiing with helmets are getting concussed as well as dying from head injuries, and simple medical facts (G forces causing concussion) along with physics shows helmets provide minimal protection, especially from cumulative injury. So I say snowsports helmets are not good enough and should be improved.
So who are the old fuddy duddies around here? Those of us looking at the whole picture and calling BS on ski helmets? Or those of us who faithfully strap a ski helmet on without thinking that just, perhaps, it’s really not going to do much more to protect our head than a thick cardboard hat?
There you go, that’s my old fuddy duddy take on seat belts (grin).
Talking about soft helmets – I used to have one of them…a specialist SL-race helmet with a built in communiction radio. Was really nice for low impact blows.
Hey Lou,
I know the numbers and physics calcs can be interesting, but the best evidence for helmet usage is obtained from real-world data. Helmet usage (lift-served skiing/boarding) probably reduces the risk for head injury by about 35-40%[1] (compared to roughly 70% reduction for wearing a helmet cycling or riding a motorcycle [2,3]). So yeah, ripping down a glassy black diamond sans helmet probably isn’t, in relative terms, quite as risky as riding a Ninja down I-80 without a lid, but another way to look at it is that wearing a ski helmet provides over half of the “safety effect” that riding a motorcycle with a helmet does. As far as the backcountry goes, the data isn’t that great, but lapping a tree run just might be the best time to throw the helmet on the pack.
Sure, improvements can and should be made to skiing helmets, and the more that they are used, the more innovations in design that will come, but it seems to me that the risk:benefit ratio for helmet usage is ever tipping towards benefit –
RISK (weight,bulk,cost): BENEFIT (small but real safety effect)
This is america so no laws please…. live free (and informed) or die!
Great site and I appreciate the discussion!……..Larry
1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20123800
2.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10796827?log$=activity
3.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18254047
I can’t believe none of you have taken the bait on Lindsey Vonn. I mean, really, if you were her, wouldn’t you be thinking that maybe, just maybe, if my helmet had been better I wouldn’t have gotten a concussion and would have won the World Cup title?
More, if Vonn has had more than one concussion during her athletic career, she’s starting to look at the possibility of cumulative effects. If you were her, and that was the case, woudn’t you be thinking, perhaps, maybe, my helmet isn’t good enough?
Again, after googling, I’m having a hard time believing that there isn’t more internet discussion about her Briko helmet. Shoot, if she’d pre-released and subsequently been injured, would people be talking about what bindings she was using? You bet they would.
Strange.
I don’t get the point of the article. It seems to be saying that because helmets won’t necessarily protect you from concussions then you could feel better about choosing not to wear a helmet.
It’s like saying that a flak jacket won’t necessarily protect you from dying of a gunshot wound if you get shot in the neck while you’re out on a military mission.
Let’s consent (logically) to that (even though it could be debated)
Now that we got that out of the way, why not just agree that for the remainder of injuries, cuts and the rest of nasty happenings you do not want to be treating while 2 hours (or more) away from civilization – it makes sense to wear a helmet!
P.S. On a lighter note they are superior for holding goggles.
and you won’t have to deal with fashion decisions on which cool hat will decorate your mellon today. 
Since you are probably 10 times more likely to be involved and injured in an auto accident, assuming you drive to and from your snow play, why not wear a helmet while driving? Think of all the lives it would save and injuries it would minimize. Those of you preaching helmet use should be wearing it while behind the wheel and/or especially while your really tired buddy is driving and trying not to fall asleep…
And going off on a safety tangent… I literally just watched the blurb on the Today show about the snowboarder that got trapped in a tree well at Shasta. Gawd, it’s dangerous out there. Better just stay at home…
Gentle, my point is wear a snowsports helmet if you want, but don’t be deluded into thinking it offers much in the way of protection for serious injury. Folks beg to differ (grin).
Also, all this will hopefully engender thought and discussion about safety gear in general, and how much safety gear we carry, wear, whatever. For example, wear that helmet in the backcountry but do you carry a bivvy sack? Sled making equipment? Communications gear? Avalung? Airbag backpack? Neck brace? Knee pads? Release bindings? And so on…
Barry, I’ve brought that point up before and thanks for bringing it up again. Indeed, if you choose to wear a helmet while skiing, why don’t you wear one while driving? It would be interesting if some of you could share your decision making process on this. You think you’re safer on the highway than while up there skiing? I doubt that’s the case…
I would wear a helmet in a car if it was a Land Rover with the front windshield folded down and if I was driving the LR through a bush or woods. The helmet would protect me from injury (hitting objects on the way).
In a car, however, you’re already protected and in case of a crash a helmet would not protect you from getting a concussion. I think that is why we have airbags in the car.
What I have found a helmet good for:
Snowboarder falling on my head falling down steep chute. Helmet dented.
Tree limb to forehead. Helmet dented.
The helmet argument comes down to, many times, arguing what didn’t happen. Would I have been seriously injured when the snowboarder landed on my head if I wasn’t wearing a helmet? I believe so.
But I’ll never really know – I just have to make an assumption from the dented helmet.
I don’t wear a helmet thinking it makes me invincible. Just some added protection for the skull.
OK Lou, I see your point.
Now apply the same logic to the new avy airbag offerings.
They may keep you on top of the sliding mass, but they are not going to help when your body is rammed into a tree or boulder.
I may be wrong, but I think the main point that Lou is trying to make is that helmets could/should be better, more so than that helmets are worthless in general. If that’s the case, I wholeheartedly agree.
The problem is that helmet manufacturers are making what the public wants. And the public wants helmets that are light, and look cool, and vent well. Any ski shop folks want to comment- Has anyone ever asked “Is helmet A safer than helmet B?”. I doubt it. I bet they’re more likely to say, “ooh, this one with the visor looks cool.”
Honestly, there isn’t a doubt in my mind that my 10 year old Leedom helmet would take a crash 100x better than my brand new Giro, but I never could hear anything out of that Leedom, and it was hot, and it looked like an extra from Spaceballs- The Movie, and it was heavy which made it hard to ever take in the bc. That’s just the way the market has gone, for the most part. I don’t plan on testing my Giro, but it’s still better than a hat.
30KPH fall on the head is an impact that most systems will not handle.
Motorcycle helmets are designed for impacts between 14 and 25 KPH.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle_helmet#Standards_testing
OK, so let’s say the industry takes Lou’s argument to heart– what would the optimall helmet look like, and would not most of the same criticisms still apply? As has been previously stated, the problem is physics– nothing that would be practical to actually ski with, I believe, will provide more than incrementally better protection.
That said, by all means, let’s consider better shells (single layer of carbon/Kevlar would also provide better penetration protection, at less weight than abs), more effective impact attenuating materials, fit systems, retention systems, etc.. I suspect there’s less room for improvement than has been implied, but I would welcome whatever improvements anyone can devise.
So I’ve made a couple of suggestions, if we’re going to go anywhere with discussion, I’d like to hear some suggestions for practical design improvements.
I like wearing my helmet. It’s actually very comfortable and helps keep my head warm. In the spring it vents well and I’m so used to wearing it I don’t mind it on my head when it’s warmer.
So… it’s not perfect and if I straightline a tree it’s useless, but it does offer some protection and since it’s comfortable, I would be crazy to not do all I can to protect my head and wear it.
