# Interesting responses to the Virginia Tech study from the Helmet manufacturers...



## Wallrat (Jan 19, 2021)

Whitewater Helmet Ratings


Virginia Tech Helmet Ratings - Whitewater helmets have been tested to evaluate their ability to reduce brain injury risk.




helmet.beam.vt.edu




Test Protocols


https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/bitstream/handle/10919/111764/Whitewater%20STAR%20Methodology.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y


I’m running a WRSI Current Pro, and from my experience it’s by far the best helmet I’ve ever worn. I’m really surprised to see it gets a one-star review. Sorry, but that makes my bullshit detector go off.


----------



## Rick A (Apr 15, 2016)

To me it makes sense that a whitewater helmet should be tested using different criteria than helmets used in other applications or sports. For example, a few other helmets I have in my garage would be bicycle helmets and motorcycle/atv helmets, both of which need to withstand impacts at much higher speeds than one would ever achieve in a kayak, also neither of those helmets need to account for how the forces of water will effect its fit and and placement on the head during impact.

Another helmet I've worn a lot in my life would be a football helmet, which is designed to protect the head from many impacts per use, which is a very different condition than what a whitewater helmet is designed to protect against. Other types of helmets would be hockey, baseball, and the hard hat I wear to work everyday. Those helmets are designed to protect the head from small objects traveling at high speeds, more conditions that are not applicable to whitewater helmets.

Helmets should be tested to meet the criteria of their intended use. To test any of these helmets against each other or using methods that don't relate or reflect the types of impacts they are likely experience during normal use seems ridiculous in my opinion.

Edit: it seems pretty clear from the layman's perspective, that the impacts a whitewater helmet is likely to receive are much less than many other types of helmets and those impacts will happen much less often.


----------



## Montet202 (Aug 22, 2020)

Our understanding of CTE and concussion injuries has increased exponentially over the past ten years. Many helmet companies have kept up with the changes arising from this glut of new information. Football helmets have undergone substantial changes.

Shopping for whitewater helmets for my kids, it’s pretty easy to see they are still using ‘80s tech in many of them. Ski helmets are similar. I’ve had Smith and Salomon helmets since they came out and have seen little to no change in their construction. I could be wrong. This is just an observation from a complete lay person, but I do think the progression is different in different sports. And it seems a few, whitewater helmets included, are at the back of the pack.


----------



## Rick A (Apr 15, 2016)

I believe people are trying to make connections that do not exist. Our current understanding of CTE is that it develops after repeated head traumas, which are common in contact and fight sports, but not very common among river running. I've had multiple concussions wearing helmets designed to withstand much greater forces than one would expect to encounter in a whitewater application and those helmets were much heavier and more cumbersome that any whitewater helmet available or one I would be interested in wearing.

Honestly, how many head injuries or concussions have you heard, read about, or experienced on the river? Not very many, even when you consider the fact than many river runners don't even bother to wear one.


----------



## Wallrat (Jan 19, 2021)

Also consider that they’re not presenting the raw data. They’re using a weight modifier. I’d like to see the original readings. My guess is that the differences between the WRSI Current (1star) and one of the four star helmets is very minor. Their saying that the Current is the lowest rating is nonsense to me. Where would those cheesy NRS low budget helmets come in? Negative 3 stars?


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

For what it is worth, many decades ago I switched to various European Ski Helmets for my kayaking boating.

So far so good


----------



## shortbus (Jun 22, 2006)

How can the Dagger version of the Sweet Rocker get a different rating than the Normal Sweet Rocker? The only difference is graphics. Why did they even bother to test both versions?


----------



## nervouswater (Jun 3, 2008)

I found the responses from WRSI and SR to be far from generic and I think SR in particular pointed out some serious flaws in the rating system for what was essentially the same helmet. Totally agree too that in my years guiding, private boating, and volunteering with search and rescue I have never seen concussion issues on the water. I’m sure they can occur, but compared to snow sports where I’ve seen tons of them, it certainly seems to be less of a concern in whitewater.


----------



## Montet202 (Aug 22, 2020)

Rick A said:


> I believe people are trying to make connections that do not exist. Our current understanding of CTE is that it develops after repeated head traumas, which are common in contact and fight sports, but not very common among river running. I've had multiple concussions wearing helmets designed to withstand much greater forces than one would expect to encounter in a whitewater application and those helmets were much heavier and more cumbersome that any whitewater helmet available or one I would be interested in wearing.
> 
> Honestly, how many head injuries or concussions have you heard, read about, or experienced on the river? Not very many, even when you consider the fact than many river runners don't even bother to wear one.


