2022 NHL Mask Testing Results

[TheGoalNet]

13 hours ago, Teezle said:

Are these results published externally somewhere?

Nope, this is truly a leak from a confidential source. To my knowledge, this was not a path to go public 

[TheGoalNet]

10 hours ago, seagoal said:

One thing that is not clear, to me, is that there are no values for the vertical axis, so there is no value assigned at any level of the hierarchy.  Clearly, the arrow says "improved" is the ones up top, so the hierarchy is arranged by relative value to one another.  But, if we don't know what the values are vertically...and where, say, the cusp of acceptable vs unacceptable is vertically, then we can't really conclude much other than which helmets are better than others. 

So, if #1 is better than #4, but "acceptable" or "safe" starts at say #6, then #4 is still a good choice even thought it is not as good as #1.

Without that info, it's not clear that any goalie with any given helmet should be concerned based on these graphs.

I was told everyone only received the PDF above, I don’t think that there was a lot of background data like you might expect to see with academic paper. 
 

I think some of the challenge and what you are asking for is how you define “acceptable”?

This whole testing process started because the NHL was alarmed at the rise in NHL goalie concussions. Considering nobody can properly define a correlation between helmet safety and concussions, it’s literally impossible to define “good enough“

In comparison with the NFL, they’re latest helmet safety challenge basically encouraged start ups to try and create a helmet that was 20% safer than any of the current products on the market. So by the NFL’s definition, the baseline year-over-year should be last year’s safest helmet and everybody better come to the table the next year with a better helmet. 

[TheGoalNet]

13 hours ago, bunnyman666 said:

Victory V6 is middle of the road everywhere except one rating. Interesting…

Yea, I don’t think another mask at that price point was tested.

 

I don’t think another mask at that price point was tested.

 

With that said, if you assign a dollar value to each mask on here, it’s pretty interesting…

 

V6 is an outstanding value? 
 

Bauer 960 won in the ram test for a straight shot and was middle of the road after that. At $900 that’s a deal compared with the $1800+ Pro’s Choice? Victory V8 performed well all around is $800, again major savings Vs the best? 
 

 

[Chenner29]

52 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

Yea, I don’t think another mask at that price point was tested.

I don’t think another mask at that price point was tested.

With that said, if you assign a dollar value to each mask on here, it’s pretty interesting

V6 is an outstanding value?

Bauer 960 won in the ram test for a straight shot and was middle of the road after that. At $900 that’s a deal compared with the $1800+ Pro’s Choice? Victory V8 performed well all around is $800, again major savings Vs the best?

As we were discussing offline - I think it would benefit a ton of the goalie population if we took a deeper dive and notated things which are not listed on the NHL data sheets:

• foam type (poron/D30/etc)
• mask makeup (fiberglass/kevlar/carbon/plastic)
• price point

Also note, they did not designate which model Sportmask was tested.  Could it be a lower end X8 or T3, or was it a Pro 2i/3i/515/VX-5?

Another interesting tidbit, this graphic was shared on GGSU and Cody Porter said the data was available to current contracted pros and NHLPA members at least a year ago.

[keeperton]

1 hour ago, TheGoalNet said:

Couldn’t agree less on this

yeah, it’s not perfect. But someone did independent testing. It’s a major freaking start! 
 

what does the same shell performing significantly different with three liners tell us? everyone needs to stop obsessing over the shell and realize that the liner is just as important 

adding thicker foam basically creates extra breaking distance between the puck energy and your brain. 
 

I can tell you that the major mask companies absolutely know how to create a safer helmet. The problem is that it would probably make you look like a bobble head and no one wear it. 

our own tendencies of how we want to look or what feels right playing goal is a major limiting factor toward safety 

A large problem with all of it is that this isn't properly published with figures, diagrams, full methodologies, nor research discussion. They did tests and stated the bare of what they did, but I want to know that the apparatus used actually fit the masks, I want diagrams of the tests, validations of the sensors used, etc. It's a start, sure, but it has huge gaps that need filling in, ones that the engineers should have.

 

I hoped/thought it was obvious thicker foams would help. If you make your bobble head [Soderstrom] helmet at some point, the league would have to step in and set size restrictions for goalie protective headwear. Maybe that's something that should already be defined so one can be made with as much safety in mind as will fit in the defined three-dimensional space.