My beef with helmets is that there aren’t enough made that are certified for both climbing and skiing. There is only one available in the U.S. (Camp Pulse) and it doesn’t fit my head well. There is (unfortunately) a growing market for helmets for bc skiers that need protection from falling rock and ice. POC and others, where are you?
Is Andy Rooney guest blogging for Lou?!?
I read an article recently (can’t seem to find it) regarding research on the effectiveness of football helmets. Apparently the “improvement” in football helmets from leather to the helmets of today reduced significantly major head trauma (cracked skulls, for example), but the recent research basically showed that concussions and long term brain damage is on the rise.
Basically, the softer helmets of yesteryear did what has already been mentioned about soft helmets (slower deceleration thus less concussions). Also, the soft helmets being what they were, spearheading and high speed tackles where one used one’s head as the first body part of impact were few and far between when compared to today’s 25mph impacts between offense and defense.
A trade off I suppose.
Regarding the risk issue and the seatbelt comparison (which is a nice but less than perfect analogy), I do my best to drive safe, am fully aware of the danger out there, but can not always control the incompetence of others on the road, thus put my seat belt on to mitigate the inherent risks of driving. Even if I drive impeccably someone may still rear end me, and I’d rather not go flying through the windshield. That written, I know full well that wearing my sealt belt in my small Japanese economy car will not save me in a head on collision with a semi.
Same goes for ski helmets, I was already skiing at high speeds and taking certain risks when I started to wear a helmet regularly (I wear the Leedom Limit when resort skiing), but in no way, shape or form expect the helmet to miraculously save me in all situations.
Most of my backcountry skiing contains a mountaineering element, so I often wear my Petzl Meteor on the way up and down for reasons already mentioned when in a mountaineering situation.
Lou,
At the risk of being completely ridiculed by everyone here, on stormy holiday weekends when I know those who don’t know how to drive in snow will be out in force (and in their SUVs)i I have indeed worn my Leedom helmet while driving …
There will be times when you will avoid injury because you had a helmet on your melon…and there will be times when it will not help at all.
That’s the risk of sliding on snow or ice at high speeds with rocks, people and unknown conditions all converging in the same area.
There was also a study recently out that said the higher the level of skier, the more likely the use of a helmet. Personally, I think wearing a helmet is a good idea. My kids will always wear helmets, as will I.
I love to ride with a helmet. It’s not only a comfortable safety blanket, but also a concert on my head when I’m at the noisy resort. Just plug the headphones in and disappear into your own world.
I have had some concussions with it on, but I’m glad I had it on… it might have saved me from cracked skull or worse yet, a bald spot! After all, I’m all about what I look like out there anyways.
HEY Glenn Beck!
Give us back Lou!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HEY Lou!
Stop acting like Glenn Beck!!!!!!!
Lou, you are a role model of this community. Claiming yourself as a progressive and labeling those who disagree as reactionaries is conservative and antiquated. I find it sad to see that even in light of overwhelming evidence and the inability to apply your logic to other sports with helmets and other safety devices that you refuse to listen and apply your gray matter…..kinda like those who think fossils are only 6K years old and died in a flood. Lou, you are a role model of this community. Whether or not you’ll eventually concede the importance of helmets, we, as your peers, expect you to challenge your views as well. I would hope that if you cited other sports and data that eschewed helmets and came the conclusion that they provide no protection that we would listen to you and change our stance. I find your recent Beckish stance deeply disturbing.
Sorry to disturb you Tka! Perhaps you’ll get over it when you see me skiing while wearing a helmet, which does happen (grin). As for my views being challenged, it happened. I used to think ski helmets were MUCH better, read up on the subject, and my opinion changed! Go figure.
Frank K. gets it, sorry if I wasn’t more clear.
A poster mentioned previously “I guess the real problem with ski helmets is that we buy them assuming they are effective.” So true, but then again, perhaps so false. Do you not truly believe most skiers/riders purchase and wear helmets these days, not so much for their protective capacities or for any helmet evangelist zeal, but for simply due to their popularity? Are helmets not just like other snowsport garments; part of the “uniform”?
PS I actually ski in the resort with a helmet and enjoy its many qualities.
Lou, you are not my role model. And Glen dont surf…
Helmets could be more functional and thus safer! Pretty simple to boil it down to that. A good deal else that is being said about helmets has a lot to do with nebulous personal feelings and perceived protection value, but not too much else. But hey, if we just cut to the chase, this discussion would be bland, boring, and all too brief.
Lou and faithful,
It’s good to wear a helmut when you beat your head against the wall w/ max G after reading the helmet helpnet.
Lou, enuf technobabble rabble rousing. How about a pretty face (and/or figure) in some sick pow? Lange girl, powder wench, corn glissing middle age sweethang, cliff hucking femme fatale … Whatever, man, just gimme some STOKE!
I have been skiing for 30 years now and 20 odd without a helmut and lived. Lou, I get what you are on about. I won’t ski without one now and the following may convince others.
A few years ago my buddies and I were skiing in a remote part of the world and came across a party that had been hit by an avalanche, 2 dead and 8 severely injured. All impact related injuries. The last guy I dug out was under the snow for 90 minutes. Shallow burial, on his side face down and no transceiver.
He was wearing a helmut which had a 2″ dent right between the eyes on the front edge and was sporting a broken nose. Remember 90 minutes under and he lived. His helmut saved him twice, once from impact and the second time through the creation of an air pocket. He was face down, nose bleeding and his helmut had moved forward on his head all combining to create a big enough air pocket for him to survive a 90 minute burial.
That was proof enough for me to justify my decision to wear a helmut. They are also very handy for headbutting small branches out of the way while in the trees.
Rgds
David
Bicycle racers used to have soft leather “helmets” – were these more effektive than todays?
I used to have a soft rubber helmet, with integrated communication, that I used for SL-racing. I liked it a lot, and it was more effektive than the hardshell helmets for its use (softening low impact hits by poles). For GS, Super-G and downhill, we used the hard shell helmets….
I allways wear a helmet btw. A cracked carbon fiber helmet after hitting a rock after a relatively gentle fall is enough to convince me.
e., which helmet it was that had bruises?
combiner, Petzl Elios. It had bruises but did not broke. The first impact was taken by the body, the second one by the back of the head and helmet, thus it had already reduced speed.
This reminds me of to-wear or not-to-wear helmet threads in windsurfing forums, back when water sports helmets started to penetrate that market in the mid ’80s. Definitely lots of emotion and strong opinions. Sorry to make this thread any longer. The horse is dead… -B
Another reason to wear a helmet…you never know!
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/bestoftv/2011/03/29/exp.nr.buried.alive.cnn?hpt=T2
See, your comment about what an improved helmet would look like ended up in moderation lineup for some unknown reason. Sorry about that.
But it’s a very good and constructive comment and fun to address in a positive way. Below is some back story, and my take on improvements.
First, my understanding is when the industry uses the term “soft” helmet, this refers as much to a helmet with very low impact G-force as it does to the shell. In other words, as a term of art, “soft” doesn’t necessarily mean a foam hat, but rather a very energy absorptive helmet.
Second, it is very difficult for the general consumer public to get the fact that a harder helmet shell can actually be detrimental to helmet safety, as it bounces rather than absorbing shock, and also doesn’t contribute to absorbing energy and thus lowering G-force.
Third, at this time there is no known way to reduce G-force on a stopping/moving object other than giving that object more distance to stop.
