OT - PopSci on the future of the Football Helmet

23 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
December 18th, 2012 at 11:48 PM
#1
Blazefire
Blazefire's picture
Joined: 04/17/2009
MGoPoints: 15753
OT - PopSci on the future of the Football Helmet

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-12/helmet-wars-and-new-helmet-could-protect-us-all

Popular Science this month brings us a look at the current state of the Football Helmet, concussions, sub-concussive impacts and a possible future for the helmet.

I do have some problems with the article. It opens with a sort of cloak-and-dagger setup directed at helmet manufacturers, which I find unnecessary and ridiculous. If a given technology proves itself to be better at preventing concussions and impact related brain damage, then helmet manufacturers are going to embrace that. If they haven't thusfar, it's because their data leads them to believe it is honestly not the best way to protect players.

There is some credence to the idea that manufacturers would like to protect themselves by supporting the work they've done in the past, certianly, but they're not going to ignore relevant, reliable modern data that shows better, safer ways to go. That doesn't protect them. It shoots them in the foot and opens them to more problems later.

Once you get past the bizzare, attack laced opening, though, the rest of the article is a pretty good, pretty cool look at some new technology that might help win the battle for a better football helmet. I was aware that new research showed that twisting and rolling of the brain within the skull was much more damaging than it simply bouncing around inside, and that there had been some work on developing helmets that took advantage of this knowledge, such as giving them a stretchy "skin" that would reduce inter-crainial rotation.

I had not heard of this new technology, though, which strikes me as simple and highly effective. By placing the helmet on a somewhat independently articulated skull cap, of sorts, it can protect against heavy blows while still moving and sliding independently of the head, reducing twisting.

I'm really glad to see some innovative thinking coming to helmet design. I would like to see the NCAA and the NFHS (not to mention the NFL), do some studies on the effectiveness of this new technology. What do you think?

"This is the EMU game, not the emo game."
Top
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
December 19th, 2012 at 12:06 AM | I would argue that for-profit (Score:5 Normal)
swan flu
swan flu's picture
Joined: 08/16/2010
MGoPoints: 1125

I would argue that for-profit businesses will always have their bottom line as their #1 priority, and will only embrace new, safer technology if it is profitable. I did not read the whole article, but that is my two cents. I do not intend this to be an attack on businesses... They can only create safer products if they are still in business, and to stay in business a company must make money. Just sayin that the ultimate solution will be safe and cost effective.

Edit- it is my birthday and I have had some drinks. If this is an incoherent and stupid comment, blame the scotch.
If this is a deep and insightful comment... Blame the scotch still.

Tenim un nom el sap tothom. Barca, Barca, BAAARCA!

December 19th, 2012 at 1:10 AM | if you can "prove" you have a (Score:2 Normal)
singler makes b...
Joined: 10/08/2011
MGoPoints: 151

if you can "prove" you have a safer helmet, you will make billions of dollars selling them to pee wee league parents.

 

EDIT: happy birthday scotch!

December 19th, 2012 at 1:14 AM | Not true. Other companies (Score:1)
gutnedawg
Joined: 12/18/2010
MGoPoints: 387

Not true. Other companies would simply outprice you because they design cheaper products and can certainly beat your margins. A helmet is still a helmet and trying to sell a slightly differentiated good at a significantly higher price would be difficult.

/°>

 

December 19th, 2012 at 6:35 AM | You're assuming the new (Score:3 Normal)
BlueGoM
BlueGoM's picture
Joined: 08/25/2009
MGoPoints: 2845

You're assuming the new helmet will be more expensive,  and if it is more expensive, that people won't be willing to pay more to get extra safety.  If anything the NFL would probably love to have newer, safer helmets so the multi million dollar investments (star QBs, etc) remain on the playing field.

 

December 19th, 2012 at 11:28 AM |   You assume the NFL is (Score:3 Normal)
MGoSteelers
MGoSteelers's picture
Joined: 06/19/2011
MGoPoints: 190

 

You assume the NFL is actually concerned with player safety.  Yes, they're fining and suspending players.. wahoo.

But increasing the number of playoff teams?

Adding two more regular season games?

Having almost 20% of the league play their 2nd game in 5 days this year (Thanksgiving)?

 

There are plenty of examples that say the NFL's priorities are elsewhere, specifically "dat bottomline."  

