Custom Bats Cricket Forum

Cricket Manufacturers / Brands => Ayrtek Cricket => Topic started by: brokenbat on August 09, 2014, 01:02:34 PM

Title: the stuart broad incident
Post by: brokenbat on August 09, 2014, 01:02:34 PM
I'm sure there will be lots of questions, about how a "safe" helmet let the ball through. Were his grill settings incorrect?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 09, 2014, 01:03:39 PM
I'm sure there will,  not least from those of us who have them. 



Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: procricket on August 09, 2014, 01:04:55 PM
I may be wrong but the new Bsi does not allow for grill adjustment.

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on August 09, 2014, 01:10:59 PM
Ayrteks are adjustable.

I hope it's a badly set up grill as opposed to being weak. As I use one!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Tom on August 09, 2014, 01:22:58 PM
Video for anyone who missed it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZi4HoCGxuU&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZi4HoCGxuU&feature=youtu.be)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: procricket on August 09, 2014, 01:22:58 PM
(http://i57.tinypic.com/35bv3up.png)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 09, 2014, 01:26:22 PM
Ayrteks are adjustable.

I hope it's a badly set up grill as opposed to being weak. As I use one!

But not that much...  And mine would have to deform the grill and visor.

(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/08/09/yzy6ypa8.jpg)

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: joeljonno on August 09, 2014, 01:28:57 PM
If you watch the video, the last bit in slow-mo, something comes off the helmet.

Nut maybe?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Number4 on August 09, 2014, 01:30:11 PM
I didn't notice that when I was watching it about the piece of helmet breaking off
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: procricket on August 09, 2014, 01:34:21 PM
yes the behind view shows something flying off
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on August 09, 2014, 01:34:59 PM
Oh dear. Hope he is going to be ok. That looked nasty.

That's exactly what was happening with the old masuris, interesting to see what the explanation is. That didn't look like it offered any more protection than the old masuri.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Number4 on August 09, 2014, 01:35:14 PM
Looks like part of the peak
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: procricket on August 09, 2014, 01:39:59 PM
I just hope he is ok
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: trypewriter on August 09, 2014, 02:02:24 PM
That gap between peak and visor looks very big to me.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: potzy248 on August 09, 2014, 02:02:35 PM
Well, the helmet safety tests seem flawed.
I'm sorry but the amount of talk around safety over looks for this brand have been well documented. I'm sure Stuart Broad was told the same thing.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Vic Nicholas on August 09, 2014, 02:11:10 PM
Well, well, well...a fast medium pie thrower has penetrated the grill of the "world safest helmet" at only 86mph?

If that was Mitchell Johnson or Dale Steyn bowling, Broad would be in a coma now being read his last rites.

But it passed all Ayrteks "internal testing" I keep hearing the ECCB apologists on here bleat.

I am sorry, but your protectionist scam has been exposed. The BS claims that Ayrtek are the safest blah, blah, freakin blah have been proven to be propaganda.

I await with bated breath the excuses that will surely be thrown up as to why this remarkable British product that like the Titanic was "unsinkable", failed so spectacularly under mundane circumstances.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Cowcorner on August 09, 2014, 02:14:04 PM
Here's a link with the slow-mo vid of the hit in close up - had it not been for the top edge it would have probably hit him on the grill/chin area. The pictures below are from the same page.

http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/09/englands-stuart-broad-suffers-nasty-injury-as-he-top-edges-ball-through-his-helmet-during-india-test-4826892/ (http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/09/englands-stuart-broad-suffers-nasty-injury-as-he-top-edges-ball-through-his-helmet-during-india-test-4826892/)


(http://i1270.photobucket.com/albums/jj614/cowcorner/Stuartbroadinjury_zpsdf3b07a1.jpg) (http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/cowcorner/media/Stuartbroadinjury_zpsdf3b07a1.jpg.html)

He looks okay as he walks off but give it a day or so until the swelling/bruising comes out. His nose is probably broken but lets hope that he's not as hurt as Kieswetter.

(http://i1270.photobucket.com/albums/jj614/cowcorner/Stuardbroadinjury2_zpsc8b14374.jpg) (http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/cowcorner/media/Stuardbroadinjury2_zpsc8b14374.jpg.html)

Does this mean there's a grill setting to be avoided on the Ayrtek/Adidas - like a lot of people on the forum I use one and although I'll never face this kind of pace it doesn't mean that I'm not going to top edge on into my own face.....I've even hit myself on the back of the head in the nets!!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: i12breakfree on August 09, 2014, 03:18:52 PM
(http://i1063.photobucket.com/albums/t518/i12breakfree/CricDeals-stock/F3A25CBE-BD1B-4171-82F7-BA03B1304A51_zpsicbmbp7n.png) (http://s1063.photobucket.com/user/i12breakfree/media/CricDeals-stock/F3A25CBE-BD1B-4171-82F7-BA03B1304A51_zpsicbmbp7n.png.html)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: evans1234 on August 09, 2014, 03:36:51 PM
seeing this injury made me cringe and curse for like 10 mins..... i dont use those ayrtek/addias helmets, ive got a (relatively) old masuri helmet (bought it second hand a couple of years ago) but seeing both this injury and kieswetter's injury has made me think about buying a new helmet, just for safety purposes. I also agree with someone who posted before that the helmet safety tests needs an overhaul and to be improved as we shouldn't really have these incidents happen at all.....   
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: iand123 on August 09, 2014, 04:26:37 PM
Well, well, well...a fast medium pie thrower has penetrated the grill of the "world safest helmet" at only 86mph?

If that was Mitchell Johnson or Dale Steyn bowling, Broad would be in a coma now being read his last rites.

But it passed all Ayrteks "internal testing" I keep hearing the ECCB apologists on here bleat.

I am sorry, but your protectionist scam has been exposed. The BS claims that Ayrtek are the safest blah, blah, freakin blah have been proven to be propaganda.

I await with bated breath the excuses that will surely be thrown up as to why this remarkable British product that like the Titanic was "unsinkable", failed so spectacularly under mundane circumstances.

I think there is a difference between safest and being 100% safe. Best wait for tom to see it and explain as he's opinion is far more valid than anyone else's
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: iand123 on August 09, 2014, 04:29:55 PM
seeing this injury made me cringe and curse for like 10 mins..... i dont use those ayrtek/addias helmets, ive got a (relatively) old masuri helmet (bought it second hand a couple of years ago) but seeing both this injury and kieswetter's injury has made me think about buying a new helmet, just for safety purposes. I also agree with someone who posted before that the helmet safety tests needs an overhaul and to be improved as we shouldn't really have these incidents happen at all.....

It's like the car safety tests, you can get a 5 star rated car but can still die or be seriously hurt in a car crash in it. I don't know the ins and outs of the tests so won't comment on them but I think we all as cricketers would like products to be as safe as the possibly can be. Cricket is a dangerous sport so any move to making it as close to guaranteeing people don't get hurt is a step in the right direction. As per my previous post, worth waiting for tom's opinion on this, then again I'm an ECB apologist so my opinion means very little :-)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: MD2812 on August 09, 2014, 04:31:30 PM
I think it must be to do with the top edge and the angle the ball goes into the grill
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: trypewriter on August 09, 2014, 05:00:31 PM
Looking at the vid the ball seemed to go in sideways on rather than straight from the front.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Cowcorner on August 09, 2014, 05:09:05 PM
Looking at the vid the ball seemed to go in sideways on rather than straight from the front.

It does look odd - the ball might have pivoted around the seam as it made contact with the grill and squashed it's way through. May be the ball needs looking at as well.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tushar sehgal on August 09, 2014, 05:32:00 PM
From what I saw in the video the ball went in straight without much in its way to slow it down or deflect it which to me seems like the gap in the grill and peak was too big
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: cjicricket on August 09, 2014, 06:05:02 PM
I hope Broad is ok! this is very nasty!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: mp07 on August 09, 2014, 06:14:45 PM
There was def. a blue piece of plastic came off after the impact.  Wounder how will the new Masuri will hold up on impact, 90% of the players are wearing new Masuri helmets in Caribbean Premier League
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: ProCricketer1982 on August 09, 2014, 06:53:38 PM
So does this now make the new masuri the safest helmet?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on August 09, 2014, 07:23:31 PM
Without wanting to seem accusatory, I do think this needs explaining by aditek/ayrtek. All of their marketing is based on their helmet supposedly being capable of stopping this kind of injury, but that is almost identical to every other facial injury you can YouTube, no matter what helmet the player has been wearing. I'll be very interested in the response when it comes.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Buzz on August 09, 2014, 08:20:43 PM
2 things.
1. we don't know how much worse it would have been in a different lid.
2. we don't know if he was wearing it properly, did put the lid on right, I.e. strap first then inflate and had he played with the settings on the grille too.

still it seems a pretty bad incident.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on August 09, 2014, 08:27:41 PM
2 things.
1. we don't know how much worse it would have been in a different lid.
2. we don't know if he was wearing it properly, did put the lid on right, I.e. strap first then inflate and had he played with the settings on the grille too.

still it seems a pretty bad incident.
I think he used a PremTek so wouldn't have to worry about inflating it.

And would not tightening the chin strap reduce the chance of a ball getting through, at it would be able to move so the impact would move the lid as well as the ball continuing to travel, rather than if it was anchored and the grille/peak gap took the full impact of the ball without any give.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: FvanN on August 09, 2014, 08:51:25 PM
Well, well, well...a fast medium pie thrower has penetrated the grill of the "world safest helmet" at only 86mph?

If that was Mitchell Johnson or Dale Steyn bowling, Broad would be in a coma now being read his last rites.

But it passed all Ayrteks "internal testing" I keep hearing the ECCB apologists on here bleat.

I am sorry, but your protectionist scam has been exposed. The BS claims that Ayrtek are the safest blah, blah, freakin blah have been proven to be propaganda.

I await with bated breath the excuses that will surely be thrown up as to why this remarkable British product that like the Titanic was "unsinkable", failed so spectacularly under mundane circumstances.


As soon as I herd Broad got hit in the face I just knew you would be all over it like a rash :D
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on August 09, 2014, 08:57:26 PM
Can the grills on these aditeks be altered?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on August 09, 2014, 09:02:05 PM
Can the grills on these aditeks be altered?
They can indeed.
Maybe going forward they shouldn't be adjustable, or only have kids and adults settings on the grille to avoid things like this happening.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: procricket on August 09, 2014, 09:05:38 PM
The design is to stop the ball going through on all settings on the ayrtek

That was part of the other design faults on said  other helmets.

If you look at the new masuri and GN they are fixed points.

I see Buzz point but it seems the strength of the Peak kept the ball in so the weakest point was the grill ???
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: GarrettJ on August 09, 2014, 09:09:27 PM
Without a helmet he would be in a bad way, now he just has a broken nose so the helmet did it's job .. Sort of
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Liam-SCCC on August 09, 2014, 09:11:07 PM
Perhaps the piece flying off, which looked like a black bit from under the peak allowed the ball enough room to wiggle through?

Any potential difference if he had been wearing the carbon model?

You can do all the testing you want but you can't recreate match conditions, every ball is different!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on August 09, 2014, 09:12:26 PM
Without a helmet he would be in a bad way, now he just has a broken nose so the helmet did it's job .. Sort of
I've just gone from AdiTek back to old masuri, on the evidence today it doesn't make a huge difference either way as the ball still gets through!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 09, 2014, 09:15:14 PM
I've watched the video a couple of times and it's definitely not front on,  like the new tests. I'm sure Ayrtek will be all over it,  because ,  well,  they have to.

Looking at it objectively,  the two things that occur to me are that:

1. Off a top edge,  the ball is spinning violently.

2. The ball seems to pass through very easily.

The best guess I can come up with is that in these circumstances,  either one or the other of the ball or helmet /grill combination has momentarily deformed.

As Dave has said,  the standards and a helmet go only so far.  They are better than nothing,  but 100% protection is highly unlikely.

Let's wait for the Ayrtek review....

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on August 09, 2014, 09:17:33 PM
Would a masuri fielding grille style work on a batting helmet to avoid things like this happening potentially work??
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Pelican042 on August 09, 2014, 09:22:14 PM
I happen to notice a lot of other pro (jos buttler for example) have either changed the grille or adapted it to only have one bar in front of the face on the new style masuri rendering that "less safe" also
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Liam-SCCC on August 09, 2014, 09:25:38 PM
I happen to notice a lot of other pro (jos buttler for example) have either changed the grille or adapted it to only have one bar in front of the face on the new style masuri rendering that "less safe" also

The ones using the masuri without the double grill are using the model down. The grills are not interchangeable
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Bruce on August 09, 2014, 09:26:35 PM
If I were Tom I'd be in the car in the morning trying to get the helmet back and go from there.
At the end of the day, Broady was able to walk off the park and is now tweeting.
Glad he is ok
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Pelican042 on August 09, 2014, 09:31:30 PM
The ones using the masuri without the double grill are using the model down. The grills are not interchangeable
Fair enough my bad :/
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Cys1 on August 09, 2014, 09:38:18 PM
Let's not be naive about this guys. Every cricketer knows that at any time there exists the chance of a ball slipping through any helmet setup. Helmets are there to make sure the damage is not too severe and will not be able to cover all angles. Broad would probably be the first to admit that he could have played that delivery better. It will happen again, with this helmet brand and all the others as well. Man up and get on with the game.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Red Ink Cricket on August 09, 2014, 10:08:25 PM
So what does edging a ball do? Does it stay at a constant speed to which is was before? Kiesey was wearing an older masuri I think and look what happened, broad wearing an Aditek and has a broken nose. It's not particularly difficult to break your nose if you hit it at the right angle. I'd say a win for Aditek! Whilst it may not have kept the ball out completely it reduced the damage.  It broke during impact, maybe a minor fault with it? Had broad dropped it or was it just the force and slightly odd angle. I'd certainly rather be broad now than kiesey anyway
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: i12breakfree on August 09, 2014, 10:18:27 PM
^^^ doesn't that have to do with the fact where the ball hits you rather than what helmet you are wearing ?
In broad's case it hit his nose and in case of kiesey it was the eye area.
I think once Tom looks into this with details we will have better answer. I guess with ayrtek everyone believed that this can never happen and this incident, even though unfortunate , will help improve helmet design for ayrtek.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 09, 2014, 11:17:14 PM
 Looking at the video,  you see a bit fly off the helmet.  Looking closer,  it appears that on the Aditek,  the impact off the top edge actually snapped the visor completely,  and created a large enough hole for the ball to get through. Look at the below picture.  Still,  it will have taken a significant amount of the velocity out in doing that...  It's an impact that I suspect has not been tested for.

(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/08/10/puguhape.jpg)

Not knowing enough about the materials the Aditek that Broad is wearing,  I don't know what this means for the structural integrity.  I would,  however,  bet that the carbon fibre / resin based ones wouldn't suffer the same kind of failure,  simply due to how the material deforms/damages under load like that.
Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: golden duck on August 09, 2014, 11:22:57 PM
It's actually a bit scary that it broke the visor! Possibly a problem with the 'aditek' lid as opposed to the carbon fibre 'ayrtek'  (for want of a better term)

One big question will be whether broad wears a aditek again. Or Will he swap to a masuri (a la Root when he got pinned while wearing a gm lid,  or Pietersen during the ipl - althoughnot bbecause he wore one) 
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: crictech on August 09, 2014, 11:59:04 PM
maybe time cricket moved towards the baseball/hockey helmets with the grill bolted on to the helmet or the facemask types. I'm sure they could be adapted to a cricket style.

(http://lgcdn.homerunmonkey.com/80A850/magento/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/h/o/homerun-all-star-catchers-equipment-mvp4000ti-professional-titanium-helmet.jpg)

(http://lgcdn.homerunmonkey.com/80A850/magento/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/h/o/homerun-champro-umpire-equipment-cm57b-pro-plus-super-lite-leather-mask.jpg)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: lazza32 on August 10, 2014, 01:08:37 AM
Here's a link with the slow-mo vid of the hit in close up - had it not been for the top edge it would have probably hit him on the grill/chin area. The pictures below are from the same page.

[url]http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/09/englands-stuart-broad-suffers-nasty-injury-as-he-top-edges-ball-through-his-helmet-during-india-test-4826892/[/url] ([url]http://metro.co.uk/2014/08/09/englands-stuart-broad-suffers-nasty-injury-as-he-top-edges-ball-through-his-helmet-during-india-test-4826892/[/url])


([url]http://i1270.photobucket.com/albums/jj614/cowcorner/Stuartbroadinjury_zpsdf3b07a1.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/cowcorner/media/Stuartbroadinjury_zpsdf3b07a1.jpg.html[/url])

He looks okay as he walks off but give it a day or so until the swelling/bruising comes out. His nose is probably broken but lets hope that he's not as hurt as Kieswetter.

([url]http://i1270.photobucket.com/albums/jj614/cowcorner/Stuardbroadinjury2_zpsc8b14374.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s1270.photobucket.com/user/cowcorner/media/Stuardbroadinjury2_zpsc8b14374.jpg.html[/url])

Does this mean there's a grill setting to be avoided on the Ayrtek/Adidas - like a lot of people on the forum I use one and although I'll never face this kind of pace it doesn't mean that I'm not going to top edge on into my own face.....I've even hit myself on the back of the head in the nets!!



So what does edging a ball do? Does it stay at a constant speed to which is was before? Kiesey was wearing an older masuri I think and look what happened, broad wearing an Aditek and has a broken nose. It's not particularly difficult to break your nose if you hit it at the right angle. I'd say a win for Aditek! Whilst it may not have kept the ball out completely it reduced the damage.  It broke during impact, maybe a minor fault with it? Had broad dropped it or was it just the force and slightly odd angle. I'd certainly rather be broad now than kiesey anyway

Were both bowlers bowling at the same speed ? Keiswetters ball seems faster.

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Kal on August 10, 2014, 04:15:47 AM
The irony... :(
https://twitter.com/ayrtekcricket/status/497468458414915584
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Kal on August 10, 2014, 04:21:13 AM
Still think my Arytek raw helmet is the best on the market! Would and have happily recommend it to anyone.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: AverageCricketer on August 10, 2014, 05:42:25 AM
Looking at the footage, I did see the nut fly off. Looks like the nut was not tight enough, so it fell off and then the ball was able to force its way through.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: RossViper on August 10, 2014, 05:53:52 AM
The ones using the masuri without the double grill are using the model down. The grills are not interchangeable


No I think butler has cut a bar out on his, check again
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Fearless Fly on August 10, 2014, 06:53:56 AM
As this is a forum i will give  my 2 cents.
From the footage i have seen in Aus it looks like a piece of the peak breaks off on impact causing the ball to go through.
Anyone who is saying that this type of event would not have been tested by Ayrtek is naive. They would have to produce something that is not going to break on impact. It has just hit the under side of the grill and shattered, would the same thing of happened if it hit the peak flush??? They have been very loud over the last few years talking about safety and that everyone should be looking to go to helmets like theirs and yet this happens. I have never worn an Ayrtek and never had the inclination to buy one considering the price tag. My thoughts are even more justified IMO as im not willing to spend that much on a helmet when it will break.

I know everyone will say that you couldnt predict something like this but surely in the whole scheme of testing they would have to test every possible area for weakness with impact.

Was also mentioned on here that it was only at 86mph and was not from a bowler of the same zip as a Mitchell Johnson or a Steyn/Morkel.
I think we all can agree that he was lucky it wasnt one of the above as he may not have gotten away so lucky.

Will be interesting to see the report Ayrtek put out over the coming weeks
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Bruce on August 10, 2014, 07:18:47 AM
If it hit he peak flush it should 'ramp' the ball away.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Fearless Fly on August 10, 2014, 07:22:59 AM
If it hit he peak flush it should 'ramp' the ball away.

I thought it would only ramp if the ball it on the the ramp side of the helmet. because if it hits flush shouldnt it really go back where it came from? I have not used or seen many of these helmets so by no means am i an expert or know the inner workings of them
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: joeljonno on August 10, 2014, 07:26:59 AM
I am sure it was tested.

86mph is still fairly quick and off a top edge so probably picked up a bit of pace too.

You don't know what state the helmet was going into this match. It may have been hit several times and already have a hairline crack the had gone unnoticed.

Will be interesting in the output from this.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: skip1973 on August 10, 2014, 07:29:42 AM
A ball can't pick up pace after hitting something.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 10, 2014, 07:34:36 AM
I wonder what tests are actually undertaken on helmets.  I'm sure that all manufacturers will be testing according to the new standards, but all potential angles and spin profiles are extremely unlikely to be tested.

It certainly isn't a naive statement to suggest that this particular type of incident wasn't tested.

Now if you look at the videos of tests that have been published, what happens when the ball hits flush is a different set of dynamics.

As has been said, it will be interesting to see the feedback from Ayrtek when all is done and dusted.

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Buzz on August 10, 2014, 07:56:46 AM
A ball can't pick up pace after hitting something.

absolutely it can!!

have you ever hit a cricket ball?!

lots of people happy to criticise here.

I say again with another lid it may have been much worse.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Red Ink Cricket on August 10, 2014, 08:05:47 AM
absolutely it can!!

have you ever hit a cricket ball?!

lots of people happy to criticise here.

I say again with another lid it may have been much worse.

Couldn't agree more. Pic on twitter doesn't look too bad at all after being hit at 80plus
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: GarrettJ on August 10, 2014, 08:08:54 AM
The helmet did it's job, he walked away. A broken nose is nowt.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: roco on August 10, 2014, 08:10:08 AM
Well kiewswetter was in hospital with old top of range and broad walked away wearing mid range so but of a plus there
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: horseman on August 10, 2014, 08:12:19 AM
absolutely it can!!

have you ever hit a cricket ball?!

lots of people happy to criticise here.

I say again with another lid it may have been much worse.

Exactly, also after top edging the angles are all wrong as to where the balls coming from. The 'ramp' effect of the helmet was negated by the new angle off the edge. If it was albion or masuri would this bandwagon still be rolling.

Think the main point is safest and completely safe are two different things.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Buzz on August 10, 2014, 08:22:25 AM
let's think about this more...

with an old style Masuri, it is reasonable to say he would have a fractured eye socket and his career may be over.

with a double bar vision series lid, the ball would have caused the visor to pop off, but who knows where the ball may have gone, with nothing to take the pace off, it may have had a similar result to the old model.

with a plastic Albion the visor/peak would have been destroyed again with a who knows what result.

with a traditional Albion the grille would probably have crushed into his face, like Ponting at lords, but much worse, maybe fractured cheek.

it is too easy to get the hatchet out here.

broad only has a broken nose from a ball which would have been going faster than 100 mph, the adrenaline would have been pumping after the last two balls had gone for 6 massively.

ironically if Steyn or Johnson were bowling I suspect broad would have missed it and we would have watched the ball deflect off the lid for 4 byes...
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on August 10, 2014, 08:25:41 AM
If Johnson was bowling, broad would have been at square leg!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Six Sixes Cricket on August 10, 2014, 08:33:21 AM
To me it looks like the helmet did its job.

