 Poster: A snowHead
|
As well as wishing MS a quick recovery... it is interesting to read folks' responses about helmets...
we can't fully know the details of this accident - but there are some general principles ref. helmets... and a fair degree of misunderstanding on here 
In the first business I owned (R&D in sports safety products) we were the only company in the world to do certain testing on helmets... in particular we were the first (and as far as I know still the only ones) to test '2nd accident' protection...
The principle behind a helmet (for pretty much any sport) is very simple - the 'foam' / polystyrene is designed to compress / be used to slow down speed of an impact, this in turn reduces the speed at which the energy transfers into the skull... doing this reduces the speed differential between skull and brain where otherwise the brain moves faster than the skull, hits the skull and is damaged by that impact... by compressing the foam you slow down the accident and the impact is a) lower and b) over a longer period of time - both of which reduce severity of accident...
There is a 'standard' which a helmet has to pass which is tested by putting a weight (skull shape and density) into the helmet and dropping it under controlled conditions... (amongst other bits) the sensor inside the weight mustn't register above a certain force of impact...
There are a range of these standards... from ANSI / ASTM in North America to EN / CEN in Europe to independent standards, e.g. the SNELL standards (Snell is an independent organisation in the USA set up to improve standards)
Skiing standards are: CEN1077 / ASTM F2040 / SNELL RS-98 - you can see some info on the CEN1077 here: http://wiki.fis-ski.com/index.php/CEN_1077 It was last updated in 2007 and is planned to be updated again soon - though it appears that will reduce the severity of the test / make it less protective against penetration...
So helmets are tested in samples from each batch to ensure they meet the standard - but the critical misunderstanding is that helmets are only tested against single impact - they are designed to be discarded after an impact - yet rarely are they thrown away...
We did 2nd accident protection testing - by simulating a range of accidents (as the 1st accident) and then retesting to see whether the helmet still protects in a 2nd accident...
The results are scary - it only requires a minor knock to the helmet to mean that it no longer meets the standards and will not protect you in a real accident - yet we see skiers throwing their helmets on the floor, being hit by the chair lift bar, etc. and carrying on assuming that the helmet will continue to work... helmets are built down to a standard (to be much above the standard makes them bulky and expensive) so they are only just above the protective level required - therefore it takes little to push them below...
A skier falling and hitting their head / a rider dropping the helmet on the yard floor fromt heir horse / coming off your bike / leaving a helmet in the sun in a car / bashing a helmet unexpectedly - can all reduce impact protection to below the required amount...
So, while a helmet will definitely help protect your brain (no doubt about it), in reality many people are skiing deluded with helmets that will not protect them sufficiently... helmets and accidents are in fact more complex than we think - an accident like this one could have many elements to it - we don't know the shape of the rock - it might have first penetrated / split the helmet and then the nature of impact protection / the dynamics of the accident will no doubt change...
So we can make lots of assumptions - but it is not as simple as helmet = safety / no helmet = danger - and lets pray that MS recovers...
And yes, I wear a helmet (and protect it / look after it...)
Alasdair
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Well i read Schumi isnot getying worse which could be a good sign.
I was riding the lift today with the PistenHilfe here in St Anton.
I asked about the number of people they carted off the slopes injured wearing
Helmets or Not wearing.
He said nearly all in the last 2 peak weeks or about 99% he reckoned were wearing helmets & in the Pistenhilfedienst ( there service org) Speed & lack of surroundings or awareness were to blame in nearly all collisions accidents.
He also said he could not remember the lsdt time a non helmet was rescued (none this season) .
