Concussions in the NHL, Waiting for Science

[Robviously]

Perhaps if you explained why you are qualified to make this assessment, maybe it would make the suggestion more credible. Are you a structural engineer? Have you made a finite-element model with a significant number of nodes to properly model the energy dissipation? Where does the clear padding come from? Is there a product you know about or is this unobtanium?

 

I actually am a structural engineer (or *was* until August when I went back to school) and I think hockey helmets are a bit of a joke. I was looking at a couple models yesterday in a sporting goods store and they're not very well padded. If I were designing one from scratch, the inner-most layer would fit secure to the head, the thick middle layer would be a soft foam or gel, and you'd have the same basic hard outer shell. So if your head gets slammed into the glass but your head would still come to a slower stop within the helmet, mitigating the risk of a concussion (brain bruise).

 

On the other hand, this seems so simple that I wonder why someone hasn't done this yet. I'm wondering if it requires a larger helmet that the manufacturers think won't sell or that the players won't adopt because they don't want to stand out.

[MattPie]

(note that most of my very amateur knowledge comes from reading I've done for motorcycle helmets, I am an engineer though)

 

There's no one ideal helmet, and are a *lot* of trade-offs to be made. The point of a helmet (as far as concussions go) is to reduce the acceleration of the head stopping. Acceleration is basically the change in speed over time, which directly relates to the distance (give) the helmet has. In car terms, if you have 100 yards to slow down vs. 100 feet, the acceleration is much higher for the shorter distance. The helmet uses some sort of compressable material (air, foam, etc.) to slow the head from moving to a stop.

 

So, from a safety perspective, the ideal helmet would be about 3 feet wide with really soft foam, gently compressing as the head slows down. There may be some logistic issues with that though. The worst possible helmet would be something with no give in direct contact with your skull, like granite. Your skull would stop instantly with the brain still at full speed. Everything else is a trade-off between the expected impact forces and how much distance (give) the helmet can reasonably have.

 

I've been thinking about the exterior padding. While intuitive, I'm not sure it matters. When you get down to the physics, it's just how much resistance the padding gives over time/distance. It wouldn't seem to matter if the where the padding is, exactly. Plus, with a hard shell, it's distributing the force through all of the interior padding, whereas with external padding the initial part of the impact is on one small portion of the padding and it'll compress very quickly (large force on a small area). The bigger problem with external padding is grip. On a glancing blow, a hard shell will slide along other surface (like the boards), where a soft shell may mold to shape of the other surface and grab on. I think you'd see more neck twist injuries.

[spndnchz]

(note that most of my very amateur knowledge comes from reading I've done for motorcycle helmets, I am an engineer though)

 

There's no one ideal helmet, and are a *lot* of trade-offs to be made. The point of a helmet (as far as concussions go) is to reduce the acceleration of the head stopping. Acceleration is basically the change in speed over time, which directly relates to the distance (give) the helmet has. In car terms, if you have 100 yards to slow down vs. 100 feet, the acceleration is much higher for the shorter distance. The helmet uses some sort of compressable material (air, foam, etc.) to slow the head from moving to a stop.

 

So, from a safety perspective, the ideal helmet would be about 3 feet wide with really soft foam, gently compressing as the head slows down. There may be some logistic issues with that though. The worst possible helmet would be something with no give in direct contact with your skull, like granite. Your skull would stop instantly with the brain still at full speed. Everything else is a trade-off between the expected impact forces and how much distance (give) the helmet can reasonably have.

 

I've been thinking about the exterior padding. While intuitive, I'm not sure it matters. When you get down to the physics, it's just how much resistance the padding gives over time/distance. It wouldn't seem to matter if the where the padding is, exactly. Plus, with a hard shell, it's distributing the force through all of the interior padding, whereas with external padding the initial part of the impact is on one small portion of the padding and it'll compress very quickly (large force on a small area). The bigger problem with external padding is grip. On a glancing blow, a hard shell will slide along other surface (like the boards), where a soft shell may mold to shape of the other surface and grab on. I think you'd see more neck twist injuries.

 

Kinda like those big water barrels on the expressway.