What broke his nose? The ball? The grill? Or the combined force of the impact imploding on his nose?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: no1red on August 10, 2014, 08:36:58 AM
It was the ball I think. Yeah the helmet did as good as it could in that situation, other helmets may have done slightly better but I wouldnt think theres much in it.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: hell4leather cricket on August 10, 2014, 08:38:01 AM
Unfortunately however safe the helmet is ,the public still see the ball hitting the player and blame the product , it was just a 1 in a Million  chance of it getting through but did . Similar to bats snapping in half most are through storm damage not the makers fault ,but human nature being what it is blames the maker of the product not that the willow has a natural fault . Heard it so many times ' don't buy one of those bats they snap etc ' 1 bad moment can undo a lifetime of work .
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 10, 2014, 08:42:44 AM
And if you look at twitter,  that's the reaction you see Matt.  Jimmy asking if he'll change the helmet,  others saying "safest helmet? Really?"  and "Aditek needs a redesign". Not a lot you can do when it happens.

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Dhiraj on August 10, 2014, 08:45:13 AM
The world's "supposedly" safest helmet didnt do its job. Fault in the product and exposed.Period!!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: lazza32 on August 10, 2014, 08:49:20 AM
Well kiewswetter was in hospital with old top of range and broad walked away wearing mid range so but of a plus there
Different pace roco
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 10, 2014, 08:55:47 AM
The world's "supposedly" safest helmet didnt do its job. Fault in the product and exposed.Period!!
And therein lies the rub.  If the result of using the "world's safest helmet" was a broken nose,  what would the result have been with a "less safe helmet"?

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: ProCricketer1982 on August 10, 2014, 08:59:31 AM
And therein lies the rub.  If the result of using the "world's safest helmet" was a broken nose,  what would the result have been with a "less safe helmet"?

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

No one knows if it's the safest though. That's just marketing speaking.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Jenko on August 10, 2014, 09:00:10 AM
I think its a bit hard to speculate what 'might' have happened with a different lid on. Ball went through the gap between visor and grill, so how much did the helmet really slow the ball down/deviate the impact? Have seen a video of someone getting pinged wearing an Ayrtek flush on the grill and it 100% did its job and did it well. But no matter what lid you wear if there is anyway of the ball getting in between the gap your going to be in trouble. It might be pot luck that he only ended up with a broken nose who knows.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: procricket on August 10, 2014, 09:05:34 AM
For my two pence all i know is it kind of did it job like all helmets do.

It stopped a serious injury same as my Shrey has and Masuri and Albion in the past.

Conjecture about other helmets may or may not have done is wrong.

Look at it this way did the strength of the peak keep the ball under and not allow it pass??

With a masuri/Shrey old school it may have just bounced off after smashing the peak and no damage done a kind of strength, weakness if you get my drift.

Who knows all i do know is no helmet is 100 per cent safe and never will be.

I prefer one brand because i like how it fits onto my head and i'm used to it and i see no reason to change.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 10, 2014, 09:05:55 AM
No one knows if it's the safest though. That's just marketing speaking.
Hence the use of quotes.

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: fasteddie on August 10, 2014, 09:10:13 AM
When you consider all the different variables which have lined-up to cause this incident, it could be anything.
Defective grill, shell, nut, poor adjustment and set-up.

It would be unfair to point the finger at Ayrtek without the full facts.

Until such a time all we can do is post pictures of a giant panda, Gatting and Broad in a 'Police line-up' style mock-up.

Can it be 100% safe? Nope.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Buzz on August 10, 2014, 09:26:37 AM
For my two pence all i know is it kind of did it job like all helmets do.

It stopped a serious injury same as my Shrey has and Masuri and Albion in the past.

Conjecture about other helmets may or may not have done is wrong.

Look at it this way did the strength of the peak keep the ball under and not allow it pass??

With a masuri/Shrey old school it may have just bounced off after smashing the peak and no damage done a kind of strength, weakness if you get my drift.

Who knows all i do know is no helmet is 100 per cent safe and never will be.

I prefer one brand because i like how it fits onto my head and i'm used to it and i see no reason to change.

you say conjecture is wrong yet you go on and do just that!

past performance tells us old style Masuri lids would have resulted in a worse outcome.

we don't know with the new ones.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: roco on August 10, 2014, 09:30:16 AM
Different pace roco

I didn't see kieswetters live is David willey quicker than Aaron?

As he is listed as fast medium but Aaron is fast from what I saw
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: procricket on August 10, 2014, 09:32:17 AM
you say conjecture is wrong yet you go on and do just that!

past performance tells us old style Masuri lids would have resulted in a worse outcome.

we don't know with the new ones.


So your the authority are you Buzz your making remarks about how other helmets would have done and this and that.

Past performance is conjecture mate like your saying as 1000 times more Old style Masuri have been used first time we have seen the Ayrtek tested out.

I'm not saying which is better mate but will not blindly stick up for product which claim one thing and deliver another.

How many Masuri have been used and how many Ayrtek of course there is design flaws but please don't make the Ayrtek to be all singing and dancing.

So my opinion is void i said no helmet will be 100 per cent safe just the way.

I was looking at buying a ayrtek last week still am




Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Jenko on August 10, 2014, 09:45:23 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnUMK5nlGmw (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnUMK5nlGmw)

That to me is a helmet doing its job. As I say when the ball has the chance to go through a gap between grill and peak then it doesnt matter what you are wearing.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Manormanic on August 10, 2014, 09:45:55 AM
A ball can't pick up pace after hitting something.

And there speaks a man who has never seen Clayton Lambert bat. 

Of course it can - there will be a transference of force from the bat that can increase speed considerably.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on August 10, 2014, 09:47:35 AM

let's think about this more...

with an old style Masuri, it is reasonable to say he would have a fractured eye socket and his career may be over.

with a double bar vision series lid, the ball would have caused the visor to pop off, but who knows where the ball may have gone, with nothing to take the pace off, it may have had a similar result to the old model.
 

My understanding with the new style double bar is that the ball should deflect upwards off the double bar and into the peak which is designed to crumple upwards, therefore allowing the ball to travel upwards away from the face rather than channel it through the gap like what happened with Broad.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Northern monkey on August 10, 2014, 09:50:26 AM
Always horrendous seeing a player injured that way.
I would like to think the manufacturers are gonna use this to further improve the design and manufacture of cricket helmets.
I suppose compared to motorcycle helmets,the manufacturers are still in their infancy.
As with designing a helmet for motorcycle accidents,, cricket is also an incredibly dynamic environment
The aspect of top edges must be very hard to replicate and account for,, but I'm sure it's one area every manufacturer will hopefully focus on

I personally don't wear one whilst batting, but after watching Broadys and kieswetters accidents, I'm considering a helmet.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: GarrettJ on August 10, 2014, 09:53:56 AM
The grill needs to protrude out wards and at an angle. Any top edge would hit and deflect upwards and away from the batsman
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on August 10, 2014, 10:19:29 AM
Here's my input on this.


Broads helmet in the tweet shown seems to have both a very wide opening(compared to barkers in the video) and also seems to not be square, the gap between peak and grill on the right(broads left) looks wider than the right.


Now this could be for two reasons, and really only broad and or ayrtek can answer them. Is it a defective shell/grill? Or has Stuart altered the settings to give him a better view, not thinking the effect would be detrimental?


Also The two incidents show barker, and broad, there is a 2 mph difference in bowling speed. Which I personally don't think is the difference between fail and pass.

It is eithe down to faulty/badly adjusted helmet, or the increased speed of the top edge of broads.



As much as i rate the ayrtek, looking at woakes bat currently, the double grilled masuri, has such a small gap, and the added crumple zone, I can't help thinking the masuri may have faired better.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: mini998 on August 10, 2014, 10:23:42 AM
Shame , this is bad publicity for Ayrtek .

Personally I was toying with the idea of buying one due all the hype about great vision/protection  but only the look was putting me off all this time,

but now after this I started thinking all that hype could be just marketing .
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 10, 2014, 10:34:24 AM
Dave,  I don't think this is the first time we've seen the Ayrtek tested.  Didn't someone take a full frontal in the grill?

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: procricket on August 10, 2014, 10:39:20 AM
Dave,  I don't think this is the first time we've seen the Ayrtek tested.  Didn't someone take a full frontal in the grill?

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

Tim i understand what your saying mate but to say about other helmets not doing there job when the ratio to Ayrtek is fuzzled at best.

What i have said and always will is has it been tested at different angles which i guess it hasn't.

I have seen the Old Masuri and Albion and Hunts County take full frontal hit before and do there job too.



Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Johnny on August 10, 2014, 10:44:53 AM
I always thought Ayrtek helmets were designed so that you CAN'T adjust the grill to a setting that allows the ball through. So is this a custom set up for Broad? Or has something broken? Or has the ball gotten out of shape?

Who knows... Itching to find out from Tom. I'm sure this will be a great opportunity for him to improve the product further
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Spanky on August 10, 2014, 11:17:53 AM
Not the best advertisement for the Aditek helmets, many will have been waiting for this to happen so they can criticise the product and question its safety.

Something else that crossed my mind is we have no idea how the pros treat their helmets. The could be dropping and chucking them about in the changing rooms (sure we all know someone at our club that does it) possibly leading to weakness that cant be easily spotted.

Just something I was thinking about.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: uknsaunders on August 10, 2014, 11:47:02 AM
I think we have to wait for the official word from tom first. It could be broady had his settings too wide or the helmet had a weakness. Could be the rebounded off the peak and through. Nobody really knows how it got there when it shouldn't be possible.

Get feel says that if it can get through a fixed peak then no other helmet would of done a better job. More likely a worse job and unlike keiswetter, broad is available for the next match.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Jaffa on August 10, 2014, 11:54:24 AM
Don't know about waiting, more like fearing this was going to happen.
As mentioned earlier it is probably the safest. I wear an ayrtek, one of the earlier ones with a Wobbly grill so accept something can always happen. Same as I wear p1 strippers and I once got hit on the inside of my thigh where there was no protection.

I have always wondered though why the grill has to be so far away from your face. Surely if it closer it would use less material so it could be thicker and give better visability
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: uknsaunders on August 10, 2014, 11:57:17 AM
I think the problem is the impact will force the helmet backwards and into your face if its to close.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: joeljonno on August 10, 2014, 12:01:44 PM
http://m.sportskeeda.com/cricket/stuart-broad-helmet-design-injury-england-india-test

Spotted this earlier. Doesn't really give an answer, more a review of the incident and comparison with a Brett Lee delivery
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: trypewriter on August 10, 2014, 12:07:25 PM
One thing that has crossed my mind is those metal puzzles that you used to see around at Christmas time (people of a certain age). Against all logic you could, by using angles, twists, different forces etc. pull them apart and then put them back together again. Getting a cricket ball through the gap is a similar conundrum.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 10, 2014, 12:12:18 PM

I have always wondered though why the grill has to be so far away from your face. Surely if it closer it would use less material so it could be thicker and give better visability
Nick's point is partially correct.  The other point being that you don't want a deformed grill hitting you in the face,  which is what could happen if you were to have it closer.

The design of the Ayrtek is supposed to reduce lid movement when worn correctly by use of the four point fixing.

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: jwebber86 on August 10, 2014, 12:39:01 PM
I always thought Ayrtek helmets were designed so that you CAN'T adjust the grill to a setting that allows the ball through. So is this a custom set up for Broad? Or has something broken? Or has the ball gotten out of shape?

there a various setting on the grill so that the gap can be different for adults and junior size balls. it can also be wider the these setting which i couldnt understand the reason for. in the little booklet i got witht he ayrtek it shows the suggested setup which was used for the safety testing.

im not sure if it any different now that its an aditek helmet
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: El Nino on August 10, 2014, 02:25:33 PM
Interested to hear Tom's thoughts on this matter.

Imagine it may have been a busy day!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Jimmyg on August 10, 2014, 04:25:54 PM
I was at OT yesterday and after the incident with Stuart Broad's injury, I had a look at the grille positions on my carbon fibre RAW helmet and my fibreglass old style Ayrtek helmets when I got home. Setting the grille in the same holes as Broad, it gave a gap of 50mm at the front and 55mm on the sides, which complies with the recommended maximum gaps as advised. Even allowing for the ball hitting from the side where there is less depth of peak to prevent deformation, a ball isn't going to get through.
However looking at Broad's helmet which appears to be a plastic Premiertek helmet the  mounting points of the grille appear to be lower in relation to the bottom edge of the helmet. The bottom of the grille mounting plate is 9-10 mm above the bottom of the peak on the RAW, whereas on the Premiertek the bottom of the grille mounting plate is virtually level with the bottom of the helmet, which would mean Broad's grille had been adjusted to give approximately a 65mm gap, which is too large to prevent a ball entering in all circumstances.
If I was facing 85-90 mph deliveries I would definitely make sure I was wearing a carbon fibre version rather the bottom of the range helmet and I would make sure the gap in the grille wasn't too big as well, but maybe that's a reflection on my lack of confidence in my hooking abilities?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: kasabian21 on August 10, 2014, 04:46:24 PM
let's think about this more...

with an old style Masuri, it is reasonable to say he would have a fractured eye socket and his career may be over.

with a double bar vision series lid, the ball would have caused the visor to pop off, but who knows where the ball may have gone, with nothing to take the pace off, it may have had a similar result to the old model.

with a plastic Albion the visor/peak would have been destroyed again with a who knows what result.

with a traditional Albion the grille would probably have crushed into his face, like Ponting at lords, but much worse, maybe fractured cheek.

it is too easy to get the hatchet out here.

broad only has a broken nose from a ball which would have been going faster than 100 mph, the adrenaline would have been pumping after the last two balls had gone for 6 massively.

ironically if Steyn or Johnson were bowling I suspect broad would have missed it and we would have watched the ball deflect off the lid for 4 byes...

Er, WHAT? Are you serious?! The speed of the delivery was 86mph, which is measured just as the ball leaves the hand. The ball loses 10-15mph by the time it reaches the batsman and would have slowed down further after hitting the bat. At most it hit the helmet at 75mph. Where on earth do you get 100mph from? It is basic physics that the ball will only ever lose speed, not pick up speed once it has left the bowler's hand.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Bruce on August 10, 2014, 04:48:49 PM
FWIW, all the testing videos I have seen are done with the Bola ball.
I saw earlier in the series England were asking if the ball had for out of shape.
After all they are handmade from natural resources. The ball can shrink, where as a Bola ball will hold it's shape better in the long term.
By no means a dig, just saying.
Was only saying just yesterday with my new job being local to Ayrtek HQ I am making plans to upgrade from my Premier.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: ProCricketer1982 on August 10, 2014, 04:49:38 PM
Er, WHAT? Are you serious?! The speed of the delivery was 86mph, which is measured just as the ball leaves the hand. The ball loses 10-15mph by the time it reaches the batsman and would have slowed down further after hitting the bat. At most it hit the helmet at 75mph. Where on earth do you get 100mph from? It is basic physics that the ball will only ever lose speed, not pick up speed once it has left the bowler's hand.

Does it not increase in speed when hit??
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Bruce on August 10, 2014, 04:51:06 PM
Does it not increase in speed when hit??

On a full face, smash over cow, perhaps.
On a feint top edge is say no.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on August 10, 2014, 04:53:03 PM
On a full face, smash over cow, perhaps.
On a feint top edge is say no.

So how do top edges fly for 6 yet byes dribble to the boundary??
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: fasteddie on August 10, 2014, 04:54:18 PM
I think the problem is the impact will force the helmet backwards and into your face if its to close.

I can speak from first hand experience of that. Fielding at short leg with a borrowed lid I got one on the grill which bent and cut/dug into my chin. Had to pull it out. Ouch!

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Bruce on August 10, 2014, 04:57:28 PM
So how do top edges fly for 6 yet byes dribble to the boundary??
Elevation, upward thrust, gravity.
Think of the Trescothick shot- upper cut type shot that he plays so well, he helps it on it's way.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: joeljonno on August 10, 2014, 05:03:52 PM

Elevation, upward thrust, gravity.
Think of the Trescothick shot- upper cut type shot that he plays so well, he helps it on it's way.

Stand at first slip for two same paced deliveries.  One to a defensive shot and one to a drive. The attacking shot goes faster and further.

Nowt to do with an upper cut type shot off the face of the bat. Genuine edges.

A ball can pick up pace off the edge of a bat.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Vitas Cricket on August 10, 2014, 06:24:08 PM
Er, WHAT? Are you serious?! The speed of the delivery was 86mph, which is measured just as the ball leaves the hand. The ball loses 10-15mph by the time it reaches the batsman and would have slowed down further after hitting the bat. At most it hit the helmet at 75mph. Where on earth do you get 100mph from? It is basic physics that the ball will only ever lose speed, not pick up speed once it has left the bowler's hand.

Tripe.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Manormanic on August 10, 2014, 06:36:18 PM
Er, WHAT? Are you serious?! The speed of the delivery was 86mph, which is measured just as the ball leaves the hand. The ball loses 10-15mph by the time it reaches the batsman and would have slowed down further after hitting the bat. At most it hit the helmet at 75mph. Where on earth do you get 100mph from? It is basic physics that the ball will only ever lose speed, not pick up speed once it has left the bowler's hand.

WHAT, are you stupid?   The speed of the delivery was x-y (with y being the effective drag of the pitch) before Broad hit it - but afterward it will have been (x-y)+z with z being the force of the strike.   

Need an idea of the force involved?   When has a bowler ever conceded six byes?  what happens when a batsmen gets a big top edge?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: FattusCattus on August 10, 2014, 06:51:30 PM
And they dare to call us nerds! :)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Pelican042 on August 10, 2014, 07:11:04 PM
When has a bowler ever conceded six byes?

Never its in the rules this can't happen by boundary (just being picky)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Steveo1000 on August 10, 2014, 08:54:08 PM
Never its in the rules this can't happen by boundary (just being picky)
Rules or Laws? Just being picky.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: RossViper on August 10, 2014, 09:51:15 PM
As for speed increasing after the ball is hit, it's simply the additon of the 2 vectors.  A thin top edge won't add much speed, is say.

The force needs to be considered as a vector really
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: brokenbat on August 11, 2014, 01:40:42 AM
The other variable that may not have been tested in the "laboratory" is the angle of entry. Perhaps the results are different if the angle is what Broad experienced. As an Airtek user myself, I hope they are able to provide some answers fairly quickly.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: crictech on August 11, 2014, 03:26:11 AM
add air density and humidity factors which can make upwards of 15% difference
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: crictech on August 11, 2014, 03:47:34 AM
and when considering the distance the ball travels when it hits the bat you have to take into account the coefficient of restitution or elasticity of the ball
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: jamielsn15 on August 11, 2014, 04:56:46 AM
It has to be virtually impossible to totally eliminate risk, you can surely only minimise it.  There appear to be way too variables to eliminate risk 100%, as many have described - not least angle of the edge and Broad's head position for the attacking shot as opposed to evading the ball.

To re-use the car crash analogy, a seat belt will save your life, but it won't guarantee you will be injury-free...
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: fasteddie on August 11, 2014, 05:28:12 AM
I watched it for the first time last night ( I wanted to wait to see the highlights package and India's collapse)

There are two objects which fly from the helmet after impact.

One object looked like a thick(ish) sliver, which could well be the brim splitting.

With regard to the safety element, I recall when I rode motorbikes, a while back, being told that if I dropped my helmet it would weaken on the impact area. It is a reasonable assumption that the helmet may be a good age and had a lot of use, hence wear and tear.

Is that the case with the modern materials and construction? What material was his lid made of?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 11, 2014, 06:27:11 AM
Is that the case with the modern materials and construction? What material was his lid made of?
According to the Ayrtek website, the PremierTek helmet (which is what I believe he wears) is constructed from "high impact injection-moulded plastic".
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Stuey on August 11, 2014, 08:15:41 AM
According to the Ayrtek website, the PremierTek helmet (which is what I believe he wears) is constructed from "high impact injection-moulded plastic".
Begs the question, as a pro why wouldn't you wear the best protection available? i.e. according to Ayrtek the Adipower Rawtek
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: keysersolze on August 11, 2014, 08:46:59 AM
Guys,
You might want to lay of Ayrtek a bit as one fail from probably millions of hits world wide on their helmets does not not make for an inferior/faulty product. I am sure when Ayrtek have analysed it all they will respond to all the criticisms etc. Also knowing Tom he will be looking at new designs etc to make sure this never happens again.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Jimmyg on August 11, 2014, 09:07:07 AM
I've only seen one person who (predictably) has used the incident to criticise the product, the rest of the posts haven't been critical of the helmet, beyond saying the grille appeared to had quite a wide gap and why an international player would be using the helmet that's bottom of the range.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 11, 2014, 09:19:16 AM
Guys,
You might want to lay of Ayrtek a bit as one fail from probably millions of hits world wide on their helmets does not not make for an inferior/faulty product. I am sure when Ayrtek have analysed it all they will respond to all the criticisms etc. Also knowing Tom he will be looking at new designs etc to make sure this never happens again.
I think the overwhelming sentiment has been one of "how did that happen?" It's generated some significant discussion, and has caused people to look a bit deeper at how helmets work and what they can and can't do. As mentioned, only one person has really jumped on the criticism bandwagon, and his reaction was wholly expected.

As many have said, we all await the outcome of the discussions and investigations that are undoubtedly going on at the moment that Tom will be right in the middle of. I think the most shocking thing for everyone was the ease with which the ball slipped through, especially when compared to the gap that many of us immediately went away and checked on our own Ayrtek helmets.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Number4 on August 11, 2014, 09:33:30 AM
Is it me or does the gap on this look way too big?

http://twitpic.com/e9sqzq (http://twitpic.com/e9sqzq)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 11, 2014, 09:42:33 AM
Is it me or does the gap on this look way too big?

[url]http://twitpic.com/e9sqzq[/url] ([url]http://twitpic.com/e9sqzq[/url])

Agreed. Much, much wider than on mine. Reckon a ball would fit through that easily.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: arsenal123 on August 11, 2014, 10:12:41 AM
Anyone notice on the Ayrtek twitter page the day before Broad got injured they posted a photo of Broad stating "Feedback aids evolution, few tweaks made to Stuart Boards latest PremierTek to further improve its finish".