There is certainly a difference between CTE and concussions, but they both fall under the umbrella of traumatic head trauma. I’d be willing to guess that even a few separate concussions could lead to a degree of CTE, but there might not yet be data to make that connection.
Regardless, these helmets do seem a little chincy.
That said, you are correct about the data showing little evidence of head trauma in boating. In a kayak, or rafting continuous BIG Ayer, it seems prudent. But for most multi day medium to low water ( Salmon, Dedo, GC, etc…and not at peak for you not pickers) there is little data to suggest a helmet is necessary. Not that it isn’t a bad idea, but there just are almost zero traumatic head injuries in boating.


----------



## BastrdSonOfElvis (Mar 24, 2005)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> The Strutter is nice since it has the bill to protect from the sun, but it has definitely been known to get knocked backwards in strong currents especially when not tightened or isn't fitted well. The Rocker or Wanderer with an added visor looks like it might be a good upgrade for me.


Any helmet will not stay in place if it's not fitted well. Any helmet with a brim or bill is going to be more prone to this since you've added a lever arm for water, wind or objects to work against.
A helmet worn for kayaking is much more likely to find a rock since you will occasionally (hopefully) be flipped over and sometimes moving at a pretty good clip. I've had my bell rung a couple times while wearing an early 2000s helmet that was construct of I think fiberglass and closed cell foam. It was a pretty burly helmet and saved my skull from being split open but still damn near knocked me out. Really, though, I'm not sure you're going to hit your head on a rock wearing anything and much of that impact isn't going to be translated into your brain. It's a stationary and very hard object.

I wore a Rocker full face for a while creeking. It sucked. Hindered communication, peripheral vision, and all around bummed me out. But if I was firing up something that I thought there was a pretty good chance my head was going to contact minerals then I'd deal with it. You have to tailor the level of protection to your activity and the best helmet is one that's going to be on your head. So, you're in a raft or dory, are you going to wear a Sweet Rocker? Even the half cut is pretty cumbersome, ear cups, hot when you're not submerged. I can tell you with confidence that your Strutter is WAY more likely to actually be on your head. Adjust it well, tighten it up, it might move a little but it will stay put enough to protect your noggin in the unlikely even of an impact.

Whitewater is a dangerous activity. You can't wrap yourself in Purell and bubblewrap.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

Lots of good responses here of varying views on the subject. I apologize for not linking the helmet rating page in the original post. There are links to the study data on the helmet ratings page if you want more details and I should have included a link to the peer reviewed article as well so I'll do that now....









Whitewater Helmet STAR: Evaluation of the Biomechanical Performance and Risk of Head Injury for Whitewater Helmets - Annals of Biomedical Engineering


More than six million people participate in whitewater kayaking and rafting in the United States each year. Unfortunately, with these six million whitewater participants come 50 deaths annually, making it one of the highest fatality rates of all sports. As the popularity in whitewater activities...




link.springer.com





I haven't had a chance to pour over the details of the helmet rating data fully and still need to read the peer reviewed article linked above but will pick through it in my own time. I'm no expert on this, but hopefully can gain some knowledge from it. I just thought it was interesting that the helmet manufacturers who made a comment largely dismissed the results of this test as being useful.

Anyways, it seems that the main argument against the Virginia Tech study is that concussions are uncommon so this test is irrelevant to our sport but we have also had a few people say that they have experienced symptoms of brain trauma after hitting their head while kayaking. Perhaps it is rare... but getting your bell rung is common enough in our sport that I personally will favor a helmet that protects me from that as long as it doesn't change how it performs in other areas that kayak helmets have been good at i.e. not smashing your head in when you hit a rock. I mean...perhaps a bike helmet or climbing helmet or something might perform better in a single impact environment but that is obviously insufficient for kayaking use where you are getting dragged down a shallow creek. That said, I don't see any evidence to show that performing better in the VT study would do anything but make it perform better under the current certification and saying "it meets the standard so that is fine" is a great look.

