 Poster: A snowHead
|
I know, I know but I have a serious question.
Awhile back someone raised the issue about official safety standards or kite marks for ski helmets - did we ever drill down to the bottom of this - I have a reason for asking?
I remember opining that it would probably be the insurance companies that would unoffically set a standard if no one else had doen so officially but I cannot remember if we ever resolved the question. Anyone recall or know the answer?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
I don't think I even saw the original thread. Not even google search digging it up?
There are a couple of official standards out there (CEN 1077 and ASTM2040)... if an insurer was going to demand helmets be certified, they'd certainly ask for one or other of those, no?
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
Serriadh, nope, tried searching. I did some internet trawling and found this:
"It is also important that you replace your helmet every 5 years as the materials used within a helmet can gradually break down over time, making them less sturdy and potentially compromising the level of protection they afford. Helmets are only designed for ONE impact, so if a hard fallen is taken, replace your helmet, or it may not protect you a second time. You should also make sure that you buy a helmet that meets industry standards, between CEN (the least rigorous testing standard) to ASTM and Snell (the hardest standards to meet but the safest options). That way you can be certain that your helmet will help you in an accident. You should also make sure that your helmet fits correctly and always check the fitting of helmets on any children in the group before each session, in case they have outgrown their helmet
Helmets need to comply with one of three standard systems.
•The first is the Common European Norm (CEN) and this is the European ski helmet standard. CEN 1077 was issued in 1996.
•The American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM), all helmets must show that they have reached standard F2040.
•Snell Memorial Foundation, Snell RS-98 and this is arguably the most stringent standard."
The UK is a CEN member and therfore has to apply the standard which is as follows:
"Helmets meeting this standard are tested using a drop-rig and an instrumented "headform," approximating the size and shape of a human head. The specified single drop height is 1.5 meters, and to pass the test, on impact, peak acceleration imparted to the headform cannot exceed 250 Gs. The impact surface is a flat anvil, and it is the only anvil type required of the test. The specified drop height, headform weight, and peak velocity results in energy impact equalling 69 Joules for a size medium helmet (CE 1077 energy impacts vary according to the size of the headform. The smallest size headform/helmet combo impacts with a force of less than 48 Joules, the largest impacts at more than 95 Joules).
A retention system (chin strap) test is included, along with a resistance to rotational force test.
Under CE 1077 a penetration test is also called for. This is a "drop-hammer" type test where the helmet and headform is allowed to drop onto a conical metal punch from a height of .75 meters. (750mm). The helmet fails the test if the punch makes contact with the headform. This test is intended to simulate the possibility of a ski pole tip or tree branch penetrating the helmet. It has been reported that a revision to CE 1077 is expected to be published in the coming months, among the changes is a modification to this penetration test, lowering the drop height by half to 375mm, and also lowering the velocity at which the helmet strikes the punch by more than 25%."
So if you buy/use a UK sold helmet that does not conform to this standard at a minimum I would guess you have a lemon and possibly an insurance problem if you sustain a head injury whilst skiing. Also I'd get a helmet now rather than later if you are planning to do so, sounds like you'll get a better helmet.
I think that answers several questions raised recently "Thanks Ratty." You are quite welcome. "Piece of cheese? "Well, now you mention it I am a bit peckish - thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
p.p.s. the reason for all this is I was looking at collapsible helmets - I've found one I like and am going to get it specc'ed up to conform to the new CEN 1077 (and possibly ASTM2040) - I have a cunning plan! Not only will this make packing an avi sac much, much easier, the thing looks the mutt's nuts compared to many other helmets!
