or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Helmet vs no helmet
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

# Helmet vs no helmet - Page 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Boot

Soft snow helps!! ( My heads already been tested to ANUS standards)

Fixed it for ya!
HAHAHAAH thanks
In actuality, a back of the envelope calculation suggests that the potential forces generated in hockey and gymnastics are quite comparable. Potential head impact velocities may exceed 45 kph in both of these activities. In addition, the individuals weight is of little significance, since TBI's are a result of forces acting directly on the brain and brain weight variances are small in this context.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckle

The old Newton's second law applies to this problem. Skiing is much more dangerous than those other sports you mentioned. F=ma (Force is equal to mass times acceleration.) The faster you go, the heavier you weigh, the more of a force will be exerted on your head. Ice skaters don't move as fast as skiers nor do gymnasts (they dont weigh as much typically,) hockey players and certainly not cheerleaders. When a person going, say, 40 km/h hits a tree head on, the force exerted on his own head is the same but opposite force he exerts on the tree. The likelihood of it happening in other sports is probably the same, but, unequivocally, skiing represents head injuries sustained from heavy and powerful forces - more so than the other sports you mentioned.
Just some physics to take into consideration. P=mv, F=ma. When a heavy weighted person with a high velocity, P(momentum)=mass*velocity. Depending on the resistivity of the tree, a person with a significant mass moving at a high velocity will be stopped upon contact. Because momentum is conserved (stays the same,) the remaining energy that doesn't send the person in the opposite direction will be used to deform whatever is hitting the tree - in this case, the head. As you said, the mass doesn't have as great an impact as I first posted it would. But, energy is transferred through the head, to the brain (law of conservation of energy, again) so that the overall mass of the head IS a factor. And, it is good to mention that when a body is stopped, momentum again stays the same and there is a very significant force the body exerts on the spinal cord and head. Though, until someone does a legitimate experiment, theory is the only ground for argumentation.
Some of us ski with helmet and non-releasable bindings. What do you make of that? Knee injury in skiing is endemic, head injuries are rare.
Yeah, and I could live with a knee injury.

I place head injuries at the same level of "avoid at all costs" as decking (from climbing), head-on collisions (driving), and getting shot.  All these are pretty rare, but I sure as heck would still do my darnedest to make sure it doesn't happen.
OH, do you wear a bullet proof vest to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DtEW

Yeah, and I could live with a knee injury.

I place head injuries at the same level of "avoid at all costs" as decking (from climbing), head-on collisions (driving), and getting shot.  All these are pretty rare, but I sure as heck would still do my darnedest to make sure it doesn't happen.

Leave it to the Brits:
"Wearing A Helmet Puts Cyclists At Risk, Suggests Research"
Quote:

ScienceDaily (Sep. 13, 2006) — Drivers pass closer when overtaking cyclists wearing helmets than when overtaking bare-headed cyclists, increasing the risk of a collision, the research has found.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060911102200.htm

Standby for your next full body helmet. Back to the future, 1959. Rossi's next purchase??

Quote:
Sam's mission was to test the craft's launch escape system. About a minute into the flight, Sam's capsule was ejected from the rocket. After soaring 51 miles (82 kilometers) above Earth, the capsule landed in the Atlantic Ocean, where Sam, unhurt, was recovered. The monkey was later returned to a training colony, and he lived until 1982.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/05/photogalleries/space-monkeys-fifty-years/photo3.html
—Photograph courtesy NASA
Quote:

OH, do you wear a bullet proof vest to?

No, I just avoid activities that might me get me shot.  Like venturing into the depths of The Jungle (SoCenLA) and the Iron Triangle (SoRichmond).  I mean, you too might be perfectly fine going helmetless if you just avoid high-velocity non-vehicular travel on slippery surfaces.
Quote:

OH, do you wear a bullet proof vest to?

That is just so funnnnnny! what can your ax to grind possibly be on this?
you seem to just poke around the issues while working on some aspect your skier image.

Dt, you are not wrong. a friend of mine was an artist at the time and lived (kind of isolated from the other artists lofts) in West Oakland where he could afford a studio to work in. It was loud one night and he stepped out on the porch to ask the guys to hold it down. They shot him dead without so much as a word. staying in a part of the world where we are familiar with the rules is a good idea.
Quote:

OH, do you wear a bullet proof vest to?