Can one really argue that designing a helmet to perform better in this test is a bad thing? I know everyone likes the helmet they like and that some brands and models fit people's heads better than others. I'm just saying there is room for improvement with all things and this study shows that to be the case in whitewater helmets and maybe an update to the CE 1385 certification or an additional certification covering brain injury protection is warranted. If you look at the wording of the CE 1385 certification... it specifically writes out brain injury protection as not being part of the certification (in addition to stating it does not cover class V environments).


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

Here is the page for the CE certification by the way.... EN 1385:2012 standard - CE Marking assistant

_"This European Standard specifies requirements for helmets for canoeing and white water sports for use in waters of classes 1 to 4 as classified by Clause 4. The levels of protection recognise that most fatalities in canoeing and white water sports result from drowning after concussion and not from brain damage. This European Standard is not intended to apply to helmets for use in extreme white water situations such as those where the jumping of high waterfalls is undertaken, because the need for impact absorption for such a helmet, and the area of the head to be protected, are greater than those for most canoeing and white water sports. The standard applies to helmets with and without holes in the shell."_


----------



## Rick A (Apr 15, 2016)

Montet202 said:


> There is certainly a difference between CTE and concussions, but they both fall under the umbrella of traumatic head trauma. I’d be willing to guess that even a few separate concussions could lead to a degree of CTE, but there might not yet be data to make that connection.
> Regardless, these helmets do seem a little chincy.
> That said, you are correct about the data showing little evidence of head trauma in boating. In a kayak, or rafting continuous BIG Ayer, it seems prudent. But for most multi day medium to low water ( Salmon, Dedo, GC, etc…and not at peak for you not pickers) there is little data to suggest a helmet is necessary. Not that it isn’t a bad idea, but there just are almost zero traumatic head injuries in boating.


Either I'm misunderstanding your comment or you misunderstood mine. Yes CTE and concussions are both caused by head trauma, but they are quite different. A single blow to the head can cause a concussion, but at this time, every single person diagnosed with CTE (post death) has one thing in common, the have experienced repetitive blows to the head, often having experienced multiple concussions and many blows to the head that were less severe and didn't cause a concussions. There is zero evidence to support the claim that a concussion or two is likely to, or has caused CTE.

The helmets designed to protect people from the type of continuous blows to the head that cause CTE are not practical for boating and in my opinion would be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.

I'm all for a better design when it comes to impact protection, but some common sense and practicality needs to be applied when doing so.


----------



## Montet202 (Aug 22, 2020)

Rick A said:


> Either I'm misunderstanding your comment or you misunderstood mine. Yes CTE and concussions are both caused by head trauma, but they are quite different. A single blow to the head can cause a concussion, but at this time, every single person diagnosed with CTE (post death) has one thing in common, the have experienced repetitive blows to the head, often having experienced multiple concussions and many blows to the head that were less severe and didn't cause a concussions. There is zero evidence to support the claim that a concussions or two is likely to, or has causes CTE.
> 
> The helmets designed to protect people from the type of continuous blows to the head that cause CTE are not practical for boating and in my opinion would be trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist.
> 
> I'm all for a better design when it comes to impact protection, but some common sense and practicality needs to be applied when doing so.


You are absolutely correct. There currently is no data linking a few concussions to CTE. But keep in mind, the ONLY brains being screened for CTE, post mortem, have been professional athletes who have had, like you said, tons of whacks to the noggen. 

When I began my medical training, many moons ago, concussions were defined as a temporary, self resolving injury. We have now learned that is not the case.
So currently there is no link, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they find one as the research into traumatic brain injuries progresses.


----------



## Will Amette (Jan 28, 2017)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> *Can one really argue that designing a helmet to perform better in this test is a bad thing? *I know everyone likes the helmet they like and that some brands and models fit people's heads better than others. I'm just saying there is room for improvement with all things and this study shows that to be the case in whitewater helmets and maybe an update to the CE 1385 certification or an additional certification covering brain injury protection is warranted. If you look at the wording of the CE 1385 certification... it specifically writes out brain injury protection as not being part of the certification (in addition to stating it does not cover class V environments).


I'll offer this: There are different ways a helmet protects you. A bicycle or motorcycle helmet is designed to dissipate energy by self-destruction. One good hit is all it can take. Drop it once and they say it's time to replace it. A paddling, hockey, or climbing helmet is designed to (a) slow the force of the impact, potentially by deformation and (b) to spread out the force over a larger area. They are designed for repeated impacts. If one made a "better" helmet (better being defined as more protective of a smack and would score well in a test), but it was a one-and-done kind of protection, that would be a bad thing. It would be especially bad if you had miles (or days) left to paddle.


