CarvPatrol Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 I like my Leedom helmet, it has served me well. Very warm and comfortable as well. So let me get this right. In order not to injure my brain the foam in the helmet which is more dense than my brain has to compress to absorb the impact so that my soft brain tissue doesn't smash against my skull and then slosh back and impact the other side of my skull. Seems to me that my brain is absorbing the shock to protect the inside of the helmet. I might agree with your theory up to about 10 kph but the hydraulic pressure on you brain isn't going to be able to disipate quickly on impact if it can't be transferred somewhere and i don't think the ridgid foam is enough. Sure your head is going to be the same shape on the outside because the ridgid foam and shell are still intact but how does it look inside? Here's a neat trick to try to illustrate my point. Place a golf ball on top of a basketball and drop the two together to the floor (outside). The energy of the basketball is transferred to the golf ball and it takes off like a rocket. Now deflate or wrap the basketball in a towel and repeat. the golfball hardly bounces like a softer helmet lining the enrgy is absorbed. The weight of your brain and fluids is a portion of the mass of your skull, helmet ,goggles etc. but because it is still moving after everything else stops all that other energy is transferred to your brain.Something is needed to absorb and dissipate that energy and i'm not convinced the hel mets i use now are really very good at doing that. They do a great job of protecting the skull but is it really the skull that should be the focus of the protection? First manufacturer that makes a helmet that addresses this issue will be selling me my next helmet:biggthump The girl that wore the helmet below walked away, very minor concussion if anything. She was sent to a hospital to be sure, but she did not act anything like a normal concussion patient, she acted normal. I had a major head injury in 1996 from not wearing a helmet, and I know I have whacked my skull at least twice since then easily twice as hard (after buying a helmet). Once was head first into a tree, and another head first into a 4x4 fencepost. Doubtful or not of their capacity to dissipate the energy, having one is better then nothing at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhD Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 Zoltan is right on. The shell distributes the impact over a larger area of the foam padding and protects it from penetration by compact objects. The foam padding absorbs the energy by deforming, and most of the deformation is permanent due to rupture of the plastic cellular structure. A helmet that has taken a hard enough whack to deform the foam liner should be replaced (and destroyed). The next whack won't be absorbed as well. You could make a more protective helmet using softer foam, but it would have to be larger to absorb a specified amount of energy without the head bottoming out on the shell. The maximum acceleration imposed on the head would be reduced, but it would have to accelerate over a longer distance to come to a stop. The stiffness of the foam liners may be higher than they should be to provide perfect protection, but do you want to wear a helmet the size of a garbage can? See the Snell Foundation test standards at http://www.smf.org/standards/ski/rs98std Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueB Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 Dude...Godwin's Law :rolleyes: :lol: :lol: Folow the Führer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhD Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 Tex "So Hearing impaired people shouldn't ski/board? " They should be aware that idiots who don't understand the right of way rule explicit in the "Skiers Code" might run over them from behind or be passing them on heelside at any time. Same goes for those wearing headphones. The hearing impaired are probably safer, as they are (to generalize) used to their condition and the associated risks, and not distracted by the cause thereof. Queequeg What kind of helmet has a visor that moves with the goggles? I haven't shopped for helmets lately and haven't seen that. Sounds like a cool feature, if it stops high enough to hold the goggles out of view but keeps them from flopping on over the top. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tufty Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 Sorry my example is so lame and i am under no illusion that helmets provide much in the way of protection when riding at an average speed. Brain damage is probably done by the time the foam is distorted so i guess it's a question of how much damage? Wrong. The foam distorts, slowing the head and reducing the accelerative forces on the brain, and thus (hopefully) reducing damage. Then you break the helmet into little itty bits and throw it away. I believe it is the snell standard that requires a helmet to resist a puncture by a protruding object of a given length and hence the requirement of a certain thickness of ridgid foam and plastic shell Wrong again. Puncture resistance is purely down to the strength of the shell. Thickness of foam is a tradeoff of foam rigidity (more rigid == thinner) vs how many Gs your brain is going to take in a particular "hit". The claims made in the motorcycle article were related to Snell testing against the kind of hits 99% of riders would never encounter outside of a racetrack, and which would probably kill you anyway through other injuries, leading to a foam so rigid that it does ****all good in the majority of cases. Which is why I ride with a DOT/CE helmet and not a snell one. But that's me. Had a 9-10 year old kid heli'd off the mountain today after a (not very hard) fall on a blue slope. Very expensive, top of the range, Giro helmet. Unfortunately, very obvious brain trauma. Couldn't remember her name, age, where she was, what she was doing, couldn't feel her legs or nose. Hope she pulls through. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queequeg Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 What kind of helmet has a visor that moves with the goggles? I haven't shopped for helmets lately and haven't seen that. Sounds like a cool feature, if it stops high enough to hold the goggles out of view but keeps them from flopping on over the top. Pretty much any POC helmet with a visor. Same goes for those wearing headphones. You know I don't mean to be difficult but: The whole prattling on about how listening to music puts you in danger thing gets really old, really fast. You aren't going to convince any of us that do listen to music while riding that we would be safer without it: you're only going to irritate us. If you feel like you are in greater danger listening to music on the mountain, then don't. The rest of us who feel perfectly safe listening to music have considered the arguments, and respectfully disagree ... you aren't going to change our minds. The OP asked for advice on helmet selection, not for a pissing match about whether or not it is safe to listen to music while snowboarding. We have all heard both sides before, please put it to rest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex1230 Posted March 9, 2011 Report Share Posted March 9, 2011 +1 quequeg... no need for the headphone discussion here...it's been done to death Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 I guess i'll end this discussion with your example : If a 9-10 year old ends up with severe head trauma after a (not very hard ) fall on a blue slope what good was the helmet ? People die in car crashes while wearing seatbelts and with fancy airbags. What good are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Sorry, I don't buy that argument. If wearing a helmet helps me in even the slightest way possible in a given accident, I'll gladly spend the money. If I can recognize my wife and daughter vs. not, it's worth it. If I can wipe my own butt vs. not, it's worth it. To say that because they don't protect you from every possible bad outcome means that they're worthless is silly. FYI: I've seen broken femurs on green runs. How that happened, I don't know... I'd bet it was mighty spectacular! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pat Donnelly Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 I like my Leedom helmet, it has served me well. Very warm and comfortable as well. The girl that wore the helmet below walked away, very minor concussion if anything. She was sent to a hospital to be sure, but she did not act anything like a normal concussion patient, she acted normal. I had a major head injury in 1996 from not wearing a helmet, and I know I have whacked my skull at least twice since then easily twice as hard (after buying a helmet). Once was head first into a tree, and another head first into a 4x4 fencepost. Doubtful or not of their capacity to dissipate the energy, having one is better then nothing at all. CarvPatrol - it may be time for you to replace your Leedom as helmets are generally designed to take an impact then replace. You stated you have had two hard impacts! In 99 I bought a Leedom and the next day I did a hard heel side head plant. I sent the lid back to Leedom and for $30 they rebuilt it. Upon inspection (by dis-assembly) they asked if I was taken off the hill in a sled as they determined the point of impact was at the back of the helmet (cracked styrofoam) and the reprocussion cracked the styrofoam in the front of the helmet. Not sure if Leedom exists today, but you may be able to find a Leedom replacement on-line? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarvPatrol Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 CarvPatrol - it may be time for you to replace your Leedom as helmets are generally designed to take an impact then replace. You stated you have had two hard impacts! In 99 I bought a Leedom and the next day I did a hard heel side head plant. I sent the lid back to Leedom and for $30 they rebuilt it. Upon inspection (by dis-assembly) they asked if I was taken off the hill in a sled as they determined the point of impact was at the back of the helmet (cracked styrofoam) and the reprocussion cracked the styrofoam in the front of the helmet. Not sure if Leedom exists today, but you may be able to find a Leedom replacement on-line? Your probably right, It didn't really have any visible blemishes to the the outside and the foam was good so I just kept using it and have not thought about it in years, until this thread. Way to be a good example I guess. Leedom's site is still up, but last updated in 2010. I actually have been looking for a new one the last year, but the local ski shops suck. I want one with bluetooth (I shouldn't say that here based on the arguments above LOL) Mine stays quiet enough I can hear my patrol radio though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