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
akirk, thanks for the interesting post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
akirk, thanks for that. Which brands/models do you think offer good protection?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
akirk,
TOP POST
Tickup 100
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
stanton, bollox
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
stanton,
What proportion of all skiers in your sample were wearing helmets? If 100% were wearing helmets, the the reported 99% of injured being helmet wearers would not be surprising. Otherwise, without that data, your logic is flawed and without any substance
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
The results are scary - it only requires a minor knock to the helmet to mean that it no longer meets the standards and will not protect you in a real accident - yet we see skiers throwing their helmets on the floor, being hit by the chair lift bar, etc. and carrying on assuming that the helmet will continue to work...
|
Very interesting, and a bit alarming. Just a knock from the bar of a lift? I'd better get a new one! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| snowman wrote: |
| akirk, thanks for that. Which brands/models do you think offer good protection? |
In theory all are exactly the same...
as a generalisation - the protective bit tends to be identical - you are paying for:
- brand
- style
- casing material
- extras (e.g. sound)
- quality of straps / fixings (e.g. leather)
- etc.
but the foam is probably protective to the same level in all of them
key is a good fit, and then keep it in good condition (or replace if hit / damaged)
Alasdair
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| pam w wrote: |
| .....Very interesting, and a bit alarming. Just a knock from the bar of a lift? I'd better get a new one! |
Like every day - allowing for equivalent knocks. Or take a view.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Quote: |
The results are scary - it only requires a minor knock to the helmet to mean that it no longer meets the standards and will not protect you in a real accident - yet we see skiers throwing their helmets on the floor, being hit by the chair lift bar, etc. and carrying on assuming that the helmet will continue to work...
|
Very interesting, and a bit alarming. Just a knock from the bar of a lift? I'd better get a new one! |
Not necessarily - you need to make a judgement, a tap from the bar is probably fine - but a hard knock may well damage the helmet
Alasdair
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
akirk, that's useful information, thank you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
akirk, I thought Sweet and POC helmets were explicitly designed to handle multiple hits? Would be interesting to see if those brands were involved too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| PJSki wrote: |
| Comedy Goldsmith wrote: |
| PJSki wrote: |
| Ok, you ignore the most recent scientific and peer reviewed studies. |
You're referring to the most recent scientific and peer-reviewed studies on 'risk compensation', in relation to helmet-wearing.
You're welcome to cite those studies so we can read them. |
Already been linked to. |
Where?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Timmaah wrote: |
| akirk, I thought Sweet and POC helmets were explicitly designed to handle multiple hits? Would be interesting to see if those brands were involved too. |
I am not 100% sure it is some years since I was running the R&D company - but I think that yet again it is probably not quite that simple
Sweet have a system called Impact Shield protection which aims to spread impact across a wider area so that the impact is shared over a big space making the impact at any point lower.... They also have a system called MIPS which again aims to reduce impact (rotational through low friction linings)... However that doesn't mean that the internal 'foam' which offers the core compression / protection has the ability to be used more than once - there are technical materials which could work in that way, but would be very expensive... currently the materials requried to meet the standard are degraded by impact...
POC also uses MIPS, but their 'multi-impact bit' is two-fold... one bit uses EPP (Expanded Polypropylene) instead of the normal EPS (Expanded Polystyrene) which does have much better multi-impact performance - but I believe that performance overall in any one impact is not as good - so, it will be less likely to degrade through minor impacts, but may be less effective in an actual serious accident... The second bit is their multi-impact deflector panel - that is really for racing where it takes lots of impacts (e.g. from gates) at a minor level so that the impact doesn't go through to the inner 'foam' which is left for an accident - i.e. it is sacrificial as it is not core to the helmet safety...
there is some interesting reading here:
http://forums.mtbr.com/downhill-freeride/helmet-discussion-single-vs-multi-impact-733522.html
and a very interesting PDF here: http://www.westcoastweasels.com/archives/PDF/Blowing_the_Lid_Off.pdf
ultimately there is a need for lots more work - the brain is a complex thing and so the solutions to its protection may also need to be more sophisticated...
for me at present the highest level of protection seems to be EPP (the cheap stuff) and I would rather buy cheap but good-fitting and then replace as necessary (every trip if needed, it is not an expensive thing to do at £40-50 (whereas it would be at £200) rather than spending a lot and getting a helmet which promises the world, but where it is perhaps not proven yet...
but I haven't been involved in the industry for 7+ years now, so a lot has moved on - the Snell multi-impact testing is post our initial testing at SATRA, though with slightly different purpose - so there may be other changes of which I am not aware...