Anybody watch this show?

Back to the objections about the ski helmet speed tests.  You folks do realize that when you go down at 40 MPH the direct impact of your head on the surface is usually still less than 15 MPH.  It's not like you ski into the ground head on (love that pun) at 40 MPH.  The faster you go the less hard your head actually hits the ground (or rocks on the ground) because it is more glancing as speed increases.  So, a 15 MPH helmet is probably pretty good for most falls, just not effective against tree smacks because those are head on impact.
Quote:

OH, do you wear a bullet proof vest to?

Hmmmm...When i was in Iraq I wore body armor. It wouldn't have been 100 percent effective in a worst case scenario. But it sure would have helped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecimmortal

Hmmmm...When i was in Iraq I wore body armor. It wouldn't have been 100 percent effective in a worst case scenario. But it sure would have helped.

That body armor wouldn't happened to have been Snell-certified, no?

One must consider whether the variances in the weight of human brains across the adult population are of primary concern. Even those brains on the low end of the weight scale are sufficiently heavy to result in forces far above their their structural limits at rather low speeds. Non of the data I have even seen has highlighted any correlation between TBI's (or neck injuries) and body weight.

The experiement is carried out daily by the world population. The acceleration limits of the brain are tested in every collision, fatal and non-fatal. The data is used by many industries to manage safety...amusement parks to the Indianapolis outer wall cushions. The fact is that the current crop of ski helmets are not designed to manage the cranial accelerations of moderate to high skiing speeds. In fact, speeds in the 40-50 kph range are more similar to the design input for motorcycle helmets. Also, due to the potential impact vectors, a full face helmet would be by far the most logical design. Consider all the debate regarding TBI's in football. Are football
helmets more similar to ski/bike helemts or motorcycle/auto helmets in terms of overall toughness?

The point of my prior post was in response to your premise that other athletic activities, specifically hockey and gymnastics, do not expose participants to the level of potential forces seen on the slopes; in fact they clearly do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Huckle

Just some physics to take into consideration. P=mv, F=ma. When a heavy weighted person with a high velocity, P(momentum)=mass*velocity. Depending on the resistivity of the tree, a person with a significant mass moving at a high velocity will be stopped upon contact. Because momentum is conserved (stays the same,) the remaining energy that doesn't send the person in the opposite direction will be used to deform whatever is hitting the tree - in this case, the head. As you said, the mass doesn't have as great an impact as I first posted it would. But, energy is transferred through the head, to the brain (law of conservation of energy, again) so that the overall mass of the head IS a factor. And, it is good to mention that when a body is stopped, momentum again stays the same and there is a very significant force the body exerts on the spinal cord and head. Though, until someone does a legitimate experiment, theory is the only ground for argumentation.

Well, some falls perhaps, but skiing and road and mountain biking certainly produce far higher speeds and therefore impacts than hockey etc. Skiers also get the whip, slap head slam. (picture catching an edge and falling forward over the bars with a slamming acceleration onto firm snow) Skiers could definitely benefit from more protection, but given the effort and overheating and comfort issues, it just won't work for most people. Around here, the gnar dudes wear full face helmets and a mouth piece a lot of the time. Heavy, hot, uncomfortable: but way safer. So you take the measures that you can. It's ALL you can do.

Interesting how the head gear for different sports varies in design and impact mitigating effectiveness. I believe it reflects the attitudes toward safety vs bravado in each sport.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart

Anybody watch this show?

Back to the objections about the ski helmet speed tests.  You folks do realize that when you go down at 40 MPH the direct impact of your head on the surface is usually still less than 15 MPH.  It's not like you ski into the ground head on (love that pun) at 40 MPH.  The faster you go the less hard your head actually hits the ground (or rocks on the ground) because it is more glancing as speed increases.  So, a 15 MPH helmet is probably pretty good for most falls, just not effective against tree smacks because those are head on impact.

or you can be going 15mph and generate 40mph of head speed because of the whipping force, like the end of the whip vs the handle.
How fast do you think people ski? Hockey players can hit 45 kph and potentially collide with another player moving at relatively high speed. They also face impacts with ice, wood and metal. I do not believe that recreational skiers surpass these potential impact levels. I'd be very surprised to see many recreational skiers acheiving velocities above 70 kph on nicely groomed runs.