Interesting timing!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: golden duck on August 11, 2014, 10:36:05 AM
I wonder if broady had requested a 'slightly larger gap' and that was the 'evolution' refered to in teh tweet?

As Tim (?) said, when we heard about it we dug my helmet out and tried to get the ball through the gap - nope, couldn't get it to happen.  It was interesting when they did an small 'experiment' on the verdict where they showed an older helmet and just pushed a ball through (I guess they either couldn't get an ayrtek at short notice - or if they did it didn't show what they wanted it too which was a ball going through the gap easily).

I can say that I've top edged one of our faster bowlers in the nets and was hit right in the gap between grill and peak.  Ball didn't go through for me!!

Re broad not using the top of the line.  I'd guess it was an advertising thing so that adidas can show the full range etc (although as the headline england player to wear one, I'd have thought they would get him in the top spec one as well)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Liam-SCCC on August 11, 2014, 10:38:21 AM
Maybe Broad doesn't use the top of the line one because he doesn't like the ACIS liner?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Liam-SCCC on August 11, 2014, 10:41:28 AM

No I think butler has cut a bar out on his, check again


I don't think Buttler would cut a bar off, check this picture I got from Aus Cricket twitter.

This helmet has the twin bar on the ear piece but the top bar doesn't carry round into a full bar, same as Buttler, maybe it's a pro only edition as they didn't like the Double bar?

(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/08/11/zu5ugyde.jpg)

EDIT: It would appear I was misled by incorrect pictures on the talent cricket website and the helmet in the picture is available to is in the link that is posted with the quote of this post on the next page.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Neon Cricket on August 11, 2014, 10:44:43 AM
Maybe Broad doesn't use the top of the line one because he doesn't like the ACIS liner?

I'd presume this is the reason
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: trypewriter on August 11, 2014, 11:02:58 AM
Agreed. Much, much wider than on mine. Reckon a ball would fit through that easily.

But of course - that is after a ball has gone through it.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on August 11, 2014, 11:21:55 AM
I don't think Buttler would cut a bar off, check this picture I got from Aus Cricket twitter.

This helmet has the twin bar on the ear piece but the top bar doesn't carry round into a full bar, same as Buttler, maybe it's a pro only edition as they didn't like the Double bar?

([url]http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/08/11/zu5ugyde.jpg[/url])


http://www.vitascricket.co.uk/products.php?id=1123 (http://www.vitascricket.co.uk/products.php?id=1123)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Nmcgee on August 11, 2014, 11:26:09 AM

With regard to the safety element, I recall when I rode motorbikes, a while back, being told that if I dropped my helmet it would weaken on the impact area. It is a reasonable assumption that the helmet may be a good age and had a lot of use, hence wear and tear.

Is that the case with the modern materials and construction? What material was his lid made of?

Good call Eddie.

All manufacturers recommend replacement of the helmet, if struck even once, as the structural integrity cannot be assured. I wonder what the history of Broads helmet might be.

I've also always wondered why people buy second-hand helmets from eBay and such. Potentially dangerous, I would have thought, not knowing its history.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Tom on August 11, 2014, 11:29:46 AM
Injuries happen, and a helmet can only do so much. But it's worth bearing in mind this helmet is/was designed specifically to stop this injury, and all the marketing revolves around the whole peak/grille protection. Anyone remember the Ayrtek response on Twitter after Kieswetter's injury too?

Sure this was a 1 in a million hit and incredibly unfortunate for it to happen to Broad in front of the TV cameras. But the fact is on the biggest stage, the first time it was thoroughly tested, it seemingly failed.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on August 11, 2014, 11:37:33 AM
http://www.ayrtek.com/stuart-broad-injury-press-release/ (http://www.ayrtek.com/stuart-broad-injury-press-release/)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Bowlers Name Please on August 11, 2014, 11:45:01 AM
I don't think Buttler would cut a bar off, check this picture I got from Aus Cricket twitter.

This helmet has the twin bar on the ear piece but the top bar doesn't carry round into a full bar, same as Buttler, maybe it's a pro only edition as they didn't like the Double bar?

([url]http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/08/11/zu5ugyde.jpg[/url])


I believe that the twin bar ('eye line -grille') only appears on the Xline and Elite models. The test and club versions have the second bar on the side but don't carry round the front.

Can only assume it's a personal preference to play in a 'lower' model.  Think Bell only has a single bar at the front as well..
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Liam-SCCC on August 11, 2014, 11:56:34 AM
[url]http://www.ayrtek.com/stuart-broad-injury-press-release/[/url] ([url]http://www.ayrtek.com/stuart-broad-injury-press-release/[/url])


Thanks Tom
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: ItsJustCricket on August 11, 2014, 02:22:24 PM
One thing I have noticed about these Adidas helmets is that the nuts don't screw on as securely as on other helmets.  Another feature of the new Masuri VS range is the fact that the grilles are already fitted and can't be screwed/unscrewed, which saves a lot of time and hassle, but presumably helps on the safety front too.  If it was indeed one of these nuts that flew off on impact that is possibly the most likely cause of the ball fitting through imo.  A grille that isn't secured properly is vulnerable to this, no matter what the gap between the peak and grille is...
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 11, 2014, 02:47:33 PM
One thing I have noticed about these Adidas helmets is that the nuts don't screw on as securely as on other helmets.  Another feature of the new Masuri VS range is the fact that the grilles are already fitted and can't be screwed/unscrewed, which saves a lot of time and hassle, but presumably helps on the safety front too.  If it was indeed one of these nuts that flew off on impact that is possibly the most likely cause of the ball fitting through imo.  A grille that isn't secured properly is vulnerable to this, no matter what the gap between the peak and grille is...

This is heavy and incorrect speculation. If you look at the pictures, you'll see that all the nuts are still on the grill/helmet.

(http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2014/08/10/1227019/317417-c036d5a4-1fcf-11e4-b916-593f0283aa25.jpg)

(http://s.ndtvimg.com/images/content/2014/aug/806/stuart-broad-hit-england.jpg)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: procricket on August 11, 2014, 03:08:44 PM
There a lot of movement in the helmet upwards if you look at the images above and the side on in his stance the helmet has been pushed upwards quite a bit.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: ItsJustCricket on August 11, 2014, 03:09:48 PM
OK, I stand corrected.  Still don't think those nuts screw in very well though compared to others!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Stuey on August 11, 2014, 03:12:27 PM
I blame the ball  :)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on August 11, 2014, 03:20:34 PM
OK, I stand corrected.  Still don't think those nuts screw in very well though compared to others!

It's a strange one, I have two ayrteks, the cheap carbon look one fits perfectly, but on the actual carbon fibre one, they are at a strange angle, not quite flush when fully tightened, and do loosen themselves overtime
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Percy on August 11, 2014, 03:21:10 PM
I blame Broady - he should have it! :)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 11, 2014, 03:39:06 PM
There a lot of movement in the helmet upwards if you look at the images above and the side on in his stance the helmet has been pushed upwards quite a bit.
He isn't actually wearing the helmet properly. The chin strap is under his jaw, not using the cup on his chin (as we've had many discussions with Tom about on here).

As for the nuts, I've not had a problem with mine loosening, in fact I find them a right pain in the butt to undo.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: fasteddie on August 11, 2014, 04:19:07 PM
He isn't actually wearing the helmet properly. The chin strap is under his jaw, not using the cup on his chin

You should be a litigator. A career at A&O awaits!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on August 11, 2014, 04:33:16 PM
My top of the range carbon lid with acis liner.


(http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h76/smilley792/20140811_172632_zpsyhpjbc6o.jpg) (http://s61.photobucket.com/user/smilley792/media/20140811_172632_zpsyhpjbc6o.jpg.html)

(http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h76/smilley792/20140811_172646_zpsd2y7gtoz.jpg) (http://s61.photobucket.com/user/smilley792/media/20140811_172646_zpsd2y7gtoz.jpg.html)

Granted it currently has the steel grill on not titanium(I have the titanium grill on my cheap ayrtek, which the fitment is perfectly on it) but fitment is same either way
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on August 11, 2014, 05:40:06 PM
My top of the range carbon lid with acis liner.


([url]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h76/smilley792/20140811_172632_zpsyhpjbc6o.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s61.photobucket.com/user/smilley792/media/20140811_172632_zpsyhpjbc6o.jpg.html[/url])

([url]http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h76/smilley792/20140811_172646_zpsd2y7gtoz.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s61.photobucket.com/user/smilley792/media/20140811_172646_zpsd2y7gtoz.jpg.html[/url])

Granted it currently has the steel grill on not titanium(I have the titanium grill on my cheap ayrtek, which the fitment is perfectly on it) but fitment is same either way

Try swapping the mounting points on the Raw and the other one mate, worked for me!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on August 11, 2014, 05:45:24 PM
the plastic shell is thicker than a carbon fibre shell but both use the same length bolts so you will see a small gap between them on the carbon shelled models.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: the little ripper on August 11, 2014, 06:23:50 PM
http://www.masuri.com/news/article/press-release-masuris-new-helmet-ready-icc-safety-/ (http://www.masuri.com/news/article/press-release-masuris-new-helmet-ready-icc-safety-/)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Six Sixes Cricket on August 11, 2014, 06:39:28 PM
[url]http://www.masuri.com/news/article/press-release-masuris-new-helmet-ready-icc-safety-/[/url] ([url]http://www.masuri.com/news/article/press-release-masuris-new-helmet-ready-icc-safety-/[/url])
Ouch
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: iand123 on August 11, 2014, 07:17:41 PM
LOL at the content of that masuri press release. Guess they have to get their money's worth if they employ a sports PR agency
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: ItsJustCricket on August 11, 2014, 07:20:48 PM
We've had a recent flurry of Masuri VS Elite helmet sales.  It can't be a coincidence, surely!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: uknsaunders on August 11, 2014, 07:26:00 PM
LOL at the content of that masuri press release. Guess they have to get their money's worth if they employ a sports PR agency

let's hope nobody gets hit in the face wearing their helmets. I know which helmet I would wear and it's not a Masuri.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: i12breakfree on August 11, 2014, 07:50:42 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/11024926/England-v-India-Stuart-Broad-cleared-to-play-Oval-Test-despite-broken-nose.html
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: fasteddie on August 11, 2014, 07:51:20 PM
LOL at the content of that masuri press release. Guess they have to get their money's worth if they employ a sports PR agency

If you are assuming the PR firm are spinning, then I feel you may be misguided.

The PR team have simply laid out the facts as they are. Ayrtek didn't do that, they simply gave us a short passage.

Masuri are explaining their piece. Your criticism is frankly wrong and shows a lack of understanding in corporate communications.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Kevtheplumber on August 11, 2014, 07:54:37 PM
Biggest issue I've had is fit, I've had to sew two lots of inners together to stop it wobbling about, my head isn't that small and other helmets have fitted more snug with just a standard inner. But I do think it is more sturdy and certainly have more faith in it, but I do think an option for fit between a junior and senior helmet needs addressing
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on August 11, 2014, 07:54:55 PM
Van i be honest and say i am disappointed in ayrteks statement.
I know they have to investigate and what not, but surely it wasn't just me expecting more?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: i12breakfree on August 11, 2014, 08:15:36 PM
Van i be honest and say i am disappointed in ayrteks statement.
I know they have to investigate and what not, but surely it wasn't just me expecting more?



i guess they have to really careful with what they come up as part of the press release
With Masuri running its PR and articles like this telegraph one - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/11024926/England-v-India-Stuart-Broad-cleared-to-play-Oval-Test-despite-broken-nose.html (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/11024926/England-v-India-Stuart-Broad-cleared-to-play-Oval-Test-despite-broken-nose.html)
Adidas/Ayrtek has to be cautious. i am sure any statement that needs to go to the press will have multiple approval cycles
And again without getting to the root of this they will not be able to release it
If it was a product defect then do they need to do a safety recall ?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Bruce on August 11, 2014, 08:28:42 PM
Yet Masuri still have the majority of county players (Kieswetter included) in their old "Elite" model.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: thecord on August 11, 2014, 08:43:42 PM
[url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/11024926/England-v-India-Stuart-Broad-cleared-to-play-Oval-Test-despite-broken-nose.html[/url] ([url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/england/11024926/England-v-India-Stuart-Broad-cleared-to-play-Oval-Test-despite-broken-nose.html[/url])


Not a very particularly balanced piece that.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 11, 2014, 08:45:20 PM
Nothing like a tagline of article sponsored by Masuri...

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Red Ink Cricket on August 11, 2014, 09:04:15 PM
Now I may have missed something but where were the press releases when kiesey got smashed in the face? Did masuri defend themselves?  Or for that fact numerous other players in the past that have had the same issue. Aditek helmet is different so as soon as something goes wrong everyone jumps on the bandwagon to say its rubbish etc and competitors come out with pointless statements just to get one up on them.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Nato on August 11, 2014, 09:27:37 PM
I wonder how much Masuri paid the telegraph for that article? So much for objective, impartial journalism.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: golden duck on August 11, 2014, 09:39:31 PM
The telegraph article seems hopelessly one sided, and is also factually incorrect (re James Taylor). Granted it's a small thing, but still it's basic - if they can't get that right then you have to question everything
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: ProCricketer1982 on August 11, 2014, 09:41:02 PM
It's all pr rubbish from all sides. Each will always say it's better, lighter, safer than the other and try to gain one up-man-ship if they can. Unfortunately individuals are intelligent, people are stupid so believe pr gumff. We've all done it and do it every day. Who makes the best bats? Salix? Rob pack?.. The answer will be whose pr you choose to believe the most!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Gingerbusiness on August 11, 2014, 09:45:25 PM
"Seven current England players – Robson, Bell, Root, Buttler, Jordan, Stokes, Anderson - choose to wear Masuri’s new Vision Series helmet, which has been designed and developed to meet revised ICC safety standards."

When Masuri say 'choose' I assume that is a mistake and is meant to read 'are paid a swag bag full of money'...

I think it is very much a company worried about anyone encroaching on their 'turf'.

Masuri should be very careful when it comes to this sort of one-sided oneupmanship - especially as it would not be the first time one of their helmets 'failed'.

I think everyone needs to put the Broad thing into perspective. Safety equipment does not always stop people from getting hurt. If people shun Ayrtek, it would almost be as stupid as people going out tomorrow looking for an alternative to seat belts because the 0.0001% of every car journey, someone got whiplash.

Cricket is a dangerous game. As adults we accept the associated risks. If Broad didn't set his lid up properly, I would be seriously considering removing my sponsorship of him, instead of looking at Ayrtek - Broad has a responsibility to the brand as much as Ayrtek/Adidas has to supply him with kit.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: ProCricketer1982 on August 11, 2014, 09:49:34 PM
"Seven current England players – Robson, Bell, Root, Buttler, Jordan, Stokes, Anderson - choose to wear Masuri’s new Vision Series helmet, which has been designed and developed to meet revised ICC safety standards."

When Masuri say 'choose' I assume that is a mistake and is meant to read 'are paid a swag bag full of money'...

I think it is very much a company worried about anyone encroaching on their 'turf'.

Masuri should be very careful when it comes to this sort of one-sided oneupmanship - especially as it would not be the first time one of their helmets 'failed'.

I think everyone needs to put the Broad thing into perspective. Safety equipment does not always stop people from getting hurt. If people shun Ayrtek, it would almost be as stupid as people going out tomorrow looking for an alternative to seat belts because the 0.0001% of every car journey, someone got whiplash.

Cricket is a dangerous game. As adults we accept the associated risks. If Broad didn't set his lid up properly, I would be seriously considering removing my sponsorship of him, instead of looking at Ayrtek - Broad has a responsibility to the brand as much as Ayrtek/Adidas has to supply him with kit.

In the modern day, you can't blame masuri for doing it. Plus, the only reason people here are more inclined to defend arytek is because we have been told more often that it's safer etc etc. (Not saying it isn't but as Tom is so good on here, we believe him. More easily). We actually have not the first clue which is safer so it's all just pr and is saying one is better is just individual choose based on whose pr we've swallowed.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Gingerbusiness on August 11, 2014, 09:59:13 PM
In the modern day, you can't blame masuri for doing it. Plus, the only reason people here are more inclined to defend arytek is because we have been told more often that it's safer etc etc. (Not saying it isn't but as Tom is so good on here, we believe him. More easily). We actually have not the first clue which is safer so it's all just pr and is saying one is better is just individual choose based on whose pr we've swallowed.

Purely trying to balance the unbalanced argument :)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tushar sehgal on August 11, 2014, 11:47:45 PM
I am not sure if wearing a masuri would have been better or worse, There is no way of knowing. I know that I have had both and which one feels safer. We have to keep in mind that first person that Ayrtek has to answer to is Adidas top brass then it will be general public. I was disappointed at the press release but its understandable.  Lets hope we hear soon till then lets support one brand thats has grown more than anything else on this forum with good design and tech. We can be harsh but it might be worth it to not sling mud without proof, if you have nothing good to say then wait till Tom has a chance to defend his product
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Nmcgee on August 12, 2014, 12:36:31 AM
What a cheap shot by Masuri. They clearly have very short memories.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: @187no on August 12, 2014, 12:44:14 AM
Some forum members may find this link interesting http://bit.ly/1r65A49 (http://bit.ly/1r65A49)

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: RossViper on August 12, 2014, 06:08:21 AM
I really think ayteck could sue the telegraphover that article, it makes a statement that is an opinion, but it is stated as a fact. Very poor reporting.

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: JB on August 12, 2014, 06:28:13 AM
Now I may have missed something but where were the press releases when kiesey got smashed in the face? Did masuri defend themselves?  Or for that fact numerous other players in the past that have had the same issue. Aditek helmet is different so as soon as something goes wrong everyone jumps on the bandwagon to say its rubbish etc and competitors come out with pointless statements just to get one up on them.

I like this point, I think there have been alot of knives sharpened at the ready in the event of something happening to a player using an Ayrtek.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 12, 2014, 06:49:40 AM
I like this point, I think there have been alot of knives sharpened at the ready in the event of something happening to a player using an Ayrtek.
Of course there have. When a new, disruptive, product comes on to the market that allows claims that the existing brands had something inferior (and note, I said allows claims, i.e. doesn't necessarily make the claims themselves), then the existing brands get concerned and ready to leap on whatever they can to stop the outflow of business.

That's the way that a market works. Some brands will of course not make derogatory statements as part of their values (I've seen this outside the Cricket industry), but it depends entirely on how you want to market market...
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Dan W on August 12, 2014, 07:30:20 AM
In the modern day, you can't blame masuri for doing it.

Arggggh! >:( >:( >:(

YES YOU EFFING CAN! We do not exist in this vacuum where this sort of "it's ok, a shared reliance on capitalism means we can disassociate ourselves from responsibility and can treat others as competitors...as the enemy".

It's exactly the same thinking of people that don't walk "It's ok, I don't need a conscience as I have an umpire to tell me if I'm out or not"

It was a whoppingly desperate, cynical, and most importantly arsey thing to do, that had all the hallmarks of a company being led by their a PR agency.

I would say I hope their business suffers but I think they'll KO themselves with the new helmet design.


Plus, the only reason people here are more inclined to defend arytek is because we have been told more often that it's safer etc etc. (Not saying it isn't but as Tom is so good on here, we believe him. More easily). We actually have not the first clue which is safer so it's all just pr and is saying one is better is just individual choose based on whose pr we've swallowed.

Sure, we have an affinity with Tom (however small) and because we understand his heart and soul went into this, this must feel like his worst nightmare. A cricket helmet is PURELY a purchase of comfort and safety. Any brand that doesn't have this front and center of all their marketing is, frankly, doing it wrong.

No helmet will be infallible (without losing too much to visibility etc), and the worst thing is, there's a potentially significant amount of human error applied when using it...Anyone from the manufacturer want to step forward and point the finger at our international 'talent'?!

(Sorry, wasn't a dig at you PC, just your text was handy to quote :)  )
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: ProCricketer1982 on August 12, 2014, 07:45:09 AM
Arggggh! >:( >:( >:(

YES YOU EFFING CAN! We do not exist in this vacuum where this sort of "it's ok, a shared reliance on capitalism means we can disassociate ourselves from responsibility and can treat others as competitors...as the enemy".

It's exactly the same thinking of people that don't walk "It's ok, I don't need a conscience as I have an umpire to tell me if I'm out or not"

It was a whoppingly desperate, cynical, and most importantly arsey thing to do, that had all the hallmarks of a company being led by their a PR agency.

I would say I hope their business suffers but I think they'll KO themselves with the new helmet design.


Sure, we have an affinity with Tom (however small) and because we understand his heart and soul went into this, this must feel like his worst nightmare. A cricket helmet is PURELY a purchase of comfort and safety. Any brand that doesn't have this front and center of all their marketing is, frankly, doing it wrong.

No helmet will be infallible (without losing too much to visibility etc), and the worst thing is, there's a potentially significant amount of human error applied when using it...Anyone from the manufacturer want to step forward and point the finger at our international 'talent'?!

(Sorry, wasn't a dig at you PC, just your text was handy to quote :)  )

Nps dude, I'm just trying to show that all sides use pr, not just one. We as a forum just lean towards one side. I hope tom gets it all sorted and gets bk to making his helmet even better.

This world is pure capitalism now (with a good dash of price fixing), even in the work place you are told to be a team wih the left hand but compete with the right. Sadly, gone are the days of true team working (left mainly in the military and smaller more local companies).  Everyone now is focused on the money and how great they are compared to others, sad but true.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: felix on August 12, 2014, 08:53:09 AM
My sympathy lies with Ayrtek here (that's coming from a Masuri Elite wearer).  It seems like Broad's helmet/grille might not have performed as intended, but we'll never know definitively what the outcome would have been with another helmet, even a Masuri VS, given this specific impact and I think any more speculation over that is pointless.  In light of that I agree that the evident opportunistic spin doctoring by Masuri around this incident is quite disgusting, and goes well beyond anything I've seen Ayrtek do.  Aytek claimed their helmet was safer than its competitors, and had some evidence to prove it, there is nothing wrong with doing that, but they did not specifically undermine one of their competitors in such a cynical manner.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: iand123 on August 12, 2014, 10:39:24 AM
If you are assuming the PR firm are spinning, then I feel you may be misguided.

The PR team have simply laid out the facts as they are. Ayrtek didn't do that, they simply gave us a short passage.

Masuri are explaining their piece. Your criticism is frankly wrong and shows a lack of understanding in corporate communications.

