2022 NHL Mask Testing Results

[ilyazhito]

23 minutes ago, ThatCarGuy said:

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. 

Warrior isn't licensed by the NHL for any goalie products except sticks. Maybe that is why it wasn't included.

AFAIK, Warwick is licensed. How would we know if Coveted or Protechsport were licensed? 

[goalie]

16 hours ago, ilyazhito said:

Warrior isn't licensed by the NHL for any goalie products except sticks. Maybe that is why it wasn't included.

AFAIK, Warwick is licensed. How would we know if Coveted or Protechsport were licensed? 

Coveted not licensed but approved for use

[bunnyman666]

17 hours ago, Wonder35 said:

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.

So many people in the know also say how flawed the testing is; after all, how can a mask dubbed “widow maker” pass the CSA testing? Between the prohibitive costs (including three masks) and the dubious testing, it’s no wonder that as long as the client doesn’t need certification, why go through it?

[ilyazhito]

1 hour ago, goalie said:

Coveted not licensed but approved for use

What is the distinction? Approved for use can be used but without the logo visible? 

[indykrap]

1 hour ago, bunnyman666 said:

So many people in the know also say how flawed the testing is; after all, how can a mask dubbed “widow maker” pass the CSA testing? Between the prohibitive costs (including three masks) and the dubious testing, it’s no wonder that as long as the client doesn’t need certification, why go through it?

I'm curious about this too. The CSA standard is publicly available (for a fee, natch), so I wonder if it does make the distinction or there is much testing difference between goalie and player helmets.

https://www.csagroup.org/store/product/Z262.1-15/

I did a work term there a decade ago and I know all the testing is in Rexdale (North Toronto) - wonder if they'd ever do a tour!

[bunnyman666]

2 hours ago, ilyazhito said:

What is the distinction? Approved for use can be used but without the logo visible? 

Correct.

[Chenner29]

Some interesting takeaways for me...

I was told the league ran tests for chin-only impact as well as cage-only impact; results were not published

Some clarification on Vaughn thin foam vs extra foam - "thin foam" was specced to be 1/8" thick foam all around.  Dom @ Pro's Choice told me he does not ever produce a mask this thin but was requested by the league to provide one like this.  The shell he submitted with "extra foam" is what he produced for Rask

It doesn't appear the NHL accounted for fit as a performance metric.  Note CCM submitted a Fit 0, Fit 2, and Fit 3 of their Axis mask. Aside from the results from the Linear Acceleration under Linear Impact method, their performance is pretty scattered in the other 3 tests, which IMO suggests fit is an important part of protection

Note that there were two tests done (2019 and 2021), and "each manufacturer had the opportunity to review the results for its products."  Final results published were from 2021.  6 manufacturers resubmitted their molds.  Also note there are six companies in bold (Coveted, Vaughn, Bauer, Victory, CCM, Sportmask).  Dom told me he took the opportunity from the first test to change his makeup and add more Kevlar across the forehead (which he is doing on all his masks moving forward), so I believe the bolded items are the resubmitted masks.  Aside from Sportmask, these resubmitted masks cluster near the top for Linear Impact method testing

Masks were not weighed for this exercise, although some would argue it's an important factor

Victory V6 ("plastic" polycarbonate mask) tested pretty well in Linear Impact Testing but got dumped on when it came to puck impact

More questions

How did the Coveted 906 SENIOR mask outperform the 906 PRO mask in Rotational Acceleration/Linear Impact method?

What Sportmask models were tested?

Bauer 960 looks to have had a pretty good showing: 1st in Linear Acceleration/Linear Impact, 4th in Rotational Acceleration/Linear Impact, 10th in Linear Acceleration/Puck Impact, 9th in Rotational Acceleration/Puck Impact.  How much has this mask changed in the last +/- 30 years?

 

[ThatCarGuy]

I emailed Warrior as well to see if they’re willing to share the numbers they got from any similar tests

[Chenner29]

Digging a little deeper.  Man this report is a mess to read and I'd love if someone good with Excel could do some pivot tables or some shit with this

Does shape affect linear impact?