 

That's it! Have the helmets full of water with a release valve at certain pressure, brings the head to a slower stop inside the helmet. I'm a genius! (not meant to patronize)

[Figster]

I actually am a structural engineer (or *was* until August when I went back to school) and I think hockey helmets are a bit of a joke. I was looking at a couple models yesterday in a sporting goods store and they're not very well padded. If I were designing one from scratch, the inner-most layer would fit secure to the head, the thick middle layer would be a soft foam or gel, and you'd have the same basic hard outer shell. So if your head gets slammed into the glass but your head would still come to a slower stop within the helmet, mitigating the risk of a concussion (brain bruise).

 

On the other hand, this seems so simple that I wonder why someone hasn't done this yet. I'm wondering if it requires a larger helmet that the manufacturers think won't sell or that the players won't adopt because they don't want to stand out.

 

 

Makes more sense to reduce impact on the exterior in my opinion and put your hard shell in the middle.

 

(note that most of my very amateur knowledge comes from reading I've done for motorcycle helmets, I am an engineer though)

 

There's no one ideal helmet, and are a *lot* of trade-offs to be made. The point of a helmet (as far as concussions go) is to reduce the acceleration of the head stopping. Acceleration is basically the change in speed over time, which directly relates to the distance (give) the helmet has. In car terms, if you have 100 yards to slow down vs. 100 feet, the acceleration is much higher for the shorter distance. The helmet uses some sort of compressable material (air, foam, etc.) to slow the head from moving to a stop.

 

So, from a safety perspective, the ideal helmet would be about 3 feet wide with really soft foam, gently compressing as the head slows down. There may be some logistic issues with that though. The worst possible helmet would be something with no give in direct contact with your skull, like granite. Your skull would stop instantly with the brain still at full speed. Everything else is a trade-off between the expected impact forces and how much distance (give) the helmet can reasonably have.

 

I've been thinking about the exterior padding. While intuitive, I'm not sure it matters. When you get down to the physics, it's just how much resistance the padding gives over time/distance. It wouldn't seem to matter if the where the padding is, exactly. Plus, with a hard shell, it's distributing the force through all of the interior padding, whereas with external padding the initial part of the impact is on one small portion of the padding and it'll compress very quickly (large force on a small area). The bigger problem with external padding is grip. On a glancing blow, a hard shell will slide along other surface (like the boards), where a soft shell may mold to shape of the other surface and grab on. I think you'd see more neck twist injuries.

 

You do agree that two hard surfaces coming together at high speed would repel each other right?

 

The only place you can really reduce the severity is at the point of impact.

[SDS]

Honestly SDS,it doesn't take a rocket scientist in my opinion to determine If you take two helmets and slam them together theres not a bit of give and while the inner padding is all fine and good, all it really does is keep your head snug and does very little by way of protecting your brain from the whiplash. I don't claim to have all the answers , or what type of material would work best, but the simple fact that we have no padding on the exterior of hard shelled helmets tells me something more can be done. (Land Survey/Construction Engineer)

 

I once told my plumber I was going to do some plumbing work on my own in the house. He asked me what I did and I told him I was an engineer... He replied with, "You don't see me doing engineering do you?"

 

It was clear what he meant.

 

A billion helmets are made in the world. I find it hard to believe they are all made fundamentally wrong, despite the designs of the experts in the field, despite the investments put down by Mark Messier and his special helmet project, and the answer lies in the common sense of the layman. I just don't buy it.

[korab rules]

Makes more sense to reduce impact on the exterior in my opinion and put your hard shell in the middle.

It's hockey, not football. As MP already said, run your helmet along the glass at 20 mph with a foamy type of coating on the exterior of the helmet and watch people's heads get twisted off their necks.

[Figster]

It's hockey, not football. As MP already said, run your helmet along the glass at 20 mph with a foamy type of coating on the exterior of the helmet and watch people's heads get twisted off their necks.

 

Concussions are a huge problem in hockey.

[dEnnis the Menace]

I once told my plumber I was going to do some plumbing work on my own in the house. He asked me what I did and I told him I was an engineer... He replied with, "You don't see me doing engineering do you?"

 

It was clear what he meant.

 

A billion helmets are made in the world. I find it hard to believe they are all made fundamentally wrong, despite the designs of the experts in the field, despite the investments put down by Mark Messier and his special helmet project, and the answer lies in the common sense of the layman. I just don't buy it.

Makes more sense to reduce impact on the exterior in my opinion and put your hard shell in the middle.