</devilsadvocate>

 

But in all honesty, I agree with you.  I think the NFL would absolutely invest in helmets that were proven to be safer, no matter how much they cost.

December 20th, 2012 at 2:23 PM | If they could produce a new (Score:1)
gutnedawg
Joined: 12/18/2010
MGoPoints: 387

If they could produce a new helmet that is cheaper with no loss in safety, not even mentioning an improvement in safety, then they would. Cheaper means more profit so yea increased safety would mean increased costs.

/°>

 

December 19th, 2012 at 1:16 AM | Not true. Other companies (Score:0 Redundant)
December 19th, 2012 at 9:15 AM | Darn Scotch (Score:1)
Club2230
Joined: 01/13/2011
MGoPoints: 176

I blame the Scotch.

December 19th, 2012 at 12:12 AM | Don't know if you've ever seen this... (Score:2 Normal)
chrs5mr
chrs5mr's picture
Joined: 09/01/2009
MGoPoints: 181

Outside the Lines did a piece during the summer that was interesting.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8311371/significant-advances-bein...

December 19th, 2012 at 12:13 AM | Who cares about protection!  (Score:4 Funny)
Farnn
Joined: 07/07/2008
MGoPoints: 2397

Who cares about protection!  Where are they going with finishes now that they have done shiny chrome and matte colors?

December 19th, 2012 at 12:56 AM | There are some people that (Score:1)
ak47
Joined: 05/05/2011
MGoPoints: 613

There are some people that argue that the existence of helmets actually makes the game more dangerous, both because of the use of a helmet as a weapon and also because it possibly causes people to be more reckless than if their head were not protected.  Its more of impact on how the game is played argument than a helmets are dangerous argument and I think its interesting, not sure if I agree with it though.

December 19th, 2012 at 9:46 AM | Here's the argument (Score:3 Insightful)
JeepinBen
JeepinBen's picture
Joined: 01/22/2010
MGoPoints: 9577

And I'm not necessarily for or against it, but just explaining the theory behind how a helmet makes you play more dangerously.

The theory is called "safety homeostasis" or something similar, and it's that people behave more carefully when in more dangerous situations. It's part of why there are fewer accidents in round-abouts than at 4 way stops. Why there are more crashes on interstates than windy mountain roads. It's why Red wants there to be no facemasks in College Hockey.

Have you ever been driving at night in the rain and hung up the phone because you "need to pay attention" to the road in the bad conditions? That's safety homeostasis in action. You're changing your behavior and being more careful due to a more dangerous situation. Extending this theory to football, if you remove the helmet (or facemask) you're much less likely to see people launching with their heads. Granted, it's a different sport, but have you ever seen a purposeful helmet-to-helmet hit in hockey? Without a facemask, it's not gonna happen.

"Over? Did you say, over? Nothing is over until we decide it is!"

December 19th, 2012 at 3:38 AM | Bauer hockey released a (Score:2)
kdhoffma
Joined: 07/10/2008
MGoPoints: 593

Bauer hockey released a hockey helmet (called the re-akt) this year aimed at reducing intercranial twisting/rotating impacts. It has a floating liner that allows the helmet to rotate independent of the liner.

December 19th, 2012 at 6:44 AM | Denard could have used one of (Score:4 Normal)
UMgradMSUdad
UMgradMSUdad's picture
Joined: 07/02/2011
MGoPoints: 2063

Denard could have used one of those in last year's game against MSU.

December 19th, 2012 at 4:49 AM | ... (Score:2)
michimoby
michimoby's picture
Joined: 04/13/2009
MGoPoints: 4294

"I was aware that new research showed that twisting and rolling of the brain within the skull was much more damaging than it simply bouncing around inside"

 

(shudders)

--------------------------------------------

"I cannot think of a better person to guide our university's athletic strategy than the inventor of The Noid."

December 19th, 2012 at 7:51 AM | Looking At Current Standards... (Score:2)
LSAClassOf2000
LSAClassOf2000's picture
Joined: 01/07/2011
MGoPoints: 8947

This is something I found a little disconcerting:

"This brutish trial is called a vertical drop test, and it’s the basis for how all football helmets are certified safe by the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE), an association funded by equipment manufacturers, which in turn funds much of the research on sports-related head trauma. The standard has remained largely unchanged since its creation in 1973."

