Jump to content

Where's your head at?


Recommended Posts

On 4/29/2019 at 5:22 PM, aircanuck said:

Independent testing sticks out to me here. Testing to provide a benchmark where you know what to expect when you take a biscuit to various parts of the mask, as well as a few different types of side impact results could be very useful to the players shopping for masks.

Football helmets are tested and ranked. The data is available to the consumer. Are we not worthy of this?

I contacted Viginia Tech and they told me that they did some preliminary testing on goalie helmets but they are waiting for a grant or money coming their way to pursue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Interesting quote from the document:

Quote

Considerable research has been conducted in an effort to decrease the incidence of concussion, however,this research has been focused on skaters with little research done on goaltenders.Studies report forwards and defenseman sustain more concussions than goaltenders(Benson et al., 2011; Emeryet al., 2011; Donaldson et al., 2013; Hutchison et al.,

22013a) however a study in the Finish National Hockey League reported that concussions were most prevalent in goaltenders (Molsa et al., 1997).Concussions,along with head and kneeinjuries in goaltenders,are causedby player collisions, impacts to the ice and puck impacts to the head(LaPrade et al., 2009). Player collisions are reported as the most common accident event (LaPrade et al., 2009).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Later it seems that the major cause of concussion risk seems to be elbow and shoulder contact to the head by player to the side of the head of the goaltender. It also seems that while there are differences in protection between different models and designs, those differences appears to be small. It reflects the opinion found at Protechsport which has the honesty to state that protection is the same whether you chose Kevlar or Fiberglass. You pay for the weight difference not protection.

In the introduction pages:

Quote

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting article. Basic conclusions are that masks are pretty good at reducing concussions from puck impacts (the stiffer masks performed better), are slightly less effective at reducing concussions from falls (because there are higher levels of energy and head acceleration involved, than with puck impacts), and not very good at reducing concussions from collisions (shoulder, specifically) because collisions produce what the author calls "high compliant impacts".

High compliant impacts being impacts from things that are squishy. Pucks and ice and boards are all fairly rigid things, and produce short duration high magnitude accelerations, which goalie masks are tested for during the design stage (and thus, have been designed to protect against). When you get hit in the head by someone's shoulder it produces long duration low magnitude accelerations; because masks aren't tested for this they aren't designed to protect against it, and so they aren't able to absorb the impact energy as effectively as they do for falls and pucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@CJ Boiss @Patrick - Thank you for taking the time to research these topics and summarize them. Given it's 151 pages, you saved us all a lot of work! 

One note though is that the NHL is testing masks as we speak. Their concern is the rise shot to the mask related concussions. It's interesting that the research in articles you sent is from 2015 or earlier. So did something with the masks, sticks, etc that caused a rise to shot related concussions or did the NHL get better at recognizing concussions from shots when in the past the focused on collision concussions

https://www.tsn.ca/nhl-concerned-by-rise-in-goalie-concussions-1.1193829

"The big change seems to be an increase in the number of concussions resulting from shots off the mask. Of the 15 concussions last season, 10 were as a result of shots off the helmet, while two came from collisions. One came from a stick to the mask, one was a result of a backup being hit on the bench without a helmet, and one was unknown (Crawford). "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting if the NHL release their findings to the public and if they will be testing mass marketed masks or version of masks available only to pros. Did they gave signs when and where the results might be available? Also it seems that the current material of the shell has little impacts on safety, only weight. That would leave padding and shape as the variable to observe unless superior material is available. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Patrick said:

It will be interesting if the NHL release their findings to the public and if they will be testing mass marketed masks or version of masks available only to pros. Did they gave signs when and where the results might be available? Also it seems that the current material of the shell has little impacts on safety, only weight. That would leave padding and shape as the variable to observe unless superior material is available. Right?

I know there have been small samples of their tests released.  If I can find it, it basically tested the whole shell/foam layup.  I know it was when Hillier was playing with Maltese and it posted the highest score in terms of protectiveness. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MangoRhinehart said:

I know there have been small samples of their tests released.  If I can find it, it basically tested the whole shell/foam layup.  I know it was when Hillier was playing with Maltese and it posted the highest score in terms of protectiveness. 

Please share anything you can find?

The study referenced above is new in 2019. I don't think anything relating to Hiller would be relevant anymore.

The NHL would be silly to not test a combined helmet, shell, an cage combo. It would be interested to see them isolated, but the real value to the goalie is the assembled unit.

Bauer, as example, makes all the helmets in the same factory. There is no "pro department" for helmets anymore. So if the NHL tests a 960 XPM and it does well, that's a great resource for the whole community.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you that it would be useful to test the assembled combo for the consumer.

However, in order to advance the science of goalie helmet, one would need to examine the independent contributions of geometry, shell material, cages design and material, liner material, weight. This would allow all manufacturers to build better helmets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Patrick said:

I agree with you that it would be useful to test the assembled combo for the consumer.