Fourth, the huge misconception with helmets is that by simply providing a shell over your skull (like a knee pad), they provide important protection. Some sort of shell is no doubt good to have if your head hits something, but the more important function of a helmet, as opposed to a knee pad, is to give your head more time to stop moving when it hits something. The science/physics behind this are explained above.
Fifth, it is axiomatic and shown by studies that in accidents that involve huge impacts, additional trauma to other parts of the body are as likely to cause death as the head injury. Thus, helmets don’t need to provide “ultimate” protection, they just need to provide a modicum. Current snowsports helmets approach that, but in my view (and other’s) need to provide some additional reduction in G-forces so even minor concussions are less likely. In other words, what we’re looking for is a helmet that would have perhaps prevented Vonn’s concussion.
So, what’s that helmet look like? I’ll take a stab at it, but I make no claim to be any more of a helmet designer than the next guy! Forewith, the WildSnow approved snowsports helmet:
- Would have a softer shell with virtually zero rebound, and with shock absorptive nature. As POC does, shell penetration resistance would be provided by a membrane, rather than depending on rigid shell.
- Would simply be thicker, with a liner that readily collapsed at the concussion G-force threshold (softer). From what I’ve gleaned from study, the WildSnow certified helm doesn’t need to be that much thicker than current models to be quite a bit more effective. But the helmet would indeed look thicker and not as sleek.
- Any brim or protuberance would be easily removable and designed for “break-away” so they wouldn’t catch on the snow and cause neck injury.
- Helmet would cover back of head and possible be much lower over ears and temples. A full face model would be available with carefully designed jaw guard that was not prone to catching on snow causing neck injury.
- Fit system and chin strap would be designed for 100% confidence in keeping the helmet in position on head.
- All vent holes would be covered with mesh to prevent penetration, and vent holes would be minimal. All vent holes would have a user operable covering system, such as the sliding/shutter systems currently in some helmets.
- Interior venting and cooling would be a priority and cutting-edge designed so the helmet could be worn on the climb as well as the descent.
Mainly, it has to be thicker and softer, but not so much so as to be ridiculous.
My younger touring partners all wear helmets, my older ones don’t. Same when skiing at the resort. Tried one last year and hated it. (Smith Variant). I will wear one when road biking in the hills because of possible tire flats during descents. Otherwise I hate it particularly because of wind noise through the vents that don’t allow me to hear oncoming cars as well which is my biggest concern. Mountain biking always. Bottom line is that I’m not expecting these helmets to do much other than to protect my fabuous good looks.
But my kid has to wear his even though I have no faith in it either. Chalk one up for the better than nothing camp.
Just to stir the pot; why do so many of you say you don’t believe in it but you make your kids wear it?
Slave, I’d tend to ask the same question, but I saw somewhere in a study that kids are more likely to get head injuries?
On a side note, men and women in their prime are actually more resistant to brain concussion. You get more prone as you get older. Thus, as you get older you have more and more reason to wear an _effective_ helmet while skiing and in the icy parking lot. Here in the Aspens I see quite a few oldsters in helmets. It looks kind of funny as they’re usually skiing quite conservatively and when the helmet is combined with a down filled one-piece you don’t exactly have photogenics (grin), but provided the helmet will actually work (*?) their wearing one makes sense.
Some of most dangerous skiers are those who roam through skiers in the field (or airports) with their helmets swinging loosely off their packs by the chin straps.
FWIW I pretty much require all my clients to wear helmets. Helmets can simply make the difference between a bump on the head and brain surgery. It is not bomb proof, but its better than nothing considering the sport. Of course the best way to protect a head injury or any injury in the BC is to ski in control. And in the BC you really need all the protection you can carry safely, considering weight of course.
I started wearing a helmet 10 years ago after 25 years of never wearing one. Wisdom with age?
Sooner or later if you ski lots you are going to hit your head on something. With that said its a matter of personal choice and I try not to be “nasal” about it.
@Slave. Ironic isn’t it? I wish I could give you some fantastic answer but I can’t. Actually, I can – his mother! The kid wears one because I don’t want to go down the “what if” road – despite my concerns regarding how truly safe they are. Funny though, I can’t recall anyone growing up, despite all the crap we did, suffering a brain injury.
We do have a few individuals/ groups here in Canada that are pushing hard for mandatory laws for ski helmets. Bike helmets already are.
It’s just one more example of personal choice/ freedoms being nibbled away at that pisses me off more than anything.
MC sneaks in a little matrimonial advice/insight! Amazing where helmet blogging can go!
Well thankfully this guy was rocking a helmet the other day! http://vimeo.com/21629619
Speaking as a Ph.D physicist, I kind of doubt maximum acceleration of the entire head is the determining factor in brain injury or not. ‘Concussion’ prevention maybe not, but in terms dying from an traumatic impact and resultant subdural hemotoma in the backcountry, it will make a huge difference.
If you take a point impact (i.e. a rock), the shock wave is going to propagate out from that point, with the most damage being at the point of impact and then the energy is going to radiate out from that point, with a fair amount of energy being reflected back and forth at interface layers (helmet shell to lining to skull to meninges to white and grey matter). So more interface layers is good, and more thickness until you get to the blood vessels in your brain is good.
In materials science you separate the waves into elastic (no permanent deformation), plastic (permanent deformation), and shock waves (lots o’ damage). A helmet will spread out the the impact onto the skull, which in turn spreads out the impact onto the brain. Preventing the skull from actually fracturing is likely very important as when it fails…
After all, a charlie horse doesn’t normally cover your entire leg, similarly a brain bruise isn’t the entire brain being damaged but just a small part. Small brain damage is still brain damage and could be highly debilitating. Spreading out the impact should still help reduce brain injury a lot, by decreases the amount of tissue that undergoes plastic and shock deformation-level forces. Concussions are another issue, but they probably won’t kill you, so I think you are overemphasizing them in the post.
That said, the selection of backcountry specific helmets kind of sucks. I use a Sweet Protection carbon fibre kayaking helmet for the resort, but it’s a little heavy (550 g) for touring.
Mmm… another follow-up to the idea of a soft shelled helmet, I suspect you would still want a hard shell to maximize deflection on glancing impacts. My background on this subject is anti-tank projectiles penetrating metal, ceramic, and polymer armour, so it’s probably not totally pertinent and it’s been well over a decade, but…
Generally steel is used for deflection (because it’s both hard and ductile) and polymers or dead air for dissipation. The analogues for a ski helmet is the carbon fibre shell and foam liner. Ceramics and brittle fracture are probably not so useful for the types of blunt impact we’re talking about in skiing.
When you have two hard things collide, there’s more initial elastic transfer of momentum before plastic deformation sets in than when you have a hard thing (rock) collide with a soft thing (soft foam helmet). Think of a ricochet versus a crater, or billiard balls colliding compared to foam balls. With a glancing impact there’s a transfer of momentum (equal and opposite) that is perpendicular to the direction of the impact. The earth or a tree isn’t going to move a ton, but your head is pretty light and likely moves a lot in response to an impact.
Then the hard shell fails and the helmet starts plastic deformation but you’ve already bought yourself a much reduced impact. If you take a flat surface and impact it at angle theta, the effective thickness is:
1/cos(theta)
So if you have an impact at 60^, the thickness is twice the flat thickness. If you bounce the impacting projectile up (or conversely the helmet/head down) by having a really hard plate on top by only 5^ (to 65^) further up you have 2.35x the flat thickness, and 10 ^ (to 70^) is 2.9x. So deflecting the impact can make a _huge_ difference in how thick the helmet liner and skull is!