Note the Bauer 961 and Coveted 906 are similar "aggressive" shaped masks and performed similarly when it came to linear impacts. 

Going back to the Coveted 906 Senior vs Pro...

If we go off ProtechSport's website re mask makeup theory:

1. Biggest difference between fiberglass and adding Kevlar is weight savings (roughly 1 lb)
2. Carbon fiber is bad for impact

Now consider Coveted's makeup breakdown for the different levels of their 906:

Based on that, 906 Senior has less Kevlar and more fiberglass vs the Pro.  Considering the 1 lb weight difference and leaving out the carbon fiber, we can assume the 906 Senior is heavier than the Pro/Ultimate Pro.  Which takes us to a conclusion that weight seems to have some correlation with protection - at least when it comes to linear impact?

Now considering shell rigidity - correct me if I'm wrong, but Kevlar is used to increase shell stiffness?  The 906 PRO performed better in puck impact tests, which should suggest stiffer shell = better vs pucks.  Victory V6 (AFAIK the lone plastic mask on this report) results seem to reflect this as well - held up well for the hammer/linear impact test but was near the bottom for puck impact

Going back to my point on the "re-test" masks - I'm now 99% sure the masks in bold were the resubmitted masks.  The date of test is in parenthesis and for some makers you can see two models (Victory, Sportmask)

Note below the performance difference between Victory V8 comparing 2019 and 2021.  What did they change between studies?  They're the only mask maker listed on here with two pairs of similar models for different years with a marked performance improvement. 

From 16th to 5th, 18th to 8th here

16th to 5th, 19th to 2nd

[TheGoalNet]

On 4/14/2022 at 11:32 PM, ThatCarGuy said:

I emailed Warrior as well to see if they’re willing to share the numbers they got from any similar tests

If it's not from that lab, it's not relevant.

[TheGoalNet]

On 4/15/2022 at 3:23 AM, Chenner29 said:

Digging a little deeper.  Man this report is a mess to read and I'd love if someone good with Excel could do some pivot tables or some shit with this

Does shape affect linear impact?

Note the Bauer 961 and Coveted 906 are similar "aggressive" shaped masks and performed similarly when it came to linear impacts. 

Going back to the Coveted 906 Senior vs Pro...

If we go off ProtechSport's website re mask makeup theory:

1. Biggest difference between fiberglass and adding Kevlar is weight savings (roughly 1 lb)
2. Carbon fiber is bad for impact

Now consider Coveted's makeup breakdown for the different levels of their 906:

Based on that, 906 Senior has less Kevlar and more fiberglass vs the Pro.  Considering the 1 lb weight difference and leaving out the carbon fiber, we can assume the 906 Senior is heavier than the Pro/Ultimate Pro.  Which takes us to a conclusion that weight seems to have some correlation with protection - at least when it comes to linear impact?

Now considering shell rigidity - correct me if I'm wrong, but Kevlar is used to increase shell stiffness?  The 906 PRO performed better in puck impact tests, which should suggest stiffer shell = better vs pucks.  Victory V6 (AFAIK the lone plastic mask on this report) results seem to reflect this as well - held up well for the hammer/linear impact test but was near the bottom for puck impact

Going back to my point on the "re-test" masks - I'm now 99% sure the masks in bold were the resubmitted masks.  The date of test is in parenthesis and for some makers you can see two models (Victory, Sportmask)

Note below the performance difference between Victory V8 comparing 2019 and 2021.  What did they change between studies?  They're the only mask maker listed on here with two pairs of similar models for different years with a marked performance improvement. 

From 16th to 5th, 18th to 8th here

16th to 5th, 19th to 2nd

At a high level, and with having some direct access to helmet designers in multiple industries, heavier helmets are better at absorbing impact.

@Chenner29 This is not proper science, but I know you have  PC mask. Is it the 960-esq one? If so, what does it weigh? I will weight my 960 and VTX too. 