Also I may have been wrong about the CEN and ASTM standards and the law - I have now read that conformity to the standard by the member countries is 'voluntary' ie. recommended but not mandated. Having looked at my current lid I am guessing that this attitude is being taken by the manufacturers as well - no stamp of any kind and a major manufacturer to boot.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I just did a quick google as I was curious, and discovered that Bogner do a $19,000 crystal encrusted helmet 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
musher, yeah, that's the one - I doing it as part of an avi kit, figure it should double as an emergency beacon with an LED 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
As per Ratty's comment: Helmets are only designed for ONE impact
A previous company I owned was an R&D company in the safety sector and we did the only testing on helmets to see what impact was required so that the helmet would fail the safety standard post impact (currently the safety tests are done on new helmets - this mimicked real life where a helmet owner drops it on the floor / swings it against a table / etc.) - i.e. we did double testing on helmets - first test to simulate a knock / damage, and second test to check its performance against the standard... It is scary how small a first impact need be for the helmet to fail the safety test post impact - in some tests a drop of an empty helmet as little as 5cm onto a hard surface (concrete / tiles / etc.) made it then fail the safety standard...
research across a number of disciplines (we were focusing mainly on the horse world) suggested that motorcyclists were one of the few groups who looked after their helmets - many of them would replace a £600 helmet if dropped on the kitchen floor... but for cyclists / riders / skiers / etc. they would only replace it if the shell was damaged... i.e. if they had visual evidence...
at a simplistic level the shell is primarily about preventing penetration - the inner 'polystyrene' is the protective bit - it compresses to absorb impact and slow down the speed of the impact on your head - a large part of head injuries are not external, but impact force causing the brain to hit the inside of the skull, so slowing down speed of impact is crucial...
a simple drop of the helmet can compress the inner sufficiently that it won't compress as far next time, amazingly the protective inner can be split in two without being able to see the damage from outside / or inside...
on a related note - very often children's helmets are to the same size and spec as adult helmets - but may be VAT free where adult ones are not - all that is required to make it a child's helmet is a child's sticker in it 
Alasdair
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
akirk, thanks for that. My cunning plan involves creating two types of helmet that slot into each other that work in two differnet ways, neither relying on foam or similar non-elastic deformation which I think is too vunerable to the failure you describe above ('the protective inner can be split in two without being able to see the damage from outside or inside'). I am hoping the 'mix' will remove this issue and at least one other problem as it will increase penetration protection. I am reasonably confident that that second drop test you describe above will yield much improved results with the projected configuration.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
RattytheSnowRat, You seem to be implying that not wearing a helmet (to BS or even not?) may invalidate your ski insurance....I'm just off to check mine!
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Ratty - that sounds a fascinating idea - I will await photos of the first prototype with interest...
there is def. scope for improving the technology in head protection...
Alasdair
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowyowl, RTSR is referring to one insurer who made the news by only insuring people who wear a helmet.
It was a company called Essential Travel and its covered (if you'll excuse the pun) here...
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
snowyowl, yup, but what Richard_Sideways, didn't mention was the 'floodgates' effect that we feared, i.e. if one of the bugs does it, the rest may well jump on board. It doesn't seem to have happened so far but I suspect more insurers will gradually slip in something about it
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
RattytheSnowRat, Will your helmet have quite a bit of D30 in it? And have you worn your new beanie on the slopes yet? My trappers hat has been to Cairngorm - I've been waiting in anticipation for an impact, but so far, only a T-Bar in the shoulder!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
RattytheSnowRat, an interesting thought occurs on rereading this - Your suggestion of a floodgate could have some traction. As has been observed in other threads and various statistics bounced about, helmet wearing has gained widespread acceptance and is fast becoming the 'norm' with 75% to 85% of people regularly using a lid.
Insurers like 'normals' and this could be a catalyst to implement some kind of wider policy regarding what constitutes 'normal' behaviour for mountain users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Sofia, Richard_Sideways, errrr, yes to both statements (dammit) but no slope time yet for the beanie. I travel by tube in the London rush hour - the beanie ahs already paid for itself in that environment alone.
Things are moving on with the helmet - more later. I have the sample shell and it's gor-gee-ous. Might need to up-spec it some more but I am going to run a prototype through crash testing to see where we are. If it passes a homemade ASTM test I'll prob move straight into production.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
RattytheSnowRat, excellent! I'm really impressed by your idea and approach. Keep us updated - maybe we could have a snowheads testing group
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