Short story, hitting trees dead on with the crown of your head at 50 km/h is really bad, but at glancing angles your helmet is a lot thicker than you think. Since your head is round almost all impacts will be at glancing angles and a hard shell will help deflect your head away from the impact whereas a soft shell would dig in. The human reflex to avoid head on impacts will increase the likelihood of glancing impacts unless you’re totally out of control. Anyway that’s my thought
“Again, after googling, I’m having a hard time believing that there isn’t more internet discussion about her Briko helmet. Shoot, if she’d pre-released and subsequently been injured, would people be talking about what bindings she was using? You bet they would.”
- The obvious answer is because the helmet could just as likely be viewed here is preventing a far worse injury. Whereas a pre-releasing binding is clearly *causing* the injury, not mitigating. By contrast, when Scott Macartney in 2008 slid through the Hahnenkamm finish sans consciousness, skis, and helmet, the internet was of course quite busy with discussion of his helmet. (Youtube videos #s he24trOJ2H4 for raw footage and P0lhMWaenCg for post-production voiceover and slowmo.)
You seem to ignore half of the evidence in the article you cite. In both cases of a collision with a hard object, icy snow or a post, the helmet decreased the g-force by about half. Even if ~330 G’s is really bad, its still much better than nearly 700. Will a helmet absolutely protect you from concussion? Of course not, but it helps, a lot per the study you refer to, and there’s no refuting that.
Matt, it seems what you’re saying is being dead is better than being dead, only the 330 G victim will be less work for the mortician.
It would be idotic for me to say or think helmets don’t reduce G forces, my point is helmets don’t reduce G-forces enough. Many people disagree and feel snowsports helmets do an adequate job. Fine. But I’m not of that persuasion
Lastly, so what if a helmet “helps?” I’m not sure that argument is a straw man, but it’s close. Lots of things help. For example, you could stuff a hat full of crumpled newspapers and it would help. I’ll bet even a well sprayed bouffant hairdo would help.
It is already proven statistically that snowsports helmets are not saving lives, but they do reduce or prevent moderate to semi-moderate head injuries and I’m happy to acknowledge that. To not do so would be idiotic. All I’m saying I’d like to see is for snowsports helmets to trend more towards the saving lives and preventing concussion such as Lindsey Vonn’s, rather than them being comfort items that eliminate the need for band-aids — along with seemingly having very convincing marketing that causes people to have much more faith in helmets than is rational.
Jonathan, ok, so a helmet has an inadequate retention system and it gets talked about, but one of the best skiers in history is wearing a helmet, still gets a concussion, and not a peep out of the internet? Perhaps, just perhaps, Vonn’s helmet had an inadaquate protection system. Isn’t that even worth discussion?
Of course I understand the argument of “it could have been worse.” But hey, in the case of the lost helmet, I’ll bet it still did something for the guy before it came off, so in his case “it could have been worse” as well.
I’m going to agree with Lou and other folks that a lot more could be done with ski helmet design and research. After coming from auto racing, where the most current SNELL rated helmets are a must for any track event, I felt OK about buying a ski helmet that was SNELL approved. That helmet is no longer used, and SNELL doesn’t do a rating for snowsports anymore, as far as I can tell. I believe that several manufacturers don’t even rate their helmets to the ANSI standard. It’s my belief that the standards for snow helmets were “dumbed down” with the help of major industry players, who didn’t want to pay for SNELL testing and ratings, and didn’t want to make helmets to that level of safety and therefore price. I’m sure the buying populace helped by being willing to only spend $100 or so on a helmet. I would love to see advancements in helmet safety and design and would pay more for a better helmet. That said, I understand their limitations, and don’t rely on them to save me in a nasty crash. I have definitely seen folks like Seth Morrison wearing a motorcycle helmet and a cowboy collar neck brace (football equipment) in ski films in the past, fyi.
To think a helmet used with no neck brace is going to offer major protection is somewhat wishful thinking.
Oops, meant ASTM ratings instead of ANSI!
Looks like neck brace tech is a bit farther along than my Giro ski helmet:
http://www.leatt-brace.com/
And check this out!
http://www.motorcycle-usa.com/748/6795/Motorcycle-Article/Alpinestars-Electronic-Airbag-Protection-Suit.aspx
It must have been a slow week for comments for you to start in on this topic Lou….
FWIW, I’ve been following the arguing about bicycle helmets for a few decades now, and there has been a lot of confusing data about their effectiveness, with enough ambiguity that both sides can claim there are stats are on their side. Bike helmets are now mandatory here in Oz, although many people don’t always comply. Wearing them in the UK was severely resented at one time (maybe still) because people there were afraid that seeing any in use would be enough to give legislators an excuse to make them mandatory – fair comment, reinforced by what many on this thread have said.
Mandatory (bike) helmets seems to be largely a “blame the victim” thing, i.e., if people choose to ride and then incompetent and/or drunken morons in cars or trucks hit them, then it is the fault of those injured – not the idiots who crashed into them. Plus helmet sales are good for business, and hassling people for not wearing them gives police and other authority types their jollies.
Note that I’m not saying that helmets are useless. I have personally written off a couple of helmets mountain biking, and have a friend who would have been dead twice from road crashes without a helmet.
OTOH, I definitely agree with the theory that helmets make young, dumb guys take even more and bigger risks than they would have without them. And these are the guys who then hit *other people* and injure them. The most important thing is both TRAINING AND ENFORCEMENT of proper behaviour, both at ski resorts and in traffic, but neither of these is likely to happen when it’s so much easier to legislate helmet use and claim to have fixed the problem.
After decades of bicycle helmet use, I finally bought a ski helmet last year. But, it’s uncomfortable at times, way less adjustable than switching hats, too hot on climbs, bulky and heavy to carry when removed (it won’t fit in my pocket at all!), and so I’ve sort of semi given up on it.
I get that if one is going to hit one’s head hard and/or frequently then wearing a helmet can be a sensible measure. OTOH, if one skis in control away from rockfall, avalanches and out-of-control resort denizens, then there is no way that a ski helmet is anywhere near as necessary as a bicycle helmet IMHO. Snow is generally a lot softer than rocks or bitumen after all.
Unfortunately, ski resorts here in Oz are very crowded and operator competence is abysmal, so there is some argument for wearing helmets at resorts to reduce one’s chances of becoming collateral damage. IMO, the real answer to this is for people NOT to turn their brains off when entering resort property, but I don’t suppose anyone is going to try to do anything about that! Especially when the resorts make money selling alcohol – something that no doubt increases safety immensely.
To sum up, in my opinion the main problems causing ski injuries are psychological, and helmets are designed to deal with mechanical problems. It would be better to try do something about the causes rather than just to attempt to mitigate the symptoms.
I suppose the safest thing is just to stay in bed and never leave the house at all…
PS: To the guy who complained about “old, crusty guys with Chorus 9 speed and steel frames.” FYI, Campy 9 speed came out in 1998 or 1999, so those old guys would likely be at least 30 now, maybe even older! WildSnow obviously has a much younger demographic than I’d previously thought.
Stephen, thanks for chiming in. I noticed the helmet comments on the News post, and just figured a stand alone thread and associated post would be better, in the present as well as a resource for folks studying the issue in the future, so here we go… it’s actually been a bit more work than I anticipated (grin), but along with that my feelings have adjusted in some ways and gelled in others.