----------



## Riverlife (11 mo ago)

I’m always interested in learning more, especially where it comes to being able to enjoy whitewater more safely. That said, I’m a bit skeptical about the value of this particular study. It’s food for thought though, and I am all for improving current whitewater helmet options. I have to disagree (slightly) with some of the comments about concussions not being very common in paddling. While they are far from being an every day occurrence, the number that I have personally witnessed suggests that the potential is significant enough to warrant consideration. All but one that I can think of off the top of my head were kayaking in class 5, and most were with high quality helmets. So yeah, it’s a minimal risk for most whitewater paddlers, but I think it’s still worth considering when designing new helmets.

From my own personal experiences, I am still going to place primary concern on fit and coverage. It should go without saying that flimsy plastic shell helmets with soft foam are not being considered. So for me the problem I have with the study is that I could see a lot of people choosing a higher scoring helmet and assuming that will translate to a safer helmet. Between the various SR, Sweet, and WRSI helmets, I would trust any of them to provide substantial protection from 99% of the impacts that most paddlers will ever experience…but the fit between them could prove to be a major safety issue with any of them. 

For years there have been “issues” with helmets with a brim, however I can say with 100%confidence that a well fitted and adjusted helmet will NOT come off your head due to a brim or not! I’ve been beat down pretty hard in some vicious holes more than a few times, with various helmets; never noticed any issues with helmet movement. On the other hand I have seen helmets come off, or slip out of position, quite a few times…always due to either lack of proper adjustment, or a poor fit relative to head size and shape. I would still advise to buy a helmet that passes the real world fit and coverage test above all else. After that, it’s a matter of boating smart and hoping that you don’t get unlucky at the wrong moment and place.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Years ago, early in my kayaking days, I went upside down through a rapid on the Ocoee. 

When I hit my head on bottom, my old school helmet prevented any damage to my skull. But the whiplash-type injury to my neck meant I rode all the way home to northern Illinois that night with a numb arm. My orthopedic guy said I probably came within a few pounds of pressure from having a very serious spinal injury.

Someone in an earlier post commented about the protection helmets provide against hard objects and flailing oars in a raft incident. I think that's a much stronger reason for rafters to wear them than worrying about something that might happen in the water itself.


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

richp mentioned the Ocoee and raft hits. Brought back memories and current experiences.

The Ocoee was my home river for many years in my early days of boating. One of the best ever training and fun to run rivers, but seriously not a good place to swim in the shoals or even deeper sections.

I hard shell kayaked for many years suffering the usual sprains and shoulder pulls. Switched to rafting some years ago and enjoy it a lot. Always wore a helmet kayaking for fear of being hit when flipped in shallows. 

Most rowers wear a hat or cap while on the sticks.

A flying oar kicked off by a unseen rock has busted various sections my body quite a few times. In rocky sections I have been known to take off the hat and put on my ski helmet. You never know.

Watch that down stream oar, it does not like folks on the sticks.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

Ah, yes, Double Trouble on the Ocoee. A careful observer will note the motorcycle helmet that I adopted out an abundance of caution after the aforementioned incident.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

Will Amette said:


> I'll offer this: There are different ways a helmet protects you. A bicycle or motorcycle helmet is designed to dissipate energy by self-destruction. One good hit is all it can take. Drop it once and they say it's time to replace it. A paddling, hockey, or climbing helmet is designed to (a) slow the force of the impact, potentially by deformation and (b) to spread out the force over a larger area. They are designed for repeated impacts. If one made a "better" helmet (better being defined as more protective of a smack and would score well in a test), but it was a one-and-done kind of protection, that would be a bad thing. It would be especially bad if you had miles (or days) left to paddle.


Yes...I mentioned in my post that you quoted about biking, climbing, and other helmets and also not compromising the effectiveness of what the helmets protect now just to do better with the VT test.



Riverlife said:


> I’m always interested in learning more, especially where it comes to being able to enjoy whitewater more safely. That said, I’m a bit skeptical about the value of this particular study. It’s food for thought though, and I am all for improving current whitewater helmet options.


