Crash test results for helmets

[bisonaudit]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=easterbrook-110719_virginia_tech_helmet_study&sportCat=nfl

If your kids, college or high school, are playing football in either the Riddell VSR4 or the Adams A2000. Work with their athletic department to get them into newer safer helmets.

[56BISON73]

Interesting article.

[EndZoneQB]

Those are the classic designs, I think it would help if they made the new style helmets less ugly.

[bisonaudit]

Those are the classic designs, I think it would help if they made the new style helmets less ugly.

????? If they were less ugly, they'd be safer?

"Sorry, Mr. Anderson, we're not buying the football team safer helments because they're just too ugly. Now, if you could please sign this participation waiver so little Jonny can start practice on Tuesday..."

[EndZoneQB]

????? If they were less ugly, they'd be safer?

"Sorry, Mr. Anderson, we're not buying the football team safer helments because they're gust too ugly. Now, if you could please sign this participation waiver so little Jonny can start practice on Tuesday..."

You seriously thought that's what I meant by my comment? The new helmets are super ugly, most people aren't going to willingly switch unless they are forced. Obviously, if they are given the information that not all are created equal, it will over come that, but aesthetics would likely make it easier...

[Hammersmith]

Reminds me a lot of the stupidity of the US military for decades in helmet design. Early in the second decade of the 20th century, a scientist studied combat head wounds and helped design a military helmet using scientific principles. His own nation used this helmet in two world wars and had markedly reduced head injuries among its troops compared to that of its enemies. It took until 1985 before the US military finally got off its ass and fielded a helmet based on the same basic design. All because the original helmet was German and its distinctive shape was linked to them. I feel like the same criminal stupidity is attached to football helmets.

[bisonaudit]

Reminds me a lot of the stupidity of the US military for decades in helmet design. Early in the second decade of the 20th century, a scientist studied combat head wounds and helped design a military helmet using scientific principles. His own nation used this helmet in two world wars and had markedly reduced head injuries among its troops compared to that of its enemies. It took until 1985 before the US military finally got off its ass and fielded a helmet based on the same basic design. All because the original helmet was German and its distinctive shape was linked to them. I feel like the same criminal stupidity is attached to football helmets.

The criminal stupidity part is the key. Up until this study was completed there were exactly zero independent scientific studies to support the idea that some football helmets were better at preventing concussions than others. Now there is. That's the kind of leverage that people who care more about kids brains than whether or not a hat is ugly need in order to get us from mere stupidity to criminal stupidity.

There's no excuse for not getting kids into these things quickly. They're not more expensive than the poorer helments, there are safer options available from a number of suppliers, and with the completion of this study exposure to liability due to negligence has increased dramatically.

[EndZoneQB]

The criminal stupidity part is the key. Up until this study was completed there were exactly zero independent scientific studies to support the idea that some football helmets were better at preventing concussions than others. Now there is. That's the kind of leverage that people who care more about kids brains than whether or not a hat is ugly need in order to get us from mere stupidity to criminal stupidity.

There's no excuse for not getting kids into these things quickly. They're not more expensive than the poorer helments, there are safer options available from a number of suppliers, and with the completion of this study exposure to liability due to negligence has increased dramatically.

This is exactly what I was driving at with my comment. People were resistant to the new helmets because they look weird and they had no idea they were safer. The rating system is flawed, and even then, there was a severe lack of information. Now, with more visibility, we should start to see a drastic switch to the new helmets, especially by High School teams...

[56BISON73]

Ok what do the safer helmets look like?

[Hammersmith]

Ok what do the safer helmets look like?

Not that bad. To me, the biggest problem is adjusting the paint. Companies and schools have spent decades creating graphics and paint designs that work on traditional shaped helmets. If you try to slap those designs and principles on the modern helmets, they often look like crap. It's taking a little time to figure out what graphic styles look best on the new helmet shapes, and even longer for schools to figure out how to adapt their logos. Analogy time: Think of the chrome on 1950's cars. Then imagine the same pieces of chrome on modern vehicles. Looks like crap, right? It doesn't automatically mean the new cars are crap or that chrome in general is crap, it just means that the amount and shape of the chrome needs to be adjusted to fit the new car designs.

Here are some of the newer helmet designs. In solid colors, they look just fine. That suggests it's the graphics designs that are the problem, and not the helmet itself. The first three helmets are new, the bottom two are the worst performing helmets and are included for comparison.