Edited April 6, 2022 by keeperton

[ilyazhito]

That makes more sense. Reinforce the center bar so that it's less likely to get broken. 

I'd probably still use a certified cage in the show, because it got me to that point. It's not worth taking a puck or stick to the eyes because some doofus decided to stick his butt end or blade through the bars. 

[chile57]

10 hours ago, ilyazhito said:

What is the tri cage? I get the flat bar, to distribute force.across the cage more evenly, but what is the tri cage supposed to improve?

The tri-cage was the next evolution from the flat steel. Less likely to bend because: 1) its more/thicker steel and 2) the triangular shape (with the point facing outward) is more likely to take glancing impact (as opposed to flat/solid impact). 

That said - its not impervious to bending (to that I can attest).

Edited April 6, 2022 by chile57

[TheGoalNet]

9 hours ago, Chenner29 said:

As we were discussing offline - I think it would benefit a ton of the goalie population if we took a deeper dive and notated things which are not listed on the NHL data sheets:

• foam type (poron/D30/etc)
• mask makeup (fiberglass/kevlar/carbon/plastic)
• price point

Also note, they did not designate which model Sportmask was tested.  Could it be a lower end X8 or T3, or was it a Pro 2i/3i/515/VX-5?

Another interesting tidbit, this graphic was shared on GGSU and Cody Porter said the data was available to current contracted pros and NHLPA members at least a year ago.

Cody Porter is not correct. I had 2 mask companies verify the data is fresh as of Monday of this week. I also asked a couple North American pro goalies I know and they still to do this day had not been presented with the data. 

As you can see in the graphic, some testing was completed in 2019 and that data might have been leaked or shared in small tidbits… but no fully concluded study or graph like that was reported 

[TheGoalNet]

8 hours ago, keeperton said:

A large problem with all of it is that this isn't properly published with figures, diagrams, full methodologies, nor research discussion. They did tests and stated the bare of what they did, but I want to know that the apparatus used actually fit the masks, I want diagrams of the tests, validations of the sensors used, etc. It's a start, sure, but it has huge gaps that need filling in, ones that the engineers should have.

 

I hoped/thought it was obvious thicker foams would help. If you make your bobble head [Soderstrom] helmet at some point, the league would have to step in and set size restrictions for goalie protective headwear. Maybe that's something that should already be defined so one can be made with as much safety in mind as will fit in the defined three-dimensional space.

I agree they can and should do more, but I can appreciate a step in the right direction. 

[TheGoalNet]

2 hours ago, chile57 said:

The tri-cage was the next evolution from the flat steel. Less likely to bend because: 1) its more/thicker steel and 2) the triangular shape (with the point facing outward) is more likely to take glancing impact (as opposed to flat/solid impact). 

That said - its not impervious to bending (to that I can attest).

One could argue a cage should bend and be treated as a consumable?

think about crumple zones on a car 

[bunnyman666]

10 hours ago, TheGoalNet said:

Yea, I don’t think another mask at that price point was tested.

 

I don’t think another mask at that price point was tested.

 

With that said, if you assign a dollar value to each mask on here, it’s pretty interesting…

 

V6 is an outstanding value? 
 

Bauer 960 won in the ram test for a straight shot and was middle of the road after that. At $900 that’s a deal compared with the $1800+ Pro’s Choice? Victory V8 performed well all around is $800, again major savings Vs the best? 
 

 

I have taken bombs from my V6. Minimal noise, too. Of course, I wear a Schroeder Mage these days.

[bunnyman666]

1 minute ago, TheGoalNet said:

One could argue a cage should bend and be treated as a consumable?

think about crumple zones on a car 

I have been working on cage suspension for my upcoming helmet. But cages should still be a crumple zone.

[chile57]

39 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

One could argue a cage should bend and be treated as a consumable?

think about crumple zones on a car 

I don't disagree with you but I think job one is to deflect the impact as best you can so that its not transferred into the mask/your face (that's why - aside from needing to contour around one's already round melon - masks are roundish). From there - if its going to take a ton of impact - yes it'd be better to bend/crumple (as most all steel used for cages on the market will - we are all hip to titanium cages and their propensity to break as opposed to bend - judge the merits there for yourself). Particularly on the center bar - if your mask fits well (and depending on the size of one's schnoz) - there isn't necessarily a whole of room between the bar and your nose. At that rate - don't think anyone wants the center bar to crumple too terribly much but that's my opinion (and part of why center bars have an outward bend to them to begin with).