 

 

 

You do agree that two hard surfaces coming together at high speed would repel each other right?

 

The only place you can really reduce the severity is at the point of impact.

(note that most of my very amateur knowledge comes from reading I've done for motorcycle helmets, I am an engineer though)

 

There's no one ideal helmet, and are a *lot* of trade-offs to be made. The point of a helmet (as far as concussions go) is to reduce the acceleration of the head stopping. Acceleration is basically the change in speed over time, which directly relates to the distance (give) the helmet has. In car terms, if you have 100 yards to slow down vs. 100 feet, the acceleration is much higher for the shorter distance. The helmet uses some sort of compressable material (air, foam, etc.) to slow the head from moving to a stop.

 

So, from a safety perspective, the ideal helmet would be about 3 feet wide with really soft foam, gently compressing as the head slows down. There may be some logistic issues with that though. The worst possible helmet would be something with no give in direct contact with your skull, like granite. Your skull would stop instantly with the brain still at full speed. Everything else is a trade-off between the expected impact forces and how much distance (give) the helmet can reasonably have.

 

I've been thinking about the exterior padding. While intuitive, I'm not sure it matters. When you get down to the physics, it's just how much resistance the padding gives over time/distance. It wouldn't seem to matter if the where the padding is, exactly. Plus, with a hard shell, it's distributing the force through all of the interior padding, whereas with external padding the initial part of the impact is on one small portion of the padding and it'll compress very quickly (large force on a small area). The bigger problem with external padding is grip. On a glancing blow, a hard shell will slide along other surface (like the boards), where a soft shell may mold to shape of the other surface and grab on. I think you'd see more neck twist injuries.

 

1) as a mechanical engineer, I believe MattPie wins as far as intuition on the situation goes, but that just comes from me doing enough impact simulations, both in a test lab and on the computer. You basically hit the nail on the end as far as the physics and engineering behind it.

 

2) I also think SDS is right in that, there is no way that ALL of the helmet manufacturers are getting the basic fundamentals wrong.

[korab rules]

Concussions are a huge problem in hockey.

:wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:

 

How was your idea on helmets received over at TBD?

[K-9]

Bottom line on helmets is they are for preventing localized head injuries like skull fractures and can do very little for concussions. MattPie makes great points about reducing the acceleration of the head but he's right, in order to do that effectively, we'd be seeing helmets 3 feet in diameter. And then there's the question of concussions sustained by whiplash or those that occur when a stationary head is struck with sufficient enough force; helmets offer NO protection for the former, and not much in the latter.

 

The answer to lowering the number of concussions lies more in rules changes and behavior changes than it does in new helmet technology. Companies have been after this holy grail for years but as long as our brains float in that fluid in our skulls (and it's a good thing they do) helmets are not the best answer.

 

Unless those 3 foot helmets ever catch on.

 

GO SABRES!!!

[RayFinkle]

Before all the experts chime in and they spend another million on improving helmet technology, how about making friggin mouth pieces mandatory.

[Figster]

:wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:

 

How was your idea on helmets received over at TBD?

 

 

Some people understood where I was coming from, some don't, and can't make it any more simple then to say two hard surfaces coming together at high velocity will repel. Padding on the exterior will help prevent that from being as severe. You need padding at the point of impact so the moving objects come together slower because once they collide and bounce back, its to late, your brain just suffered the consequences.

[korab rules]

 

1) as a mechanical engineer, I believe MattPie wins as far as intuition on the situation goes, but that just comes from me doing enough impact simulations, both in a test lab and on the computer. You basically hit the nail on the end as far as the physics and engineering behind it.

 

2) I also think SDS is right in that, there is no way that ALL of the helmet manufacturers are getting the basic fundamentals wrong.

 

The messier project spent millions upon millions of dollars in R and D in conjunction with Cascade's decades of experience in lacrosse helmets and another decade in hockey helmets with the sole purpose of designing a helmet that reduced the risk of concussion.. One of my sons has a pre-messier cascade hockey helmet, the other an M11 cascade hockey helmet. Very little changed. They both use Cascade's se7en technology underneath a soft rubbery foam inner layer - it is basically a plastic and foam honeycomb between the soft rubber-like inner layer and the hard outer helmet - the M11 fits a little better, and adjusts to fit a little better.