Riddell Revolution Speed(5-star)
http://www.nflspot.net/wp-content/uploads/football%20helmets%20revolution%20speed.jpg

Schutt DNA Pro+ (4-star, best value)
http://s7ondemand1.scene7.com/is/image/TeamExpress/20217MSL

Riddell Revolution (4-star)
http://listedasprobable.typepad.com/.a/6a01156f224d03970c0115715669d1970c-800wi

Riddell VSR4 (1-star)
http://www.forelle.com/klanten/forel/media/afbeeldingen/Producten/Riddell_VSR4.jpg

Adams A2000 Pro Elite (not recommended)
http://feeds2.yourstorewizards.com/1749/images/248x173/adams-a2000-pro-elite-football-helmet.jpg

[Twentysix]

Not that bad. To me, the biggest problem is adjusting the paint. Companies and schools have spent decades creating graphics and paint designs that work on traditional shaped helmets. If you try to slap those designs and principles on the modern helmets, they often look like crap. It's taking a little time to figure out what graphic styles look best on the new helmet shapes, and even longer for schools to figure out how to adapt their logos. Analogy time: Think of the chrome on 1950's cars. Then imagine the same pieces of chrome on modern vehicles. Looks like crap, right? It doesn't automatically mean the new cars are crap or that chrome in general is crap, it just means that the amount and shape of the chrome needs to be adjusted to fit the new designs.

Here are some of the newer designs. In solid colors, they look just fine. That suggests it's the graphics designs that are the problem, and not the helmet itself.

Riddell Revolution Speed(5-star)
http://www.nflspot.net/wp-content/uploads/football%20helmets%20revolution%20speed.jpg

Schutt DNA Pro+ (4-star, best value)
http://s7ondemand1.scene7.com/is/image/TeamExpress/20217MSL

Riddell Revolution (4-star)
http://listedasprobable.typepad.com/.a/6a01156f224d03970c0115715669d1970c-800wi

Riddell VSR4 (1-star)
http://www.forelle.com/klanten/forel/media/afbeeldingen/Producten/Riddell_VSR4.jpg

Adams A2000 Pro Elite (not recommended)
http://feeds2.yourstorewizards.com/1749/images/248x173/adams-a2000-pro-elite-football-helmet.jpg

I dont think i get it.

Those helmets look very similar on the outside other than the jaw area protection. Doesnt seem very ugly to me..

[56BISON73]

The helmets look fine to me. So whats the difference in these and the old ones. The only thing that I can think of that will make a difference is the interior air-padding system.

[Hammersmith]

I dont think i get it.

Those helmets look very similar on the outside other than the jaw area protection. Doesnt seem very ugly to me..

Exactly. In solid colors they all look just fine. The problem comes when you add logos. Look at the helmets in your sig. Those are Riddell VSR4's. Look at the snorting bison logo. Looks good on that helmet, right? That's because the logo was designed for that shape and size. But if you tried to slap that exact decal on the Riddell Revolution Speed or Schutt DNA Pro+, it wouldn't work. The ridges in the Rev Speed would force you to move the logo into an odd position. The upper chin strap location in the DNA would also force you to move the logo or risk covering part of it up. It doesn't mean you can't use the snorting bison logo, it just means the design of the logo would have to be altered slightly in size and/or shape and new decals printed. Of course that means the look of the helmet would slightly change, and to many people change automatically means ugly. In a different situation, imagine the Michigan helmet graphic design on the Rev Speed helmet. The yellow striping on the top would have problems with the ridge. If not careful, it would really screw up that classic design. I think it's situations like that that have created the "new helmets are ugly" idea.

[bisonaudit]

The helmets look fine to me. So whats the difference in these and the old ones. The only thing that I can think of that will make a difference is the interior air-padding system.

Not going to pretend to know the technical details but I recall seeing in several places that the added protection around the jaw actually makes a big difference. Apparently the brain is especially vulnerable to lateral forces.

I'm sure there are other improvements as well.

[EndZoneQB]

Not going to pretend to know the technical details but I recall seeing in several places that the added protection around the jaw actually makes a big difference. Apparently the brain is especially vulnerable to lateral forces.

I'm sure there are other improvements as well.

I think it is the shape of the facemasks as well as the weird shape/lines of the helmet that sort of turns me off to them. If I chose strictly based on aesthetics I would take the Schutt DNA+ as it looks less "modern". I'm sure the improvements are great but for some reason I think they tried to "spice it up" too much or something...maybe the design has more to do with the effectiveness than I think.

In HS, we never had Adams, and only a couple of older Riddell helmets. The rest were the regular Schutt style helmets.