Ha, this did make me laugh

Masuri are explaining their piece, on an incident that had nothing to do with them, sounds legit? I know (like i think everyone does) what they are up to but your lesson in corporate communication is one i will cherish greatly
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Buzz on August 12, 2014, 11:34:04 AM
I think it is most likey that Jon Hardy (Masuri) and Pringle are mates (they would have played against one another in the past) and one just called the other...

As for Ayrtek - given this is the first instance of this happening in 6 years - then they are entitled to take their time finding out what happened before making public statements - in fact finding out what happened thoroughly would be a very sensible approach. It will take some time for them to get the lid back and examine it.

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 12, 2014, 11:48:16 AM
And if Masuri are so confident of the performance of their lid, why don't they arrange an independent test, with Sky for example, where their lid, Albion and Shrey (we've already seen the Ayrtek) are all made to face a ball from the same trajectory at the same pace and see how it stands up? I'd love to see that happen!

I suspect the results would be illuminating!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: golden duck on August 12, 2014, 11:53:31 AM
For a bit of balance - anyone remember this?

(http://i1307.photobucket.com/albums/s585/oshodisa/kb_zps92e37587.jpg) (http://s1307.photobucket.com/user/oshodisa/media/kb_zps92e37587.jpg.html)

Keith Barker in the CB40 final a couple or two three years ago.

or see youtube

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMVR_MEeVOk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMVR_MEeVOk)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: fasteddie on August 12, 2014, 12:12:39 PM
Ha, this did make me laugh

Masuri are explaining their piece, on an incident that had nothing to do with them, sounds legit? I know (like i think everyone does) what they are up to but your lesson in corporate communication is one i will cherish greatly

It's standard fare. Why criticize Masuri for speaking out. They have a duty to their customers and investors to reassure and explain their product. People will, naturally, begin to question all helmets given this incident.
They are simply giving assurances that theirs are made to certain standards.

It's a legit and well written response. I can't see you beef and lack of understanding ???
Title: the stuart broad incident
Post by: joeljonno on August 12, 2014, 12:13:02 PM


(http://i1296.photobucket.com/albums/ag13/joeljonno/5B79DB75-5E8A-4AB0-9A94-C57E0A9638F9_zpseewoweeu.jpg) (http://s1296.photobucket.com/user/joeljonno/media/5B79DB75-5E8A-4AB0-9A94-C57E0A9638F9_zpseewoweeu.jpg.html)

Broad seems to have an extra bit of grille from the helmet to the first bar on the ear piece which in turn will make the face gap bigger (on the side, at least) would it not?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 12, 2014, 12:33:08 PM
Having had a chance to think about it, what's going to be interesting is determining the speed the ball was travelling at. The blog posted earlier said that the helmet had been tested at 67mph and withstood the impact, as per the video below.

http://youtu.be/j8sSRhAnUFA (http://youtu.be/j8sSRhAnUFA)

In a what if scenario, what if the ball was actually travelling faster (the hard swipe at the ball will have added velocity to it)? Should we expect that the helmet still 100% protect the wearer over and above the expected limit? Or should we be pleased and surprised that, at something over the expected limit, Stuart Broad walked away with a lightly broken nose and should be able to play on Friday, thanks to the helmet ultimately doing its job?

I guess we don't know, and won't until we hear more from Ayrtek.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Stuey on August 12, 2014, 12:33:50 PM
I personally didn't like Mauri's press release, it showed a lack of class IMHO. I wear a Masuri, but funnily enough now am considering moving on the back of the release. I may be alone, but for me there was no need for them to release it and could come back to bite them on the back side. 
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: ajmw89 on August 12, 2014, 12:46:49 PM
They're happy to bleat on about safety when one of their competitor's products (albeit the most basic model) fails, yet not a peep out of them in any of the incidents where their product has failed...
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: fasteddie on August 12, 2014, 12:50:28 PM
@Tim.

Is that ball softer than a cricket ball?

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: uknsaunders on August 12, 2014, 12:50:37 PM
I personally didn't like Mauri's press release, it showed a lack of class IMHO. I wear a Masuri, but funnily enough now am considering moving on the back of the release. I may be alone, but for me there was no need for them to release it and could come back to bite them on the back side.

Agree, all it takes is one pro in a new masuri to end up in hospital and this kind of press release will come back to haunt them. I suspect that's why other brands haven't commented.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: procricket on August 12, 2014, 12:58:49 PM
People should worry about what they do not what others....

Poor show i guess it says more about them than any other.

End of the day the helmet did it job to a degree it stopped serious injury no helmet will be 100 per cent safe unless it looks like a crash helmet.



Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: golden duck on August 12, 2014, 01:01:04 PM
just to follow up Joel's comment above.
(http://i1307.photobucket.com/albums/s585/oshodisa/WIN_20140812_133523_zpsc68b4152.jpg) (http://s1307.photobucket.com/user/oshodisa/media/WIN_20140812_133523_zpsc68b4152.jpg.html)

the side of Broads grill looks like it attaches lower onto the shell than mine (sorry for crap pic!). 
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Gingerbusiness on August 12, 2014, 01:09:28 PM
Masuri

Craig Kieswetter (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0XlFPcPyDo#ws)

Ayrtek

Stuart Broad (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eUugKyRSkw#)

No Helmet...

Ricky Ponting smashed in the face without a helmet (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeI6YuYcPJg#)

I know which I would choose, and it wouldn't be the last one!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: procricket on August 12, 2014, 01:11:34 PM
That man was one tough cookie
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Pitbull on August 12, 2014, 01:12:22 PM
After seeing Masuri's posts on twitter in the last 24 hours all it can be considered as is a cheap shot. Its a freak accident that could have happened to anyone at any time regardless of whether the helmet was adjusted properly, metal can still bend. All that can be said is Broad has come out of it better than Keiswetter did and in a way the helmet did its job by 'preventing' serious injury. Unfortunately the only way to compare the New Masuri to the Ayrtek will be someone being hit in the same way as Broad was and I'm sure no one would wish that upon anyone.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: lazza32 on August 12, 2014, 01:15:31 PM
So no helmet is the way to go. No blood , no damage

Sent from my HTC_PN071 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 12, 2014, 01:18:15 PM
@Tim.

Is that ball softer than a cricket ball?
It's a Bola. I've never checked. It hurts as much at 80 when it hits your hand.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: procricket on August 12, 2014, 01:23:05 PM
It's a Bola. I've never checked. It hurts as much at 80 when it hits your hand.
I find the compound nature of a machine ball hurts more than a cricket ball it certainly does in the ribs.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Neon Cricket on August 12, 2014, 01:43:28 PM
Starting to get comical now;

http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/englands-stuart-broad-could-face-4037534#.U-nQaONdVJl (http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/cricket/englands-stuart-broad-could-face-4037534#.U-nQaONdVJl)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: lewis_faulds on August 12, 2014, 01:47:21 PM
From mirror..

"His Ayrtek helmet failed to stop the ball from getting between the peak and the grill.

Now rival helmet maker Masuri have offered Broad one of their Vision Series lids, designed to prevent his type of injury and used by several stars."

Quite petty...
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 12, 2014, 01:49:53 PM
Golden Duck, I compared the images on the Ayrtek Website to see if there was a difference. The mounting points on the helmet do seem to be lower so there appears to be a subtle difference, probably due to the changes made when materials were changed. I'd be very surprised if that it is enough of a difference to make it unsafe though - I don't think Ayrtek and Adidas would ever contemplate that....

(http://i.imgur.com/VdZ8Lnp.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/hd5gSLz.jpg)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: golden duck on August 12, 2014, 02:11:59 PM
 interesting to see there is a small difference - think I just assumed that they would all be the same
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: jamielsn15 on August 12, 2014, 02:15:31 PM
I would've thought Masuri had a huge share of the market without having to worry about undermining Ayrtek/Aditek.  Real cheap shot, capitalising on Broad's misfortune when I didn't see Albion or Adidas trying to improve sales of their lids through the national press or social media when Kieswetter was grilled.  I guess Masuri view them as a real threat...

Leaves a bad taste - if that's  how they want to do business, fair enough; it hasn't endeared them to me.  I'll keep wearing my Ayrtek with absolute confidence
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Leddster138 on August 12, 2014, 02:26:06 PM
I would've thought Masuri had a huge share of the market without having to worry about undermining Ayrtek/Aditek.  Real cheap shot, capitalising on Broad's misfortune when I didn't see Albion or Adidas trying to improve sales of their lids through the national press or social media when Kieswetter was grilled.  I guess Masuri view them as a real threat...

Leaves a bad taste - if that's  how they want to do business, fair enough; it hasn't endeared them to me.  I'll keep wearing my Ayrtek with absolute confidence

I agree, it's a poor way to do business but the PR agency has done it's job here. This story is in the national press with a positive (not in all eyes) spin on Masuri. Masuri will get more sales due to this.

Out of interest, in their statement they said the 6 England guys "choose" to wear it. Does anyone know if that's true or not? Similar to Stretton Fox, do they just choose what they think is the best even if their sponsors want them to wear something else? Or is it a case of filling up the helmet with money and passing it on?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Tom on August 12, 2014, 02:36:13 PM
I didn't see Albion or Adidas trying to improve sales of their lids through the national press or social media when Kieswetter was grilled.
That's not true. Both Albion and Ayrtek tweeted links to their helmets/innovations, alongside explicit references to the Kieswetter injury and lines such as "Update your lid" in the days after Kieswetter's injury. Masuri have taken it a step further with a PR campaign, true - but I think some balance is needed.

I certainly don't blame Masuri for attempting to regain some lost ground/sales. But I hope they do bear in mind the reaction should another injury happen whilst wearing their updated helmets.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Tom on August 12, 2014, 02:39:43 PM
It also can't be easy being a protection/helmet manufacturer. You're only really ever going to get bad press, as people only highlight protection when/if it fails. And I suppose however safe something is, eventually it will fail to some degree. Like many have said, you can't create a 100% safe helmet.

I suppose this is why Masuri are jumping in trying to get some good coverage whilst they can.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Gingerbusiness on August 12, 2014, 02:41:25 PM
I agree, it's a poor way to do business but the PR agency has done it's job here. This story is in the national press with a positive (not in all eyes) spin on Masuri. Masuri will get more sales due to this.

Out of interest, in their statement they said the 6 England guys "choose" to wear it. Does anyone know if that's true or not? Similar to Stretton Fox, do they just choose what they think is the best even if their sponsors want them to wear something else? Or is it a case of filling up the helmet with money and passing it on?

Like bats, sponsors do not really care as long as their brand is plastered on it.

However, Masuri is a brand in itself. Adidas wanted the Ayrtek helmet as their 'brand' helmet, instead of innovating their own, hence the Adidas branding. As a brand, it stands to reason that Masuri will be paying international players to wear their lids, just like Gray Nic's will pay Capt Cook to use their equipment.

Put the shoe on the other foot, would Broad wear an Ayrtek if it was not now endorsed by Adidas? More than likely not, but it will be part of his sponsorship deal that he has to endorse it - failing that, a reduction in sponsorship money or loss of sponsorship.

Tom maybe able to clear this up, but does Broad have an Ayrtek Notts helmet? I am sure I have seen him in a Masuri.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on August 12, 2014, 02:42:43 PM
It also can't be easy being a protection/helmet manufacturer. You're only really ever going to get bad press, as people only highlight protection when/if it fails. And I suppose however safe something is, eventually it will fail to some degree. Like many have said, you can't create a 100% safe helmet.

I suppose this is why Masuri are jumping in trying to get some good coverage whilst they can.

I don't know, Ayrtek will probably get some decent pressed when Steyn/Johnson pins someone right on the scoop and it flies off for six leg byes!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Tom on August 12, 2014, 02:45:25 PM
Like bats, sponsors do not really care as long as their brand is plastered on it.

However, Masuri is a brand in itself. Adidas wanted the Ayrtek helmet as their 'brand' helmet, instead of innovating their own, hence the Adidas branding. As a brand, it stands to reason that Masuri will be paying international players to wear their lids, just like Gray Nic's will pay Capt Cook to use their equipment.
Masuri have never paid individual players as far as I'm aware.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: fasteddie on August 12, 2014, 02:50:17 PM
That's not true. Both Albion and Ayrtek tweeted links to their helmets/innovations, alongside explicit references to the Kieswetter injury and lines such as "Update your lid" in the days after Kieswetter's injury. Masuri have taken it a step further with a PR campaign, true - but I think some balance is needed.

I certainly don't blame Masuri for attempting to regain some lost ground/sales. But I hope they do bear in mind the reaction should another injury happen whilst wearing their updated helmets.

Well said.
It seems there could be an outbreak of balance occurring.
Masuri have done nothing wrong with their PR.

Some are missing the point that they are competitors and are striving to win market share. If I where at Masuri I'd have done exactly the same, probably will do more to communicate the benefits of the new features.

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Gingerbusiness on August 12, 2014, 02:52:39 PM
Masuri have never paid individual players as far as I'm aware.

I agree with you Tom, but I heard a rumour this changed recently with the introduction of the 'partnership' between Adidas and Ayrtek.

I will bow to others superior knowledge on this.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Tom on August 12, 2014, 02:55:32 PM
I'm only going on what Masuri have told me, and my brief experience 4+ years ago. It could well have changed, though the boastful claims do still sit in their marketing.

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: mp07 on August 12, 2014, 03:14:11 PM
Masuri does good amount of R&D, so you do have to give them credit for that

http://youtu.be/MAZYkKbQjGQ (http://youtu.be/MAZYkKbQjGQ)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: procricket on August 12, 2014, 03:42:41 PM
As Harry Hill said

"FIGHT"

Helmet wars oh dear

Where is super tech when you need him


Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Six Sixes Cricket on August 12, 2014, 04:42:56 PM
From watching the ayrtek videos, the testing seems to be at head on, 50/50 with the grill and peak. Due to the angle of Broads top edge, the trajectory of the ball went underneath the peak, with the grill bending back and the ball forcing itself through.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: @187no on August 12, 2014, 05:44:40 PM
“Accredited Test Houses are just coming online now to test helmets to the new standard. Masuri’s Vision Series was ready before the Test Houses – so we’re ahead of the curve! And you can see that most of the England team have already made up their minds.

http://bit.ly/1l0gvdc (http://bit.ly/1l0gvdc)

So are masuri by way of stating in their press release that they tested their helmets in a non accredited Test House and gained the new standard ?


Btw, on the ayrtek blog it is also stated that the ball used for testing weighs 5.2 oz and not 5.5 oz which as we know is the correct weight of a senior cricket ball.

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Tom on August 12, 2014, 06:32:09 PM
In other news though, looks like Ayrtek have signed a deal to supply/design liners for the military

Congrats guys

https://twitter.com/SFDGlobal/status/499203391193493505/photo/1
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: procricket on August 12, 2014, 06:53:33 PM
I may get a free one now!!!!!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: wayward_hayward on August 12, 2014, 08:31:37 PM
The masuri press releases smacks of desperation to put one up on their competitors. I tried one of the new steel masuri's on today for the first time and I was amazed at the weight of the thing. As a masuri user for years, it does make me question whether to purchase another in the future.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: ItsJustCricket on August 13, 2014, 08:40:22 AM
Masuri are more vocal than Albion, Shrey et al largely because their Vision Series was designed specifically with this kind of incident in mind.  They have clearly invested a lot of time and money on addressing this specific issue on a helmet rather than just making it look good and feel comfortable and light, so I can understand why they are now trying to recoup some of that investment.  Essentially the Broad incident justifies everything they have done with the Vision Series.  They came under a lot of criticism for the looks of these helmets, but this incident proves that looks are of lesser importance, so why not shout about it?!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Buzz on August 13, 2014, 08:45:57 AM
Masuri are more vocal than Albion, Shrey et al largely because their Vision Series was designed specifically with this kind of incident in mind.  They have clearly invested a lot of time and money on addressing this specific issue on a helmet rather than just making it look good and feel comfortable and light, so I can understand why they are now trying to recoup some of that investment.  Essentially the Broad incident justifies everything they have done with the Vision Series.  They came under a lot of criticism for the looks of these helmets, but this incident proves that looks are of lesser importance, so why not shout about it?!

All this is true - it will be interesting to see what happens when a similar incident happens with one of the new vision series helmets. with the way the ball was spinning and the speeds off the bat it will be a real challenge to the new design - and certainly one that hasn't been tested for - I say this because as far as I know (and I am happy to be corrected on this) the testing system doesn't put revolutions on the ball and isn't able to go above 70mph.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 13, 2014, 08:47:41 AM
Masuri are more vocal than Albion, Shrey et al largely because their Vision Series was designed specifically with this kind of incident in mind.  They have clearly invested a lot of time and money on addressing this specific issue on a helmet rather than just making it look good and feel comfortable and light, so I can understand why they are now trying to recoup some of that investment.  Essentially the Broad incident justifies everything they have done with the Vision Series.  They came under a lot of criticism for the looks of these helmets, but this incident proves that looks are of lesser importance, so why not shout about it?!
Except, the Masuri Vision series isn't quite designed to deal with this kind of incident either.

All the helmet manufacturers have designed mostly to deal with the impact of a ball directly face on to the wearer. This was unusual due to the angle the ball comes at the helmet and due to the spin on the ball caused by the top edge. They therefore have to be very careful about the noise they make as there is no guarantee that their helmet would have stood up to the incident.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: ajmw89 on August 13, 2014, 09:57:25 AM
For all we know, the crumpling peak may aid the ball in getting through...
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Stuey on August 13, 2014, 10:09:37 AM
For all we know, the crumpling peak may aid the ball in getting through...
Only way is a like for like test to replicate the incident, anyone got Broady's number?   :D
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: skip1973 on August 13, 2014, 10:11:16 AM
Lots of supposing going on.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 13, 2014, 10:27:26 AM
Lots of supposing going on.
Not much else you can do until someone replicates the incident across multiple helmets and proves one way or another how each helmet would cope.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Vic Nicholas on August 13, 2014, 10:34:08 AM
And therein lies the rub.  If the result of using the "world's safest helmet" was a broken nose,  what would the result have been with a "less safe helmet"?

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

A broken nose.

The ECCB propaganda campaign is in full swing around here.

The Ayrtek FAILED in its primary role.

You cannot sugar coat that.

If the ball hit him in the eye rather than the nose, Broad would be in serious strife right now.

If Mitchell Johnson bowled it, Broad would be in a coma.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Neon Cricket on August 13, 2014, 10:36:57 AM
A broken nose.

The ECCB propaganda campaign is in full swing around here.

The Ayrtek FAILED in its primary role.

You cannot sugar coat that.

If the ball hit him in the eye rather than the nose, Broad would be in serious strife right now.

If Mitchell Johnson bowled it, Broad would be in a coma.

Another well thought out and informative post from yourself, thank you
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 13, 2014, 10:44:03 AM
A broken nose.

The ECCB propaganda campaign is in full swing around here.

The Ayrtek FAILED in its primary role.

You cannot sugar coat that.

If the ball hit him in the eye rather than the nose, Broad would be in serious strife right now.

If Mitchell Johnson bowled it, Broad would be in a coma.
If I remember correctly, one of the primary roles of the helmet is to stop the ball penetrating the gap between the peak and the grille at up to 67mph. Please can you confirm how you know that it failed in this role? Do you know something about the speed of the ball hitting the helmet that we don't?

Thanks.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Buzz on August 13, 2014, 10:56:27 AM
If Mitchell Johnson bowled it, Broad would be in a coma.

No if Mitchell Johnson had bowled it, we have established that Broad would have missed it due to standing at square leg.
Failing that it he would have missed it and it would have deflected off his lid for 6 byes.

Keep up Vic!!!!!

Anyone who thinks that another helmet would have performed better in these circumstances is in dreamland (my view - feel free to shoot me for it. Oh and I use a Masuri - because they look better ;))
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Vic Nicholas on August 13, 2014, 11:03:42 AM
If I remember correctly, one of the primary roles of the helmet is to stop the ball penetrating the gap between the peak and the grille at up to 67mph. Please can you confirm how you know that it failed in this role? Do you know something about the speed of the ball hitting the helmet that we don't?

Thanks.

The ball was 86mph - out of the bowlers hand.

It loses speed after pitching...so reaches the batsman at around 72-76mph.

It was FINE edge...so could not have picked up any significant speed.

His bloody nose is splattered all across his face.

EPIC FAIL.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Vic Nicholas on August 13, 2014, 11:04:34 AM
Another well thought out and informative post from yourself, thank you

You're welcome.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 13, 2014, 11:09:04 AM
The ball was 86mph - out of the bowlers hand.

It loses speed after pitching...so reaches the batsman at around 72-76mph.

It was FINE edge...so could not have picked up any significant speed.

His bloody nose is splattered all across his face.

EPIC FAIL.
Interesting. 72-76mph. Outside the limit of the tests that you have so far espoused as being useless, pointless and very much British Imperialism led.... Some 10% (on average) greater than what is required of a helmet according to the ICC?

And his nose is flattened like he's been punched on it is it? I was sure that was what I saw in the pictures, right, splattered flat and bloody all across his face?

That's right, epic fail... He couldn't even walk off the pitch. They had to call on the stretcher! If he'd only been wearing a Shrey, hey?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: ajmw89 on August 13, 2014, 12:07:06 PM
Interesting. 72-76mph. Outside the limit of the tests that you have so far espoused as being useless, pointless and very much British Imperialism led.... Some 10% (on average) greater than what is required of a helmet according to the ICC?

And his nose is flattened like he's been punched on it is it? I was sure that was what I saw in the pictures, right, splattered flat and bloody all across his face?

That's right, epic fail... He couldn't even walk off the pitch. They had to call on the stretcher! If he'd only been wearing a Shrey, hey?

If he had been wearing a shrey/last years' masuri/albion/any other lid, I reckon he'd have been in serious strife...
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: cjicricket on August 13, 2014, 12:10:36 PM
One thing I have noticed about these Adidas helmets is that the nuts don't screw on as securely as on other helmets.  Another feature of the new Masuri VS range is the fact that the grilles are already fitted and can't be screwed/unscrewed, which saves a lot of time and hassle, but presumably helps on the safety front too.  If it was indeed one of these nuts that flew off on impact that is possibly the most likely cause of the ball fitting through imo.  A grille that isn't secured properly is vulnerable to this, no matter what the gap between the peak and grille is...