However, in order to advance the science of goalie helmet, one would need to examine the independent contributions of geometry, shell material, cages design and material, liner material, weight. This would allow all manufacturers to build better helmets.

Concussions seem to be caused by rapid acceleration of your head, which causes your brain to rattle around inside your skull and deform. Knowing this, we can infer a few things thanks to some basic principles of physics.

For example, a heavier mask, having more mass and thus being more difficult to accelerate, would presumably reduce concussions more than a lighter mask would, because more energy would be required to move the mask (and thus your head). The question would be how heavy would a mask needs to be before it's increased mass made a substantial difference; it could very well be (and I suspect this to be the case) that the mask would have to be prohibitively heavier to provide any kind of benefit, making the weight of the mask a non-factor in reducing concussion related injuries from puck impacts.

In terms of geometry smaller surface areas that create oblique angles relative to incoming pucks, such as the ridges commonly found along the forehead and brows of many goalie masks, will result in pucks skipping off of the mask without expending all of their kinetic energy into it. Pucks that strike our masks at right angles, where the trajectory of the puck is perpendicular to the surface of the mask, transfer more energy into our mask, head, and brain. Basically, it's better to get a puck off the front of our mask, where there are very few flat surfaces for the puck to strike, than the side of the mask.

Related to that is shell materials. Stiffer shells deform less, which means pucks contact less of the mask and transfer less energy, so stiffer materials increase the amount of energy that gets deflected away from our heads. Less energy transfer to our heads means less acceleration, and presumably fewer concussions.

I can't really imagine how goalie masks could be better designed for preventing concussions, outside of making them larger, more spherical (to reduce flat faces), and adding more liner materials. All of which strike me as being somewhat detrimental to our performance (think a football helmet, but made of Kevlar and fibreglass, and lined with lots of high-density foam. I wouldn't want to wear that on the ice). Mask geometry strikes me as being about as good as we'll ever have, because the human head naturally has large flat surfaces and we can't really do anything about that.

 I think whatever advances get made in goalie mask technology are going to be from shell and liner materials, both of which have an upper limit on how much they can protect our head because, at the end of the day, there's only so much energy three pounds of Kevlar and high-density foam can deflect and absorb before our brains start rattling around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is something here that is being completely overlooked, especially when it comes to goalies who are playing in the NHL and the rise in shot related concussions.  That being the cumulative effect of possibly many PREVIOUS concussions from minor hockey and Junior/NCAA going undiagnosed.  The NHL is to blame for this and so is, to a HUGE part, Major Junior and Jr A for their STUPID contracts with Bauer.  This FORCED all goalies for a period to wear only Bauer masks, 80% of them very poorly fitting.  Who knows how many concussions during formative years and through teenage years went undiagnosed.  All due to a poorly fitting mask.  

I say the blame lies in the NHL only due to trainers on the teams and equipment managers letting their goalies continue to wear poorly fitting Bauer masks.  And little Jimmy or Susie sees their favourite goalie in a Bauer mask and wants one themselves.

By the time some of these guys have reached the NHL, they may have had upwards of 5 or 10 concussions.  And every one you have, makes you more susceptible to having another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, CJ Boiss said:

 I think whatever advances get made in goalie mask technology are going to be from shell and liner materials, both of which have an upper limit on how much they can protect our head because, at the end of the day, there's only so much energy three pounds of Kevlar and high-density foam can deflect and absorb before our brains start rattling around. 

I like your synopsis. Thank you. You are probably right on all points. Strengthening neck muscles is probably the best way to change possible outcomes. I like your take on mask weight. I attempted to make that point in another thread about mask weight. Excessive weight can cause other issues unrelated to concussion such as fatigue and slow movements, strain on disks...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Naz said:

I think there is something here that is being completely overlooked, especially when it comes to goalies who are playing in the NHL and the rise in shot related concussions.  That being the cumulative effect of possibly many PREVIOUS concussions from minor hockey and Junior/NCAA going undiagnosed.  The NHL is to blame for this and so is, to a HUGE part, Major Junior and Jr A for their STUPID contracts with Bauer.  This FORCED all goalies for a period to wear only Bauer masks, 80% of them very poorly fitting.  Who knows how many concussions during formative years and through teenage years went undiagnosed.  All due to a poorly fitting mask.  

I say the blame lies in the NHL only due to trainers on the teams and equipment managers letting their goalies continue to wear poorly fitting Bauer masks.  And little Jimmy or Susie sees their favourite goalie in a Bauer mask and wants one themselves.

By the time some of these guys have reached the NHL, they may have had upwards of 5 or 10 concussions.  And every one you have, makes you more susceptible to having another.

If people were forced something less than a 960 during their Jr or college days, I can agree with your point above.

