Mask Weight

[RichMan]

On 7/9/2018 at 4:51 PM, TheGoalNet said:

I had the fun of meeting Garret Sparks the other week and we obviously chatted gear. I saw his Wall up close and was shocked at how heavy it was. I chirped that I hope his off season workout routine included neck curls. 

Surprisingly, he didn't take my comment lightly. He got into a discussion about not trusting a light mask. He's basically old school and want's to wear a tank. He feels if it's too light, then something is missing. 

Just read this comment. He'd probably think my Reidic is a street mask LOLLL.

Side note, never met Sparks. I am a follower of his and have exchanged some words on line with him. I like the fact that he's down to earth and approachable. He's at the elite level but hasn't forgotten where he came from. Perusing with the young amateurs and us beer leaguers is a true sign of modesty and humbleness. An old school pro

[Math.]

Bauer Profile 940 comes in at 3.56 lbs.  Stock padding, cage swapped out for a Bauer profile cateye & dangler.

That's the old 940 (or has I like to call them, the good 940), back when they were all fiberglass and not polycarbonate.

[TheGoalNet]

3 hours ago, TitanG said:

Googling “digital hanging scale” got me some results including the exact model shown. 

Thanks

need one of these for C&As and other complicated items 

[Math.]

13 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

Thanks

need one of these for C&As and other complicated items 

They're usually refered to as Luggage scale, Amazon has a sh*t ton of them in the 5$ to 15$ range.

Side note, how much is your new GFL Pro weighting?

[TheGoalNet]

Sportmask Pro 3i Size M 1311 G or 2.9 lbs

[aircanuck]

New Armadilla gained some weight at 2.06lbs, I blame the use of gold leaf in the paint. I hope my neck is up to it. 

[IStopPux]

I'm wearing a Bauer Concept C1.  I returned the original (very light) titanium cage because of the safety recall, and replaced it with a stainless NME non-certified cat-eye cage.  With all the original PoronXrd padding and suspend-tech liner, it weighs in at 3.0 pounds.

[Patrick]

On 7/9/2018 at 1:51 PM, TheGoalNet said:

I had the fun of meeting Garret Sparks the other week and we obviously chatted gear. I saw his Wall up close and was shocked at how heavy it was. I chirped that I hope his off season workout routine included neck curls. 

Surprisingly, he didn't take my comment lightly. He got into a discussion about not trusting a light mask. He's basically old school and want's to wear a tank. He feels if it's too light, then something is missing. 

I did some calculation that are probably unrealistic to real world but there might be some benefits to  a heavier helmet in term of inertia.

Physics: Assuming that a puck is transferring all it's energy to a helmet with no angular velocity an helmet of 4lbs vs 2lbs would reduce the velocity of the head movement and by consequent the kinetic energy to the brain by 12 or 16 % respectively depending if you have a heavy head (12lbs) or a light head (8lbs). The effect being more pronounced for a lighter head. However, the kinetic energy would be the same transmitted to the head muscle given that it is a heavier mass at lower speed vs a lighter mass at a faster speed.

Physiological effect: However, the way the muscle and nervous system works is that they can produce more force at a low velocity than a high one. So a heavier helmet getting accelerated slower would let the neck muscle more time to produce force to counteract the blow.

P.S. The mass unlike the velocity in kinetic energy is linear not to the square so the reduction in speed is linear independently of the speed of the puck. If I made any mistake in my calculation let me know. I toyed a bit with this and please know I am not an engineer or physicist. Please feel free to correct me and post. I included a spreadsheet if you want to look at it. Please correct any mistake and repost if you feel inclined.

kinetic energy.ods

[TheGoalNet]

15 hours ago, Patrick said:

I did some calculation that are probably unrealistic to real world but there might be some benefits to  a heavier helmet in term of inertia.

Physics: Assuming that a puck is transferring all it's energy to a helmet with no angular velocity an helmet of 4lbs vs 2lbs would reduce the velocity of the head movement and by consequent the kinetic energy to the brain by 12 or 16 % respectively depending if you have a heavy head (12lbs) or a light head (8lbs). The effect being more pronounced for a lighter head. However, the kinetic energy would be the same transmitted to the head muscle given that it is a heavier mass at lower speed vs a lighter mass at a faster speed.