I agree with Its Just cricket, we had had issues fitting the grills to Adidas helmets! my son has this model helmet and he has lost a nut on the side!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Dan W on August 13, 2014, 12:20:15 PM
Silly question - and I haven't been able to see all the original debate on the safety tests - but the test does examine a delivery thoughout the front of the grill (i.e. through the sides)?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 13, 2014, 12:27:13 PM
I agree with Its Just cricket, we had had issues fitting the grills to Adidas helmets! my son has this model helmet and he has lost a nut on the side!
One of the things I noticed about the Ayrtek helmet in general is that you have to slightly flex the grille mount to get it on. After this, I've not had problems with loosening nuts. 
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: ProCricketer1982 on August 13, 2014, 12:36:33 PM
If he had been wearing a shrey/last years' masuri/albion/any other lid, I reckon he'd have been in serious strife...

That's only if you believe the claims about being safer then x or y.. It's all PR. You and I have no idea how each helmet would fair, I venture we shall never know so it's comes down to which pr you believe
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: plumb111 on August 13, 2014, 12:52:51 PM
I say we all just learn how to play the pull/hook shot properly and then we will be fine !

I use the old masuri and have no worries about getting hit in the eyes !!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 13, 2014, 12:54:37 PM
I say we all just learn how to play the pull/hook shot properly and then we will be fine !

I use the old masuri and have no worries about getting hit in the eyes !!
Face many 85+mph bowlers?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: joeljonno on August 13, 2014, 12:55:22 PM
The old lids could have come off a lot worse, depending on the set up.

The new ones, it would be interesting for Sky to do a bit on this one day.  Maybe some actual testing with a bowling machine and a dummy?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 13, 2014, 12:59:21 PM
The old lids could have come off a lot worse, depending on the set up.

The new ones, it would be interesting for Sky to do a bit on this one day.  Maybe some actual testing with a bowling machine and a dummy?
I'd prefer an Air Cannon pointed directly at the helmet, similar to the BSI test. It's easier to repeat consistently.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Stuey on August 13, 2014, 01:02:33 PM
I say we all just learn how to play the pull/hook shot properly and then we will be fine !

I use the old masuri and have no worries about getting hit in the eyes !!
:o that's done it now !
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: joeljonno on August 13, 2014, 01:06:12 PM

I'd prefer an Air Cannon pointed directly at the helmet, similar to the BSI test. It's easier to repeat consistently.

Could just use a Bola from about 5 yards. Could get all sorts of spin on the balls then!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: plumb111 on August 13, 2014, 01:29:36 PM
Face many 85+mph bowlers?

one or two a season... and I duck them  :(
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: fasteddie on August 13, 2014, 01:49:44 PM
Face many 85+mph bowlers?

I'd say "Yes, all the time".....then I wake up in a pool of sweat, surrounded by empty bottles of strong lager and kebab wrappers.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: MD2812 on August 13, 2014, 03:38:40 PM

Tom maybe able to clear this up, but does Broad have an Ayrtek Notts helmet? I am sure I have seen him in a Masuri.

Wore an Aditek in the CB40 final at Lords last year.

Got out yorkered 1st ball though.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: MD2812 on August 13, 2014, 03:41:31 PM
Whilst I'm sure it's just a Masuri PR campaign to get sales, could easily be interpreted that they worry more about Ayrtek  now they're Aditek.

Ayrtek model meets the new standards and is lightweight, from what I know about the Masuri it meets the new standards but is heavy for the protection.

My 2nd thought is:

I think the ball hits the peak of the helmet before the grill. It isn't the grill giving way which is what is in the tests. In a new Masuri the peak would've lifted up and then where would the ball have gone? We can't be sure until it happens.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Giraffe208 on August 13, 2014, 05:11:25 PM
Napier doing his best to test the GM helmet quality out for our discussion.......
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on August 14, 2014, 10:35:43 AM
Interesting piece for, Jason mallet

https://store-3954e.mybigcommerce.com/blog/cricket-helmets-under-siege/?ct=t(August_12th_20148_12_2014)&mc_cid=e6b51fef3c&mc_eid=8eb035c583


Shame he doesn't put these things on here anyway, with him being a sponsor and all!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: cheese on August 14, 2014, 11:13:36 AM
I have only ever been 'grilled' once, it was off a medium pace bowler and i was keeping and standing up to the stumps...
as a very inexperienced keeper who is usually a quicky, i took my eyes of a ball that was edged off a cow corner slog and it hit me flush on the grill.
From what i experienced the ball defo accelerated off the bat and came at me alot quicker than i expected...
I have the grille on the setting that shouldn't allow the ball through and it didn't come through, i use the Masuri that Kieswetter was wearing and it hasnt really put me off. However the fact a helmet that apparently is up to the new standards has failed has made me want to upgrade to the new Masuri...   
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Buzz on August 14, 2014, 11:21:50 AM
It looks as if Broad will be fine to play at the oval tomorrow

https://twitter.com/guardian_sport/status/499877795414433792/photo/1

Whether people agree or disagree - my belief is that the lid did its job. It might not have been perfect - and if he was wearing the top of the range Ayrtek (we should compare like with like after all...) then he may not even have got a broken nose.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on August 14, 2014, 11:23:11 AM
I have only ever been 'grilled' once, it was off a medium pace bowler and i was keeping and standing up to the stumps...
as a very inexperienced keeper who is usually a quicky, i took my eyes of a ball that was edged off a cow corner slog and it hit me flush on the grill.
From what i experienced the ball defo accelerated off the bat and came at me alot quicker than i expected...
I have the grille on the setting that shouldn't allow the ball through and it didn't come through, i use the Masuri that Kieswetter was wearing and it hasnt really put me off. However the fact a helmet that apparently is up to the new standards has failed has made me want to upgrade to the new Masuri...
What colour is your current masuri??
Could sell it it fund a new one  ;)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: fasteddie on August 14, 2014, 11:24:07 AM
The beard make him look like an old fashioned Moonshiner! All he needs is a dirty pair of denim dungarees and a straw hat!

Yeehaaaa!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: thebigginge on August 14, 2014, 11:44:10 AM
I am impressed that this thread got this far.

Broads helmet grille was still adjustable so he will do what nearly all pro players do which is leave the gap between peak and grille as wide as possible. This is the weakest setting for any brand of helmet and a ball can and will squeeze through it. I believe this is why manufacturers are now being asked to make helmets with grilles that are set in position so that this cannot happen. The fact that broad didnt end up with any worse an injury should be a credit for the helmet and grille in doing its job.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on August 14, 2014, 11:45:56 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2724722/Stuart-Broad-showcases-battle-scars-broken-nose-baring-Adam-Ant-bandages.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/cricket/article-2724722/Stuart-Broad-showcases-battle-scars-broken-nose-baring-Adam-Ant-bandages.html)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Liam-SCCC on August 14, 2014, 11:50:26 AM
Broad has netted in a Masuri this morning, a simple case of not being able to get a new one up to him in time Tom?

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Liam-SCCC on August 14, 2014, 11:52:19 AM
I have only ever been 'grilled' once, it was off a medium pace bowler and i was keeping and standing up to the stumps...
as a very inexperienced keeper who is usually a quicky, i took my eyes of a ball that was edged off a cow corner slog and it hit me flush on the grill.
From what i experienced the ball defo accelerated off the bat and came at me alot quicker than i expected...
I have the grille on the setting that shouldn't allow the ball through and it didn't come through, i use the Masuri that Kieswetter was wearing and it hasnt really put me off. However the fact a helmet that apparently is up to the new standards has failed has made me want to upgrade to the new Masuri...

Please Ollie, you're just looking for an excuse to flash that new debit card of yours. I got grilled off a top edge pull in the old Masuri (before the sweeping grill) and I was fine. At our level you will be fine. Think off the 2 people you have hit in the helmet this year, wearing a GN and a Woodworm, they were fine.

Plus that new Masuri is packing some serious weight!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Johnny on August 14, 2014, 11:56:00 AM
Grilled Cheese!!

👍
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on August 14, 2014, 11:57:43 AM
Please Ollie, you're just looking for an excuse to flash that new debit card of yours. I got grilled off a top edge pull in the old Masuri (before the sweeping grill) and I was fine. At our level you will be fine. Think off the 2 people you have hit in the helmet this year, wearing a GN and a Woodworm, they were fine.

Plus that new Masuri is packing some serious weight!
If he's got a green masuri at the moment please don't discourage him from selling it (hopefully to me!) to help fund a new style one  ;)

And debit card, isn't that a bit sensible? Aren't credit cards designed to buy kit you don't need!  :D
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Liam-SCCC on August 14, 2014, 11:59:09 AM

If he's got a green masuri at the moment please don't discourage him from selling it (hopefully to me!) to help fund a new style one  ;)

And debit card, isn't that a bit sensible? Aren't credit cards designed to buy kit you don't need!  :D

His is blue, I'm the one with the green one wanting a blue!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on August 14, 2014, 12:00:58 PM
Dissapointed to see him in a masuri.

I don't want an incident to happen in which the result is "I told you so"
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on August 14, 2014, 12:01:38 PM
His is blue, I'm the one with the green one wanting a blue!
Well then! Get him to buy a new one, you use the blue one and sell the green one to me, everyone wins!  ;)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Neon Cricket on August 14, 2014, 12:09:16 PM
If he's netting in a Masuri I presume he'll be playing in it - if he does then that'll be a massive blow for Ayrtek
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on August 14, 2014, 12:15:51 PM
If he's netting in a Masuri I presume he'll be playing in it - if he does then that'll be a massive blow for Ayrtek

The article says that the Ayrtek lid was too damaged to use again. I assume he is just borrowing one as he is sponsored by Adidas so I would imagine he has to use their products.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Neon Cricket on August 14, 2014, 12:54:12 PM
I'd hope so, surely he'd have a spare lid though??
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: cheese on August 14, 2014, 01:05:52 PM
Well then! Get him to buy a new one, you use the blue one and sell the green one to me, everyone wins!  ;)

Its funny as Liam and i have discussed me selling him my blue one and me getting the style helmet  :D
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: cheese on August 14, 2014, 01:10:11 PM
On Sky's coverage of the 50 over game today, they showed Broad netting and Cork highlighted the fact that he had changed from an Aditek to the new style Masuri...
He has obviously suffered a lack of confidence in the Aditek...
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on August 14, 2014, 01:10:55 PM
Its funny as Liam and i have discussed me selling him my blue one and me getting the style helmet  :D
Almost work out perfectly then!! Haha
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Buzz on August 14, 2014, 01:12:37 PM
On Sky's coverage of the 50 over game today, they showed Broad netting and Cork highlighted the fact that he had changed from an Aditek to the new style Masuri...
He has obviously suffered a lack of confidence in the Aditek...

Or his new carbon fibre one custom made with the lining he prefers hasn't arrived yet...

It will be interesting to see which he chooses - in reality the weight difference between the two is staggering - as is the "visibility". I suspect there will be a certain amount of peer pressure around in the dressing room too.

Regardless it is great that he will be able to play.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: cheese on August 14, 2014, 01:18:00 PM
Or his new carbon fibre one custom made with the lining he prefers hasn't arrived yet...

It will be interesting to see which he chooses - in reality the weight difference between the two is staggering - as is the "visibility". I suspect there will be a certain amount of peer pressure around in the dressing room too.

Regardless it is great that he will be able to play.

A fair point about the arrival of a new Aditek...
It could be said that the Aditek did partially do its job as Broad only suffered a broken nose where as Kieswetter had to have major surgery on his face and eye socket... Although the ball shouldn't have gone through the grille, it obviously cushioned and lessened the blow...
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: bruggers100 on August 14, 2014, 02:08:53 PM
I am suprised that no one has asked Stuart Broad.......'Tell me Stuart, where exactly did it hit you?' yet !
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: fasteddie on August 14, 2014, 02:12:40 PM
I'm still waiting for the 'Line-up' shot of Gatting - Broad - Giant Panda.

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on August 14, 2014, 02:13:06 PM
I am suprised that no one has asked Stuart Broad.......'Tell me Stuart, where exactly did it hit you?' yet !
From the pictures and the broken nose I think that's fairly obvious!  :-[
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Johnny on August 14, 2014, 02:19:00 PM
From the pictures and the broken nose I think that's fairly obvious!  :-[

Think he's making reference to Mike Gatting, who having worn one from a Windies quick in the 80's was asked that very question during a TV interview.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: bruggers100 on August 14, 2014, 02:23:58 PM
Think he's making reference to Mike Gatting, who having worn one from a Windies quick in the 80's was asked that very question during a TV interview.

That's right, during a press conference, one of the funniest things I've seen.  Mike's reaction is great.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on August 14, 2014, 02:52:08 PM
Think he's making reference to Mike Gatting, who having worn one from a Windies quick in the 80's was asked that very question during a TV interview.
I'm too young to know such things, is said interview on YouTube by any chance??
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: RossViper on August 14, 2014, 08:58:49 PM
I'm too young to know such things, is said interview on YouTube by any chance??

Good lord man, have you ever played the game! :-)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on August 14, 2014, 09:52:32 PM
Good lord man, have you ever played the game! :-)
Compared to the time some people on here will have been playing, I'd say probably not in comparison!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: @187no on August 15, 2014, 03:10:29 AM
http://bit.ly/1uVmGj1 (http://bit.ly/1uVmGj1)

tomtek must not be too concerned that broad is using another brand of cricket helmet if he is off playing cricket with the CBF boys :)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: FvanN on August 15, 2014, 04:42:43 AM
[url]http://bit.ly/1uVmGj1[/url] ([url]http://bit.ly/1uVmGj1[/url])

tomtek must not be too concerned that broad is using another brand of cricket helmet if he is off playing cricket with the CBF boys :)


What would you have him doing instead?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: FattusCattus on August 15, 2014, 07:46:24 AM
He should obviously be hanging around on here waiting to respond to pointlessly provocative posts and conjecture.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Neon Cricket on August 15, 2014, 07:52:48 AM
[url]http://bit.ly/1uVmGj1[/url] ([url]http://bit.ly/1uVmGj1[/url])

tomtek must not be too concerned that broad is using another brand of cricket helmet if he is off playing cricket with the CBF boys :)


Out of interest, which company do you represent? You've been giving off the tell tale signs for a while now and its starting to really bore me
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: joeljonno on August 15, 2014, 07:56:57 AM

[url]http://bit.ly/1uVmGj1[/url] ([url]http://bit.ly/1uVmGj1[/url])

tomtek must not be too concerned that broad is using another brand of cricket helmet if he is off playing cricket with the CBF boys :)


Is it his job to do everything at AdiTek?

Perhaps he, or their representative, have already spoken to Broad?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: FattusCattus on August 15, 2014, 08:00:35 AM
It's either a company or more likely a previous forum troll returning under a new and none to subtle identity.

It could be Thailand, Worcestershire or Wincanton - we'll never know as they are fiendishly clever these people!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: skip1973 on August 15, 2014, 10:27:32 AM
I wonder if it's that pretender that continually copies other companies designs and ideas?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Neon Cricket on August 15, 2014, 10:39:52 AM
Or the great pretender who loves to use a subtle 'X' or 2 in every item he 'sells'...
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Stuey on August 15, 2014, 11:00:05 AM
According to TMS broad will be wearing a masuri in this test.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Neon Cricket on August 15, 2014, 11:07:52 AM
According to TMS broad will be wearing a masuri in this test.

Uh oh... not good news
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: jwebber86 on August 15, 2014, 11:17:01 AM
thats a shame hopefully its only for this one match
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: plumb111 on August 15, 2014, 11:20:16 AM
Is that Broady blaming the ayrtek for what happened then ?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: mp07 on August 15, 2014, 01:49:53 PM
Isn't it possible that ball got out of shape after couple of six and then got through the grill?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on August 15, 2014, 02:17:56 PM
http://www.ayrtek.com/stuart-broad-injury-press-release/ (http://www.ayrtek.com/stuart-broad-injury-press-release/)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: brokenbat on August 15, 2014, 06:05:16 PM
[url]http://www.ayrtek.com/stuart-broad-injury-press-release/[/url] ([url]http://www.ayrtek.com/stuart-broad-injury-press-release/[/url])


hmm.. have to say this is not what I wanted to hear. it means the design does have deficiencies. what about all of us who just spent a lot of cash? we have to cough it all up again to get the safer model?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Buzz on August 15, 2014, 06:22:16 PM
not necessarily...broad could have had the grille wrong and how often will you have an 80+ mph bouncer on a bouncy track?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Giraffe208 on August 15, 2014, 06:31:49 PM
What if broad is required to bat and scores a hundred? Likes the design, feel, 'vision' of the masuri and now doesn't want to go back?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: golden duck on August 15, 2014, 07:48:53 PM
Where was all this hysteria when kieswetter got put out for the season? Where were the snide sounding comments from the likes of Vaughan  (a la tms this morning) when it happened.

I don't remember much comment from the media when roots gm speared his cheek (correct me if I'm wrong)

I'm not saying there isn't a problem with ayrtek (if there wasn't then broad would still be pretty) - but it seems very one sided. Is it cause their the 'new boy' and cause it looks so different?

Will I still wear mine. Yep. Will I try on others when it comes to needing a new helmet, you bet, will this one incident put me off potentially choosing ayrtek again, nope.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: MD2812 on August 15, 2014, 08:10:45 PM
Interesting how they talked about the double grille being what saves the ball going through, but didn't discuss why Robson was wearing the single bar grill....
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Stuey on August 15, 2014, 08:38:21 PM
I don't think anyone else is talking about broads lid as much as we are. I think what this incident and other shows is that a lot more R&D is required from helmet suppliers. Although I'd still rather wear one than not. Hopefully Ayrtek will come back better and stronger.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Buzz on August 15, 2014, 08:55:48 PM
it is the Masuri pr campaign that I really don't like.

not really sure why, but I think it is because of their unproven claims and because their lids are so heavy and it is hard to see through the gap.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: The Palmist on August 16, 2014, 04:12:46 AM
but I think it is because of their unproven claims and because their lids are so heavy and it is hard to see through the gap.
All you see from the grill is the grill. I have no doubt they offer quality protection but because of reduced vision the chances of one getting hit is actually increased.

What does surprise me is the large number of international pros using this series.

It is heavy indeed but the quality and comfort is top notch. None of which matters if you can't see the ball properly.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Chad on August 17, 2014, 12:35:50 AM
As an Ayrtek user myself, and having invested heavily on what I thought is the best head protection on the market, (got 2 RAWs and an Elite) this incident obviously has some sort of effect on me. I have actually just tried and succeeded in forcing an adult Readers ball through the grill and peak of the lid of my Elite in the current setting. (Took a little bit of muscle, but I managed it) I don't consider myself to be stupid, (At least not all the time) but I did feel safe with my setting on my helmet. If a simple setting by a human can compromise the function of the helmet, then that setting should be removed. I have now changed the setting to the one which allows for the smallest gap, and the ball no longer fits through no matter how much I try.

Has this shaken my confidence in the product? Well, it's made me question whether I've allowed all the marketing get to my head, and bought what I thought was the safest helmet for 2 of the people I care the most about, as I do not mind spending that extra premium to keep them protected. I do not doubt for a second that Ayrtek was the safest choice back when I purchased these, however there is a sense of frustration, seeing the product that I trusted to protect me 100% allowing a ball to sneak through, and then finding out that it could well have happened to me too! I know I'm probably not going to face bowling above 80mph, but I'd like to think that if it did happen, I would be protected from the ball sneaking through the grill!

I am only giving a balanced view, and as someone who now has complete confidence in his Ayrtek after a slight change, I think that there needs to be a slight tweak to the design, be it not allowing the grill to be set beyond a certain point or perhaps not altered at all. In the end, the product did its job, in that a broken nose was all that happened. It will be interesting to see how the new Masuri will cope if a similar thing happens. With a lot of the England players now wearing it, I have gotten used to the look of it. In a way though, I really hope that they get knocked off their high horse, as they have just been like vultures in this incident. Pointless wishing harm on someone who's wearing their product though, they did nothing wrong!

It's going to hurt Ayrtek for the time being, but in the long run, I'm positive that it will only help to improve their product even more!


(http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/af230/ch4d0m4n/20140817_004223.jpg) (http://s1010.photobucket.com/user/ch4d0m4n/media/20140817_004223.jpg.html)

(http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/af230/ch4d0m4n/20140817_004214.jpg) (http://s1010.photobucket.com/user/ch4d0m4n/media/20140817_004214.jpg.html)

(http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/af230/ch4d0m4n/20140817_004058.jpg) (http://s1010.photobucket.com/user/ch4d0m4n/media/20140817_004058.jpg.html)

(http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/af230/ch4d0m4n/20140817_004041.jpg) (http://s1010.photobucket.com/user/ch4d0m4n/media/20140817_004041.jpg.html)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 17, 2014, 06:55:08 AM
Chad,  there is another setting where the ball can get through.  On the bottom row of holes,  second hole from the back.  Nick's helmet at the cbf day was set like this and we noticed that the gap was big enough for a ball to get through.

(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/08/17/2emy6e9y.jpg)

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: cheese on August 17, 2014, 10:15:47 AM
He has just walked out in the double bar Masuri...
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Gingerbusiness on August 17, 2014, 10:19:48 AM
Shame I think.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: The Palmist on August 17, 2014, 11:16:03 AM
Chad and Tim did you notice any issues with visibility with the new grill setting.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 17, 2014, 12:10:36 PM
I've always used the helmet with a narrower grille setting,  so I wasn't affected.  I can't speak for Chad's experience,  but on nick's helmet it narrowed the gap,  which some would say made visibility worse,  if you listened to Atherton this morning.

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: uknsaunders on August 17, 2014, 12:58:27 PM
I didn't notice any difference in viability, I still missed or miss-timed all the balls I received
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: golden duck on August 17, 2014, 03:05:07 PM
I've always used the helmet with a narrower grille setting,  so I wasn't affected.  I can't speak for Chad's experience,  but on nick's helmet it narrowed the gap,  which some would say made visibility worse,  if you listened to Atherton this morning.

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

I'm not surprised Atherton struggled, he had the helmet rocked back so far on his head!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: MD2812 on August 18, 2014, 12:15:43 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/28788173 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/28788173)

Really good piece on the short ball.

Interesting to hear how Stuart Broads technique means if he misses or top edges it will hit his helmet rather than miss him.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Chad on August 18, 2014, 08:13:05 PM
Chad,  there is another setting where the ball can get through.  On the bottom row of holes,  second hole from the back.  Nick's helmet at the cbf day was set like this and we noticed that the gap was big enough for a ball to get through.

([url]http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/08/17/2emy6e9y.jpg[/url])

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk


Yeah, I'm sure there are more settings, especially the holes in the bottom row. I now have it in the very top hole, which gives the narrowest setting. The setting I had it at, I could muscle a ball through, and I highly doubt that the force I was pushing at would be anywhere near the force of a top edged 70mph delivery indoors, so I would rather sacrifice the visibility for the safety, which is what I purchased this helmet for!