I still don’t have a handle on why it’s such a hot button. Suspect that it is so because people perceive a bit of smoke and mirrors in the whole deal as it’s so much tougher to know how good a helmet is, over, say, knee pads. Thus, folks spend money, decide to depend on a safety device, then emotions rise up when the status quo is questioned.
BTW Lou, I’m sure that the “gonadal shield” technology could easily be incorporated into ski helmets at little extra cost!
Along with the neckbrace!
Thanks, Lou, for your very interesting and informed suggestions on helmet design. Let’s hope some one in the industry is listening.
Some thoughts:
It seems to me a helmet should be as “soft” as possible, as long as it’s not so soft that the foam (or whatever) bottoms out when a “harder” material would absorb more energy before crushing completely. The design challenge would seem to be balancing the ability to absorb most of a moderate impact without sacrificing the ability to absorb more of a larger impact. For the same thickness, a softer helmet might offer better moderate impact protection, but worse severe impact protection.
I suspect bouncing is more a function of the shell material than the liner material. Styrofoam doesn’t bounce that well. A very thin shell of some strong epoxy composite would, I suspect, provide lightweight protection against penetration, disintegration, and wear and tear, without being too “bouncy.” Thick abs shells are a lot “harder” in terms of bouncing than a paper-thin layer of composite material.
Regardless, softer will probably have to be thicker, and that means contending with the dorkiness factor.
I’m not sure a full face helmet that is not more prone to catching on snow is possible.
MInimal vent holes = hot (unless you are moving fast, the wind is blowing over the helmet just right, or you mount some sort of fan). A helmet is not very useful if doesn’t get worn.
I won’t comment on the POC helmet, because I’ve never seen one in person, except to say: abs shell and aramid layer, multi-impact foam, “pneumatic honeycomb” (bubble wrap?), minimal vents? Looks like this product line is aimed primarily at the type of skier I had in mind when I said maybe we have a culture problem, not a helmet problem.
Don’t get me started on skier-x.
Regards,
See
“Soft” helmets is I think a bad term to use as it’s ambiguous.
If soft means crushable foam – which absorbs impact force – then that’s not such a bad thing. However, bear in mind that the thinner and softer the foam, the smaller the impact needed to total the helmet.
OTOH, there has been a lot of argument suggesting that soft *shelled* helmets are more dangerous for bicycling as the whole helmet can deform easily, then “stick” to the road, thus increasing spinal injuries dramatically. This was apparently particularly the case with the “lycra over foam” jobs, none of which are still being produced as far as I am aware. Similar arguments are laid against helmets which protrude too far and likewise tend to prevent the head sliding. Body mass then rotates the head around the (relatively stationary) contact point and “bends” the spine. Not such a good thing.
It seems that the ideal protective helmet would have:
1. A smooth, tough, hard, slippery shell to resist punctures and promote sliding
2. A smooth, protrusion-free design
3. Crushable foam that would be able to absorb as much energy as possible without making the helmet physically so big as to create other problems
4. As much coverage as possible without being unwieldy
And then if people are actually going to wear it for non-racing-mandated purposes it would also need to:
5. Be reasonably light
6. Have some ventilation
7. Have whatever amenities the marketers think we should have (peaks, visors, inbuilt headphones, goggle and/or headlamp brackets, whatever)
8. Appeal to the style conscious/kül doods/fashun viktimz out there if it’s actually going to be saleable
It’s not going to be easy….
At the moment, I think there are at least 3 or 4 types of snowsports helmets out there.
* There are the helmets the FIS racers wear (I assume these are more protective than what’s for sale in my local ski/surf shop)
* There are climbing/alpinism helmets designed to protect from stonefall
* There are what I’m inclined to call “park and pipe” helmets (basically aimed at skateboarder types) and likely to have to withstand repeated impacts without being replaced
* Then there are all the other ones which don’t have such a defined focus
A lot of the technology is basically bicycle helmet technology (can you say Giro?), not that this is necessarily bad. The one I have fits like my Giro bike helmet (good for me), and uses the same harness and adjustment system, with features to make it warmer, etc, but there’s not a lot of difference in the basic structure or materials.
It would be interesting to know what sorts of things snow helmets tended to hit (statistically), and where on the helmet are hit, and how hard. If this data was available it would perhaps help with both helmet design and user education.
Lou,
Pardon the continued banter, but in an effort to prevent misunderstanding, I’d like to take issue with your statement “It is already proven statistically that snowsports helmets are not saving lives…” – where are such things reported?
Whether helmets are actually saving lives is a question that statistically just hasn’t yet been determined with certainty. The actual number of deaths from skiing is still quite low from an absolute total number standpoint and it makes such calculations difficult given the current research . What is known is that there hasn’t been a dramatic drop in head injury rates in the recent years during which helmet-use has gone up. This could merely be due to the coincident increase in more “dangerous” styles of skiing/boarding (i.e. parks, jumps, higher speeds, etc). Additionally, use of a helmet does decrease your risk of a reported head injury (don’t know about death). Not to mention that there are a number of helmet wearers who bang their head and just head to the bar and all is well and are not counted as they might be if found stumbling and drooling, sans helmet, around the edge of a run by ski patrol.
Just wanted to clarify for any impressionable readers that there isn’t convincing evidence that helmets specifically have had no effect on skiing mortality. Waiting for scientific clarification on this issue before donning a helmet is everyone’s individual choice, but I’ll side with the thought that if my head were to ever meet a rock, tree, or someone else’s head while skiing, I’d rather have some foam and plastic in between……………………Keep up the great site!
Larry
Regarding the “dork” factor, some not-so-cool looking helmets have been donned by folks who’ve suffered multiple concussions in NFL football. They’re noticeably thicker and less aerodynamic looking, but they do apparently work better at protecting the human brain. They look odd, so I doubt they’ll be seen except as a strange anomaly on the field.
I think the notion that some things done by a helmet shod head may be potentially more damaging certainly is demonstrable in football–whether it is in skiing or not. Driving or spearing with the head has much to do with the wearer’s perception of the helmet’s protective value. Contrast that with similar contact sports, like rugby or Aussie rules football, where helmets are absent. Spearing with the head is not the problem there.
Larry, you can read about that here, and the studies are cited:
http://www.recreation-law.com/2010/02/helmet-death-ignited-by-misconception_04.html
Even the National Ski Areas Association acknowledges this grim fact:
“There has been no significant reduction in fatalities over the past nine seasons even as the use of helmets overall has increased to 57 percent overall usage among skiers and snowboarders, and to as much as 43 percent within the population at greatest risk—experienced young adult male skiers and snowboarders.”
Above from http://www.nsaa.org/nsaa/press/facts-ski-snbd-safety.asp
Lots of things about snowsports head helmets are counter intuitive. To put it simply, the thinking the studies support goes at least in part like this: most accidents with enough force to kill a person from a head injury also cause other fatal injuries. Thus, having a helmet in those situations makes no difference in terms of life saved. What is more, if you read up on helmet standards, you’ll realized just how little protection snowsports helmets offer, and thus how little difference they make in a really hard crash in terms of the resulting head injury.
Beyond that, my main point of this blog post was to bring up the issue of helmets not protecting adequately against concussions, since the damage from even minor concussions is cumulative, irreversible, and life changing. As for the sophomoric argument of “it could have been worse if he/she/I had not been using a helmet,” sure, but lets move on from that and ask, could it have been better?