The triangular center bar isn't immune to bending - my point is just that (in my opinion) its a better option than a flat piece at the overall same width.

Edited April 6, 2022 by chile57

[ThatCarGuy]

Another less important detail is it seems to me that there’s a very loose correlation between mask weight and ranking in these tests. Lighter helmets like Axis and NME usually trended closer towards the bottom. I’m not sure how much a V6 or Sportmask weighs compared to 960 though. 

[keeperton]

6 hours ago, TheGoalNet said:

I agree they can and should do more, but I can appreciate a step in the right direction. 

Definitely not taking that away from you (or anyone else). More of a deep desire for this to become more of a publishable study, to make this much more of an empirical and reproducible item because that would be huge.

[goalie]

On 4/5/2022 at 11:52 PM, Chenner29 said:

As we were discussing offline - I think it would benefit a ton of the goalie population if we took a deeper dive and notated things which are not listed on the NHL data sheets:

• foam type (poron/D30/etc)
• mask makeup (fiberglass/kevlar/carbon/plastic)
• price point

Also note, they did not designate which model Sportmask was tested.  Could it be a lower end X8 or T3, or was it a Pro 2i/3i/515/VX-5?

Another interesting tidbit, this graphic was shared on GGSU and Cody Porter said the data was available to current contracted pros and NHLPA members at least a year ago.

Coveted = neoprene foam

next...

[luked]

On 4/6/2022 at 9:35 AM, chile57 said:

I don't disagree with you but I think job one is to deflect the impact as best you can so that its not transferred into the mask/your face (that's why - aside from needing to contour around one's already round melon - masks are roundish). From there - if its going to take a ton of impact - yes it'd be better to bend/crumple (as most all steel used for cages on the market will - we are all hip to titanium cages and their propensity to break as opposed to bend - judge the merits there for yourself). Particularly on the center bar - if your mask fits well (and depending on the size of one's schnoz) - there isn't necessarily a whole of room between the bar and your nose. At that rate - don't think anyone wants the center bar to crumple too terribly much but that's my opinion (and part of why center bars have an outward bend to them to begin with).

The triangular center bar isn't immune to bending - my point is just that (in my opinion) its a better option than a flat piece at the overall same width.

I agree. A lot of the custom masks fit close to the bars, that usually comes from user fit preference etc. not necessarily the mask build. Some goalies years ago wore their mask so close to the bars I can't imagine them getting hit in the cage period, kinda scary. (manny fernandez comes to mind) That being said, I feel as though the center bar is the backbone of the cage. The cage should be a crumble zone, but a strong backbone makes sense to me... again, this is completely speculative, I'm not a mechanical engineer.

Also, the thing that I never understood regarding goalie masks was the interior padding. It's true across multiple disciplines, that you want to have the most snug fit without any voids between the helmet padding and the user's head... but we're seeing things like MIPS and other technologies elsewhere that haven't really been adapted, if at all possible. CCM has "fluid inside" (like the old maltese gel?) type padding I think? I would love to see how that is vs. normal rubatex.

The study is interesting but really there's not a ton of context to it. Like someone said earlier, what's acceptable?

[aircanuck]

So we have established that foam thickness and density matter. I'm also leaning on some research that says having the jawline open also reduces concussion severity when player impacts occur. Take a step back into the 90's and remember someone did both those items extremely well. 

 

I've got a VTX and new axis for personal experimentation and these results go along with what I have been feeling. I'll stick with my 30 year old design until the commercial folks finally figure out a better way. 

Edited April 9, 2022 by aircanuck

[aircanuck]

On 4/5/2022 at 4:05 PM, Puckstopper said:

I'm guessing that the NHL doesn't want to establish a baseline or level that they consider "acceptable" for liability reasons.

The NFL did this, why wouldn't they at least draw a line for the bare minimum? Are they going to wait for someone to get dragged off the ice and lose their career/quality of life? The speed is only going to go up and I'd hate to see rules made in blood. 

[chile57]

On 4/8/2022 at 5:14 PM, luked said:

I agree. A lot of the custom masks fit close to the bars, that usually comes from user fit preference etc. not necessarily the mask build. Some goalies years ago wore their mask so close to the bars I can't imagine them getting hit in the cage period, kinda scary. (manny fernandez comes to mind) That being said, I feel as though the center bar is the backbone of the cage. The cage should be a crumble zone, but a strong backbone makes sense to me... again, this is completely speculative, I'm not a mechanical engineer.