In my view, as long as your eyes and head are following the ball closely, the slightly hampered visibility shouldn't make a big difference, if any!

Chad and Tim did you notice any issues with visibility with the new grill setting.


Visibility is somewhat sacrificed, but as with almost anything you change equipment wise, you will almost always be able to adapt. (Unless it's too radical a change!)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Neon Cricket on August 18, 2014, 10:20:55 PM
We're famous!

https://www.facebook.com/lekkaww/posts/10204621464205410 (https://www.facebook.com/lekkaww/posts/10204621464205410)

Personally after being hit on the grill twice with my Ayrtek I wouldn't look elsewhere - yes this incident is unfortunate but hopefully Tom will be able to bounce back from this and get Broad back in an Ayrtek for the next series, I've tried on the double bar Masuri and seriously can't understand why someone would choose it over an Ayrtek - the vision and weight is awful compared!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Montys Beard on August 19, 2014, 12:04:46 AM
We're famous!

https://www.facebook.com/lekkaww/posts/10204621464205410 (https://www.facebook.com/lekkaww/posts/10204621464205410)

Personally after being hit on the grill twice with my Ayrtek I wouldn't look elsewhere - yes this incident is unfortunate but hopefully Tom will be able to bounce back from this and get Broad back in an Ayrtek for the next series, I've tried on the double bar Masuri and seriously can't understand why someone would choose it over an Ayrtek - the vision and weight is awful compared!

Yep, he's mentioned the forum three times in as many days, including a wonderfully cryptic message to us all....

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: plumb111 on August 19, 2014, 08:26:09 AM
whats his issue ? Surely he would be better off trying to make friends with people on here instead of mouthing off about cbf members ?

clearly gutted everyones not snapping up his equipment
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: The Palmist on August 19, 2014, 08:27:36 AM
including a wonderfully cryptic message to us all....

errm talk about yourself mate, he clearly says "Most" and not "All"

JK  :D :D :D
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Cowcorner on August 19, 2014, 09:48:11 PM
Chad,  there is another setting where the ball can get through.  On the bottom row of holes,  second hole from the back.  Nick's helmet at the cbf day was set like this and we noticed that the gap was big enough for a ball to get through.

([url]http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/08/17/2emy6e9y.jpg[/url])

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk


Surely all three of the bottom holes will let the ball through - if not then the one to the right definitely will, if the centre one does. I hope that's made sense?
I might have to try all the settings on my Ayrtek to see if that's correct, unless somebody else already has?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on August 19, 2014, 10:06:58 PM

Surely all three of the bottom holes will let the ball through - if not then the one to the right definitely will, if the centre one does. I hope that's made sense?
I might have to try all the settings on my Ayrtek to see if that's correct, unless somebody else already has?
It's not quite that straightforward. I use the rearmost hole on the bottom in that picture and there is no way the ball is getting through. The shape of the front mount is such that you get a variation on gap size as it isn't a flat line.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: uknsaunders on August 20, 2014, 07:49:57 AM
good time to get an ayrtek:-

http://www.prodirectcricket.com/Products/adidas-adipower-premiertek-Senior-Steel-Helmet-Navy-Pro-Direct-Cricket-73822.aspx (http://www.prodirectcricket.com/Products/adidas-adipower-premiertek-Senior-Steel-Helmet-Navy-Pro-Direct-Cricket-73822.aspx)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on August 20, 2014, 08:17:45 AM
good time to get an ayrtek:-

[url]http://www.prodirectcricket.com/Products/adidas-adipower-premiertek-Senior-Steel-Helmet-Navy-Pro-Direct-Cricket-73822.aspx[/url] ([url]http://www.prodirectcricket.com/Products/adidas-adipower-premiertek-Senior-Steel-Helmet-Navy-Pro-Direct-Cricket-73822.aspx[/url])


Only a tenner off, hardly bargain of the century!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Optical on August 20, 2014, 09:05:01 AM
It was 'deal of the day' yesterday @ £45. Gone back up now.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on August 20, 2014, 09:06:24 AM
Oh, fair enough!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: petehosk on August 20, 2014, 09:08:52 AM
That confused me as well! £10 off!  :(
But £45 would be a bargain!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: uknsaunders on August 20, 2014, 09:19:00 AM
Well we learn something new everyday. Deal of the Day lasts until the following morning when somebody gets into the office and changes it  :D - and probably starts at the same time!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on September 07, 2014, 08:06:31 PM
Did I miss the press release about this? Has anything been said?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: mattcoll12491 on September 07, 2014, 10:36:53 PM
Did I miss the press release about this? Has anything been said?


http://www.ayrtek.com/stuart-broad-injury-press-release/ (http://www.ayrtek.com/stuart-broad-injury-press-release/)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on September 08, 2014, 08:10:36 AM
[url]http://www.ayrtek.com/stuart-broad-injury-press-release/[/url] ([url]http://www.ayrtek.com/stuart-broad-injury-press-release/[/url])


That's not an explanation for what happened though. I want to know the results of the finding. Was it just an already damaged helmet or did the top edge expose a flaw which was previously untested?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 08, 2014, 08:27:27 AM
That's not an explanation for what happened though. I want to know the results of the finding. Was it just an already damaged helmet or did the top edge expose a flaw which was previously untested?

Disclaimer: This is not an Ayrtek explanation, and is purely anecdotal

If you look at one of the other pages in this topic, we discovered that on certain settings of the grille, the gap is such that the ball can fit through between the peak and the grille relatively easily (i.e. you can push it through by hand). Looking at the settings that Broad was using (in the pictures of the event), it looks like this is what happened. This also is the widest gap in terms of vision, that the Ayrtek settings allow. You can see the result in the first picture below, and also an indication of another setting where we found the gap large enough for the ball to pass through in the second picture.

(http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/af230/ch4d0m4n/20140817_004223.jpg)

and

(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/08/17/2emy6e9y.jpg)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on September 08, 2014, 08:35:45 AM
Disclaimer: This is not an Ayrtek explanation, and is purely anecdotal

If you look at one of the other pages in this topic, we discovered that on certain settings of the grille, the gap is such that the ball can fit through between the peak and the grille relatively easily (i.e. you can push it through by hand). Looking at the settings that Broad was using (in the pictures of the event), it looks like this is what happened. This also is the widest gap in terms of vision, that the Ayrtek settings allow. You can see the result in the first picture below, and also an indication of another setting where we found the gap large enough for the ball to pass through in the second picture.

([url]http://i1010.photobucket.com/albums/af230/ch4d0m4n/20140817_004223.jpg[/url])

and

([url]http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/08/17/2emy6e9y.jpg[/url])


So is this what had happened with Broad? Ayrtek/Aditek still have my potential custom next time I'm in the market for a new lid but they won't if this gets swept under the carpet and forgotten about.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on September 08, 2014, 10:18:03 AM
Nothing is being swept under the carpet or forgotten about, an incident analysis has been carried out so we can learn as a result of it and now we have the helmet back in our possession we are better positioned to do this. 
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 08, 2014, 10:35:04 AM
So is this what had happened with Broad? Ayrtek/Aditek still have my potential custom next time I'm in the market for a new lid but they won't if this gets swept under the carpet and forgotten about.
There has been no announcement, but the pictures of Broad clearly show him wearing the helmet with the grille on the setting shown in Chad's picture, and we know the ball goes through that gap.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on September 08, 2014, 10:37:24 AM
Nothing is being swept under the carpet or forgotten about, an incident analysis has been carried out so we can learn as a result of it and now we have the helmet back in our possession we are better positioned to do this.


As an ayrtek user, bought due to the hype and sales talk. I am a little Dissapointed it's taking so long to recieve an explanation.
 
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on September 08, 2014, 10:53:43 AM
Appreciate that it would be good to be able to give an immediate response but without having the helmet back with us to view and obtaining all the relevant info available any release prior to this would be speculation.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on September 08, 2014, 11:04:32 AM
Appreciate that it would be good to be able to give an immediate response but without having the helmet back with us to view and obtaining all the relevant info available any release prior to this would be speculation.


I could be totally wrong on this, as I don't run my own business, I'm merely a pawn in someone else. But had it been my product and lively hood that had failed with massive issues, I would be doing as much as possible to get the correct info out there while fresh in people's minds.

Now the incident was in England, next day courier, or drive to where said helmet is and collect. Boom you've got it in a day.
How long does it take for a helmet to be retrieved? Or is there outside influences at work I'm not sure of(icc hse etc keeping hold due to here investigation?)


I'd then put my next few days/weeks into investigation to find out what's what. And then release said info while the incident is fresh in people's minds.


I can't help but think it's already been to long. People will have forgot and move on already. And when they come to buy a Helmet, will half remember broad got hit, not the press release explaining why, 8 weeks later.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: uknsaunders on September 08, 2014, 12:01:14 PM
It's been roughly 4 weeks. Given Stuart was laid up in hospital, I don't think that was the right time. Then he had a test match which he would focus on, so that's not great timing. Thats 1-2 weeks ruled out. Then I imagine the Adidas rep has to see him inbetween engagements and charity events. I don't think posting a lid back to Tom was top of Stuart's priorities. Tom has the lid now but we don't know how long he's had it, so it might of been back at Ayrtek HQ for a few days now undergoing testing.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on September 21, 2014, 01:11:37 PM
I saw Stuart Broad and Rohit Sharma recently at the 2015 photoshoot and spoke to Stuart about the incident. The helmet shows significant damage on the underpeak section and actually has hairline fractures at the front grille position on the shell such was the severity of the impact in forcing the peak upwards. This shows the sheer force that occurred at the moment of impact and the fact the shell of the helmet acted to absorb a vast majority of the balls force.

(http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq167/tom_ayrtek/Helmets/5D83FA35-1D6C-4706-BBB1-62D47A1362B7.jpg) (http://s444.photobucket.com/user/tom_ayrtek/media/Helmets/5D83FA35-1D6C-4706-BBB1-62D47A1362B7.jpg.html)(http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq167/tom_ayrtek/Helmets/040ACC34-5735-4710-989D-5706940DA0A6.jpg) (http://s444.photobucket.com/user/tom_ayrtek/media/Helmets/040ACC34-5735-4710-989D-5706940DA0A6.jpg.html)(http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq167/tom_ayrtek/Helmets/50FD4EF6-A2EB-4913-BE10-81E018577932.jpg) (http://s444.photobucket.com/user/tom_ayrtek/media/Helmets/50FD4EF6-A2EB-4913-BE10-81E018577932.jpg.html)

It was a freak incident that Stuart accepts and if the top edge hadn't occurred it would have hit the grille. From our analysis the ball speed was between 80-85mph from a distance of 0.4-0.5m, which is above and beyond anything that would be tested for in a lab for the New BSI test (For reference the max speed for the New BSI is at 62.6mph or 28m/s that the helmets need to keep out).

Our preliminary research that was carried out showed the PremierTek helmets ability to perform at 75mph when tested against an adult size ball when hit at a 30 degree angle. External factors beyond our control such as the age/shape and hardness of the ball can effect the results of the testing and these obviously chance from ball to ball in match scenario.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYLua0ocbe8&list=UU8a8f72gB7ZgkEfmt7WvyAA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYLua0ocbe8&list=UU8a8f72gB7ZgkEfmt7WvyAA)

We are confident that the shell is sound in both design and function as it did its job in reducing the force of the initial impact and reducing the severity of injury sustained by the player. Going forward at Elite/international level where ball speeds at in excess of 85mph we are looking to have players using the carbon fibre shells.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Gingerbusiness on September 21, 2014, 01:20:29 PM
This is very interesting.

Tom, are you surprised that pro's do not use carbon fibre helmets? Especially considering the durability of carbon fibre over plastics?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Jaffa on September 21, 2014, 01:23:27 PM
I do wonder if because the peak extends past the grill it (while adsorbing the impact) also deflected it back towards the gap.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Giraffe208 on September 21, 2014, 01:27:54 PM
Is Stuart Broad going to be batting with a new Aditek helmet or is he sticking with the Masuri?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on September 21, 2014, 01:32:49 PM
This is very interesting.

Tom, are you surprised that pro's do not use carbon fibre helmets? Especially considering the durability of carbon fibre over plastics?

We have introduced the AdiZero helmet so that Pros have both options in regards to the liner type combined with the Carbon shell.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on September 21, 2014, 01:34:30 PM
Is Stuart Broad going to be batting with a new Aditek helmet or is he sticking with the Masuri?

We have shown him what we would recommend for use at Elite level. Ultimately the final decision will come down to the player as its a personal protection product and their choice.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Gingerbusiness on September 21, 2014, 01:37:29 PM
We have introduced the AdiZero helmet so that Pros have both options in regards to the liner type combined with the Carbon shell.

Good to see you are filling the gap in the market - but let me rephrase my question;

Do you think most, if not all pro's, will move to carbon fibre helmets now they have the option?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on September 21, 2014, 01:40:03 PM
Having spoken to some they are happy with the PremierTek model and the levels of protection provided but the option is there if they want to use the carbon one.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on September 21, 2014, 02:19:06 PM
Thanks for the update.



How much will the adizero be?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on September 21, 2014, 02:20:05 PM
The AdiZero has an RRP of £224.99.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Vitas Cricket on September 21, 2014, 02:29:49 PM
Adizero is a seriously light lid. Tried on the prototype at the H4L game a few weeks back and then again at the Lords trade show again last week.

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on September 21, 2014, 02:32:35 PM
Adizero is a seriously light lid. Tried on the prototype at the H4L game a few weeks back and then again at the Lords trade show again last week.

It needs a pre order discount for me to get one seeing as I have 2 ayrteks already!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Six Sixes Cricket on September 21, 2014, 02:52:12 PM
Is there any difference between the "adizero" and the previous ayrtek carbon lid?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on September 21, 2014, 02:55:39 PM
Is there any difference between the "adizero" and the previous ayrtek carbon lid?

No acis liner as far as I can tell, just adjustable pads.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on September 21, 2014, 03:15:07 PM
Correct, the RawTek will have the A.C.I.S liner in it whilst the AdiZero has the EPS liner in it making it a lighter option.

The prices will remain premium due to the carbon fibre shell being used in them both.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on September 22, 2014, 12:33:52 PM
It was a freak incident that Stuart accepts and if the top edge hadn't occurred it would have hit the grille. From our analysis the ball speed was between 80-85mph from a distance of 0.4-0.5m, which is above and beyond anything that would be tested for in a lab for the New BSI test (For reference the max speed for the New BSI is at 62.6mph or 28m/s that the helmets need to keep out).


We are confident that the shell is sound in both design and function as it did its job in reducing the force of the initial impact and reducing the severity of injury sustained by the player. Going forward at Elite/international level where ball speeds at in excess of 85mph we are looking to have players using the carbon fibre shells.

I disagree that this is a satisfactory answer. Without wanting to seem like I'm picking holes, it wasn't a freak accident. Most other related accident's you can youtube all feature a top edge which results in the ball penetrating the gap between the peak and the grille. My understanding is the marketing of this helmet mainly revolved about it stopping this type of instance occurring and that it was far safer than Masuri, Albion etc. To say that if he'd missed it, it would have hit his grille and he'd have been fine is irrelevant. The only time I've seen a grille fail is when Root got pinned in his GM and even then that involved a top edge too.

I have an old Masuri lid and I have it set so the ball shouldn't be able to get between the peak and the grill. As far as your answer gives me, if I to top edge one in the manner that Broad did under the same conditions, then my Masuri would probably offer me the same kind of protection as I would have whilst wearing an Aditek.

So what I'm asking is how is your lid safer than any other brand, which is what I'm lead to believe?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on September 22, 2014, 12:48:26 PM
With the preliminary testing that was carried out upon the helmets it showed that the helmets would keep at ball out at speeds of upto 75mph from a distance of 0.6m as per the new BSI standard.

What cannot be replicated in a lab in the rotation on a ball after a top edge or the exact shape and hardness of a particular ball at the point of impact. Our helmets design is to offer a more rigid peak structure that minimises flexion upon impact.

IMO from the resulting damage to the helmet this is shown to have functioned due to the fractures that occurred on either side of the helmet at the grille anchoring points. What older styles of helmet will still have to deal with is the flexion of the peak upon impact which could allow the ball to pass through even with a smaller gap being used.

The compromise between the gap being shrunk and still being able to see the ball needs to be balanced, with a 45mm gap set upon the helmets a junior sized ball was still kept out at 75mph and for peace of mind people may opt for this setting going forward.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 22, 2014, 01:00:51 PM
I have an old Masuri lid and I have it set so the ball shouldn't be able to get between the peak and the grill. As far as your answer gives me, if I to top edge one in the manner that Broad did under the same conditions, then my Masuri would probably offer me the same kind of protection as I would have whilst wearing an Aditek.
Given how the Masuri peak flexes, don't underestimate how much energy was removed from the ball by the damage caused to the material of the peak. Had you been wearing the Masuri, the pace on the ball would have been a lot greater than that from the Ayrtek as it impacted your nose!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Percy on September 22, 2014, 01:05:17 PM
I think I agree with TangoWhiskey here. Yes it was an accident and if it wasn't a top edge then all would probably have been well, but the fact of the matter is that the helmet is there to protect against the freak accidents not the foreseen ones. If the helmet wasn't suitable for the type of cricket for which it was being used surely Adidas should have insisted that Broad used a more robust model. 

I have tried over the last few years to get my son to use an Ayrtek as I believed they were the safest;  he has always refused on the grounds that if a Masuri is good enough for X then  its good enough for him, and he didn't want to look like a prat. Now he turns around and says "I told you they were rubbish"!. This may be the view of a 13 year old, but unfortunately I feel that it is something that Adidas/Ayrtek are going to take some time recover from. The members of this forum are a very small percentage of the cricket kit buying public and are more inclined to accept Tom's explanation however,  Joe Public will not read this forum and without a more robust explanation of why the helmet failed then I fear for the brands future sales.

I hope I am wrong!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on September 22, 2014, 01:14:52 PM
There's only one way we can settle this.
We need someone to edge an 85mph bouncer into their face at an angel so it replicates the Stuart Broad incident, do it wearing a variety of lids to see which saves you the most.

I propose we do the top edge test on each of the lids readily available. To make it a fair test, we'll need to do 3 "inpact" runs per helmet.
This will need to be done with an AdiTek, a new style Masuri, an old masuri, the different models of albion, and to keep Vic happy a Shrey! We could also test a few of the cheaper lids that are available too.

Once all these lids have been tested 3 times each, we can see on average what damage was caused, and from that draw a conclusion on the safest lid.

I'll operate the bowling machine, any volunteers to be the guinea pig??
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Percy on September 22, 2014, 01:19:21 PM
There's only one way we can settle this.
We need someone to edge an 85mph bouncer into their face at an angel so it replicates the Stuart Broad incident, do it wearing a variety of kids to see which saves you the most.

I propose we do the top edge test on each of the lids readily available. To make it a fair test, we'll need to do 3 "inpact" runs per helmet.
This will need to be done with an AdiTek, a new style Masuri, an old masuri, the different models of albion, and to keep Vic happy a Shrey! We could also test a few of the cheaper lids that are available too.

Once all these lids have been tested 3 times each, we can see on average what damage was caused, and from that draw a conclusion on the safest lid.

I'll operate the bowling machine, any volunteers to be the guinea pig??

I like the idea of using a "variety of kids" ;-)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 22, 2014, 01:20:03 PM
It's typical isn't it. Stuart Broad got hit and walked away with limited damage. All the people wearing a Masuri and who haven't are instantly forgotten.

I would still rate the Ayrtek above the older style Masuri having used both.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Percy on September 22, 2014, 01:26:51 PM
It's typical isn't it. Stuart Broad got hit and walked away with limited damage. All the people wearing a Masuri and who haven't are instantly forgotten.

I would still rate the Ayrtek above the older style Masuri having used both.

Yes, but Stuart B is more high  profile. We shouldnt be comparing the helmet to an old Masuri as this didnt meet the new standards.

Joe Public will not hear about the accidents in county cricket as they don't get the coverage, they will hear about Stuart Broad wearing "one of those funky new helmets" and how he had to go to hospital. Result - little Johnny doesn't want one, and his parents don't want to buy him one!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on September 22, 2014, 01:33:59 PM
Yes, but Stuart B is more high  profile. We shouldnt be comparing the helmet to an old Masuri as this didnt meet the new standards.

Joe Public will not hear about the accidents in county cricket as they don't get the coverage, they will hear about Stuart Broad wearing "one of those funky new helmets" and how he had to go to hospital. Result - little Johnny doesn't want one, and his parents don't want to buy him one!
After not hitting a ball off the square all season while wearing my Ayrtek (clearly not my fault) I changed back to my old masuri (must've been the helmets fault...)
This wasn't long after the Stuart Broad incident, something my teammates were quite quick to point out "Broad got hit wearing one of those cycling helmets and got injured, and you stop wearing yours!"
When I said Keiswetter had been hit in an old masuri and suffered a worse injury none of them knew about it. Someone even asked if he still played as they hadn't seen him on telly when england were playing.

Think that proves your point haha
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on September 22, 2014, 02:02:16 PM
Given how the Masuri peak flexes, don't underestimate how much energy was removed from the ball by the damage caused to the material of the peak. Had you been wearing the Masuri, the pace on the ball would have been a lot greater than that from the Ayrtek as it impacted your nose!

You're missing the point. One of the key marketing aspects used is how much safer these are than a Masuri. No one has any way of determining how much damage would have been caused to Broad's face had he been wearing a Masuri. It was marketed in a way that the ball cannot get through the gap, but it can. Until as Cam pointed out we can work out how to exactly replicate two 'accidents' and see the difference in damage, as far as I'm concerned a cricket ball to the face is a cricket ball to the face. Saying 'we're happy that his face only got smashed up a little bit' doesn't really cut the mustard for me when it was advertised that his face shouldn't have been smashed at all.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 22, 2014, 02:09:42 PM
You're missing the point. One of the key marketing aspects used is how much safer these are than a Masuri. No one has any way of determining how much damage would have been caused to Broad's face had he been wearing a Masuri. It was marketed in a way that the ball cannot get through the gap, but it can. Until as Cam pointed out we can work out how to exactly replicate two 'accidents' and see the difference in damage, as far as I'm concerned a cricket ball to the face is a cricket ball to the face. Saying 'we're happy that his face only got smashed up a little bit' doesn't really cut the mustard for me when it was advertised that his face shouldn't have been smashed at all.
In which case you shouldn't bother wearing a helmet. It was never the case that the ball will never mash up the wearer's face. It has never been the case on any helmet. If this is your concern don't bother and take it as it comes. At the level of cricket most of us play, the ball from the bowler's hand is never anywhere near the pace it was bowled at Broad, and therefore the chance of getting it to a pace above which testing has been done is very low.