 

One thing that never gets mentioned in these concussion threads is the use of mouthguards - mouthguards are proven to decrease the incidence of concussions - how many players wear them? Does Miller? I see Pommers chewing on his a lot. Before putting gazoo helmets on everyone, maybe they should mandate the use of mouthguards.

[Weave]

Bottom line on helmets is they are for preventing localized head injuries like skull fractures and can do very little for concussions. MattPie makes great points about reducing the acceleration of the head but he's right, in order to do that effectively, we'd be seeing helmets 3 feet in diameter. And then there's the question of concussions sustained by whiplash or those that occur when a stationary head is struck with sufficient enough force; helmets offer NO protection for the former, and not much in the latter.

 

The answer to lowering the number of concussions lies more in rules changes and behavior changes than it does in new helmet technology. Companies have been after this holy grail for years but as long as our brains float in that fluid in our skulls (and it's a good thing they do) helmets are not the best answer.

 

Unless those 3 foot helmets ever catch on.

 

GO SABRES!!!

 

Those 3 foot thick helmets would then begin to replicate what the Safer Barriers mentioned upthread accomplish. As posted earlier, the challenge is reducing the rate of deceleration. If you reduce the rate of deceleration you are increasing the time over which deceleration occurs. Increasing deceleration time requires more travel distance for the mass involved (in our case, the head/brain). Yes, more padding would result in more decelerating distance (aka more decel time), but at some point a tradeoff has to be made. Unless 3 foot thick helmets can be made useable in a hockey setting.

 

I suspect the helmets we currently have are about the best that can be made given the materials available today. In the end, it still comes down to reducing deceleration rates, and unless we can drastically increase the size of the helmets used, decel rates aren't going to change much over what is currently available.

[Figster]

Bottom line on helmets is they are for preventing localized head injuries like skull fractures and can do very little for concussions. MattPie makes great points about reducing the acceleration of the head but he's right, in order to do that effectively, we'd be seeing helmets 3 feet in diameter. And then there's the question of concussions sustained by whiplash or those that occur when a stationary head is struck with sufficient enough force; helmets offer NO protection for the former, and not much in the latter.

 

The answer to lowering the number of concussions lies more in rules changes and behavior changes than it does in new helmet technology. Companies have been after this holy grail for years but as long as our brains float in that fluid in our skulls (and it's a good thing they do) helmets are not the best answer.

 

Unless those 3 foot helmets ever catch on.

 

GO SABRES!!!

 

 

Myself personally, I don't live with my head in the sand and new ideas are thought of every day. (My mistake k-9,was trying to reply to Dennis the Menace)

 

Like I commented to SDS, the Hans device and safer barrier is relatively new to racing yet we've been racing for years, so I'm sorry, I'm not buying into this, well If they haven't thought of it by now it will never happen

[dEnnis the Menace]

The messier project spent millions upon millions of dollars in R and D in conjunction with Cascade's decades of experience in lacrosse helmets and another decade in hockey helmets with the sole purpose of designing a helmet that reduced the risk of concussion.. One of my sons has a pre-messier cascade hockey helmet, the other an M11 cascade hockey helmet. Very little changed. They both use Cascade's se7en technology underneath a soft rubbery foam inner layer - it is basically a plastic and foam honeycomb between the soft rubber-like inner layer and the hard outer helmet - the M11 fits a little better, and adjusts to fit a little better.

 

One thing that never gets mentioned in these concussion threads is the use of mouthguards - mouthguards are proven to decrease the incidence of concussions - how many players wear them? Does Miller? I see Pommers chewing on his a lot. Before putting gazoo helmets on everyone, maybe they should mandate the use of mouthguards.

 

exactly. I just sat here and started to try to explain the fundamentals behind the physics and engineering on why the helmet should be one way and not the other, and I realized 2 things. (1) I can't explain it without drawing it out with pictures and graphs and stuff (stupid engineers, that's all we like to do) and (2) you hit the nail on the head with MP. Lack of a mouth guard in soccer was the sole reason my sister got a concussion when she dove for a ball (goalie). Had she had a mouth guard in, the doctor told her, when she hit the ground, her jaw wouldn't have snapped in a certain manner, and the blow would have been lessened. She never goes on the field without one now...and that's a "non-contact" sport.

