New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Kitzbuhel DH, Scott Macartney.... - Page 5

post #121 of 138
Bez, it's great that Scott didn't suffer anything more severe than he did, but I think what some people are saying is that they believe Scott could have walked away from that crash without any concussion if the helmet had been different. No miracle required, just some engineering. I dunno if that's true, but I think that's what they're claiming.
post #122 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by trtaylor57 View Post
+1
Seconded!
post #123 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elistan View Post
Bez, it's great that Scott didn't suffer anything more severe than he did, but I think what some people are saying is that they believe Scott could have walked away from that crash without any concussion if the helmet had been different. No miracle required, just some engineering. I dunno if that's true, but I think that's what they're claiming.
Seems like a ridiculous unfounded claim to me, if that is what they are saying, and I am not sure it is.
post #124 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elistan View Post
Bez, it's great that Scott didn't suffer anything more severe than he did, but I think what some people are saying is that they believe Scott could have walked away from that crash without any concussion if the helmet had been different. No miracle required, just some engineering. I dunno if that's true, but I think that's what they're claiming.
I think the only way he could have escaped any head injury is if he was riding inside one of these:

post #125 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Seems like a ridiculous unfounded claim to me, if that is what they are saying, and I am not sure it is.
What are you saying again?
Edit: Ah never mind.. My reading comprehension skills are suffering today..

The point though is that you don't know that for a fact that they cant produce a better helmet.
post #126 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Atomicman View Post
Seems like a ridiculous unfounded claim to me, if that is what they are saying, and I am not sure it is.
Well looking at it from a logic perspective, if ALL he suffered was head trauma, then why is it not just the helmet that is wrong? I get the point
post #127 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by coug View Post
The point though is that you don't know that for a fact that they cant produce a better helmet.
This.
post #128 of 138
This ain't "Area 51" and there are no "Men in Black" lurking and keeping the perfect helmet from the WC crowd.

I find it hard to believe that a dedicated industry would not be producing the best and safest product they can with the materials that are available.
post #129 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuki View Post
This ain't "Area 51" and there are no "Men in Black" lurking and keeping the perfect helmet from the WC crowd.

I find it hard to believe that a dedicated industry would not be producing the best and safest product they can with the materials that are available.
Well they are researching all the time, and maybe some secrets are not revealed right away for copyright reasons.. Also, maybe a helmet with another shape and one that is maybe heavier could be better, but there are a lot of restrictions in the worldcup e.g. the fact that the backprotector mustn't have shoulderstraps - wtf?
post #130 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yuki View Post
I find it hard to believe that a dedicated industry would not be producing the best and safest product they can with the materials that are available.
Er, why would they? Development costs money. There is no impetus for development. Ergo, no real development. Unless of course you consider marketing and development to be the same thing, then POC has that totally covered.

People will have to die before any real development occurs. Top level motorsports have proven this time and time again, see: Senna, Earnhardt, etc.
post #131 of 138
I'm a big supporter of the evolution of technology, and I tinker with designing sports equipment myself, so I can at least agree that helmets will no doubt continually get better. But I find it highly unlikely that given our present technology and understanding, any kind of device could keep a brain from getting injured when a skier's head rapidly decelerates from around 90mph to zero within the couple inches of padding a helmet provides. To expect otherwise seems rather optimistic, and ignores a basic truth: downhill racing was, is, and always will be dangerous, and every racer takes risks knowing that.
post #132 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Garrett View Post
Er, why would they? Development costs money. There is no impetus for development. Ergo, no real development. Unless of course you consider marketing and development to be the same thing, then POC has that totally covered.

People will have to die before any real development occurs. Top level motorsports have proven this time and time again, see: Senna, Earnhardt, etc.
physics kinda puts a limitation on what can be done with helmets, unless everyone wants to ski around looking like a character from spaceballs. the snell ski helmet standard specifies a maximum deceleration of 300g with an impact energy of 120 joules. using their standard 5kg headform, that amounts to a whopping 15.5 mph impact, or more accurately a 15.5 mph deceleration. their motorcycle standard allows a slightly larger deceleration of around 17.3 mph. even if a helmet meets these standards, a 300g impact to your head is well within the possibly fatal range. and according to snell's website there is only one ski helmet available that meets their standards.

earnhardt's car only decelerated by about 40mph and his helmet didn't save him. as for senna, i doubt any conceivable helmet would stop a tie rod being driven through your head with that kind of force.
post #133 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bez View Post
IBut I find it highly unlikely that given our present technology and understanding, any kind of device could keep a brain from getting injured when a skier's head rapidly decelerates from around 90mph to zero within the couple inches of padding a helmet provides.
Thankfully no one asked a helmet to do that. :
post #134 of 138
I understand the frustration but this is the plastics industry and there are improvements that jump the gap from use to use (other products), and will be snatched up and incorporated.

Like all things in life, a series of compromises, at least so it seems.

We took note that the helmet "failure" was actually part of the design and helped with that initial "killer" impact ..... as least this arguement was forwarded.

Actually, when you run that video again .... it's a repeat of one of the crash scenes in the old "Downhill Racer" ..... where he gets wacked by the ski after the crash.

Ok .... the ski may not have hit him but it came damned close. So, it seems that what you need is a break away shell and a retained liner to protect against secondary impacts as well as can be expected.

Too heavy it does one thing; too light another .... stiff and brittle and with the temprature ranges from below or near zero. Remember that Boeri model .... old thread from five years ago ... I posted on that because of shell failure when the temp got below (??? it's been too long) ... but it was failing the drop/impact test.

I guess I just believe that in an industry ..... that there are some pretty fine minds trying to put out the best they can ..... tempered by the fact that it has to be affordable in some way. Plastic and foams ...

I have no clue regarding the back protection issues at all.
post #135 of 138
Quote:
Originally Posted by epl View Post
earnhardt's car only decelerated by about 40mph and his helmet didn't save him. as for senna, i doubt any conceivable helmet would stop a tie rod being driven through your head with that kind of force.
Thanks for completely missing the point. In both cases, drastic changes with respect to safety followed. In both cases, these changes were by all accounts successful. The point is that people have to die in order for a serious development effort to get underway. It doesn't actually matter much whether or not the people that die would be saved by the subsequent development.

RR takes a lot of guff for suggesting that neck restraint systems and full faces might be worthwhile in skiing, yet no one has yet posted anything of value suggesting he is wrong. FIS sure as heck hasn't done the research. Have you?

Meanwhile, lots of posts about how well this POC helmet did abound, yet no actual analysis of the impact and helmet performance has been done. These posts are as useless as a post from me claiming it didn't do its job would be. Note that I have not, and will not, make any such claim.

The CEO of POC demonstrated his commitment to marketing by blathering on about how well the helmet did in a time period that pretty much guarantees technically competent people didn't have an opportunity to analyze the incident and compare the performance with the design goals. And if your organization doesn't do that kind of thing before releasing statements on performance of your gear...well, I call BS on all your claims.

Yes, skiing is dangerous. This doesn't mean development of safety technologies isn't a worthwhile effort. It also doesn't mean that development is going to be done as a matter of course, as many people quite oddly believe to be the case.
post #136 of 138
Give this man a charute!
post #137 of 138

Straight from the horse's mouth

From Scott Macartney's blog at WCSN regarding his helmet (http://wcsnblogs.com/skiing/scottmacartney):

Quote:
I wanted to clear up a few issues that I have seen out there. The first one is “the POC helmet”. I have read things online and even comment in Ski Racing questioning the performance of my helmet during that crash.
I know for a fact that that helmet saved my life. POC engineers put out one of the (if not THE) safest helmets you can use in ski racing. The helmet did what it was supposed to - absorb as much of the massive impact before that energy reached my head. The hard outer shell of the helmet cracked because it was designed to do so, further absorbing the energy of the crash. It was unfortunate that it cracked enough that the part holding the chin strap (which did not come undone as some have assumed) came apart. At that point, the big impact was over and I was already on the ground. Even so, I would have rather had the absorbing properties of the helmet when it was on for the initial impact than have a “more durable” helmet that would pass along a harder impact to my skull. The slight wear and tear on my face will be gone in a matter of weeks. It is my understanding that POC is working right now to improve the way that the helmet’s chin strap is attached to the helmet in next generation (so that it can absorb as much impact and still stay on the head under extreme conditions.) My final point on this matter: It was estimated that I hit with about 14-16 times as much force as the helmet companies are required to test at. I am just happy that a company like POC seeks to maximize the overall impact safety of their helmets.
A disclaimer: While I am sponsored by POC helmets, they don’t pay me enough to lie or toy with my own safety. As for other comments on YouTube… I am, in fact, not dead.
post #138 of 138
He must read EpicSki
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home