Physiological effect: However, the way the muscle and nervous system works is that they can produce more force at a low velocity than a high one. So a heavier helmet getting accelerated slower would let the neck muscle more time to produce force to counteract the blow.

P.S. The mass unlike the velocity in kinetic energy is linear not to the square so the reduction in speed is linear independently of the speed of the puck. If I made any mistake in my calculation let me know. I toyed a bit with this and please know I am not an engineer or physicist. Please feel free to correct me and post. I included a spreadsheet if you want to look at it. Please correct any mistake and repost if you feel inclined.

kinetic energy.ods 14.34 kB · 0 downloads

By your calculations, you are saying a helmet that is 50% lighter gives up 10% energy absorption?

[Patrick]

I did not factor in energy absorption. I just looked at how the energy of the puck which is a light object at high speed would accelerate a heavier head complex (head + helmet) if the collision was perfect and transferred all the energy to the shell and head. If there was same or no padding and no neck muscle, this would be the difference. think of a small ball hitting a bigger heavier one like in pool but where the striking ball is smaller. The slower acceleration of the heavier complex would cause less strain on the brain and the neck muscle can produce more force against a slower moving head even if the whole complex is heavier especially when ones did not have time to brace the neck muscle before the shot.

P.S. This is a linear and theoretical situation where torque and angular velocity are not calculated.

[SaveByRichter35]

17 hours ago, Patrick said:

I did some calculation that are probably unrealistic to real world but there might be some benefits to  a heavier helmet in term of inertia.

Physics: Assuming that a puck is transferring all it's energy to a helmet with no angular velocity an helmet of 4lbs vs 2lbs would reduce the velocity of the head movement and by consequent the kinetic energy to the brain by 12 or 16 % respectively depending if you have a heavy head (12lbs) or a light head (8lbs). The effect being more pronounced for a lighter head. However, the kinetic energy would be the same transmitted to the head muscle given that it is a heavier mass at lower speed vs a lighter mass at a faster speed.

Physiological effect: However, the way the muscle and nervous system works is that they can produce more force at a low velocity than a high one. So a heavier helmet getting accelerated slower would let the neck muscle more time to produce force to counteract the blow.

P.S. The mass unlike the velocity in kinetic energy is linear not to the square so the reduction in speed is linear independently of the speed of the puck. If I made any mistake in my calculation let me know. I toyed a bit with this and please know I am not an engineer or physicist. Please feel free to correct me and post. I included a spreadsheet if you want to look at it. Please correct any mistake and repost if you feel inclined.

kinetic energy.ods 14.34 kB · 1 download

 

[BadAngle41]

18 hours ago, Patrick said:

I did some calculation that are probably unrealistic to real world but there might be some benefits to  a heavier helmet in term of inertia.

Physics: Assuming that a puck is transferring all it's energy to a helmet with no angular velocity an helmet of 4lbs vs 2lbs would reduce the velocity of the head movement and by consequent the kinetic energy to the brain by 12 or 16 % respectively depending if you have a heavy head (12lbs) or a light head (8lbs). The effect being more pronounced for a lighter head. However, the kinetic energy would be the same transmitted to the head muscle given that it is a heavier mass at lower speed vs a lighter mass at a faster speed.

Physiological effect: However, the way the muscle and nervous system works is that they can produce more force at a low velocity than a high one. So a heavier helmet getting accelerated slower would let the neck muscle more time to produce force to counteract the blow.

P.S. The mass unlike the velocity in kinetic energy is linear not to the square so the reduction in speed is linear independently of the speed of the puck. If I made any mistake in my calculation let me know. I toyed a bit with this and please know I am not an engineer or physicist. Please feel free to correct me and post. I included a spreadsheet if you want to look at it. Please correct any mistake and repost if you feel inclined.

kinetic energy.ods 14.34 kB · 1 download

No issues w/ the calc... but rather with the "all other things equal" piece. As you acknowledged, it's just unrealistic to ignore shell construction and padding. 