Just curious... is there anything in particular with the test that causes the skepticism? I've seen a few people say this, but the only real thing I've seen is that two similar helmets can have differing results i.e. the Dagger version of the Sweet Rocker having a different score then the Standard one when its only really colors and decals that are different being one example. Was there anything else that calls the test into question?


----------



## okieboater (Oct 19, 2004)

Double Trouble, if the first one does not get you, the second one just might !!!!! Broken Nose is the one that got my heart rate elevated. A hard to hit drop followed by fast current over a bunch of rocks.


----------



## Riverlife (11 mo ago)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> Just curious... is there anything in particular with the test that causes the skepticism? I've seen a few people say this, but the only real thing I've seen is that two similar helmets can have differing results i.e. the Dagger version of the Sweet Rocker having a different score then the Standard one when its only really colors and decals that are different being one example. Was there anything else that calls the test into question?


I chose my wording carefully there. I’m saying that I hesitate to put too much faith in how their tests equate to real world safety. It’s mostly that the scores do not reflect my own personal experiences with the helmets listed, and that I don’t think that the criteria that they are testing is the most relevant or important for the intended usage of these helmets. The rebuttal by Stefan Duma actually raises my skepticism; he says that the various SR helmets with the same shell scored similarly, however the scores that were listed did reveal what looks to be significant differences imo. 

Once again though, I do think this should be good food for thought…and… I do think that there is plenty of room for improvement and options for whitewater helmets. In my opinion though, the most critical area in need of improvement would be to further idiot proof secure fit. The WRSI helmets are a prime example: while they do fit a lot of people really really well and offer good coverage and take big hits quite well (in my experience), they are a challenge to get them adjusted properly for a lot of people. I don’t think they need to be made to absorb greater impact nearly as much as they could stand to be made easier to properly secure.


----------



## MT4Runner (Apr 6, 2012)

Rick A said:


> Another helmet I've worn a lot in my life would be a football helmet, which is designed to protect the head from many impacts per use, which is a very different condition than what a whitewater helmet is designed to protect against. Other types of helmets would be hockey, baseball, and the hard hat I wear to work everyday. Those helmets are designed to protect the head from small objects traveling at high speeds, more conditions that are not applicable to whitewater helmets.
> 
> Helmets should be tested to meet the criteria of their intended use. To test any of these helmets against each other or using methods that don't relate or reflect the types of impacts they are likely experience during normal use seems ridiculous in my opinion.


Interestingly, some of the safer hockey helmets fared worse in the VA Tech study of hockey helmets, and some really cheapo helmets (akin to ProTec) did well.



Will Amette said:


> I'll offer this: There are different ways a helmet protects you. A bicycle or motorcycle helmet is designed to dissipate energy by self-destruction. One good hit is all it can take. Drop it once and they say it's time to replace it. A paddling, hockey, or climbing helmet is designed to (a) slow the force of the impact, potentially by deformation and (b) to spread out the force over a larger area. They are designed for repeated impacts. If one made a "better" helmet (better being defined as more protective of a smack and would score well in a test), but it was a one-and-done kind of protection, that would be a bad thing. It would be especially bad if you had miles (or days) left to paddle.


fully agree. 

If you're trying to prevent concussions, then you need a helmet that will dissipate energy...and I don't know of any hardshell helmet designs that do that well...except maybe modern football helmets.


----------



## richp (Feb 27, 2005)

okieboater said:


> Double Trouble, if the first one does not get you, the second one just might !!!!! Broken Nose is the one that got my heart rate elevated. A hard to hit drop followed by fast current over a bunch of rocks.


A flip and failed roll in Broken Nose is how I jammed my neck so bad. And then to add insult to injury, I got run over by a raft.


----------



## FatmanZ (Sep 15, 2004)

NRS acquired WRSI around mid 2013 if I remember correctly. Have any advancements been made since that time? WRSI was founded on the basis of creating a safer kayak helmet. Has that legacy continued post sale?


----------



## wdeutsch (Apr 27, 2020)

> ...but the only real thing I've seen is that two similar helmets can have differing results i.e. the Dagger version of the Sweet Rocker having a different score then the Standard one when its only really colors and decals that are different being one example.