As James Moss says in the article linked above, helmets do a great job of protecting against certain types of injuries — as does a plastic bowl duct taped to your head. I’d add that the plastic bowl should have some crumpled newspapers added underneath to equal what a ski helmet does (grin), but the point is that even if everyone on the ski slopes was wearing a motorcycle helmet, the majority of fatality capable accidents caused by violent collisions would still be fatal, due to other types of trauma (neck, chest blunt force, femurs, spleens, etc.)
More, other discussion you’ll find about statistics takes a simple and very common sense approach. They study the number of deaths per skier days, and correlate that with the rise in helmet use. Result? No marked correlation. In other words, if ski helmets save lives, by now there should be a significant drop in skier deaths per skier day that goes along with a significant rise in helmet use by skiers. There is not such a drop in deaths as far as I know from extensive reading. Beyond stories, beyond anecdotal evidence, beyond what anyone says (including me), those very simple numbers tell the tale.
This guy sums it all up pretty well:
http://www.snowboardingforum.com/snowboarding-general-chat/370-ski-helmets-reduce-injuries-but-death.html
As far as I can tell, ski racing helmets don’t have to adhere to any greater standard than the voluntary standards that recreational helmets are designed usually designed to comply with
http://www.sporteyes.com/brhelskirac.htm
But if I read it correctly, the Briko models have a neck brace (roll protector) and are of course lower around the temples, ears, and back of neck.
Does anyone know if FIS has a helmet standard that’s any more stringent than the following link describes?
http://www.gbski.com/docstore/misc/helmets-v2.pdf
By the way, to all you guys interested in how helmets could actually be improved. In my reading I keep coming across statements about how a helmet should “distribute” forces. Sure, the helmet should and will do a bit of that as a matter of course, but the operative words are “absorb and decelerate.” Again, this is counter intuitive, but any force that’s “distributed” by a helmet shell has to be “distributed” somewhere else! Where else? Oh, perhaps your neck, for example? Or, and this is even hard to get, if the shell is hard and “distributes” force, it then does nothing to slow down the deceleration of your head, so when your head finally stops moving your brain bangs into the inside of your skull and you get a concussion. By “distributing” force, perhaps your helmet has saved you from a skull fracture, but you’ve still got just as bad a concussion. Less of a mess for the ski patrol, but still a heinous injury.
Ideally, the helmet shell resists penetration from sharp objects and has a modicum of rigidity so the helmet holds up to day-to-day abuse as well as being able to slide easily on a surface when you take a tumble, but the helmet shell should deflect with no rebound in any significant impact. My opinion, based on lots of study.
In other words: A good ski helmet can be built with a very rigid shell, but in turn the liner has to be thicker and softer. Thus, to keep helmets as sleek and lightweight as possible, the shell needs to be part of the energy absorptive and deceleration system.
I do not know where the parameters are that much different in the area of impact absorbtion than that of a bicycle helmet. Speeds are similar, if not, a little less for skiing unless you are looking at racing. I personally feel my Camp is too hard, not able to dissapate the energy and decelerate the the blow. I feel more comfortable safety wise wearing a bycycle helmet with a softer shell and have an extensive development and testing period to justify that design.
Can helmets be made safer? Yes, but only so much. We’re about at the limit for good designs on the market today (flexible shell with deformable expanded polystyrene liner) without increasing bulk. In a hard impact the polystyrene deforms almost entirely. To be safer the helmet will need to decelerate your head more slowly on impact, which means using a thicker, but softer, layer of polystyrene.
You might see something like an airbag that deploys out of your helmet in the future, but that’s probably a few years off. Other safety improvements might include shock sensors that warn you of a hard impact so you can watch for signs of traumatic brain injuries. Custom thermoformable helmet liners could improve fit so that the helmet stays in place during impact and reduces contra-coup.
Should helmets be mandatory? Should the helmeted gaze upon the helmetless with disdain? That’s a matter of opinion, so I’ll pass on that discussion.
@ lou
“there has been no significant reduction in fatalities over the past nine seasons even as the use of helmets overall has increased to 57 percent ”
you are reading this wrong, if there was no increase in fatalities in these last 9 years when people have been skiing so much faster harder and more irresponsibly than before this is a MAJOR SUCCESS for helmets
@lou
Shock absorbing is not everything.
You seem to think the human skull is completely rigid like steel or hard glass or something, like the distribution of the impact is already taken care of by the scull.
Like the medically schooled/trained people up here explained, the skull “gives” a little in a small spot, and concussion and other brain damage is often extremely local, this happens even without skull fracture.
We need helmet distribution to get an even impact on the absorbing layer and the skull.
I’m predicting Lou will see the error of his ways sooner rather than later, and come out tomorrow with a full-throated defense of helmet usage.
Lou; thank you for another good blog post. I do not see anywhere in this thread where you are discouraging people from wearing helmets. You are just asking people to be aware of the limitations of current helmet designs.
.
Aviator; I am a “baby boomer”, and I have been “slowing down” for the past nine years
I’d have to agree with Lou.
Helmets could be vastly improved like using gel or liquid technology which deforms and dampens force far better than solids. But you’ll never get rid of all the G’s and that’s the bottom line. I’d say for many people, a little whack on the head is a good reminder to pay attention. Imagine how nutso a child would grow up if it had always worn a helmet while learning to walk. It would not understand a big lesson in life.
Ski in control and at your level. Earth is a dangerous place. Shit happens. Mind your own friggin buisness (helmet laws are pure fascism and hypocrisy compared to tobacco).
Ptor, the G’s are indeed the problem… one idea for a solution is an airbag that deploys from the helmet before impact, thus increasing effective thickness of the helmet and starting the deceleration sooner. But I actually think it’s easier than that as the need appears to be for helmets that are simply better enough to prevent concussions such as Vonn’s. My understanding is that such a helmet is a bit thicker but still doable, but the main thing is that along with thicker it is also a bit softer.
What’s probably needed is a revised standard, as well as companies touting the standard as part of their marketing.
I’d agree that helmet laws tend to be fascism… people should be allowed to make their own decisions when it comes to helmet use, in my view…
This really does seem to be turning into the Glen Beck Show. I mean, I really can’t recall my European history professor father describing restrictive safety laws as a defining characteristic of fascism. (And if only so many of my ancestors’ heads had received from the Nazis a mandatory helmet instead of a bullet.)
A racer should be aware of what protection they are wearing and if they compromise safety for aerodynamics, lightness and their sponsors gear, that’s their own fault unless FIS has something to do with helmet specifications. Lindsay could have worn a bigger helmet and strapped a gymnastics landing pad to her head if she wanted to but racing is about taking chances so performance overrules safety sometimes just like freeriders in comps getting mashed in the rocks. Too bad for her and it sucks she got hurt… but its only a race.
All those little nibbles from the plate of personal freedoms leaves you with an empty plate before long, Mr. Shefftz.
I suppose you and Glen Beck can provide plenty of historical examples how fascist dictatorships came into power via the slippery slope of restrictive safety regulations?
I don’t seem to recall any fascist related words in any of my posts, but I digress.
Perhaps you have not the ability to see how over regulated we have become, or are you in the camp of those imposing the regulations that continue to limit or eradicate personal freedoms? Step back for a minute and examine all the ridiculous things that have been banned, legislated etc in your own lifetime. Personally, I find it a bit of a shocker. What’s next? When does it end?