How fast do you think people ride bicycles? Again, recreational riders do not regularly surpass the potential impact velocities of hockey players. (We're not talking about Lance blazing down the alps during a Tour stage here.)

Most gear designed for serious sporting intent is designed around representative impact energies, objects, and frequencies. Football helmets are designed to withstand repetitive impacts at lower velocities. Motorcycle helmets are designed to withstand single/few impacts at higher energies. In both cases the designers are attempting to minimize the accelerations. The average motorcycle accident is in the range of 40-50 kph. Ski helmets are designed like bicycle helmets and are largely for warmth and to protect against minor impacts. If the manufacturers of ski/bike helmets were serious about designing helmets for velocities of 40+ kph, they would look alot like motorcycle helmets!

Lastly, roadracing, motorcross, and auto racing are far more strenous than skiing, at any comparable level, and are often done wearing 25 pounds of gear in high heat and high humidy. There is never any debate or complaint. Why? Because everyone recognizes the benefit over comfort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri

Well, some falls perhaps, but skiing and road and mountain biking certainly produce far higher speeds and therefore impacts than hockey etc. Skiers also get the whip, slap head slam. (picture catching an edge and falling forward over the bars with a slamming acceleration onto firm snow) Skiers could definitely benefit from more protection, but given the effort and overheating and comfort issues, it just won't work for most people. Around here, the gnar dudes wear full face helmets and a mouth piece a lot of the time. Heavy, hot, uncomfortable: but way safer. So you take the measures that you can. It's ALL you can do.

Interesting how the head gear for different sports varies in design and impact mitigating effectiveness. I believe it reflects the attitudes toward safety vs bravado in each sport.
so what the hell are you saying?  you're all over the place. after this, your posts will certainly be ignored as irrelevant.

Actually I was on the chair with an ex-pro hockey player the other day, with permanent brain damage, and he said the hockey leagues need to get with some plan to protect players. I'm absolutely in agreement. Whatever the speeds, it's serious, and the helmets probably suck. Is there a f'ing arguement here that you want a stake in? crap!

far more strenuous than skiing, give me a break. tell me how you know anything about what you are saying. where exactly is your expertise on the subjects, motorcycles aside.

skiers and cyclists, (you don't know a thing about cycling if you think Lance is the only one that reaches high speeds) regularly, hourly,  far exceed speeds of hockey players and the like. wtf.

bike style helmets achieve a level of protection. not maximum for sure. I'm as interested as anyone in helmets becoming safer and still practical for recreation (not like commuting on a motorcycle at all).

edit: just looked up skating speeds. best speed skaters around 32+ mph. top hockey players, just over 30. plus or minus allowance for the date of the articles and studies.
Edited by davluri - 3/2/10 at 10:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri

or you can be going 15mph and generate 40mph of head speed because of the whipping force, like the end of the whip vs the handle.

Maybe, if you hook an outside edge and cartwheel or roll across the fall line instead of falling inside or back.  But, it that scenario your shoulder is likely to absorb some of the blow.

On my mountain, skiers or boarders who aren't wearing helmets are going the way of guys still wearing uni-suits or with runaway straps on their skis or having spring-loaded bindings...also nice to see that most boarders seem to have gotten the message and simply accept the helmet as part of the "look".

My son is a competitive snowboarder and not only does he wear a helmet, he also wear a reticulated back protector. He had a crash last year attempting some trick on a box, ended up in the hospital and fortunately, it was only a concussion. Could have been much worse had he not had the helmet and this is a kid who knows how to ride.

I also think its important to recognize that the sport has changed a great deal over just the last 4-5 years, with both skiers and boarders doing more in the area of rails, boxes, freestyle and other objects on the mountain that were simply non-existence just a few short years ago.

Also, if you're skiing trees and not wearing a helmet, you should have your head examined (no pun intended!). ANYONE can catch a root and bang into a tree and if there's nothing between your brain and the tree (meaning a helmet!), you will experience a little something that's referred to as head trauma....i.e., not fun!

I'm the type that's still blown away that in some states helmets for motorcylces are still not mandatory and the shocking statistics which indicate that for those states that enacted mandatory helmet laws, that fatalities decreased in those states by some 30% or more!!