Alasdair
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
The risk compensation idea is pretty sketchy to say the least when applied to a ski helmet. Everyone I have ever spoken to has been fully aware that a helmet will not protect them much against a large or high velocity impact. People who, for example, ski steep rocky couloirs, know that the biggest threat is avi risk, followed by falling off a cliff. When it comes down to indulging in risky activities a helmet should not be compared to something like a climbing harness. I would lead a much harder climb when using ropes, a harness and placing gear than when soloing. If I'm going to do a jump I have never caught myself thinking "am I wearing a helmet today". It's whether you think you can land it. Head injuries in skiing are fairly rare.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Actually having read stanton, post I can see where he is coming from, there are always a certain number of people who have all the gear but not enough skill, you often see them from the lifts coming down the slope usually in a straight line until they fall the rest of the way. The use of a helmet does not make their skiing better or worse BUT it might mean that they are less worried about being out of control because they think their kit will protect them. But this is not really about helmets and safety but about lack of skill and safety.
Anyway back to hoping Michael makes a good recovery
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| stanton wrote: |
Well i read Schumi isnot getying worse which could be a good sign.
I was riding the lift today with the PistenHilfe here in St Anton.
I asked about the number of people they carted off the slopes injured wearing
Helmets or Not wearing.
He said nearly all in the last 2 peak weeks or about 99% he reckoned were wearing helmets & in the Pistenhilfedienst ( there service org) Speed & lack of surroundings or awareness were to blame in nearly all collisions accidents.
He also said he could not remember the lsdt time a non helmet was rescued (none this season) . |
Which means nothing unless you know what proportion the people on the slopes are wearing helmets. I can count on one hand the number of people I have seen without helmets on the Arlberg slopes in the past fortnight... More people are wearing helmets now a days, when I learnt to ski in '98 (which isn't really that long ago), helmets were very much a rarity, where as today they seem to be pretty much the norm.
Either way, hope Schumacher recovers. His head must've taken some abuse over the years of his racing career, just hope is survives this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| akirk wrote: |
| POC also uses MIPS, but their 'multi-impact bit' is two-fold... one bit uses EPP (Expanded Polypropylene) instead of the normal EPS (Expanded Polystyrene) which does have much better multi-impact performance - but I believe that performance overall in any one impact is not as good - so, it will be less likely to degrade through minor impacts, but may be less effective in an actual serious accident... |
POC does have the Fornix MIPS which has an EPS liner and a slightly less beefy shell than the Backcountry.
It seems clear that EPP is a compromise, otherwise it'd be in more models and used by more manufacturers. Amongst other things, I believe it is slightly heavier that EPS, or a larger amount of it is required to give the same level of protection (my Receptor Backcountry isn't a sleek and low profile bits of gear... I feel a bit like a bobblehead sometimes). Interesting that it might be objectively worse than EPS in a single impact however... that's not such good news. Might look into that one a bit more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
akirk, excellent post. As a bike rider (motor and mountain) and car racer, who has had a share of knocks (including a serious accident on track resulting in a significant head injury, from which I thankfully recovered), and who thus has a healthy interest in head protection, good to see you put it all so well.
Get well soon, Schumi, and safe skiing for the rest of you lot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Sitter,
I was waiting for that reply & you should know more than
most that there are many skiers(inc ski instructors) in St Anton who do
not wear helmets.
I should of added that the Pistenhilfe have to file a report
for every incident. Those involving 3rd party collisions are reported
to the Police.