I've seen this thought come up a couple times here, and as a practicing analytical chemist, I'd say to be very careful before you decide two numbers are "different". Uncertainty of a measurement varies *greatly* with the magnitude of the number being measured. In my line of work, if we're measuring down near the bottom of our detection range, we might have a +/- 50% (relative) window of uncertainty in our answer. Up near the top end, it's more like +/- 1%. (Often, it's also not a linear variance- e.g. once you get to a certain point, your uncertainty rather suddenly goes through the roof.) So, until someone pulls the original paper (and their supporting literature where they validate the technique), statements of what comprise "different" results between two numbers are highly suspect. The authors made some cutoffs basd on their math and their experience. I'm not saying they are correct for sure, but those folks _have_ looked at the raw data and _probably_ understand the uncertainty of their measurements. Probably.

I've got no dogs in this fight. I just hate to see people try to draw meaning from differences that may not be statistically significant.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

That wasn't so much a concern I had but more one that I've seen people bring up. I still haven't had time to really delve into the hard data and I'm honestly not sure I am knowledgeable enough to do a good interpretation of it. I had just seen people say they were skeptical about the results of the study but no one had really stated where that skepticism had come from.

I do find it interesting (thought provoking), as a lay person just reading through that results page with the scores and star ratings, that basically identical helmets with only a minor cosmetic difference would score differently and realized that it was something many would latch onto to call the study into question. Honestly though, the fact they still included that in the primary results page actually makes me trust the study more since they didn't obscure a result that was sort of an outlier or a lay person could question.

I certainly realize that it would be very difficult or impossible to perfectly reproduce the same score with the same helmet every time. Every subsequent test on the helmet is gonna change its characteristics and how it performs. Even two of the same model of helmet manufactured on the same line and same day will likely perform slightly differently. Its also reasonable to say that, while it would be ideal to test hundreds or thousands of each helmet to get a better data set, the budget for the study just doesn't allow for that so they do the best with the budget they have.

I honestly don't really have a dog in this race either. I've said it already, but I know a lot of people like the helmet they have and feel like it protects them adequately. Comfort, fit, style and price are all considerations as well. I just thought this study and this article with responses from the manufacturers was an interesting, thought provoking, topic of conversation worthy of a thread. I'm certainly not saying people should just toss their helmet in the trash because it didn't perform well in this test.


----------



## Riverlife (11 mo ago)

I agree. This is the kind of thing that really should encourage further thought, discussion, and research. I actually don’t really have any dogs left for any fight tbh. I’m pretty careful with my paddling choices, and I feel that of all the variables that could prove detrimental to my health this is one that I have largely addressed with the helmet I cinch down on my noggin. I don’t mean to imply helmets aren’t a crucial part of safe paddling; I just mean that with the level of protection that I have with current equipment the risk factor is much higher from other variables… like the drive to and from the river. At the same time, if someone produces a helmet that is substantially safer at a price that I can afford (and afford to replace frequently!), I would be happy to upgrade.


----------



## Will Amette (Jan 28, 2017)

Riverlife said:


> I agree. This is the kind of thing that really should encourage further thought, discussion, and research. I actually don’t really have any dogs left for any fight tbh. I’m pretty careful with my paddling choices, and I feel that of all the variables that could prove detrimental to my health this is one that I have largely addressed with the helmet I cinch down on my noggin. I don’t mean to imply helmets aren’t a crucial part of safe paddling; I just mean that with the level of protection that I have with current equipment the risk factor is much higher from other variables… like the drive to and from the river. At the same time, if someone produces a helmet that is substantially safer at a price that I can afford (and afford to replace frequently!), I would be happy to upgrade.



Survivaball. Not the cheapest, but well tested....


----------



## Riverlife (11 mo ago)

Will Amette said:


> Survivaball. Not the cheapest, but well tested....


If you’re going to spend that kind of cash, might as well spring for the management leisure suit too:


----------



## KrisG (Jun 22, 2012)

I have been following this with interest, and I will qualify my remarks by saying that I have not read the study, as the link Mayhem provided leads you to a page that says you have to buy it for $39.95. If anyone can provide a link to a free copy of the actual study, not the protocols or abstract, that would be great. The study is flawed, but it also provides one important piece of info on the relative energy absorption of the helmets tested. First, just so everyone understands, they used a machine to hit the helmets mounted on a dummy with a swinging pendulum. They then measured the acceleration of the dummy, and based on studies of football helmets and concussions, established a correlation that relates a given level of acceleration with the probability of a concussion. If the helmet absorbed some of the energy of the hit and this resulted in a lower acceleration, that reduced the probability of a concussion. The important finding is that some helmets absorbed more energy than others. 