The reality is that in non-First Class cricket it would be very unlikely that the ball would mash you in the face (and I'm sure Tom has done the research to check how it relates to other helmets), however, saying you thought that the ball would never have smashed his face isn't what was ever advertised. If that is what you believe then no helmet will ever fulfil your requirements, unless you put a Hockey Goalkeeper's guard on one and sacrifice the visibility. 
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on September 22, 2014, 02:24:20 PM
Tim - do you genuinely believe nobody would get mashed in the face? If so our club must be very unlucky!

I've seen (and received) a few nasty knocks from the ball.
2 plastic Albions have had a ball go through the gap between the grille and the peak, one from a seamer resulting 2 black eyes and a sore nose, and one from a spinner which resulted in one black eye.
Our keeper was stood up wearing an old Masuri, the batsman edged one and bang, broken nose through the grille!
I've seen 2 broken noses in the nets from medium pace bowlers being top edged into faces, and myself top edged an incrediball (remember these are so soft colts face them with no pads!) into my lip and split it during a training session.

As for fielding I've been hit on the head twice, once resulting in blood and a bruised skull! Also seen 2 split foreheads and a fractured cheekbone from fielding, so should we wear a helmet at all times on the cricket pitch?


I guess my point is if you chose to wear a lid or not is up to you, but in a game with a hard ball travelling at high speeds incidents are always going to happen.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on September 22, 2014, 02:30:53 PM
In which case you shouldn't bother wearing a helmet. It was never the case that the ball will never mash up the wearer's face. It has never been the case on any helmet. If this is your concern don't bother and take it as it comes. At the level of cricket most of us play, the ball from the bowler's hand is never anywhere near the pace it was bowled at Broad, and therefore the chance of getting it to a pace above which testing has been done is very low.

The reality is that in non-First Class cricket it would be very unlikely that the ball would mash you in the face (and I'm sure Tom has done the research to check how it relates to other helmets), however, saying you thought that the ball would never have smashed his face isn't what was ever advertised. If that is what you believe then no helmet will ever fulfil your requirements, unless you put a Hockey Goalkeeper's guard on one and sacrifice the visibility.


Ok. I'll release a helmet and say it's impregnable. When one of my sponsored pro's ends up in hospital I'll just say "well he isn't dead is he?". Obviously I'm being facetious, but my point is that this is the Aditek press release: (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsX8f5CCUAA78Jj.jpg) 

Which looks a hell of a lot different to this: (http://static.sportskeeda.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/stuart-broad-hit-in-head-1408022506.jpg)

Which in turn doesn't look much different to this: (http://img.thesun.co.uk/aidemitlum/archive/02020/Kiesy_2020110a.jpg)

and the result wasn't too dissimilar to this: (http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/3736492-3x4-700x933.jpg)

Infact if I'm not mistaken I believe Brendon got away with fairly similar injuries to Broad if not even less severe ones.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 22, 2014, 02:58:44 PM
If the discussion is about public perception, then all three incidents look very similar and that's how the public will see them and thus will draw conclusions from that. Public perception is always difficult.

If the discussion is about the technicalities of what happened amongst an informed group, then the Broad incident is technically due to many factors.

And excuse me if I missed something in the press release, but I don't believe it says that the  Ayrtek/Adidas helmet is impregnable.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on September 22, 2014, 03:02:00 PM
If the discussion is about public perception, then all three incidents look very similar and that's how the public will see them and thus will draw conclusions from that. Public perception is always difficult.

If the discussion is about the technicalities of what happened amongst an informed group, then the Broad incident is technically due to many factors.

And excuse me if I missed something in the press release, but I don't believe it says that the  Ayrtek/Adidas helmet is impregnable.
Going on public perception alone, by the player reactions Bredan McCullum was the only one left standing after the impact. Would that not lead them to beleive that the oldest model masuri is safest as he came out "best off"??
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 22, 2014, 03:03:11 PM
Going on public perception alone, by the player reactions Bredan McCullum was the only one left standing after the impact. Would that not lead them to beleive that the oldest model masuri is safest as he came out "best off"??
I was going to make some comment about Brendon McCullum being the most hard headed.....
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on September 22, 2014, 03:06:28 PM
I was going to make some comment about Brendon McCullum being the most hard headed.....

 :D :D :D

All joking aside did Kieswetter top edge his delivery?

Having seen the McCullum incident I think his just went straight through the grille, whereas Broad top edged his to change the angle.

Also notice the difference is grille settings between each incident.
They may look similar at first, but there are so many variables it really is difficult to accuracy compare these incidents.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: jamielsn15 on September 22, 2014, 03:09:43 PM
You could argue that, given the high amount of variables that lead to a player being hit, each incident should be viewed purely in isolation and on its own individual merits.

I'm certainly of the mind that a top edge cannot be compared to being hit without deviation.  Stuart Broad's occurrence hasn't affected my trust in my Ayrtek in any sense.  It is absolutely fit for purpose in my eyes.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 22, 2014, 03:13:37 PM
:D :D :D

All joking aside did Kieswetter top edge his delivery?

Having seen the McCullum incident I think his just went straight through the grille, whereas Broad top edged his to change the angle.

Also notice the difference is grille settings between each incident.
They may look similar at first, but there are so many variables it really is difficult to accuracy compare these incidents.
I was trying to determine that.

The best that I could get was, from looking at the various videos, McCullum's came off a bouncer that he didn't touch and appears to have hit the grill slightly before going through. Kieswetter's you can't tell if there was a top edge. It isn't clear, and finally Broad's had an obvious top edge.

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Alvaro on September 22, 2014, 03:26:07 PM
Keiswetter did not top edge it. Straight through him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0XlFPcPyDo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0XlFPcPyDo)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on September 22, 2014, 03:28:22 PM
It doesn't. I said I was being facetious. What it does show is a helmet looking not dissimilar to a Masuri being about as useful as a chocolate teapot compared to the Aditek.

You have pointed out that Broads injuries were less severe than Kieswetters. Kieswetter had the gap far too wide, so the helmet would have barely done anything to stop the ball. That comparison is therefore irrelevant to us as he may as well have not been wearing a lid.

I'd imagine Brendon McCullum being the nutter that he is probably had the gap as wide as it goes too, yet he only had a broken nose, same as Broad.

Basically I'd suggest that saying that Broad would have come off worse wearing something else is an incorrect assumption.

I'm not out after Ayrteks blood or anything, it would just be nice if we got a bit more objectivity. An admission that the Premtek wasn't up for the job Broad tried to use it for and that it has passed the BSI tests asked off it, but perhaps without trying to discredit other products.

If I'm not mistaken, I seem to remember reading (possibly on that this type of incident was why Ayrtek was founded as they wanted to produce a helmet that would stop it happening and as far as they were concerned they had found the solution with the Ayrtek design.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: WalkingWicket37 on September 22, 2014, 03:36:12 PM
If the incident was caused, as some have speculated, by the grille being set further back than the peak, would a design where the grille was set ahead of the peak prevent this?

Also I keep asking this, but nobody has actually answered me yet. Would a Masuri fielding grille style design work for a batting helmet, so they have the ordinary grille design, with an extra bar against the peak of the helmet? Surely that's a much more simple solution?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 22, 2014, 03:43:31 PM
If I'm not mistaken, I seem to remember reading (possibly on that this type of incident was why Ayrtek was founded as they wanted to produce a helmet that would stop it happening and as far as they were concerned they had found the solution with the Ayrtek design.
All the quotes I've seen state that the design would "reduce the likelihood of the ball passing between the grill and visor". I don't think I've seen "eliminate" used.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: InternalTraining on September 22, 2014, 03:43:52 PM
I think that blaming "top edge" as the culprit in Broad incident is a red herring. Market messaging around Ayrtek made it sound like it was impenetrable.

As a buyer, should I keep in mind the following caveats :

1. It will only work for speeds less than X kph/mph?
2. In case of a deflection or bat edge, the speed will become X+Y kph/mph hence unstoppable?

Basically whether it is Masuri or  Ayrtek, you are minimizing injury and not all together eliminating it.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: InternalTraining on September 22, 2014, 03:47:26 PM
That is my concern - these helmets don't eliminate the risk.

Those ice-hockey goalie helmets/face masks look pretty good .

All the quotes I've seen state that the design would "reduce the likelihood of the ball passing between the grill and visor". I don't think I've seen "eliminate" used.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: uknsaunders on September 22, 2014, 04:08:08 PM
How many helmets have actually passed the BSI tests? I find the fact Tom has put a figure the on the plastic lids durability reassuring and I wonder if other manufacturers would do similar?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: iand123 on September 22, 2014, 04:12:42 PM
I think that blaming "top edge" as the culprit in Broad incident is a red herring. Market messaging around Ayrtek made it sound like it was impenetrable.

As a buyer, should I keep in mind the following caveats :

1. It will only work for speeds less than X kph/mph?
2. In case of a deflection or bat edge, the speed will become X+Y kph/mph hence unstoppable?

Basically whether it is Masuri or  Ayrtek, you are minimizing injury and not all together eliminating it.

To be fair Ayrtek have never said their lids are impregnable. Just as your last point says it would be like a car manufacturer selling you a car that you couldn't be hurt or killed in a car crash, thats impossible. Risk can be minimised but not eradicated in walks of life.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: InternalTraining on September 22, 2014, 04:46:07 PM
This is the world we live in where marketing "speak" does not exactly state anything definitively. Everything is implied.

For nonprofessional cricketers, those who have to pay for their injuries from their own pocket, The helmet manufacturers should disclose more information about the tolerance levels all these helmets.

To be fair Ayrtek have never said their lids are impregnable. Just as your last point says it would be like a car manufacturer selling you a car that you couldn't be hurt or killed in a car crash, thats impossible. Risk can be minimised but not eradicated in walks of life.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: InternalTraining on September 22, 2014, 04:47:12 PM
http://www.goaliemonkey.com/bauer-goalie-mask-nme3-certified.html?gclid=CjwKEAjwkf-gBRCd-b2m2aOo0EQSJABMeQDkDm2T3Utks8mAcbbIWLKUlNDBFabp-g1dxdEDF1x44BoCITbw_wcB (http://www.goaliemonkey.com/bauer-goalie-mask-nme3-certified.html?gclid=CjwKEAjwkf-gBRCd-b2m2aOo0EQSJABMeQDkDm2T3Utks8mAcbbIWLKUlNDBFabp-g1dxdEDF1x44BoCITbw_wcB)

This design looks pretty good .
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Johnny on September 22, 2014, 04:59:09 PM
Having played as a baseball catcher, I know those style lids wouldn't work. Visibility and manoeverabilty is terrible
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 22, 2014, 05:39:36 PM
This is the world we live in where marketing "speak" does not exactly state anything definitively. Everything is implied.

For nonprofessional cricketers, those who have to pay for their injuries from their own pocket, The helmet manufacturers should disclose more information about the tolerance levels all these helmets.
I don't know about you, but I think Ayrtek have always been pretty open about what they have tested to? An impact at 30 degrees to the grill and peak from 0.6m at 75mph is pretty specific.

What else do you want?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: trypewriter on September 22, 2014, 07:08:13 PM
Going back to the 'would carbon fibre be better' question, I think that in respect of cracking etc. the carbon fibre has little to do with that, a lot of it is down to the resin that impregnates it. Before anyone mentions it, kevlar is heavier than carbon fibre.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: The Palmist on September 22, 2014, 08:04:36 PM
You have pointed out that Broads injuries were less severe than Kieswetters. Kieswetter had the gap far too wide, so the helmet would have barely done anything to stop the ball. That comparison is therefore irrelevant to us as he may as well have not been wearing a lid.
Pictures do suggest what you are saying. Just surprised why no one else picked up on the gap difference.
I will probably be shot down for saying this but I think all helmets in a particular price range provide roughly the same level of protection. One should decide purely on looks and comfort.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Buzz on September 22, 2014, 08:14:21 PM
just to confirm no helmet has passed the new test yet as the bsi people haven't built their facility yet.

we also know the test will only go up to 67 odd mph and anything above that is a guess by the manufacturer.

the current test machines only go to 75 mph.

this is because they are fired from an air cannon as these are the most accuracte for the testing.

you can't use a bola as they aren't accurate enough.

until we see how one of the other helmets take a similar hit, at more than 80 mph we are just guessing.
fact is broad was wearing a club helmet in a test match, which in my view performed extremely well, given the forces at stake.

how many of you have had a broken nose? it usually doesn't take much...
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Fearless Fly on September 23, 2014, 05:17:45 AM
just to confirm no helmet has passed the new test yet as the bsi people haven't built their facility yet.

we also know the test will only go up to 67 odd mph and anything above that is a guess by the manufacturer.

the current test machines only go to 75 mph.

this is because they are fired from an air cannon as these are the most accuracte for the testing.

you can't use a bola as they aren't accurate enough.

until we see how one of the other helmets take a similar hit, at more than 80 mph we are just guessing.
fact is broad was wearing a club helmet in a test match, which in my view performed extremely well, given the forces at stake.

how many of you have had a broken nose? it usually doesn't take much...

I think that is besides the point Buzz.
From the average punter, why would someone go and purchase an Ayrtek/Aditek whatever you want to call it for quite a large some of money when i could purchase said masuri or Albion lid which could result in the same outcome,
I think the real question has to be answered in why Broad is using a helmet designed for club land in a Test match. Thats like turning up to a game of tennis with a squash racquet
I would also like to add, looking at the incidents with masuri lids over the post years (kieswetter and McCullum) You can see from Kieswetter injury that his grill is lower than what is recommended as the ball got through without even touching the visor or grill, same for McCullum. I met MCullum last time NZ were in Aus and asked him why he had such a low grill and it was purely a preference thing for vision. Therefore in these instances i don think you can say Masuri are at fault as it is player preference there. The issue i have with the broad incident is that he was wearing a lid designed for club land which obviously led to a malfunction as it was pushed beyond what it was designed for.


I do want to ask AYrtek as well, in the previous testing, what were the deemed scenarios the helmets were tested under as if i was designing a helmet, i would assume that one of the common incidents that could result in ball and helmet and ball coming into contact would be a top edge. I have seen it already in my AUS season and we have just finished week 2. lucky the top edge got high on the lid and it the badge of the helmet rather than the gap in the peak.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 23, 2014, 05:42:26 AM
One of the tests that Ayrtek refers to is firing the ball at the gap between peak and grill at an angle of thirty degrees.

I'm guessing this is supposed to mimic the top edge, however there are limitations as to how it can be tested. The air cannons used can't get higher than 75mph and introducing the random spin element is also extremely difficult.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: iand123 on September 23, 2014, 06:21:09 AM
This is the world we live in where marketing "speak" does not exactly state anything definitively. Everything is implied.

For nonprofessional cricketers, those who have to pay for their injuries from their own pocket, The helmet manufacturers should disclose more information about the tolerance levels all these helmets.

Ayrtek have always said their lid is one of the safest on the market and pretty sure they've said this sort of thing can be "reduced" (Tom please correct me if that's incorrect). If you or anyone else has implied that to mean something different I really don't know what to say, each to their own I guess but personally I think it's hard to blame a company for people reading one thing and believing another. To me the marketing is and always has been quite clear
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Number4 on September 23, 2014, 07:10:13 AM
I think that is besides the point Buzz.
From the average punter, why would someone go and purchase an Ayrtek/Aditek whatever you want to call it for quite a large some of money when i could purchase said masuri or Albion lid which could result in the same outcome,
I think the real question has to be answered in why Broad is using a helmet designed for club land in a Test match. Thats like turning up to a game of tennis with a squash racquet
I would also like to add, looking at the incidents with masuri lids over the post years (kieswetter and McCullum) You can see from Kieswetter injury that his grill is lower than what is recommended as the ball got through without even touching the visor or grill, same for McCullum. I met MCullum last time NZ were in Aus and asked him why he had such a low grill and it was purely a preference thing for vision. Therefore in these instances i don think you can say Masuri are at fault as it is player preference there. The issue i have with the broad incident is that he was wearing a lid designed for club land which obviously led to a malfunction as it was pushed beyond what it was designed for.


I do want to ask AYrtek as well, in the previous testing, what were the deemed scenarios the helmets were tested under as if i was designing a helmet, i would assume that one of the common incidents that could result in ball and helmet and ball coming into contact would be a top edge. I have seen it already in my AUS season and we have just finished week 2. lucky the top edge got high on the lid and it the badge of the helmet rather than the gap in the peak.

To me it looks like all 3 grills were set too wide... Not just Bedwetter and Mcullum but Broads as well.... Can't have your cake and eat it too... You either have the grill set correctly and protect yourself and lose a little vision or you open the grill up and leave yourself vulnerable to a ball smashing into your face... Simple
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Stuey on September 23, 2014, 07:19:48 AM
As i see it in all cases mentioned negligence seems to be with the player. A supplier can't rule out human error or stupidity
. if you chose leave a larger enough gap for the ball to get through, you have to accept the consequences. Without being privy to conversations between broad and Tom, I found it harsh that broad changed lid supplier after the incident when he appeared to be wearing the lid incorrectly to provide sufficient protection. In this world of health and safety, taking responsibility for your own actions seems to be non existent.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Percy on September 23, 2014, 07:58:28 AM
Is there an argument that all helmets  should not be able to set with "unsafe" grills  by the user (like the new Masuri I think), it might stop a lot of accidents and avoid unnecessary blame?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: The Palmist on September 23, 2014, 08:03:49 AM
Is there an argument that all helmets  should not be able to set with "unsafe" grills  by the user (like the new Masuri I think), it might stop a lot of accidents and avoid unnecessary blame?

I don't remember Broad, Kieswetter or Mcculum blaming anyone !!

I personally am against Masuri fixing the grill setting [main reason I switched to old Masuri]. This decision is down to individuals, manufactures should offer advice but the final decision has to remain with individuals. 
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Percy on September 23, 2014, 08:09:40 AM
I don't remember Broad, Kieswetter or Mcculum blaming anyone !!

I personally am against Masuri fixing the grill setting [main reason I switched to old Masuri]. This decision is down to individuals, manufactures should offer advice but the final decision has to remain with individuals.

I don't think they did, but there certainly seems to be an under-current of blame being aportioned here by some
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: The Palmist on September 23, 2014, 08:12:44 AM
I don't think they did, but there certainly seems to be an under-current of blame being aportioned here by some

I see where you are coming from but a lot of it has to do with interest in kit, nature to overanalyse and possible lack of other interesting topics. If everything was hunky dory, it wouldn't make a very interesting discussion, would it.

If you read all the posts, I would say there is a very good and healthy balance of positives and negatives for most brands mentioned.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Stuey on September 23, 2014, 08:12:57 AM
I don't remember Broad, Kieswetter or Mcculum blaming anyone !!

I personally am against Masuri fixing the grill setting [main reason I switched to old Masuri]. This decision is down to individuals, manufactures should offer advice but the final decision has to remain with individuals.

I think Broad clearly did because he changed supplier for the next test.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Percy on September 23, 2014, 08:17:13 AM
I don't think they did, but there certainly seems to be an undercurrent of blame being apportioned here by some

I agree with you that the setting should be up to the individual, but possibly it should be within in a tolerance that doesn't allow a ball through. In this increasingly litigious society how long is it before someone sues a helmet manufacturer after an accident and blames them for for selling a helmet that could be set "unsafely". Personally, I think people should take responsibility for their own actions, but alas we live in a world where its always someone elses fault!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Cowcorner on September 23, 2014, 08:26:21 AM
The test for Masuri will be when the new helmet takes a top edge to the peak and grill - if it doesn't stop the ball then they're done for - if it does, then it's like a free hit for them in what has now become a grudge match between them and Ayrtek/Adidas!
Where are Albion in all this? On holiday? Gone bust?
What really staggers me though is that we can put a man on the moon, build stuff with nano technology and drop precision guided munitions from 20,000 ft but for some mystical reason nobody can make a cricket ball travel over 75mph in a lab. Just get one made with a magnet in the centre and use electromagnets to accelerate it. It'll go like a startled badger out of the blocks and be pin point accurate. Or just write to Mythbusters and ask them to sort it out - it's a shame tomorrow's world is no longer on TV as they could've had a crack too...
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 23, 2014, 08:32:23 AM
What really staggers me though is that we can put a man on the moon, build stuff with nano technology and drop precision guided munitions from 20,000 ft but for some mystical reason nobody can make a cricket ball travel over 75mph in a lab. Just get one made with a magnet in the centre and use electromagnets to accelerate it. It'll go like a startled badger out of the blocks and be pin point accurate. Or just write to Mythbusters and ask them to sort it out - it's a shame tomorrow's world is no longer on TV as they could've had a crack too...
I think the other point is the economics of doing this. Using readily available components, the 75mph test was relatively simple to perform and could be set up at a number of test centres relatively simply, without costing a lot of money.

As soon as you have to build properly specialist kit, the cost of the test so far outweighs the margins to be made that it becomes an exercise that no-one will undertake, as so many people don't really care.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Cowcorner on September 23, 2014, 08:41:33 AM
I think the other point is the economics of doing this. Using readily available components, the 75mph test was relatively simple to perform and could be set up at a number of test centres relatively simply, without costing a lot of money.

As soon as you have to build properly specialist kit, the cost of the test so far outweighs the margins to be made that it becomes an exercise that no-one will undertake, as so many people don't really care.

27 pages of thread makes me think that people do care.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 23, 2014, 08:48:36 AM
27 pages of thread makes me think that people do care.
16 if you are viewing from a different device! But the point is that people on the forum are interested, but won't necessarily pay any more for a helmet that was tested to a higher standard than they will ever use.

And the forum is a tiny percentage of the sales of a product. Just talk to the likes of Masuri, etc. Is it worth increasing the cost if 99% of people are not bothered enough?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: uknsaunders on September 23, 2014, 08:57:38 AM
I think most other helmet manufacturers have wisely decided to avoid commenting on specific injuries using competitors helmets. You never know when your lid is next? Masuri are asking for a fall by trying to make capital out of it and in the long run they could come horribly unstuck.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Cowcorner on September 23, 2014, 09:05:52 AM
16 if you are viewing from a different device! But the point is that people on the forum are interested, but won't necessarily pay any more for a helmet that was tested to a higher standard than they will ever use.

And the forum is a tiny percentage of the sales of a product. Just talk to the likes of Masuri, etc. Is it worth increasing the cost if 99% of people are not bothered enough?