Also to your point about shell shape, the PC / Vaughn model is the 960 style and not the Mrazek style. So that's another mask in the spirit of the Wright family tree that performed well... But CCM and VTX are aggressive are didn't perform as well, so to me it comes back to...

Weight & Padding thickness probably are the biggest factors to tests like these.

Weight = Absorbtion

Padding thickness = braking distance

[CJ Boiss]

1 hour ago, TheGoalNet said:

At a high level, and with having some direct access to helmet designers in multiple industries, heavier helmets are better at absorbing impact.

@Chenner29 This is not proper science, but I know you have  PC mask. Is it the 960-esq one? If so, what does it weigh? I will weight my 960 and VTX too. 

Also to your point about shell shape, the PC / Vaughn model is the 960 style and not the Mrazek style. So that's another mask in the spirit of the Wright family tree that performed well... But CCM and VTX are aggressive are didn't perform as well, so to me it comes back to...

Weight & Padding thickness probably are the biggest factors to tests like these.

Weight = Absorbtion

Padding thickness = braking distance

Just to add on and note why mask weight seems to make such an impact.

Google says the average human head weighs ~11lbs. The difference between 2.5 and 3.5 lbs of helmet weight is significant; adding ~22% more mass vs adding ~32% more mass, and the 3.5lb mask is a full 40% heavier than the 2.5lb mask.

When we're usually getting hit in the head by 6oz pucks, that extra lb of helmet weight should do a lot to reduce how much our head moves on a flat impact.

Padding thickness should also work better with a stiffer shell (less deformation of the shell means a more even spread of energy throughout the foam, and less energy transfer from impacts overall), at least so far as puck impacts are concerned. (though the trade-off between stiffness and weight seems to be an open question)

I think the shape of the shell matters far less than the thickness of the padding, the weight, and the stiffness

Edited April 18, 2022 by CJ Boiss

[Chenner29]

1 hour ago, TheGoalNet said:

At a high level, and with having some direct access to helmet designers in multiple industries, heavier helmets are better at absorbing impact.

@Chenner29 This is not proper science, but I know you have  PC mask. Is it the 960-esq one? If so, what does it weigh? I will weight my 960 and VTX too. 

Also to your point about shell shape, the PC / Vaughn model is the 960 style and not the Mrazek style. So that's another mask in the spirit of the Wright family tree that performed well... But CCM and VTX are aggressive are didn't perform as well, so to me it comes back to...

Weight & Padding thickness probably are the biggest factors to tests like these.

Weight = Absorbtion

Padding thickness = braking distance

Actually 3 PCs

2007 - PC shape + Tricat: 3 lb 1 oz
2017 - 960 shape + Tricat: 3 lb 5.6 oz
2020 - PC shape + Single bar cateye: 3 lb 2.1 oz

Note foam in the PC style shell is 5/16 in the forehead and crown + 3/16 in the cheeks
960 foam is 1/2" in the forehead and crown + 3/8 in the cheeks

[chile57]

@Chenner29 - with identical PC mask lineups (save for the years (which are even fairly close)) its like we're brothers from another mother. Freaky.

Curious - since based on your timeline it looks like you went back to the Vapor-esque shape/stylings - were you less enthused about your 960/1-esque shell? I know I prefer my (2) Vapor-esque shells over the 960/1.

[Chenner29]

8 minutes ago, chile57 said:

@Chenner29 - with identical PC mask lineups (save for the years (which are even fairly close)) its like we're brothers from another mother. Freaky.

Curious - since based on your timeline it looks like you went back to the Vapor-esque shape/stylings - were you less enthused about your 960/1-esque shell? I know I prefer my (2) Vapor-esque shells over the 960/1.

I feel like I get better vision with the Vapor shell.  Shorter chin, which lets me keep my chin tucked and better vision when puck is in tight.  Also felt like I was always seeing the cage in my 961, I think the thinner padding on the Vapor fixes this

Anything you've noticed between yours?