Helmets are the principal countermeasure for reducing crash-related head injuries, which is the number one cause of fatalities on the slopes....crystal clear to me:

WEAR A FREAKIN HELMET!!

Look, even the AMA concluded that there was insufficient evidence to make helmets mandatory due to the over all low risks in the sport comparatively to other sports.  I just don't understand the tendency to preach at others about their own safety.  They may have chosen skiing as a sport over swimming or cycling for the sole reason it has such a lower risk profile.

www.ski-injury.com/prevention/helmet

I totally agree there is risk inherant in skiing but I still believe the over all injury risks in skiing are low enough to allow people to make their own decisions about the comfort level and risk tolerance and when, where and if they choose to wear a helmet.  I do believe all children should wear a helmet and probably young gymnasts also (i knocked myself out more then once on a hard gym floor as a child), while they learn and until they have reached what ever set legal age.  Anyone practicing tricks an in a park, doing something new to them has a higher risk and should judge that risk as so when deciding to wear or not wear their helmet that day.  I don't know of parks across North America but any park I've been to in Ontario, Canada (i haven't ventured in any in years), helmets are mandatory to enter.

You can blast people for being foolish, dumb, stupid and use your own emotional response and experience to say why others should or shouldn't do things the way you see it or you can be respectful, look at the true data in comparison to other regular activities you partake in every day and be respectful of your fellow human to make their own decisions on how they want to handle their risks.
One more point before I sign off this thread....

Why not change the title to Where to Bash your fellow 60% of skiers who are too dumb, in my opinion, to wear a helmet?

The current title implies you may want to look at the real data and have an intelligent, non emotional conversation, about the benefits and negatives of helmets and how they might be improved.
Edited by lady_Salina - 3/3/10 at 6:53am
Quote:

... I do believe all children should wear a helmet and probably young gymnasts also (i knocked myself out more then once on a hard gym floor as a child), while they learn and until they have reached what ever set legal age...

The fact that you have tried to look at this rationally is great, and obviously gymnastics is not a focus of this thread, but having gymnasts wear a helmet would be a really bad idea most of the time, for several reasons.  The fact that gymnastics as an activity can be risky but wearing a helmet doesn't make sense kind of underscores again the fact that all a helmet should be viewed as is one type of gear.
??? ....My comments were in response to you prior comment that skiing has the potential for far greater impacts than the other mentioned sports. I was merely trying to add some perspective to this discussion. I'm not sure what your issue is with my comments.

Yes certainly skiers and cyclists can acheive higher speeds than individual skaters. I'm not debating the fact that skiers (or cyclists) go fast. But, two opposing skaters can collide with additive velocities. Again, my point was simply that the collision speeds could be potentially similar and that skiing is not unique in this regard. Most skiers and cyclists are not going 50 mph on any regular basis. My comments pertaining to common skier speeds are from obervation and those pertaining to cycling speeds are from discussions with people who were ex-cyclists (and that still ride recreationally). Perhaps you have a different perspective, which I would welcome you to present. I really do not understand what you're so worked up about.

I have friends who are ex-skiers. Surprisingly, we talk. Some of them are avid motorsports participants too. We can compare things at any level, but let's consider the upper end for example. Does Bode regularly see 5g's?  Does he have to muscle around hundreds of pounds in addition to his body weight? Does he have to exert himself for an hour straight? ... I could go one, but my point was simply that the mentioned activities place far more stress on body temperature management than skiing.....re comfort. I am very curious why this surprises you?

I do not have a horse in this race. If you believe that skiers represent a fringe group of unique athletes, making helmet design a difficult process, so be it. I thought this tread was about helmets in skiing.... This includes comfort, design, and personal autonomy. I have enjoyed reading many of the member postings and thought I'd add some food for thought based on my education and experience.  For myself, if helmets were to become mandatory, I'd just like to see them optimally designed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davluri

so what the hell are you saying?  you're all over the place. after this, your posts will certainly be ignored as irrelevant.

Actually I was on the chair with an ex-pro hockey player the other day, with permanent brain damage, and he said the hockey leagues need to get with some plan to protect players. I'm absolutely in agreement. Whatever the speeds, it's serious, and the helmets probably suck. Is there a f'ing arguement here that you want a stake in? crap!

far more strenuous than skiing, give me a break. tell me how you know anything about what you are saying. where exactly is your expertise on the subjects, motorcycles aside.

skiers and cyclists, (you don't know a thing about cycling if you think Lance is the only one that reaches high speeds) regularly, hourly,  far exceed speeds of hockey players and the like. wtf.

bike style helmets achieve a level of protection. not maximum for sure. I'm as interested as anyone in helmets becoming safer and still practical for recreation (not like commuting on a motorcycle at all).

edit: just looked up skating speeds. best speed skaters around 32+ mph. top hockey players, just over 30. plus or minus allowance for the date of the articles and studies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DtEW

Yeah, and I could live with a knee injury...

Good point, but you can use safety release bindings and a helmet, you don't have to choose one or the other. The fact that many skiers use the latter while eschewing the former seems to indicate a poor understanding of the risks involved in skiing. Blown knees are much more likely to occur, and  they don't sound like much fun to me.

If I had to choose only one piece of protective equipment for skiing, it would be safety release bindings. Second would  be eye protection.

I can live with head injury. I've had at least three concussions that I can remember :). Automobile accident, skateboarding, smacking heads with another kid playing hide and seek or tag or something.

I stand by my contention that a helmet would be of greater value to someone riding in a car than someone skiing.
Wow is this thread still active.
OMG

Helmetless Stoke
I just love this picture of ME!
Quote:
Originally Posted by toons

Lastly, roadracing, motorcross, and auto racing are far more strenous than skiing, at any comparable level, and are often done wearing 25 pounds of gear in high heat and high humidy. There is never any debate or complaint. Why? Because everyone recognizes the benefit over comfort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by toons

I have friends who are ex-skiers. Surprisingly, we talk. Some of them are avid motorsports participants too. We can compare things at any level, but let's consider the upper end for example. Does Bode regularly see 5g's?  Does he have to muscle around hundreds of pounds in addition to his body weight? Does he have to exert himself for an hour straight? ... I could go one, but my point was simply that the mentioned activities place far more stress on body temperature management than skiing.....re comfort. I am very curious why this surprises you?

Uh, no, LOL.

You must somehow think that an F1 pilot hops out of his custom-molded body-supportive seat to "muscle around hundreds of pounds in addition to his body weight".  And by "regularly see 5g's", you must mean the 3 corners out of the 330 total corners of the 19 tracks that ~5G's are achieved.  And by "exert himself for an hour straight", you must mean reclined and moving his hands and feet a couple of centimeters at a time.

Seriously.

In lieu of wasting my time with a thorough argument, here is an assessment from a panel of experts:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills?sort=strength#grid

Yes, auto racing is considered to require less endurance and strength than racquetball/squash.  But hey, at least it requires more than badminton!

This thread is still going, well here is some more thought. You slam into a immovable object at 40 MPH or KPH or even half that speed (I'm talking a direct impact resulting in a total instant stop). You will probably die many internal injury's irregardless of what protection you have on your head. Most skiing accidents are of a glancing hit and sliding nature (several ft or meters and not a instant stop). I believe all tests quoted in this thread are of a instant stop (from motion to none).
If you don't want to wear a helmet then don't, but from my past experience a helmet does offer some protection to your head/brain and only YOU know what YOUR head/brain is worth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DtEW

Uh, no, LOL.

You must somehow think that an F1 pilot hops out of his custom-molded body-supportive seat to "muscle around hundreds of pounds in addition to his body weight".  And by "regularly see 5g's", you must mean the 3 corners out of the 330 total corners of the 19 tracks that ~5G's are achieved.  And by "exert himself for an hour straight", you must mean reclined and moving his hands and feet a couple of centimeters at a time.

Seriously.

In lieu of wasting my time with a thorough argument, here is an assessment from a panel of experts:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/sportSkills?sort=strength#grid

Yes, auto racing is considered to require less endurance and strength than racquetball/squash.  But hey, at least it requires more than badminton!

I think she was talking about motorcycle racing.
And the beat goess on.

Didn't save CR Johnson did it?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
Return Home
Back to Forum: Après-Ski
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Après-Ski › Helmet vs no helmet