Agreed, only Lou and Ptor were equating restrictive safety regulation with fascism, but still, saying it leads to an “empty plate before long” sure doesn’t seem to match up with historical record of those nations that have actually moved away from democratic representation, constitutionalism, and human rights.
This Glen Beck example comes up, I’ll have to listen to him more and see what the fuss is about. Or perhaps not. I’ve got sat radio and Beck is on there, but I tuned in to him once a few weeks ago and he really didn’t hold my attention and I wasn’t impressed. I like some of the talkers and put them on the speakers here in the office when I need a human voice and some grist for thought. I listen to both the liberal and the conservative guys, but Beck just doesn’t do it for me.
As for fascism, that’s indeed a pretty strong word (and perhaps the wrong one) for the endless dance we have with government over regulation. But it makes the point. and hopefully gets folks thinking about just how much nanny government is enough?
Jonathan, your European history professor obviously didn’t know what he was talking about (grin, I’m joking). How is that for a “Beckian” response (grin)?
But seriously, if things get too “Beckish” around here I’d appreciate you guys pointing that out and educating me. To have it go too far that way doesn’t sound like a good thing. Perhaps some other websites and forums will do anything for traffic and comment count, but that’s not me and I don’t want to give that impression nor go down that road.
In other words, help and feedback appreciated.
Just to keep this semi on-track, anyone have any idea how we could set up a home-brew helmet test? Folks do it with melons, but no way to know if the melons are consistent from one to the other. Best would be actually using an accelerometer combined with a helmet drop. Far as I know the accelerometers in things like smart phones don’t measure enough G’s to be useful…. Ideas? Any engineers out there want to cobble us up an accelerometer and data read-out we could mount on a headform? We don’t need much data, just max G’s.
Personally I don’t often wear a helmet when backcountry skiing and I doubt I will soon change my behavior. But this study seems like a very good case FOR helmets, not AGAINST them.
The final statement is “When the impact was onto simulated hard, icy snow, the helmet reduced the average measured g-load from 329 to 162 …. When the impact was against the fixed object, the helmet reduced the values from 696 to 333 …”
We all have taken high-speed hard falls onto a variety of surfaces and survived. (The ones that didn’t survive aren’t participating in this discussion.) So reducing the G forces on your head by 50% seems like a very good reason to wear a helmet.
So who makes a good helmet? POC? Sweet Protection?
I’m a big fan of helmets. To many knocks on the head from tree branches…. need a full face version to avoid shaving with maple branches.
Muddy, that’s part of the problem. Snowsports helmets are certified to a rather minimal standard in my opinion (though some would disagree and say the snowsports helmet standard is good). Thus, after the standard all you’re left with is manufacturer claims of why their helmet is better. What we need is some independent testing to higher standards. I’d recommend that such testing concentrated on impact deceleration with ensuing helmet damage being okay to some degree. There is too much emphasis in helmet marketing BS about how “strong” helmets are. Who cares how strong they are, what they’re supposed to do is decelerate your head when you hit something. So long as a helmet can stand up to a few good whacks, it can turn to powder afterward so long as it does a good job of preventing brain concussion. If they can build a helmet that lasts forever — as well as being super protective — so much the better. But job one is protection, after that they can brag about how “strong” their helmet is.
Lou, as a former paramedic and currently an anesthesiologist, I totally agree with all your questions and concerns presented here. For everybody else, you must read the article that Lou cited about motorcycle helmet standards and injuries. I think the concepts presented apply to the snow sports industry as well.
http://www.motorcyclistonline.com/gearbox/motorcycle_helmet_review/index.html
I rode minibikes and motocross bikes growing up, and remember the whole Snell vs DOT debate. And I just looked my Shoei motorcycle helmet. It’s DOT, RF-900 and Snell approved. I’ll be looking for a new helmet now without the Snell approval.
I also don’t understand why there hasn’t been any discussion about Vonn’s head injury. You have brought up a very good point.
I wear a helmet when at a ski area. Mostly to keep me from getting the knock from the chairlift bar, ski’s and snowboarders. I don’t wear one in the backcountry.
The best helmet for reducing concussions will be softer and slowly decelerate the head. And you’d have to replace it after each crash. How many of the readers here have replaced their helmet after a good crash where the helmet took a good blow? I bet zero. Why? Because the helmets are too stiff and there is no visible damage to the helmet.
I would buy a Wildsnow approved helmet because it would have been tested by a guy who understands the risks and needs of the backcountry skier. Lou, you could get $1 for each “Wildsnow Approved” sticker applied to each helmet.
Just for fun, here’s a good video of Evel Knievel testing his Bell Magnum helmet:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYGGCVE2lKY
If POC or someone else serious about positioning their hard hats as superior to the competition wants to make a helmet that exceeds the ASTM Snowsports voluntary helmet standard to any significant degree in terms of G-force mitigation and thus concussion prevention, I’d be up for providing stickers. Would need to see proof from independent testing lab, not just website verbiage and marketing speak…
If a helmet was soft then why would we need to replace it? A boxing helmet lasts a very long time.
Gentle, it’s because the best functioning helmet would have very little rebound and energy absorption and deceleration would have to thus be taken care of by material sacrifice. Such a helmet could be made so you could “reset” it by using a suspension system that elongated and could be reset, but that would be very expensive and difficult to make. A helmet that crushes works much better. Another way to make a good helmet would be to use some sort of material that crushed easily enough, then rebounded slowly (over minutes or hours) to its previous thickness and state. Pretty sure there are some helmets out there that use at least some foam of that sort… but cost is an issue so most ski helmets are simply made from a thickness of crushable foam that is sacrificed. Where they can pick up better performance is by not using quite so rigid of a shell (to allow a smoother crush with less rebound), as well as additional thickness.
Not sure about a boxing helmet, but being hit by a boxing gloved hand is different than hitting your head on a fence post while moving 20 mph (let the prize fighter jokes commence). Also, boxers are not known for surviving their careers unscathed by brain injury…
This is perhaps the most interesting paragraph in the motorcycle article Lou linked to
“The U.S. Army Aeromedical Research Laboratory (USAARL) has created a g-tolerance standard for helicopter crewpersons’ helmets. For a two-meter drop height, the same drop height we used in 3/4 of our testing, the Army allows no more than 150 gs to the earcup areas of the head, which they have determined are especially vulnerable, and no more than 175 gs on other areas. Should we motorcyclists?who are often older, not as fit, and not quite so willing to die or sustain head injuries as eager young soldiers?accept g tolerance levels of 300g for the same hits?”
Comparing that to the snowboarder study, a fall on icy snow goes from being “bad”/unsurvivable to within the acceptable range.
Perhaps snowsports helmets need to look to the military to get ideas for how to better protect snow enthusiasts heads.
If you’ve seen helicopter crew helmets, you know they do have some space for the head to decelerate. They’re quite bulbous. Now we know why. They work.
If any one missed it — check out Jimmy Chin’s comments after a recent 2,000 foot ride in the Tetons. Methinks those dents would have been in his skull but for the brain bucket….
http://www.jhnewsandguide.com
On April 1, Lou mentioned the idea of a “home-brew helmet test.” I’m not sure that home-brew is so dangerous that a helmet is required, but I’d suggest sending the idea for the test to Myth Busters – any results should at least be entertaining.