big canuck Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 If you can find them, Carrera Bullet or Fireball fit really well. I have a POC Skull X and a Skull Comp both fit great. I also have a Uvex Wing Pro that fits awsome as well. hard to wrong with any of them. Buy the one that fits. They take on a whole different look with goggles too so bring your goggles with when you go try on skid lids. Some goggles dont work with certain helmets. Avoid the gorby gap. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoltan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 I guess i'll end this discussion with your example : If a 9-10 year old ends up with severe head trauma after a (not very hard ) fall on a blue slope what good was the helmet ? The fact is, you don't have enough information to determine what actually happened there. There are a lot of variables which can't be accounted for, and the forces acting on someone head even in a small fall can become quite large. Remember, two years ago Natasha Richardson died from head trauma after a fall on the bunny slope during a ski lesson. I think a better question would be, if that was damage happened with the use of a helmet, would she have even been alive without one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kieran Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 i like my giro remedy. that is all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bjvircks Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 The fact is, you don't have enough information to determine what actually happened there. BINGO!!! I see a lot of kids with a helmet "on" but they are wearing it in a way that is totally ineffectual. Doing so may offer the parents a bit of peace of mind that they are 'doing the right thing' by having a helmet on their kid... but the potential for the child receiving the full protective benefits are very severly compromised. Kids deserve better from parents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoltan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 Too bad everyone is content with stylish helmets that provides minimal protection. I'm looking for more ! Even a change in the density of foam relative to a speed rating would be better than what the majority of manufacturers are providing now. Done......... See you next year ! And you know they provide minimal protection how? You've been wrong about pretty much everything else regarding helmets, so where's your information coming from on this? One anecdotal claim about a 10 year old on a blue slope? If you want to say that you don't like current helmets and choose not to wear one, that's fine, that's your opinion. But I take exception to you giving bad information as fact, especially on something like helmets. BINGO!!! I see a lot of kids with a helmet "on" but they are wearing it in a way that is totally ineffectual. Doing so may offer the parents a bit of peace of mind that they are 'doing the right thing' by having a helmet on their kid... but the potential for the child receiving the full protective benefits are very severly compromised. Kids deserve better from parents. I see that a lot as well, the most common one being the helmet kicked way back on the head, exposing the forehead (you see this with bike helmets all the time as well), which doesn't help you if you pitch forward. In my experience, most parents also aren't aware that once a helmet takes a hard impact, it's ability to protect from another hard impact in the same location is greatly diminished. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoltan Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 According to the CANADIAN STANDARD ASSOCIATION no current SKI or SNOWBOARD helmet meets CSA standards. So? They're just one standard, and not one I've heard about before now. I know my Giro, for example, meets ASTM and CE standards (and I've heard of ASTM and CE), so that's good enough for me. It costs money to test and certify a helmet, so manufacturers usually pick the certifications which matter the most. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tufty Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 The fact is, you don't have enough information to determine what actually happened there. There are a lot of variables which can't be accounted for, and the forces acting on someone head even in a small fall can become quite large. Remember, two years ago Natasha Richardson died from head trauma after a fall on the bunny slope during a ski lesson. I think a better question would be, if that was damage happened with the use of a helmet, would she have even been alive without one? A bit more information. She was 9, on a very flat, but very hard (as in "hard packed", not "difficult") blue run joining the start of a drag lift and the start of a chairlift. Caught an edge and came down fairly hard on the left side, according to the witnesses. G9 Junior helmet. So far, so straightforward. At this point, one of the adults should have headed off to the nearest place where they could call a pisteur. The net result would probably be the same - i.e. a trip in the whirlybird. What actually happened, however, is slightly different, and certainly didn't help matters. The adults who were with her decided, rather than staying put and sending someone to call for help, to drag/carry/ski the stunned kid to the chairlift, queue for 15-20 minutes, get on the lift without bothering to mention the kid is semi-conscious, and go to the top. She collapsed getting off the lift, at which point one of them called me over to ask if there was a pisteur around. "She's had a fall", no more information than that. Whilst I'm radioing for a pisteur, they have taken it upon themselves to start moving her out of the line of the chairlift arrival. I'm