or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Air bags may be coming to the WC - Page 2

post #31 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroGravity View Post
 

 

 

Yes, but Dainesse isn't going to give away any details of their design. Even a white paper would be fairly generic since they aren't about to give away any proprietary design or algorithms, even if protected under patent.

 

Test methodologies, data and results would be good to have out there to be reviewed. I think that this is the biggest bone of contention with Ligety, assuming this isn't a competitive thing with Slytech. His assertion is that FIS is pushing this on athletes but there is no substantial, reviewed sport-specific testing, no transparency "just trust us it's for your safety", as the GS ski dimensions were based on a single, commissioned study that didn't necessarily stand up to review rigor.

In fact, companies typically make judgement calls about what to reveal and not reveal in a white paper, balancing saying too much against what is good for marketing.  In this case, I do not believe there would be significant proprietary concerns with revealing and discussing (if the case) that they are using crash recording to help product development, since this is such an obvious thing to do -- and, further, it would provide them with a good marketing benefit.

 

I agree there should be transparency about test methodologies and results -- in particular, that FIS should require Dainese to release this data to the national teams, so it can be reviewed by their own experts.  Maybe this is already being done.  Note that FIS has the power to do this, since they decide whether these are allowed (or required) in FIS races.

post #32 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by dakine View Post
 

This could get out of hand.

I expect we will see as in motorsports that more protection equals more acceptable risk equals bigger crashes.

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 80

That's not even a joke. A German startup is already trying something like that, not specifically for skiing but for various types of situations, including use by the elderly and falling off a building. 

 

 

http://www.igel-systems-protect.de/index.php/en/

 

I think it'd be interesting to merge these style of protective airbags with avalanche airbags, developing something that can protect from both blunt trauma and burial. 

post #33 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZeroGravity View Post
 

 

 

Yes, but Dainesse isn't going to give away any details of their design. Even a white paper would be fairly generic since they aren't about to give away any proprietary design or algorithms, even if protected under patent.

 

Test methodologies, data and results would be good to have out there to be reviewed. I think that this is the biggest bone of contention with Ligety, assuming this isn't a competitive thing with Slytech. His assertion is that FIS is pushing this on athletes but there is no substantial, reviewed sport-specific testing, no transparency "just trust us it's for your safety", as the GS ski dimensions were based on a single, commissioned study that didn't necessarily stand up to review rigor.


Except that the FIS isn't forcing it on anyone. It approved it for use last year, and no one really opted in. It said something in NY Times article linked in the OP to the effect that it wasn't going to consider mandating it until there's more competition on the market. This year POC launched its own design with an airbag system from French startup In and Motion, and it sounds like more people are using the Dainese and Poc models, but in no way are they required to. I think that'll take some more usage data, just like any new safety device. I know Helite, another French company has been working on a design, but haven't seen an actual finished product yet. Maybe there are others, too. 

 

Teg Ligety should probably just shut up at this stage, considering his personal financial interest in the competition and the fact there really isn't enough data one way or another. His contention about this incident looks like the pure conjecture of a business owner with a pedestal trying to denigrate the competition. If other skiers want to wear it, let them do so and see how it compares. 

 

FWIW, the FIS has been involved in the project since it started in 2010 or 2011. They provided the crash/injury data that Dainese based its algorithms on. 

 

As for the motorcycle models, I believe those were completely different until very recently. They relied on a physical pull cord or wireless rider-bike communications system to identify when the rider fell off the bike. The ski version is more complicated because there was no way to adapt the moto systems to skiing, so they had to build it ground-up, identifying the forces that equate to a dangerous crash, versus a simple, recoverable fall, and then creating the algorithm around it so that the airbag only deploys when it's needed and does so quickly enough to make a difference. 

post #34 of 45

Yeah,  blunt trauma protection, like from falling drones?

 

 

post #35 of 45
post #36 of 45

Beat me to it - just found that in my email and came to post :)Thumbs Up

 

Nothing super-persuasive either way, but definitely more informative than an off-the-cuff tweet from Ted Ligety. 

 

The key bits from the experts not affiliated with Dainese or FIS, the two main entities behind the D-Air design, 

 

-- "Dr. Gabl confirmed that 'the D-air® Ski has most probably prevented the athlete to report further thoracic injuries.'" 

 

-- "After intensive discussion in between the experts, ȌSV concluded that today there is no reason to limit the use of the D-air® Ski for their athletes of speed disciplines and agreed with Dainese to further foster the technical development of this innovative protective system." 

post #37 of 45

Jzamp but what would Dainese know about this. I'm sure it's bad to have these sort of protection :D

post #38 of 45

Here's a good read from Jason DiSalvo after he high-sided at Daytona at 172mph..I suspect he had a Dainese back protector but not air system.

 

http://www.roadracingworld.com/news/jason-disalvos-description-of-his-172-mph-crash-at-daytona/

post #39 of 45

And for the rec skier,  the ortovox back pack has built in BMX spine protection.    Perfect day pack and nice protection.  I have taken some monster spills and it's like armor on your back.     I love mine.  check out my profile pics to see it.  display_order

post #40 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jzamp View Post

Dainese crash report


Thanks for linking that.   It's interesting to see the point at which the vest inflates.  In the video of Mayer's back-first fall it can be seen that, because of the added thickness created by the vest over the back, his neck hyperextends that extra distance before the back of the helmet hits the ground.  Because of this, I wonder if they should consider adding an inflatable neck collar that would deploy like the Hovding airbag helmet for cyclists (except over a ski helmet, rather than being a replacement for it):  http://www.hovding.com/how_hovding_works

 

I think, though, that for ski racing you might want a dual-layer airbag system over the helmet -- a single stiff inflated "head bag" could cause too much rebound and head shake (that's why ski and bike helmets are designed with foam that crushes and thus doesn't rebound, since the rebound puts the crash forces back into the head).  Instead, you'd perhaps want a partially-inflated outer layer covering a more stiffly-inflated inner layer.  The former would significantly reduce the rebound the skier's head would experience.  The portion over the neck, by contrast, should be stiffly inflated, to partially immobilize the neck (here the rebound effect would not be a problem, since the neck itself doesn't sustain significant direct impact forces from the ground -- they're mostly transmitted through the head and torso).

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by chemist - 12/26/15 at 10:41am
post #41 of 45

The biggest issue is not that these provide more safety, but that as acceptance occurs the limits of what is done becomes higher and the risk becomes greater.

 

Protection or increased risk, one is always in the lead as we advance.

post #42 of 45

I would be very interested in seeing what the algorithms consider an unrecoverable situation.

post #43 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

I would be very interested in seeing what the algorithms consider an unrecoverable situation.


If they're also voice-activated, maybe it's "OH, S#!T!!"

post #44 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by chemist View Post
 


If they're also voice-activated, maybe it's "OH, S#!T!!"


I have to say, having some close calls on motorcycles, I didn't really have the time to say anything!!  :D  The thought was there, in slow motion actually, but the mouth wasn't working for some reason..

post #45 of 45
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott43 View Post
 


I have to say, having some close calls on motorcycles, I didn't really have the time to say anything!!  :D  The thought was there, in slow motion actually, but the mouth wasn't working for some reason..

Come to think of it, when I separated my shoulder after I stuffed one of my tips at the start of last season, I didn't have time to say anything either -- just a brief internal "OH, S#!T!!" realization as the ground came up fast to meet me.  :eek

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home