I went and actually read the relevant NOSCAE documents as well, and this is indeed the case - this is the only test that they need to pass. Most of the revisions to the document through the recent past of been cosmetic as well, not necessarily related to advances in technology. (Worse, some of the schematic drawings of the test procedures and parameters look pre-digital on top of everything else.)

Further, the ATSM requirements (429) for testing helmets seem to describe the same essential method of testing, something that doesn't appear to have been altered significantly since they first developed specifications and testing standards for helmets in the late 1960s. Many revisions address lining and materials, but none of them address what the technology in this article does - reducing rotational acceleration of the head. 

I find it amazing in a way, that the testing standards could change so little in comparison to gains in understanding of the injuries the equipment is meant to mitigate. 

"Funny isn't it, how naughty dentists always make that one fatal mistake."

Follow the random tweets of a Michigan alum - http://twitter.com/#!/LorneEC3

December 19th, 2012 at 8:15 AM | If the NFL and the NCAA want (Score:1)
quasioptimistic
quasioptimistic's picture
Joined: 09/13/2011
MGoPoints: 125

If the NFL and the NCAA want to get ahead (no pun intended) of this issue, they should be directly supporting safer helmets and pushing that technology. They probably should even put some serious money into it.

I haven't seen the data, but I would guess that if you polled parents it would show that they view football as much more unsafe than 10, 15 years ago. I am not saying playing football is actually getting more unsafe for kids, but there is more information about injury out there now and it seems to be the direction public opinion is moving. The safety issues are just much more visible with the ongoing NFL concussion litigation.

Polonium 210 is the new dilithium.

December 19th, 2012 at 10:05 AM | There seems to be so much (Score:1)
GrowBlue
Joined: 09/15/2011
MGoPoints: 193

There seems to be so much debate about proving the effectiveness of various technologies. We don't know exactly what hits cause concussions. We don't know exactly what helmet features will protect against which hit types, etc.

 

Why not just design an experiement in the real world and run it? The new helmets aren't likely to be worse than the old ones. Give 10% of the players (split by position or something) a different helment technology, and wait 5 years. At the end, you should have some statistically significant data on what helped reduce consussions, what help reduce permanent brain injury, etc.

December 19th, 2012 at 12:15 PM | Human Experimenting (Score:1)
Club2230
Joined: 01/13/2011
MGoPoints: 176

 

This is pretty messed up.  You don't do controlled experiments on people.  If there is a helmet that has new technology, you offer it to all the players after explaining the technology.  Only after they have freely chosen their helmet do you look into data.  Take the experiment out of it.  
December 19th, 2012 at 12:56 PM | I think you're (Score:1)
GrowBlue
Joined: 09/15/2011
MGoPoints: 193

I think you're missunderstanding ... the article talks about how the technology is lagging behind and how we haven't changed much simply because we don't know what areas to focus on. The new designs are likely to all be better than the current design, so try 'em all!

 

We do drug trials all the time....

December 19th, 2012 at 5:12 PM | A few problems (Score:1)
wolfman81
wolfman81's picture
Joined: 12/17/2008
MGoPoints: 447

Five years is nowhere near enough time to make that kind of conclusion.  All that we have been learning about head injuries suggest that they may take decades to manifest themselves.  For example, Muhammed Ali started boxing professionally in 1960 and didn't get diagnosed with Parkinson's disease until 1984.  (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_Ali)  The wikipedia article doesn't reference a "decline" until 1976.  A 5-year time scale is probably going to show no significant difference in results.  It's just too short.  Also, it is EXTREMELY DIFFICULT to get money for longer studies. For example, most NSF grants last for 5 years or less.  And there is the question of compensation.  As stated earlier, we do this sort of thing with drug trials, and patients in those trials GET PAID.  So we can keep costs down by working on NCAA or HS athletes, but there are serious ethical problems with that, not to mention added difficulties of working with minors (consent would be a bitch).  Working with NFL athletes means you'd have to give them enough money to care--probably 6 figures each.  This would almost certainly not get funding from the government (not enough bang for the buck).

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

December 19th, 2012 at 12:52 PM | Innovative thinking? What do (Score:1)
natesezgoblue
natesezgoblue's picture
Joined: 05/24/2010
MGoPoints: 2366

Innovative thinking? What do you think those guys at Riddell have been doing? As a youth football coach the helmets today are much safer than the helmets 10 years ago. The technology has completely changed.

Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.