Oldhead wrote: ↑Fri Sep 13, 2024 8:59 am
Maybe the construction of ski and snowboard helmets is the problem.
This is exactly the problem.
I've always wondered if NFL helmet tech will ever trickle into snow/skate/bike helmets. A lot of players are wearing these Vicis helmets with 3D printed honeycomb structure, kinda like Smith's Koroyd helmets but softer and can absorb impact repeatedly.
I've always wondered if NFL helmet tech will ever trickle into snow/skate/bike helmets.
While it wouldn't be a bad thing, it is a different beast.
Going helmet to helmet while moving at say 10-15mph, where both objects are movable, is an entirely different scenario than hitting a tree ( immovable object ) at 40 mph, or slamming your head onto a compacted snow run ( immovable object ) at 30mph.
SLC, UT - Cardiff Snowcraft - NOW - Spark R & D - AK457 - DC - Anon - Milosport -
Another EL helmet discussion leaves me feeling less guilty about my brand new Maze that continues to sit in the closet. That is not to say I don't think wearing one is "better."
“My position on helmets is that if you are in the typical fatality scenario of impact with a fixed object such as a tree, a helmet is not likely to have any benefit. The forces involved will simply overwhelm the helmet’s protective abilities,”
“ On the other hand, if you are involved in the more typical head injury scenario; a fall to the snow surface, the helmet can offer significant protection and can convert what could be a serious concussion to either no injury or very minor injury.”
If you’re driving 150mph an airbag or seatbelt won’t do much either. However if you’re going 80, different story. Protective equipment is designed to reduce injury severity under normal circumstances. I’ve whacked my head a few times where I would have been left with a nasty headache but I was fine. Even for powder, prime example would be Grilo.
Grilo’s tragic passing was not actually caused by head injury, as multiple media sources originally claimed, but by a torn aorta. His brother posted about it on instagram to clear up the confusion.
To reply more specifically to @vanni I think the beanie and goggles under works for a lot of people as you ‘feel’ the helmet less.
Good to know! Thank you both for setting that straight.
eleveneightnate wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 5:53 pm
If companies are claiming their helmets stop serious things like brain bleeds, though, that's fucked.
MIPS tech claims to to do just that, so yes, it’s fucked.
And of course, yes a helmet will protect against lacerations…
I personally would take the idea that they protect against skull fractures with a Alaska sized grain of salt..
Source for the part about MIPS? That is not consistent with what I have seen - for instance the website states "to help reduce the risk of brain injury" (emphasis mine), not "stop" it. Pretty big difference that.
eleveneightnate wrote: ↑Thu Sep 12, 2024 5:53 pm
If companies are claiming their helmets stop serious things like brain bleeds, though, that's fucked.
MIPS tech claims to to do just that, so yes, it’s fucked.
And of course, yes a helmet will protect against lacerations…
I personally would take the idea that they protect against skull fractures with a Alaska sized grain of salt..
Source for the part about MIPS? That is not consistent with what I have seen - for instance the website states "to help reduce the risk of brain injury" (emphasis mine), not "stop" it. Pretty big difference that.
But it can't reduce the risk. There is nothing on the market where if you hit a tree at 40mph that is going to stop your brain from smashing against the inside of your skull. That is what causes brain injuries. Your brain hitting your skull from the inside. MIPS can't change that at all. So yes, their claims about reducing the risk are BS.
SLC, UT - Cardiff Snowcraft - NOW - Spark R & D - AK457 - DC - Anon - Milosport -