His opinion was similar to mine in that Helmets are probably doing
something they were never intended to do in causing other types of injurys caused by collisions. The types of injurys will surprise a lot of folk but i leave that for another time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
If you are still an anti helmet bigot
|
So not wanting to wear a helmet and wanting to keep the right to choose makes me a bigot?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tangowaggon, Many people, me included, think that helmets add a worthwhile level of safety for a minimum level of inconvenience. That has nothing to do with removing your right to choose whether to wear a helmet or not and I have yet to see a single post from a SH suggesting they should be compulsory. I think the argument that helmets are more dangerous is daft, but if you said to me that you don't want to wear a helmet because it ruins your perm then that's entirely up to you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
akirk, thank you for the last two posts, you bring some sensible and well put facts into the debate, along with your obvious experience.
personally I wear a helmet, as if I land on my head, it MUST by definition be better for me to wear one. It certainly DOES NOT make me stupider and more out of control than if I didn't wear one - but this is obviously only my mentality, and may not be true across the board. TBH, in the environment I learnt (skidubai) people are stupid with or without a helmet (seat belt wearing is also still an issue here, although thats digressing, but shows the basic mentality). I also don't understand how a helmet really affects my slope awareness. I can still hear, and it doesn't affect my vision at all - maybe its the helmet design?? What does affect my vision is goggles, which I actually don't really like. I prefer to wear shades, but then get ridiculed because that makes me look like a tourist???
I don't know why there is such a big debate on this, its everyones choice how to protect their squash, I am fine everyone else making their choice 
oh, and get well soon Schumy/ex Stig.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think the helmet debate is best conducted elsewhere.
I think it is ironic that the improvements in F1 safety have contributed to the number of world titles and Mr Schumachers longevity. Many great F1 drivers have been lost to the sport.
My thoughts, and concern, are with Michael Schumacher, his son (who witnessed the accident) and his family. I hope this accident does not turn into a tragedy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
stanton, fine if there are official reports please point out a source where we can use see them which will support your arguments and conjecture.
That said I can't say I have much interest in the wider helmet or non helmet debate and agree this is not really the place to have it.
In this particular instance there is nothing I have seen so far to suggest that Schumacher's wearing of a helmet in any way contributed to his accident. There is pretty compelling opinion that his wearing a helmet prevented him from suffering an immediately fatal impact.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
nozawaonsen,
I doubt if they would be in the public domain in case they have
to go through legal chalenges in court.
Your asking a bit much for me to look for that kind of info
on my phone while I am out on the hill shouting the Helmet brigade to be careful.
I do see a very good use for Helmets , that is on the Skibus where your
More likey to get hit in the head by skis etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Serriadh, I think you are right, there is a cost implication (in material and also in developmental and testing costs), plus weight issues will always be a concern - there is an argument which says that extra weight on the head can make neck injuries more likely / more serious!
There are so many facets to the discussion - e.g. the Sweet Impact Protection System (and others have similar) looks to move impact force around the helmet to reduce overall impact in one place - great idea, but could it shift forces into a place where they have more effect on the brain than otherwise - the complexity of a head accident with the brain also moving in the skull / forces into the skull / onto the neck / rotational forces / frictional forces / etc. all play a part - not simple to analyse, or work out what is best as a skier...
ultimately this is a risk sport - I am sure we have all heard stories / know of accidents where someone standing on the slope ends up being injured - the only real answer is to not ski! Helmets provide some protection - there is a false belief that they offer more than they do - and yes, for some people that may mean they do silly things (but that lack of logic would probably have led to stupidity anyway!) - for the normal skier though how do we know what choice to make?
- your best protection is not having an accident, so there is an understandable argument for not bothering with helmets...
- if buying one it is then a balance between the types of injury protection it offers: primarily impact absorbtion and then all the clever bits... for me because impact reduction is the primary role and that can be negated through an accidental blow I think that at present there is little benefit in spending a lot more on fancy bits which may or may not help - but where the helmet cost is such that you don't replace after a minor blow (meaning that you ski deluded with a useless helmet) - so good fitting, cheap and high levels of impact reduction does the job for me... and replace a lot more than you might think necessary...
Alasdair
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
I believe it depends on a particular accident. If the force of impact is strong enough even a brand new helmet may not be able to protect from serious injuries.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
never summer, i would term that differently.