[TheGoalNet]

2 hours ago, Patrick said:

I did not factor in energy absorption. I just looked at how the energy of the puck which is a light object at high speed would accelerate a heavier head complex (head + helmet) if the collision was perfect and transferred all the energy to the shell and head. If there was same or no padding and no neck muscle, this would be the difference. think of a small ball hitting a bigger heavier one like in pool but where the striking ball is smaller. The slower acceleration of the heavier complex would cause less strain on the brain and the neck muscle can produce more force against a slower moving head even if the whole complex is heavier especially when ones did not have time to brace the neck muscle before the shot.

P.S. This is a linear and theoretical situation where torque and angular velocity are not calculated.

I am just trying to put this lehmans terms to make sure I am clear. So 50% less weight means 10% more energy transfer?

[Patrick]

11 hours ago, BadAngle41 said:

No issues w/ the calc... but rather with the "all other things equal" piece. As you acknowledged, it's just unrealistic to ignore shell construction and padding. 

I agree with you.

As a food for thought, I would add that many companies offer the same helmet geometry with basically the same padding with the only difference being not the rigidity of the shell but the weight. My point is that the more expensive and lighter material might give an advantage in reducing fatigue, strain and comfort but maybe not in term of protection.

Furthermore:

" A single model of an ice hockey goaltender mask was tested. Different helmet models have been found to vary in their performance to an impact due to differences in shell and liner design (Rousseau, et al., 2009a; 2009b; Ouckama & Pearsall, 2014; Post et al., 2014; Nur, et al., submitted). However, the performance differences are small in magnitude (Rousseau, et al., 2009a; 2009b; Ouckama & Pearsall, 2014; Post et al., 2014; Nur, et al., submitted)and as such a single ice hockey goaltender mask model allows for a description of the protective capacity of ice hockey goaltenders masks."

From: Evaluation of the Protective Capacity of Ice Hockey Goaltender Masks for Three Accident Events using Dynamic Response and Brain Stress and Strain, James Michio Clark, University of Ottawa, 2018, p11.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.884.4970&rep=rep1&type=pdf

This assumption that the magnitude of difference  being small indicate that the material, design and liner account for very small difference in protective performance. This also include the result of a study by Nur et al that was submitted but not published at the moment redaction. That study was done in 2018 and was probably testing the most recent models available.

P.S. Correction, the only study I could see from Nur et al.  dated from 2015 and evaluated only a 55mph shot on the helmets tested. Maybe a new study I did not find.

[Patrick]

At SavebyRichter35

I know, I need an editor. I don't have the clearest writing style....and english is a second language for me.

[MangoRhinehart]

Just now, Patrick said:

I know, I need an editor. I don't have the best clearest writing style....

Nah, you're doing fine

In the psu study I do find it interesting that between masks there is a small magnitude of difference, with regards to layup, etc. Which seems to echo the statements from Protechsport.

When testing early masks, and I am talking early, I recall Jacques Plante having his mask puck cannoned and it surviving, good enough to survive, however it didnt factor in energy transfer to the head. 

Essentially it maybe easy to build a mask to survive the puck impact, but its more difficult to mitigate the energy transfer to the brain.

[Patrick]

10 hours ago, TheGoalNet said:

I am just trying to put this lehmans terms to make sure I am clear. So 50% less weight means 10% more energy transfer?

Essentially, 14% if your head is average size around 10 lbs. I chose 4 lbs and 2 lbs helmets because they are about the range from the heaviest and lightest models out there. I chose a human head weight range of 8 and 12 ponds as the lower and upper range of human head mass. I wanted to see if the weight of the helmet also has a different effect on a small person or children head vs a big head adult. The effect of the helmet's weight is more pronounced for the lightest head.

To illustrate the problem, imagine an extreme example of an helmet that weight 90 lbs with a 10lbs weight inside to mimic the mass of the head. The total would be a 100 lbs.  Put it on the ice and hit it with a puck traveling 100MPH and the puck hit it so square on a flat spot and it doesn't ricochet and come back on it's track slightly. That ridiculously heavy helmet would start sliding back at about 5MPH. Now lets take a 2 lbs helmet with a 10 lbs weight in it and do the same: it would start to slide at 19.3mph, lets say 20MPH. The brain inside both of those ball doesn't care if sits in either helmets. In one case, it acquire 5 mph of kinetic energy while in the other one it acquire close to 20MPH. In the second case, the brain mass has acquire 4 time the speed of the average head in a light helmet.   K=0.5⋅m⋅v2. The kinetic energy acquired by the brain would be 16 time or 1600%. I just did that rational but with a much smaller difference between the helmets weights.