What we need to ask ourselves is why there is such a difference between helmets. If you look at the construction of the helmets, you will see one thing jumps out. All the helmets have a similar shell, ABS of some type, or something similar. While the shell spreads out the impact energy, it doesn't actually absorb it. What does is the liner. All the high rated helmets have one thing in common. They all have a liner made of EPP, or expanded polypropylene. This is a material known for its ability to absorb impact energy, and also be somewhat resilient, meaning that it can to some extent absorb multiple impacts. All the lower ranked helmets use a liner made of a different material. That is not to say the other materials are bad, but they don't have the same level of energy absorbance as EPP. If you value energy absorbance in a helmet, Then for the current helmets on the market, you should pick on that has an EPP liner. 

Obviously, helmet design is always going to be a series of compromises. Somehow they balance comfort, fit, weight, style, price, protecting the most possible portion of the skull, energy absorption, and shell strength, among other things. No one helmet is going to be perfect for all users. One of the faults of the study is that they say they are evaluating helmets because of the number of annual fatalities in our sport. I would point out that American Whitewater analyzes this every year, and the major causes they come up with are a failure to wear a PFD, and to a lesser extent, hypothermia from failing to wear appropriate clothing for a swim, and a lack of skill, fitness, or knowledge to deal with the circumstances when the incident happened. While head impacts have occurred, they have never been a major part of the fatalities. If I was going to break down our sport into groups, I would go with kayakers, rafters, canoeists, and swimmers. Almost all whitewater kayakers wear a helmet. a huge percentage of rafters and canoeists, don't. Swimmers were in one of the three groups and due to something happening they ended up in the water. Some wear helmets, and some don't. IF helmets improved the odds of survival for all, then the first step would be to call for everyone to wear them. For kayakers they are critical, and for others, there does not appear to be a significant basis to justify wearing them in all situations. 

I will discuss the problems I see with the study in a later post.


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)

Oops...didn't see that part about having to pay for the article until you pointed it out. Gotta love scientific journals. I bet VT had to pay to publish the article too.

I'll have a look around to see if I can find a free copy somewhere.


----------



## wdeutsch (Apr 27, 2020)

Electric-Mayhem said:


> That wasn't so much a concern I had but more one that I've seen people bring up.


Sorry, I didn't mean to imply it was your concern (which is why I removed your name from the quote). I just grabbed your sentence, as it was the one at hand when I wrote my post. Mea culpa for accidentally putting words in your mouth! I think you've expressed my position pretty well in your post. Happy boating!

For folks looking for a free copy of the paper, try ResearchGate (have to get a free account, probably). You can request a copy and folks who have journal access will post PDFs. It's a pretty solid site with a lot of members that would like to give publishing houses a giant middle finger. You can also contact the author directly and ask nicely. They are usually happy to send out copies to interested parties. Good luck! ... See my next post, where I found a copy.


----------



## wdeutsch (Apr 27, 2020)

Oh, hey! What do you know? I actually have access to that journal through one of my past associations. Please enjoy this bootleg PDF of the paper. Also, here's one on the development of their STAR rating system for context. Let the back-seat driving begin!


----------



## Recreation_Law (Oct 29, 2013)

Always remember that Tupperware and Duct tape can provide identical test results as most helmet in testing. Remember NO helmet is designed to prevent concussions. The NFL spends $3000 on a helmet and you are buying your skiing, cycling, or whitewater helmet for $300, neither protects against concussions. No manufacturer uses the term concussion in any marketing, or information about their helmets. Climbing helmets are different, they are designed to keep rockfall from causing damage. All helmets are tested at the top of the helmet in the center. If you want to get the maximum protection make sure you aim with your head. Prior to the use of helmets in whitwater rafting, (1996) the states of California, Colorado and West Virginia, the three states that track whitewater injuries, did not have a single head injury claim. No insurance company had ever had head injury from whitewater rafting except when the raft got to close to shore and the wearer hit a low hanging branch with their head.No claim has ever been paid for head injuries in whitewater rafting. 

Jim Moss,
Legal representative to the UIAA
Member of all ASTM Helmet Committees


----------



## Electric-Mayhem (Jan 19, 2004)




----------