I've got another one coming, I sent Dom some D30 to line the cheeks and forehead with

[chile57]

@Chenner29 overall mostly same (though I don't have any issues chin length-wise going between the two). Although both were fit off a mold - I feel like the overall Vapor shape/contouring is a better fit to my melon. I also didn't care for the larger 960/1 backplate (and Dom was kind enough to ship me an additional Vapor one free of charge). Seems like there's a little more wiggle room side to side on the 960/1 too which could be remedied with different/additional foam I've just never bothered to try. Both of the Vapors have the black Croslite foam (smooth as a baby's bottom) too which I prefer to the current tan offering (a little grainier/grittier... at least in my chin sling).

Guess just overall the Vapors fit like a glove from day one where the 960/1 needed some tweaking that I've just never bothered doing. Maybe its a mental thing too since I could just never get comfortable in any of the Itech/Bauer "replicas" I tried (hence the custom lid route). That said - this back and forth has inspired me to give it another go this week.

Thanks for bouncing thoughts here.

Edited April 18, 2022 by chile57

[Chenner29]

13 minutes ago, chile57 said:

@Chenner29 overall mostly same (though I don't have any issues chin length-wise going between the two). Although both were fit off a mold - I feel like the overall Vapor shape/contouring is a better fit to my melon. I also didn't care for the larger 960/1 backplate (and Dom was kind enough to ship me an additional Vapor one free of charge). Seems like there's a little more wiggle room side to side on the 960/1 too which could be remedied with different/additional foam I've just never bothered to try. Both of the Vapors have the black Croslite foam (smooth as a baby's bottom) too which I prefer to the current tan offering (a little grainier/grittier... at least in my chin sling).

Guess just overall the Vapors fit like a glove from day one where the 960/1 needed some tweaking that I've just never bothered doing. Maybe its a mental thing too since I could just never get comfortable in any of the Itech/Bauer "replicas" I tried (hence the custom lid route). That said - this back and forth has inspired me to give it another go this week.

Thanks for bouncing thoughts here.

Is the Croslite what he was calling the Croc's foam?  I miss that stuff - I asked about it when going over my current order and he said he's not getting any more... My 07 mask had it until we repadded it

Edit

RE: Chin length - that's probably partially my fault too, I went from dangler on my 07 to no dangler on my '17, Dom said he'd add some length to the chin to make up for it.  I ended up cutting the shin back down on my '20

[chile57]

53 minutes ago, Chenner29 said:

Is the Croslite what he was calling the Croc's foam?  I miss that stuff - I asked about it when going over my current order and he said he's not getting any more... My 07 mask had it until we repadded it

Edit

RE: Chin length - that's probably partially my fault too, I went from dangler on my 07 to no dangler on my '17, Dom said he'd add some length to the chin to make up for it.  I ended up cutting the shin back down on my '20

Yes - Croslite = Croc foam (I just prefer to not think about pairs of those pressed against my face necessarily ). He hasn't been able to get hands on that for quite some time now (at least as far back as 2014). Agreed - stuff was excellent. My 2010 is still soft and intact (and that's the lid I wear by far the most). I even have a couple of the Maltese pre-cut kits (not the gel stuff but the colored "foam" stuff - green and black) but am hesitant to jettison the Croslite.

Edited April 18, 2022 by chile57

[Wonder35]

FWIW, I weighed my 1980’s Harrison. It came in at 4.37 lbs. This includes the backplate and all straps.

Around 5 years ago I replaced the interior padding using the original pieces as templates. The foam material was from Nash and said to be identical to what Greg used when he resprayed my mask in 1991 and replaced the original interior.

[Chenner29]

22 minutes ago, chile57 said:

Yes - Croslite = Croc foam (I just prefer to not think about pairs of those pressed against my face necessarily ). He hasn't been able to get hands on that for quite some time now (at least as far back as 2014). Agreed - stuff was excellent. My 2010 is still soft and intact (and that's the lid I wear by far the most). I even have a couple of the Maltese pre-cut kits (not the gel stuff but the colored "foam" stuff - green and black) but am hesitant to jettison the Croslite.

Keep it IMO

I changed to the Maltese for a minute and didn't like it (and I was a salesperson for them), plus it changes the fit