Also, the thing that I never understood regarding goalie masks was the interior padding. It's true across multiple disciplines, that you want to have the most snug fit without any voids between the helmet padding and the user's head... but we're seeing things like MIPS and other technologies elsewhere that haven't really been adapted, if at all possible. CCM has "fluid inside" (like the old maltese gel?) type padding I think? I would love to see how that is vs. normal rubatex.

The study is interesting but really there's not a ton of context to it. Like someone said earlier, what's acceptable?

I think we're thinking the same here - you don't want the whole thing to crumple like a wet paper bag because your face lives behind it. Your school of thought loans credence to the fact that nearly every manufacturer rocks a "beefier" center "piece"... whether it be the tricat, a double bar, flat steel, a larger gauge single bar, etc. All as far as I know all also bend outward - making them less likely to bend inward too terribly far. Everywhere else where you'd want it to give way and "crumple" sits much further from one's face.

Edited April 12, 2022 by chile57

[TheGoalNet]

On 4/9/2022 at 2:46 PM, aircanuck said:

The NFL did this, why wouldn't they at least draw a line for the bare minimum? Are they going to wait for someone to get dragged off the ice and lose their career/quality of life? The speed is only going to go up and I'd hate to see rules made in blood. 

Agreed, I attended an NFL Helmet Challenge event. The NFL is leaning into this, maybe forced by a lawsuit, and the NHL is doing the bare minimum they can to cover their ass

Vicis has won 2 of last 3 NFL tests. They have a soft shell aka a giant crumble zone. Would love to know if that concept would be applicable to goalie masks. That is the type of the outside the box thinking I would love to see tested.

[TheGoalNet]

On 4/6/2022 at 8:54 AM, ThatCarGuy said:

Another less important detail is it seems to me that there’s a very loose correlation between mask weight and ranking in these tests. Lighter helmets like Axis and NME usually trended closer towards the bottom. I’m not sure how much a V6 or Sportmask weighs compared to 960 though. 

Agree 100% on this. Generally speaking it's basic helmet design theory... Heavier helmets perform well in safety testing.

No one wants a heavy helmet. Bauer and CCM are looking to solve what athletes are asking for with lightweight performance. The "hand made NA crowd" is focusing on proven basics with heavier designs. It's exactly the same as comparing a Bauer pad to a True pad.

Hot Take - The Onezee might be the safest helmet in hockey? I am guessing that thing weighs a ton and it has a lot of surface area.

[TheGoalNet]

On 4/6/2022 at 8:35 AM, chile57 said:

I don't disagree with you but I think job one is to deflect the impact as best you can so that its not transferred into the mask/your face (that's why - aside from needing to contour around one's already round melon - masks are roundish). From there - if its going to take a ton of impact - yes it'd be better to bend/crumple (as most all steel used for cages on the market will - we are all hip to titanium cages and their propensity to break as opposed to bend - judge the merits there for yourself). Particularly on the center bar - if your mask fits well (and depending on the size of one's schnoz) - there isn't necessarily a whole of room between the bar and your nose. At that rate - don't think anyone wants the center bar to crumple too terribly much but that's my opinion (and part of why center bars have an outward bend to them to begin with).

The triangular center bar isn't immune to bending - my point is just that (in my opinion) its a better option than a flat piece at the overall same width.

Not saying I am right, but it's a discussions someone in the mask industry had with me and it stuck.

[ThatCarGuy]

15 minutes ago, TheGoalNet said:

No one wants a heavy helmet. Bauer and CCM are looking to solve what athletes are asking for with lightweight performance.

Really wishing warrior was included in that test. It weighs similar to Axis and NME but feels like it performs much better surprisingly. Could be due to a better fit but there’s no way to no for sure until it’s tested. 

[Wonder35]

I recall asking Greg Harrison why he never got a CSA (Canadian Safety Seal of Approval) for his masks (late 1980's). He said that they wanted 3 complete masks which they planned on destroying in the process of testing. " NFW I am making 3 masks for them to wreck" was his reply to me. His clients did not require that certification on their gear.

Greg also made his own cages on a jig in his shop. Every once in a while he brought one to the University of Toronto where he must have had a contact in the Engineering Program. They would test its strength and durability.