[SwampD]

I think they need to look at the direction of the hits. It seems to me that a lot of these recent concusions have been hits directly from behind along the boards, and not even all that hard sometimes. Maybe if there is a direction of hit that is more likely to result in a concusion they can then create rule to reduce them.

 

Padding on the outside of the helmet would result in a lot more injuries. Any soft padding would grip and cause the head to twist more.

[Weave]

Myself personally, I don't live with my head in the sand and new ideas are thought of every day.

 

Like I commented to SDS, the Hans device and safer barrier is relatively new to racing yet we've been racing for years, so I'm sorry, I'm not buying into this, well If they haven't thought of it by now it will never happen

 

Hans device is totally different in intent and IMO isn't really valid to use as a comparison. It isn't intended to prevent brain bruising and concussion, at least not directly. It is intended to help brace and support the cervical spine so that in the event of a collision the cervical spine doesn't break and sever the base of the spinal cord. It is mechanical bracing, not a device that reduces deceleration rates. The Safer Barrier is a closer comparison and performs the same task that we would need a new helmet design to do (reducing deceleration rates).

[korab rules]

Myself personally, I don't live with my head in the sand and new ideas are thought of every day. (My mistake k-9,was trying to reply to Dennis the Menace)

 

Like I commented to SDS, the Hans device and safer barrier is relatively new to racing yet we've been racing for years, so I'm sorry, I'm not buying into this, well If they haven't thought of it by now it will never happen

Maybe sand would make a good energy absorbing layer in the 3' wide helmets.

 

Hans device is totally different in intent and IMO isn't really valid to use as a comparison. It isn't intended to prevent brain bruising and concussion, at least not directly. It is intended to help brace and support the cervical spine so that in the event of a collision the cervical spine doesn't break and sever the base of the spinal cord. It is mechanical bracing, not a device that reduces deceleration rates. The Safer Barrier is a closer comparison and performs the same task that we would need a new helmet design to do (reducing deceleration rates).

 

Yup - Hans device has been around since the 80's used in many racing series other than Nascar in the 90's and adopted by Nascar after Earnhardt died. It prevents basilar skull fractures, not concussions.

 

Safer barrier has been around for a decade. It reduces deceleration rates, but just, if not more importantly, it doesn't bounce cars back out into track traffic where they get hit by other cars going 150mph+.

 

Its reduces deceleration rates by preventing violent stops - instead, it absorbs cars and their forces and turns them parallel with the wall.

[Figster]

Hans device is totally different in intent and IMO isn't really valid to use as a comparison. It isn't intended to prevent brain bruising and concussion, at least not directly. It is intended to help brace and support the cervical spine so that in the event of a collision the cervical spine doesn't break and sever the base of the spinal cord. It is mechanical bracing, not a device that reduces deceleration rates. The Safer Barrier is a closer comparison and performs the same task that we would need a new helmet design to do (reducing deceleration rates).

 

Hans device keeps your head from snapping forward on impact.Dale Sr. would probably be alive today had he been wearing one in my opinion. I wasn't comparing the Hans device to helmets or safer barrier I was using it as example of new ideas we see in the world every day.

[SDS]

Myself personally, I don't live with my head in the sand and new ideas are thought of every day. (My mistake k-9,was trying to reply to Dennis the Menace)

 

Like I commented to SDS, the Hans device and safer barrier is relatively new to racing yet we've been racing for years, so I'm sorry, I'm not buying into this, well If they haven't thought of it by now it will never happen

 

The Hans device is 25 years old and the safer barrier is 13.

 

Note the safer barrier has STEEL tubes in front of foam. And a barrier doesn't have any limitations like "must fit on someone's head and must not break someone's neck.".

[korab rules]

[Figster]

The Hans device is 25 years old and the safer barrier is 13.

 

Note the safer barrier has STEEL tubes in front of foam. And a barrier doesn't have any limitations like "must fit on someone's head and must not break someone's neck.".

 

 

So what are you trying to say SDS, that we don't advance as a civilization? Or that we can't design a safer helmet? When I say we, mankind I mean,(hehe, not me)

[SDS]

So what are you trying to say SDS, that we don't advance as a civilization?

 

Feel free to buy a helmet, wrap it in foam and slam your head against the wall. That's about all I care to share for now.

[Bmwolf21]

Feel free to buy a helmet, wrap it in foam and slam your head against the wall. That's about all I care to share for now.

 

I'd pay to see that.