'every' head impact will be reduced by wearing a helmet - whether its sufficient to protect against damage is obviously dependent on the type of impact - i.e. falling off a cliff and landing on your head with a helmet on probably won't make a difference to the outcome.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| stanton wrote: |
Sitter,
I was waiting for that reply & you should know more than
most that there are many skiers(inc ski instructors) in St Anton who do
not wear helmets.
I should of added that the Pistenhilfe have to file a report
for every incident. Those involving 3rd party collisions are reported
to the Police.
His opinion was similar to mine in that Helmets are probably doing
something they were never intended to do in causing other types of injurys caused by collisions. The types of injurys will surprise a lot of folk but i leave that for another time. |
I know there are those who don't were helmets, but as I said, they are in the minority, and the number of people carted off wearing helmets or not wearing helmets isn't of much use unless there are figures for how many people are actually wearing them on the slope as opposed to not...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
First, great posts by akirk both from a perspective to this incident and a personal decision making point of view. Thank you.
Secondly... the press coverage of this has been at times awful. The DM in particular has just made itself look terrible, particularly in the last few days. They should be, but won't be, ashamed of themselves.
Thirdly... Risk compensation is a personal thing. You can't measure it with surveys and research because of that very reason, IMO. I know I would take more risks if I was wearing a helmet on piste (such as going faster when I don't have the skill to control the speed), so I don't. However, I absolutely will when it comes to park, massively icy days and off-piste for the very reasons this horrible, freak accident for Michael Schumacher has demonstrated.
The article by David Coulthard (I think on the Telegraph site) about how it being a terrible shame that this had to happen for everyone to realise his sporting achievements and charitable work is a good read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
dennisp, In Arlberg helmets actively cause accidents apparently.
Last edited by Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see? on Thu 2-01-14 12:44; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
| the press coverage of this has been at times awful. |
Up to the usual standard I'd say. Have you noticed how the "official" story has changed as time has gone on. At first it was a speeding Schumacher losing control and now it's a "going to the rescue of a stricken skier" Schumacher who gets very unlucky. So, which was it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Bode Swiller, We will probably never know the truth. Between the rubbish in the papers and super hero stories I suspect the truth lies. In other words, he was just out skiing with his son and had an accident and has been very unlucky to have sustained a serious head injury.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure the "speeding" version was ever anything more than speculation.
The only version that's actually been put forward was that he went to help someone then fell. I would imagine that there will be a fairly thorough investigation (to test that version of events) given the potential insurance implications.
There may also be some footage nestling on someone's go pro film of themselves pootling round the piste.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Do we really need to know the details about how it happened? Personally I don't, not beyond the basics. The relentless pursuit of those has been the bits of the DM coverage that has bothered me. I suppose it's because there's potential for "exclusive" stories there, there's clearly nothing sensational to be had from trying to get information on his current condition and recovery potential. A well-considered medically sound piece by a professional wouldn't sell the papers or get the click count soaring.
In all of this, you have to feel for his son, who had to experience everything first hand.
dennisp, I had the same thought but realised that it's more a reflection on the media again. If somebody declares they did some charity work, they're declared a show off and just "doing it for publicity". If someone keeps quiet about it, they're assumed to be selfish and tight because we don't hear about it and thus it cannot happen. They can't win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
call me dave,
| Quote: |
In all of this, you have to feel for his son, who had to experience everything first hand.
|
My point exactly. Heart breaking for the young man
Meanwhile.......
To be or not to be, to wear a helmet or not to wear a helmet, to be a helmet......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This high profile accident will no doubt see an increase of skiers/Boarders wearing helmets on the slopes.
Will the insurance companies jump on the bandwagon by adding a 'Get out of Paying' clause to their ski insurance policies in that the policy would be null and void for any accident incurred on the slopes if the IP was not wearing an 'Approved' helmet? I wouldn't bet against that becoming the norm once the insurance companies have got their collective heads together about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