[SaveByRichter35]

6 hours ago, Patrick said:

At SavebyRichter35

I know, I need an editor. I don't have the clearest writing style....and english is a second language for me.

Your writing is fine.  I would have never known English was not your primary language.  You're very well spoken, I was not poking fun at you.  Was just being funny towards the subject matter.

[BadAngle41]

9 hours ago, Patrick said:

As a food for thought, I would add that many companies offer the same helmet geometry with basically the same padding with the only difference being not the rigidity of the shell but the weight. My point is that the more expensive and lighter material might give an advantage in reducing fatigue, strain and comfort but maybe not in term of protection.

Having chewed on that food for thought... I'll disagree with the statement which is bolded red above. A manufacturer cannot simply add weight to a mask, rather it is done through additional layering (in the case of laminated masks) or thicknesses (in the case of poly masks.) This alters not only the weight of the mask but is also its construction, which removes many of the assumed constants.

Certainly the theory holds true, my only point is that outside the vacuum of this theory (and it's a great discussion) it is impossible to hold weight as the only variable. I do 100% agree with your note on lighter materials, you said it far better and more succinctly than I'm capable of.

[Patrick]

3 hours ago, BadAngle41 said:

Having chewed on that food for thought... I'll disagree with the statement which is bolded red above. A manufacturer cannot simply add weight to a mask, rather it is done through additional layering (in the case of laminated masks) or thicknesses (in the case of poly masks.) This alters not only the weight of the mask but is also its construction, which removes many of the assumed constants.

Certainly the theory holds true, my only point is that outside the vacuum of this theory (and it's a great discussion) it is impossible to hold weight as the only variable. I do 100% agree with your note on lighter materials, you said it far better and more succinctly than I'm capable of.

I was thinking as an example for CCM 9000 vs CCM pro. Same helmet mold one heavier made of fiberglass and one lighter with carbon fiber. Same padding. The newer version has different padding in the 1.9 vs Pro which make that not comparable.

[Patrick]

5 hours ago, SaveByRichter35 said:

Your writing is fine.  I would have never known English was not your primary language.  You're very well spoken, I was not poking fun at you.  Was just being funny towards the subject matter.

Not offended at all. I thought the pic was really funny. I think you have the right to poke fun at me if you want. My grandfather used to say that if one is not worth a laugh, he is not worth much. In fact, I think this discussion along with the other one I started in Where is your head at? thread should probably be move to a more technical thread...

[SaveByRichter35]

18 minutes ago, Patrick said:

Not offended at all. I thought the pic was really funny. I think you have the right to poke fun at me if you want. My grandfather used to say that if one is not worth a laugh, he is not worth much. In fact, I think this discussion along with the other one I started in Where is your head at? thread should probably be move to a more technical thread...

Honestly dude I was not poking fun at you at all.  More poking fun at myself. 

[TheGoalNet]

29 minutes ago, SaveByRichter35 said:

Honestly dude I was not poking fun at you at all.  More poking fun at myself. 

@Patrick - @SaveByRichter35 was joking that he was not smart enough to handle your advanced subject matter. It was not a knock against you. I think everyone appreciates the spirit and math.

PS - @coopaloop1234 How did you miss calling SBR35 not smart there?

[coopaloop1234]

2 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

@Patrick - @SaveByRichter35 was joking that he was not smart enough to handle your advanced subject matter. It was not a knock against you. I think everyone appreciates the spirit and math.

PS - @coopaloop1234 How did you miss calling SBR35 not smart there?

I honestly have not been following this thread at all.

[SaveByRichter35]

4 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

@Patrick - @SaveByRichter35 was joking that he was not smart enough to handle your advanced subject matter. It was not a knock against you. I think everyone appreciates the spirit and math.

PS - @coopaloop1234 How did you miss calling SBR35 not smart there?

When did you become such a shit stirrer?