shouting at them "don't move her" (fearing a displacement of some hypothetical broken limb), but they aren't listening. The fact she's not screaming allays my fears somewhat, until I get a response from the rescue boys and head over to tell them there's a 5 minute wait. At which point I'm told she has had a blow to the head. At the same instant, one of the adults is trying to remove her helmet. TAKEYOUR****INGHANDSOFFTHAT****INGHELMETNOWORIWILLBREAKYOUR****INGARMSYOUMORON I spend 5 minutes before the pisteurs arrive and take charge making sure that the ****ing twats aren't going to remove her helmet. They try to do this 3 times. As of this morning, she is still in hospital in Albertville. I don't know any more than that. As to why she ended up with serious head trauma whilst wearing a helmet, I can't offer any real insight. It certainly appeared to be well fitted. Maybe the helmet had foam that was too hard for the accident she had. Maybe not. Maybe it had already taken a few hits. Maybe not. Maybe it was just bad luck. In all probability, she would have been worse if she was not wearing a helmet. But then again, maybe not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
queequeg Posted March 10, 2011 Report Share Posted March 10, 2011 The adults who were with her decided, rather than staying put and sending someone to call for help, to drag/carry/ski the stunned kid to the chairlift, queue for 15-20 minutes, get on the lift without bothering to mention the kid is semi-conscious, and go to the top. Holy crap. How morbidly irresponsible of them. That's horrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueB Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 Too bad everyone is content with stylish helmets that provides minimal protection. I'm looking for more ! Even a change in the density of foam relative to a speed rating would be better than what the majority of manufacturers are providing now. In the wake of 2nd hit this year and a mild concussion, my old helmet got retired. I got myself a nice new Smith, with oversized brim, but I think the helmets, as they are, are really insufficient... I fell on a green run, riding switch, hi-side heel edge, wham, into softish snow. Blackened for 2-3 seconds, had to stop for a day and was drowsy/nauseous for another few days... Anyways, I got inspired to try out (just in store) a basball helmet. It felt that it could provide better energy absorption. The foam is thicker and seems to be of lesser density then in snowsports' helmets. Shell is plenty strong too, yet has a bit of flex to it. It cradles the skull in such a nice way, that chin strap is not even required... I mean, those guys get hit by a hard, fast flying objects and survive - gotta be good? Thoughts, anyone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gcarve Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 Hey BlueB, check out Boeri helmets. From what I've read, Boeri arguably makes some of the safest helmets available for skiing, snowboarding, etc. The company has decades of experience (It was originally started in 1950 by an orthopedic surgeon in Italy named Franco Boeri). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flywalker Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 +1 on Boeri. l have a Uvex race helmet. l like it but l haven't had to "test" it. l hope l won't have to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoltan Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 Anyways, I got inspired to try out (just in store) a basball helmet. It felt that it could provide better energy absorption. The foam is thicker and seems to be of lesser density then in snowsports' helmets. Shell is plenty strong too, yet has a bit of flex to it. It cradles the skull in such a nice way, that chin strap is not even required... I mean, those guys get hit by a hard, fast flying objects and survive - gotta be good? If you do the math, a baseball traveling at 100mph has the same momentum as an average human head traveling only 3.2mph. Think the baseball helmet is designed to absorb as much energy as a snowsport helmet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GV27 Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 These discussions are always the same for whatever sport. I won't bother to read all of the previous posts since I pretty much know what they say. Has anyone mentioned my favorite? The idea that helmets are dangerous because you're more likely to break your neck wearing a helmet because it's not protected by the crushing action of the skull? LOL - I always get a kick out of that argument. On another note, a great side-benefit of my helmet is how it allows me to use my head as a battering ram when I get in a tight spot in the trees. Just lower the head and bust right through scraggly little branches! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corey Posted May 11, 2011 Report Share Posted May 11, 2011 The ridgid foam in todays helmets ( 50 year old technology) isn't good enough ! I'm curious what you base this statement off of? Do you disagree with the testing standards? How would you change them? Do you disagree that foam helmets meet these testing standards? Or do you just not like foam? I don't think that modern helmets are perfect, but the crushing of foam clearly dissipates a LOT of energy as safely as possible. Want to make helmets safer? Use more foam for more crush area! Motorcycle helmets are bigger than ski/snowboard helmets as they have to absorb more energy to pass their different standard tests. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.