Appropriate I mentioned that on April 1, because most of the helmet demonstrations you see on the net are a joke — such misleading BS it is nearly criminal. For example, sticking a melon in a helmet and dropping it, then dropping a melon without a helmet. It looks cool when the melon bursts, and oh ah ah oh oh it doesn’t burst when it’s inside the helmet. Duh. I saw one of those tests recently where they said the helmet and melon where moving 30mph when they hit, and they made it look like the helmet was super effective. What they failed to mention was that going in with your head at 30 mph to a hard immovable surface, _with_ a snowsports certified helmet, was still going to cause permanent brain damage, spinal injury, and/or death. More, a much lower speeds, when the melon would look fine, a human would still have a brain concussion that was either serious enough to be life altering, or at the least would contribute to cumulative damage.
So, what I mean by “homebrew” is something that has a repeatable way of measuring force, and even if the exact force couldn’t be quantified as an accelerometer does, the test could at least be used to compare brands and models and see who is actually making helmets that do a better job of decelerating the head than the ASTM standard.
Agreed! Hitting anything immovable at 30 mph isn’t going to be good for one’s health. Can I assume that when you say “immovable surface” above you are talking about a 90 degree impact, rather than a low-angle sliding one?
It still seems to me that there probably need to be more than one type of snowsports helmet. Resort use would presumably not need as much ventilation as climbing in the BC in spring/summer, and protection from rockfall would be a non-issue. (I guess climbing helmets are there to deal with the latter.)
The other important thing is for there to be some easy way to tell when one’s helmet needs to be replaced. This is not always obvious as sometimes the foam can be compressed where this is not visible. I suspect that any impact resulting in a headache lasting more than a few seconds means it’s time for a new helmet though.
One problem with helmet testing is that it is an expensive exercise. For it to work reliably, helmets need to be tested from each batch made. presumably, any that make it to retail distribution should be part of a batch which has been tested, so any WildSnow obtained should be reasonably representative.
This doesn’t get around needing to test protection from various types of impact at different angles. All this data should already be out there, if only at the standards testing labs – might this be accessible online? If not, then the only ones who know will probably be the manufacturers, and if they aren’t willing to release information on their data and testing methodology, it’s not too likely they’d be keen on sending Lou lots of free samples to test.
Once we figure out a way to measure impact, I’ll bet we can get enough helmets to make for some interesting testing. Main thing I want to do is test a couple of the ones that claim to be superior, against a couple of average ones. My test would be a simple one that would measure acceleration (deceleration) in a standardized impact. So long as the impact of each helmet is the same, it really doesn’t matter what the impact surface is, nor the angle, but it’s probably easiest to just set things up for a 90 degree impact on a solid flat surface. I’d just measure it on top of the helmet, again, same on each one. If we had the money I’d just pay a testing lab, there are a couple out there that specialize in things like helmets and are totally set up to test.
You guys who think I’m full of it might want to look at where the Candian ski team might be going with helmets. They came out and said it, that ski helmets might need to be better. http://tinyurl.com/42u54hs
Alpine Canada comes out with their new ski racing safety policy, which includes recommending
“A Canadian-based study examining possible changes to helmets to prevent concussions and better protect the brain.”
http://tinyurl.com/64hhdbm
Those of you who think our take on helmets is BS might want to talk to Alpine Canada as well and make sure they’re not led astray.
From Lou’s URL above:
“According to the FIS, 42 per cent of World Cup skiers suffered injuries in 2009. ”
From reading the other stuff it sounds as if most of the Canadian team has been out for at least part of the last season or two. The injury rate appears to be much higher than what I might have guessed.
Cannot imagine any reason why one wouldn’t choose to protect oneself as much as practical given the apparent odds of serious injury. Now I know why I go BC skiing!
Looks like Skiing mag is taking up Lou’s suggestion for some real-world helmet testing: http://tinyurl.com/6y8zxcp
Hi Jonathan, someone shared that a while ago. Total BS and very irresponsible of Skiing Mag to be implying that just because a melon receives less damage inside a helmet, that somehow means the helmet is adequately effective at preventing human brain injury. Their presentation made me sick to my stomach it was so irresponsible. Good example of everything that’s bad about pop journalism and mags such as Skiing cashing in their credibility for cheap clicks and web traffic. At first I thought it was at least funny, but it’s too misleading and irresponsible to be funny.
I thought Skiing intended it as a joke? If otherwise, then rather astounding.
Jonathan, perhaps it was a joke, but if so it wasn’t couched that way strongly enough, in my opinion. It reeked of “me to, click on me, giggle giggle.”
Mostly, just goes to show that printed magazines are getting to the point where they have no more credibility and skill with this stuff than anyone else.
I’ve wracked my brains and inquired of several engineers about how we could conduct a meaningful helmet test in our workshop. So far, I have not found a solution. Doing this well most certainly doesn’t involve buying fruit at a grocery store.
The thing about magazines is that they portray themselves as and are perceived as the top dogs in the media. You’d expect THEM to be the ones doing a meaningful helmet test. Instead, they go fruit shopping and leave it up to some guy in his garage. Just makes me sick.
Here is an interesting article about football helmets. Not entirely the same thing but relevant to the discussion.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook-110719_virginia_tech_helmet_study&sportCat=nfl
The author of the article has long criticized the NFL for its lack of concussion protection policies.
Maybe the researchers at Virginia Tech would be willing to do a similar test for snowsports helmets. Then maybe some of the snowsports helmet makers could do some collaboration with the football helmet makers.
Gray, thanks, that article is a terrific piece of journalism. Only thing it lacks is tech details on how they make helmets protect better for concussion.
^^ Very interesting piece, even for someone who knows nothing about NFL. Vested interests are universal it seems…
In answer to the discussion about why a better “soft” helmet is not available: An unfortunate reality for helmet manufacturers doing business in the US is litigation. Standards offer manufacturers some level of defense from an otherwise frivolous and massively expensive US legal system. A downside to standards that are created largely for this defensive purpose is that it is extremely difficult to change the standards. Sure, new studies and superior materials may come along. But if the standard is “raised”, what then is your liability for all your “less-than-standard” products still being widely used? What manufacturer would dare lead the way and deviate from the old standard? How does a human safety products industry politically and legally raise it’s bar? Lengthening the duration of deceleration and thereby reducing forces upon the head has long been known to be desireable (for decades). The glancing or sliding impact has long been known as the most common type of human-powered sports head impact. Materials have existed for many years, such as closed cell PU foam, which perform much better at deceleration in this type of impact than typical “hard” EPS foams or harnesses found in most helmets today. Sadly, standards have not changed to promulgate helmet improvement because of the stasis created by legal realities. And they’re not likely to change in the future.
Hannah, that is a very informed take. Thanks so much. I’d never thought about how supposedly useful and consumer protecting “standards” actually can work against us in that way. Disturbing. Lou
There’s plenty of room for a disruptive manufacturer to demonstrate superior protection in a realistic accident and offer up a draft standard.
In the technology industry (802.11 wireless comes to mind), manufacturers often design to, and comment on, draft standards as they evolve.
This is, of course, easier if a new helmet meets the old standard as well as offering improved protection.
As I’ve said before (further up in this thread, by happenstance), helmet thickness imposes severe constraints on what’s physically possible. The range of impacts (getting hit in the head with a lift safety bar to hitting a tree at mach-looney) also complicates things, especially if the helmet must survive multiple impacts.