or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Helmet shell question

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 
Looking at the POC site yesterday, came across the argument that heavier, stiffer shells (ABS or Carbon/Kevlar vs. in-mold) contribute to concussion, neck injury risk because of less absorption, greater bounce on impact. OK, makes physics sense, just like the neck levering problem related to helmet weight seems to. OTOH, stiffer shells keep those rocks from punching your headphones through your ear. And heavier also means more inertia to slow bounce. Hmmm.

So then I tried to find a reference in the sport medicine lit to this. Nada. Found one study also reported in the news that actually showed no additional risk of neck injury according to motorcycle helmet weight or design, didn't look at material. (As you know, most helmet studies a) are about motorcycle lids, and b) compare wearers to non-wearers. Wearers do better. Ask Ben Roethlisberger.)

So do any Bears know of any actual data on this, or so far is it just reasonable physics/POC marketing? Curious because now that my three year old is skiing, we're all going to stop saying we should buy lids/borrow friends' and actually do it.
post #2 of 7
At one point in time, Shoei helmets(my husbands helmet of choice when he motorcycles) had an impact rating for thier helmets and explained the material/technology that made the ratings stand.
I looked for that info recently in regards to another question asked in the forum, but I have yet to find it.

Usually this information is with a particular manufacturer, not necessarily an industry standard rating.

This is the only thing I found. Out of date, and not really helpful:

If I find the information I was searching for, I'll post here.
post #3 of 7
This is the Snell Impact information.
post #4 of 7
beyond, i see it that you are really looking to distinguish between single-impact replacement helments and those rated for multiple impacts.

The argument they present isn't new to POC, as witness the team wendy presentation:

I find their approach a bit more reasonable as the deceleration profile of the inside of the helmet is far more relevant to the user than the accelerations of the outer shell.

Put another way, it is conceptually possible for a stiffer shell helmet to bounce less AT THE INTERIOR SURFACE during deceleration of the same head, if the interior foam is properly matched to the absorption profile required.
post #5 of 7
Thread Starter 
Trekchick, thanks for the links. Owned both Shoei's and Arai's when I rode bikes, familiar with the DOT/Snell ratings. Cantunamunch, not able to open the link you provided, but think I see where you're going. That would be why POC makes such a deal about location of their various absorption materials on the inside.
post #6 of 7
If you think that was interesting. You should look at what I posted in the helmet discussion in General

post #7 of 7
Thread Starter 
Trekchick, just did your link to telemark tips. Excellent page for everyone who skis. Did know about the basic standards, tests, didn't know the ski-relevant info. Cantunamunch, this time out your charts came through. Clear argument for looking into head/inner/outer shell interfaces instead of simply impact. Thanks, both.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion