Originally Posted by songfta
Where? You claim there is no study, so where is the evidence?
See above. This theory, to my eyes, is nothing more than conjecture.
However, the theory used for modern helmet design is very well tested in computer models and in injury/incident reports in ski racing. The number of serious crashes that lead to paralysis has decreased substantially in the past 15 years, since the FIS banned facemasks from helmets and adopted new impact standards. The science behind helmet design has changed dramatically as computer modeling has been refined to better predict human musculo-skeletal reactions to impact from different vectors, as well as the variables of surface consistency, viscosity, and friction. And the materials with which helmets are made have improved substantially over the past decade.
The last full-face helmets that saw wide use in ski racing were from Bell (the SR-2) and Carrera. They were contrasting exercises in construction: the Bell was heavy, with a fiberglass shell that was woven in tension and designed to "explode" away from the head on impact. It was lined with polystyrene foam and polyurethane pads. The face mask had a thin, neoprene lining. The helmet also met the then-recognized Snell impact standards for ski racing helmets.
And I crashed in one at high speed (64 mph) on fairly hard snow. And it was the only severe case of whiplash I've ever had in many years of competition and many high-speed crashes. It took me over 5 weeks to recover, during which time skiing was either impossible or severly painful. Additionally, the facemask caught on ice chunks, which whipped my head laterally. The strap did not give way (no fastex-style buckle, the strap was threaded through a cinch-style closure). Had I not had the facemask, my cheeks would've been bloodied, but the twist would likely not have happened and the whiplash would've been less severe.
(FYI: my next helmet was a Uvex, imported from Germany, in an open-face style.)
The Carrera helmet was a different beast: light, with a thin shell and a facemask that was bolted on to the lid at the earhole area. The lining was polystyrene with neoprene padding, and the whole thing weighed half of the Bell. It did not meet the Snell standards, and thus wasn't seen much in junior competition, but was quite a regular sight in the FIS circuit. And per the admission of those who owned it, it wasn't a protective in hard impact crashes, but its protection was more akin to a modern bicycle helmet: absorb the energy, make the cranial deceleration a bit less severe, and disintegrate, if needed, to deflect force.
Grabby dirt ≠ snow/ice.
Snow MX and snowmobile racing ≠ alpine ski racing.
Again: where's the proof? Where's the study?
As there isn't any study: would you like to fund it? (Just playing off your screen name here.)
Have you ever raced downhill at the FIS level, on hardpacked/injected snow? Have you ever crashed while skiing at over 60 mph, regardless of conditions?
I have been there, first hand, with both full-face and open-face helmets. And I'll take the open face, thank you very much.
Eh? Does SRD manufacture any helmets? They do sell them, yes, but they've got to be confident about what they sell, as any safety claims they make could be held against them in court if a racer is injured while wearing a helmet they sold.
Perhaps you could ask these questions at the Modern Ski Racing forum, where there is a lot of real-work racing expertise and experience posting regularly. These folk see ski racing, high impact, and the like on a regular basis, both in training and racing situations, and many of them have first-hand experience with the heavier, full-face helmets of yore, and the modern helmets of today.
This is complete and utter BS, frankly speaking. That would be like saying that MET and Limar have no business claiming they make safe bike helmets because Bell has been around so much longer (and Bell followed the lead of folks like MET, Limar, and Giro [which they later bought] in realizing that ideal safety doesn't necessarily stem from overly heavy and overbuilt headgear).
And what of Leedom (who makes helmets for military flight and ballistics use), or Boeri (motorsports helmets in addition to skiing helmets)? Both have the experience bona fides you tout as "proof" that full-face helmets are better. Yet their helmets are also light, not full-face, and meet the most stringent safety regulations.
I still ski with a helmet to this day: a Briko. And its immediate predecessor (another Briko) did its job admirably when I crashed going 40 mph off a jump back in 2000. The foam deformed, the shell cracked, but my head was none too worse for the wear. I did suffer facial lacerations, due to my goggle lenses shattering (Oakleys, in case you were wondering) and slicing my face up something good. Would a facemask have prevented that? It's highly doubtful.
This is a slalom faceguard, just for clarification, and is only allowed in slalom racing at the FIS level.
I'm not trying to be a naysayer, but I question the application of anecdotal evidence from a sporting venue that doesn't in any way resemble a ski racing field of play. Show me some research, tell of your own experience, snow us something that isn't simply theoretical conjecture before insisting that full-face helmets are the answer to all of ski racing's impact safety issues.
Ans, as always: it my $0.02. Your mileage may vary.