However, the old Itech 960 was a pretty beefy shell and heavy. Per the statements above about weight, I don't think a proper fitting 960 was to blame.

With Bauer owning the design, I can also say that Bauer tests their masks extensively. I am NOT saying a 960 is the safest or best mask, but I am saying that Bauer has done as much homework as anyone about testing their mask.

What's my point? The current general construction, shape, and/or materials are pretty similar brand to brand. I don't think anyone is 100% safer in a Pro's Choice compared to a Bauer. Event the NHL guys in Bauer are using the off shore shells now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Patrick said:

I heard of this Maltese foam test results but never seen the hard number in a study format. It would be great to see some real independent data on the issue.

An unnamed major OEM said they tested maltese foam. They said it performed better than like traditional cream foam but not as well as the newer engineered liners. That may not be a neutral opinion, but still semi relevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

If people were forced something less than a 960 during their Jr or college days, I can agree with your point above.

However, the old Itech 960 was a pretty beefy shell and heavy. Per the statements above about weight, I don't think a proper fitting 960 was to blame.

With Bauer owning the design, I can also say that Bauer tests their masks extensively. I am NOT saying a 960 is the safest or best mask, but I am saying that Bauer has done as much homework as anyone about testing their mask.

What's my point? The current general construction, shape, and/or materials are pretty similar brand to brand. I don't think anyone is 100% safer in a Pro's Choice compared to a Bauer. Event the NHL guys in Bauer are using the off shore shells now.

If I recall the issue with the Bauer's back when they had the contract was they hadn't developed the wider mold yet and were just using the original one which caused a ton of fitment issues. There were a ton of pictures out there of guys with heads way too big for that model with them being worn improperly just so they could be somewhat comfortable. I know there were many years where I couldn't wear any of top end masks Itech/Bauer made as they just didn't fit on my large melon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, CJ Boiss said:

I can't really imagine how goalie masks could be better designed for preventing concussions, outside of making them larger, more spherical (to reduce flat faces), and adding more liner materials. All of which strike me as being somewhat detrimental to our performance (think a football helmet, but made of Kevlar and fibreglass, and lined with lots of high-density foam. I wouldn't want to wear that on the ice). Mask geometry strikes me as being about as good as we'll ever have, because the human head naturally has large flat surfaces and we can't really do anything about that. 

This makes me think - whatever happened to the OneZee goalie helmet?

https://onezeegoaliehelmet.com/

OneZee3.thumb.jpg.af74598236da3754f39d74fd1846f85e.jpgOneZee2.jpg.0710e3cad80581825b1fecb4f6f2a604.jpgOneZee.jpg.f3722d75b462ca9ed2a70cd378a0c375.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, wox33 said:

If I recall the issue with the Bauer's back when they had the contract was they hadn't developed the wider mold yet and were just using the original one which caused a ton of fitment issues. There were a ton of pictures out there of guys with heads way too big for that model with them being worn improperly just so they could be somewhat comfortable. I know there were many years where I couldn't wear any of top end masks Itech/Bauer made as they just didn't fit on my large melon.

That's correct. I am also not sure how good the earlier the Itech NME masks were compared the the VTX.

Also, I think with the old Itech CHL contracts, guys were forced to wear not 960 masks and may have been more in a SR level helmet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ZeroGravitas said:

This makes me think - whatever happened to the OneZee goalie helmet?

https://onezeegoaliehelmet.com/

OneZee3.thumb.jpg.af74598236da3754f39d74fd1846f85e.jpgOneZee2.jpg.0710e3cad80581825b1fecb4f6f2a604.jpgOneZee.jpg.f3722d75b462ca9ed2a70cd378a0c375.jpg

That's very interesting. Maybe the one-piece design, eliminating the backplate, gives additional structural integrity to the whole of the mask; less deformation, more even energy distribution throughout the shell when it's struck? I'd be very interested to see a mask like this subjected to industry standard testing, just for comparison purposes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/18/2019 at 5:21 PM, CJ Boiss said:

That's very interesting. Maybe the one-piece design, eliminating the backplate, gives additional structural integrity to the whole of the mask; less deformation, more even energy distribution throughout the shell when it's struck? I'd be very interested to see a mask like this subjected to industry standard testing, just for comparison purposes.

Someone who knows the designer said they paid for major comparison testing with the big guys. We will see if they actually come through and publish the data!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking to experts and continually learning about the science behind concussions,  I am learning that there is great value to not having the jaw completely locked in the mask. I played crash test dummy with one particular mask for quite a long time. A little bit of space goes a long way in player to head impacts, especially at that jawline.

More testing is needed, for certain. In the meantime, I'll only put my head one place. The rest of the industry can continue to place their heads in the sand. 

head.thumb.jpeg.b54ae57a79a32202559a46ac24ef16a3.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...