That's fair enough but I think you're underestimating the forum. I've put people off products and likewise put people onto products based on reviews that people have done on here. At the end of the day cricketers talk kit a lot of the time - it's like watching those green aliens in toy story everytime a new bat comes out in a club changing room (ooooooooh! Shiny!). The forum has gone international with our eastern, antipodean and U.S. friends. I'm not saying we've got major impact but I think we count for more than 1%.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: The Palmist on September 23, 2014, 09:34:10 AM
The cost of testing will only be a small fraction compared to the amount spent on marketing and testing facilities will be shared by all brands. I don't think cost plays any role here. Cricket boards should be able to contribute as well if the need be.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 23, 2014, 09:45:19 AM
That's fair enough but I think you're underestimating the forum. I've put people off products and likewise put people onto products based on reviews that people have done on here. At the end of the day cricketers talk kit a lot of the time - it's like watching those green aliens in toy story everytime a new bat comes out in a club changing room (ooooooooh! Shiny!). The forum has gone international with our eastern, antipodean and U.S. friends. I'm not saying we've got major impact but I think we count for more than 1%.
We've looked at the participation rates in the UK. We have 3,500 members and typically have 14,000 "users" according to Google Analytics. The ECB in 2013 registered 908,000 adult participants in recreational cricket. To achieve one percent of that we would have to touch 9,000 people in the UK alone, so while we may touch the equivalent of 2% of the cricket playing population in the UK, we are nowhere near 1% worldwide (given the numbers in India, which is where the sales growth and cost dynamics will play the biggest part). This ECB study also doesn't include under-18s, which all have to wear a helmet.

And on the topic of helmets, at the level of recreational league cricket I play, only the first team all wear a helmet to bat. Every other team has a roughly 40:60 split. Given there are four teams in the club and 2.4 of them are not wearing helmets - and probably don't even own one - it does beg the question of the market size in the UK. If we apply that ratio to the UK participation rate, 60% of the adult players are wearing a helmet, and that is a market of 545,000 people. You can guarantee they don't all own one or want to replace the existing Masuri/Albion that has served them well.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: thecord on September 23, 2014, 09:47:35 AM
The cost of testing will only be a small fraction compared to the amount spent on marketing and testing facilities will be shared by all brands. I don't think cost plays any role here. Cricket boards should be able to contribute as well if the need be.

Cost always plays a role and the issue here would be who funds it. It's not a straightforward matter
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: The Palmist on September 23, 2014, 09:53:09 AM
Cost always plays a role and the issue here would be who funds it. It's not a straightforward matter

It can't be a deal breaker. Consumers/Players are already paying through their noses for the high end models.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on September 23, 2014, 09:54:31 AM
brands will start to use fixed grills with only 1 fixing as the BSI test states that they will set the grille position in the weakest/widest possible setting to carry out the tests.

Obviously by only having 1 setting this is ruled out, this give the end user less options in terms of finding a fit that works for them as a compromise. Its a catch 22 where we were asked by players previously to offer a grille that enabled them to set it wider than the balls width so that they have better vision. Yet by offering this you are at risk of being hit by the ball if the worst happens, some players will accept this risk whilst others will opt for a setting that may mean getting used to the grille in their eyeline but having better levels of protection as a result.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 23, 2014, 10:07:20 AM
It can't be a deal breaker. Consumers/Players are already paying through their noses for the high end models.
It's not just about the cost. An incredibly complex testing rig for a sport with fewer than a million adult participants, of whom more than 95% play at a level where the less complex and demanding test is more than enough also comes into play.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: thecord on September 23, 2014, 10:22:58 AM
Very awkward for a brand, you want to be seen to be working with the professionals using your product to offer them what they demand but when that leads to some like this all the consumer sees is a negative for you as the brand holder
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on September 23, 2014, 10:57:03 AM
brands will start to use fixed grills with only 1 fixing as the BSI test states that they will set the grille position in the weakest/widest possible setting to carry out the tests.

Obviously by only having 1 setting this is ruled out, this give the end user less options in terms of finding a fit that works for them as a compromise. Its a catch 22 where we were asked by players previously to offer a grille that enabled them to set it wider than the balls width so that they have better vision. Yet by offering this you are at risk of being hit by the ball if the worst happens, some players will accept this risk whilst others will opt for a setting that may mean getting used to the grille in their eyeline but having better levels of protection as a result.


so does this mean that the aditek is going to fixed grill? when will this be if so? and will it be a permanent grill helmet attachment? or just a grill with 1 set off holes?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on September 23, 2014, 11:12:38 AM
We are in the process of submitting the range for BSI testing currently which means we have to eradicate all the other holes from the grille that allow adjustments beyond the recommended setting.

It will be a grille with the same use of nut caps to attach it so that people can change between steel and titanium grill upgrades if they wish to do so.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: petehosk on September 23, 2014, 12:30:28 PM
If Kieswetter makes his visibility better by making the gap bigger between the peak of his helmet and grill, then he has himself to blame really!
Same thing with Broad if he does the same, AND also uses a model of Ayrtek/Adidas with less protection level!
The way I look at it, I have made the grill space a little bigger on my helmets to increase visibility. It's a minimal risk but I know that if a ball gets though, then I only have myself to blame for altering the grill settings. I would hate for a helmet manufacturer to fix the grill in place so that I can't alter it!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tushar sehgal on September 23, 2014, 02:18:32 PM
We are in the process of submitting the range for BSI testing currently which means we have to eradicate all the other holes from the grille that allow adjustments beyond the recommended setting.

It will be a grille with the same use of nut caps to attach it so that people can change between steel and titanium grill upgrades if they wish to do so.

Tom any consideration to a visor+grill combo? most Ice hockey player's helmets only have visors and puck is very hard / travels fast but the visor is able to handle the impact. If you had a grill that also had a visor (clear or some kind of vison enhancing/glare reduction like oakley lenses) then it might resolve the issue of gap, visibility and provide extra benefits like enhanced red for test cricket and enhanced white for odi??
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Cowcorner on September 23, 2014, 05:03:39 PM
Tom any consideration to a visor+grill combo? most Ice hockey player's helmets only have visors and puck is very hard / travels fast but the visor is able to handle the impact. If you had a grill that also had a visor (clear or some kind of vison enhancing/glare reduction like oakley lenses) then it might resolve the issue of gap, visibility and provide extra benefits like enhanced red for test cricket and enhanced white for odi??
Sod it, I'm going to start playing in a NFL helmet - one of the ones with the polarised eye lenses in (I think wide receivers use them?). If I get a Miami Dolphins one I can buy a load of kookaburra impulse kit in the sales and it'll still match!
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: RossViper on September 23, 2014, 09:41:36 PM
It's not just about the cost. An incredibly complex testing rig for a sport with fewer than a million adult participants, of whom more than 95% play at a level where the less complex and demanding test is more than enough also comes into play.

Incredibly complex? Not really.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: InternalTraining on September 23, 2014, 09:47:46 PM
The forum has gone international with our eastern, antipodean and U.S. friends. I'm not saying we've got major impact but I think we count for more than 1%.

Across the pond here and have looked into the US sports helmets as substitute .  :D  [Note: Ice-hockey bags are a lot cheaper here and can get great used ones.  ;)]
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tushar sehgal on September 24, 2014, 12:02:27 AM
Across the pond here and have looked into the US sports helmets as substitute .  :D  [Note: Ice-hockey bags are a lot cheaper here and can get great used ones.  ;)]
Yup we use hockey bags for our team kits too. Fit a lot of gear and made really well so last a long time
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Hennie_vdw on September 25, 2014, 01:05:08 PM
Hi Tom
Can you confirm to me how did that ball penetrate broads grill if your helmets are so "safe"
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: roco on September 25, 2014, 01:10:54 PM
as far as I'm aware Tom has explained this on the thread if you look through

I think the grille was set wide enough to let the ball through which is why manufacturers are looking at releasing new helmets where no setting can let ball through but this will decrease the gap for vision
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on September 25, 2014, 01:15:46 PM
Hi Tom
Can you confirm to me how did that ball penetrate broads grill if your helmets are so "safe"


I saw Stuart Broad and Rohit Sharma recently at the 2015 photoshoot and spoke to Stuart about the incident. The helmet shows significant damage on the underpeak section and actually has hairline fractures at the front grille position on the shell such was the severity of the impact in forcing the peak upwards. This shows the sheer force that occurred at the moment of impact and the fact the shell of the helmet acted to absorb a vast majority of the balls force.

([url]http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq167/tom_ayrtek/Helmets/5D83FA35-1D6C-4706-BBB1-62D47A1362B7.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s444.photobucket.com/user/tom_ayrtek/media/Helmets/5D83FA35-1D6C-4706-BBB1-62D47A1362B7.jpg.html[/url])([url]http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq167/tom_ayrtek/Helmets/040ACC34-5735-4710-989D-5706940DA0A6.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s444.photobucket.com/user/tom_ayrtek/media/Helmets/040ACC34-5735-4710-989D-5706940DA0A6.jpg.html[/url])([url]http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq167/tom_ayrtek/Helmets/50FD4EF6-A2EB-4913-BE10-81E018577932.jpg[/url]) ([url]http://s444.photobucket.com/user/tom_ayrtek/media/Helmets/50FD4EF6-A2EB-4913-BE10-81E018577932.jpg.html[/url])

It was a freak incident that Stuart accepts and if the top edge hadn't occurred it would have hit the grille. From our analysis the ball speed was between 80-85mph from a distance of 0.4-0.5m, which is above and beyond anything that would be tested for in a lab for the New BSI test (For reference the max speed for the New BSI is at 62.6mph or 28m/s that the helmets need to keep out).

Our preliminary research that was carried out showed the PremierTek helmets ability to perform at 75mph when tested against an adult size ball when hit at a 30 degree angle. External factors beyond our control such as the age/shape and hardness of the ball can effect the results of the testing and these obviously chance from ball to ball in match scenario.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYLua0ocbe8&list=UU8a8f72gB7ZgkEfmt7WvyAA[/url] ([url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYLua0ocbe8&list=UU8a8f72gB7ZgkEfmt7WvyAA[/url])

We are confident that the shell is sound in both design and function as it did its job in reducing the force of the initial impact and reducing the severity of injury sustained by the player. Going forward at Elite/international level where ball speeds at in excess of 85mph we are looking to have players using the carbon fibre shells.


Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: roco on September 25, 2014, 01:16:17 PM
if you look on page 22 tom explains it as I was wrong with the above comment
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on September 25, 2014, 01:24:26 PM
Hi Tom
Can you confirm to me how did that ball penetrate broads grill if your helmets are so "safe"

Due to the sheer speed of impact at such a short distance, the helmet acted to slow the ball and our testing at the max speed possible in the lab demonstrated the helmets ability to keep out the ball at 76mph from 0.6m.

The damage to the helmet shows that it acted to slow the ball down to reduce the severity of injury caused which is what a helmets job it to do. No manufacturer will put themselves in a position where the state it will guarantee no injury occurs for obvious reasons.

With the design of shell we use it offers a rigid peak structure that upon impact will flex less than other designs on the market. Its evident from the hairline fractures at either side of the helmet a significant force was exerted upon them to cause them.



Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: DiscoStu on September 25, 2014, 02:36:43 PM
Stuart Broad got hit in the face because he top edged the ball. This is the part that concerns me. I play at a level where you are most likely to receive a ball to the grille because of a beamer, a ball rearing up from a dodgy track or a top edge. The bowlers just aren't fast enough to dish out chin music. I have been hit on the head three times during batting in my life and two of those were from top edges (one from a sweep, one from a pull) and the other was from a ricochet in nets. Testing the peak and grille from top edges must be given a lot more thought, especially for the lower end models. It's said that Ayrtek do the top edge test at an angle of 30 degrees. Wouldn't it be more helpful in the long run if a wider variety of angles were tested?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 25, 2014, 02:41:58 PM
Stuart Broad got hit in the face because he top edged the ball. This is the part that concerns me. I play at a level where you are most likely to receive a ball to the grille because of a beamer, a ball rearing up from a dodgy track or a top edge. The bowlers just aren't fast enough to dish out chin music. I have been hit on the head three times during batting in my life and two of those were from top edges (one from a sweep, one from a pull) and the other was from a ricochet in nets. Testing the peak and grille from top edges must be given a lot more thought, especially for the lower end models. It's said that Ayrtek do the top edge test at an angle of 30 degrees. Wouldn't it be more helpful in the long run if a wider variety of angles were tested?
While you may have a concern here, the other thing you'd need to take into consideration is that it's not just the top edge that has an impact on the speed of the ball. The bowler was bowling at 87mph, which will have had a significant impact on the speed the ball was top edged at. If you are facing this level of pace on a regular level, then I can understand your concern, but if the speeds you are facing are lower than 75mph, you will struggle to get a top edge to travel at 75mph.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on September 25, 2014, 03:08:59 PM
Correct tim, to clarify when working out the BSI test procedure the ball speeds were taken into account as it was discussed through video analysis that a ball will loose approx 12-15mph between leaving the bowlers hand, hitting the pitch and reaching the batsmen.

Therefore the approximations of:-

90mph = 75mph at point of impact
85mph = 70mph at point of impact
80mph = 65mph at point of impact

These speeds obviously dont factor in a top edge to add further speed to the ball, originally it was proposed that a 90mph impact speed needed to be catered for (hence the reason why we tested to 75mph during our preliminary testing) but this was subsequently lowered to 63mph when the final standard was published.

The incident takes into account an 88.6mph delivery that will have lost 12-15mph when hitting the pitch and traveling towards the batsmen but doesnt account for a top edge taking it above and beyond the calculated 73.6mph speed.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Percy on September 25, 2014, 03:26:06 PM
I may have missunderstood this,  but does that mean helmets are only built to achieve the standard and not exceed it? There has to be a lot of risk in that approach.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on September 25, 2014, 03:42:07 PM
That could well be the case, we asked for the helmets we submitted to preliminary testing to be pushed beyond the 63mph limit to see how far they could go whilst still performing as desired.

Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TopShot on September 25, 2014, 04:28:06 PM
That could well be the case, we asked for the helmets we submitted to preliminary testing to be pushed beyond the 63mph limit to see how far they could go whilst still performing as desired.

Thats interesting. I would have thought testing to failure would have been a mandatory part of the testing of any safety equipment.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on September 25, 2014, 04:45:45 PM
Having a contract to inspect and test SATRA's gas systems(ironic a testing house has to get outsides in to test there system).
I can say I have seen quite a few cheap brand helmets tested to destruction, unfortunately I was lead to believe they destructed before the pass mark fort he old test, thankfully I've never seen that brand on the market.

Fortunately, the brands I saw in the skip intact (few gms, and grays) that are on the market, proves even the old standard was not tested to destruction.


Doesn't stop manufacturers themselves doing this, easy to get a bola wind it put I 99 mph and fire it at a close by helmet.

Speaking off, wonder if there's an in house masuri testing vids ont he double barred grills?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TopShot on September 25, 2014, 05:14:47 PM
I would think failure testing could also be used as a marketing tool. For example..

"The new Adidas Cyclone helmet. Tough enough withstand impacts up to 150mph... Bring it on!!!"

It would also be a way to help the end user decide on the appropriate helmet model to purchase based on the level of cricket they play.

Wishfull thanking perhaps.... but I'd love to see something like this happen in the future.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: edge on September 26, 2014, 06:42:00 AM
All very well as a marketing tool... until one sneaks through at anything less than the rated speed.

Re. safety standards/testing to failure - the theoretical point of a safety standard is that once you exceed it, you are safe for the majority of incidents, so the testing for the standard will be performed at that speed/load/whatever and the helmet/other product passes or fails. Testing to failure can't be standardised due to each helmet failing at different points. You would hope, however, that at least some manufacturers would do failure testing as part of r&d, but will they have the facilities to do it?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 26, 2014, 08:48:02 AM
All very well as a marketing tool... until one sneaks through at anything less than the rated speed.

Re. safety standards/testing to failure - the theoretical point of a safety standard is that once you exceed it, you are safe for the majority of incidents, so the testing for the standard will be performed at that speed/load/whatever and the helmet/other product passes or fails. Testing to failure can't be standardised due to each helmet failing at different points. You would hope, however, that at least some manufacturers would do failure testing as part of r&d, but will they have the facilities to do it?

As far as I understand it, Ayrtek used the same testing process that many others do. They rent time at a location (Loughborough University I believe) that has the facilities to undertake the testing. In their case, they cranked up to the max of the air cannon, which was 75mph from 0.6m.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Dan W on September 26, 2014, 12:48:43 PM
Am I being thick if I ask how does a top edge increase the speed of a ball?

I would have thought it would change the flight of a projectile, and if anything, reduce with the friction?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on September 26, 2014, 12:52:23 PM
Am I being thick if I ask how does a top edge increase the speed of a ball?

I would have thought it would change the flight of a projectile, and if anything, reduce with the friction?

Hitting the ball with the bat generally increases the speed. I don't think Chris Gayle merely changes the flight of the ball when he smashes one out of the park...
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: smilley792 on September 26, 2014, 12:53:14 PM
Am I being thick if I ask how does a top edge increase the speed of a ball?

I would have thought it would change the flight of a projectile, and if anything, reduce with the friction?


Can't explain why but it does. Something today with kinetic energy transferred from the bat speed to the ball.


Bowl a bouncer, it will never go for six byes.
Yet even at my standard with 75mph or less bowling, top edges have flown for six.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TopShot on September 26, 2014, 01:13:39 PM
Same idea as when a batsman get a nick but plays with soft hands and the ball doesn't carry to the slips....but when a batman goes for a full blooded drive to a ball of the same speed and it flies through the slips like a rocket.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: tim2000s on September 26, 2014, 01:56:33 PM
It all comes down to a bit of GCSE Physics. You are hitting the ball with a force, and in certain cases that will cause a positive acceleration and in others a negative. The friction on the edge of a bat is likely to be far lower than the impact force, especially when you consider a bouncer where the likelihood is that you will impart an amount of upward force (it doesn't have to be much) using a mass far greater than that of the ball. The resulting acceleration is normal.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: AndrewS on September 26, 2014, 05:53:01 PM
To put some perspective on this, I'm a new customer and I've just put in an order for a PremierTek Titanium.

I...


Yet I wasn't put off. I still went for it and that's down to the weight and positive reviews of the vision - that's what I care about most (assuming there are no problems with fit as I'm having to buy blind!)

From a safety perspective - perhaps naively, I view safety as a commodity in the world of helmets. Therefore I assume that all helmets, at the level I play will greatly reduce (not eliminate) the risk of injury.

Maybe I'm odd but this really didn't sway my decision at all.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Vitas Cricket on September 30, 2014, 05:30:33 PM
To put some perspective on this, I'm a new customer and I've just put in an order for a PremierTek Titanium.

I...

  • Have never worn a lid before
  • Saw Broad get hit
  • Much prefer cloth style helmets
  • Grew up with Masuri and Albion and like the traditional style... I even like the new Masuri shape including peak (maybe the only person)
  • Think the helmet shape might make my head look ridiculous...  :D

Yet I wasn't put off. I still went for it and that's down to the weight and positive reviews of the vision - that's what I care about most (assuming there are no problems with fit as I'm having to buy blind!)

From a safety perspective - perhaps naively, I view safety as a commodity in the world of helmets. Therefore I assume that all helmets, at the level I play will greatly reduce (not eliminate) the risk of injury.

Maybe I'm odd but this really didn't sway my decision at all.

Will be on it's way to you shortly mate. #AdiLad :)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Percy on October 30, 2014, 11:27:49 AM
I may have missed it, but have we had, or has there been, an update from Tom on what caused the failure its been sometime now?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: trypewriter on October 30, 2014, 12:02:39 PM
I think you have missed it - scroll back a couple of pages
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Percy on October 30, 2014, 12:14:56 PM
I think you have missed it - scroll back a couple of pages
Thanks ;)
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on October 30, 2014, 12:15:24 PM
Going forward we have looked at the incident and the New BSI test standard and have taken the decision to reduce the gap between the peak at grille to a 45mm gap, this will hopefully reduce the chances further of the ball penetrating the peak and grille area.

The grille setting will only offer 1 fixed position as a result of this due to the BSI testing method that is used. Whilst we appreciate the fact that players want as good as wide a peripheral viewing outlook from the helmet as possible when wearing it we have to consider the safety aspect of this and the requirement to now pass a new safety standard.

By reducing the gap from 55mm to 45mm we think this will not significantly detract from the field of vision provided by the helmets when being worn.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: TangoWhiskey on October 30, 2014, 02:31:45 PM
Out of interest, have you tested your helmets to failure or just to the BSI standards? Have the BSI standards changed since Broad's incident? If the helmet before passed the standard, it's obvious to me the standard isn't high enough.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on October 30, 2014, 02:38:01 PM
We tested the helmets to destruction at L'boro previously and the machine maxed out at 76mph via the air cannon. The helmets performed at this level with a 55mm gap as per YouTube clips previously posted. Using the same grille for repeated impacts.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYLua0ocbe8&list=UU8a8f72gB7ZgkEfmt7WvyAA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYLua0ocbe8&list=UU8a8f72gB7ZgkEfmt7WvyAA)

The BSI standard requirement is at 63mph where you can opt to use a new grille for every impact (30 in total for each model). The issue is if Pro players at the Elite level are facing bowling at 90-95 mph the ball will still be traveling at 70-75mph at the time it reaches them (not factoring in a top edge).

All we can do from a manufacturers point of view is perform to the required BSI standard and use the research we have carried out independently to try and establish at what speed the helmets perform upto. The variable which is out of our control is the condition of the ball which will be different each and every time a incident occurs.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: MD2812 on March 04, 2015, 12:38:29 PM
Apologies if this is covered in another topic, in the World Cup Broad is using the Masuri, will we see Broad in the Aditek again?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: arsenal123 on March 04, 2015, 12:43:26 PM
Not exactly surprised.  If he's seeing a psychologist about it he probably wants to change as much as possible from that day, regardless of which helmet in particular offers the best protection.

Anyone else noticed people playing the short ball worse this winter or just me?  Seems to be some form of hangover from the numerous strikes and Hughes passing.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Neon Cricket on March 04, 2015, 01:02:50 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/31724806 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cricket/31724806)

In case anyone hasn't seen - not great news really! Hopefully he'll be back on form soon
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Percy on March 04, 2015, 01:09:31 PM
Apologies if this is covered in another topic, in the World Cup Broad is using the Masuri, will we see Broad in the Aditek again?

I haven't seen a lot of the WC on TV but are any players using an Aditek? Seems Masuri and the trad styles seem to be dominating.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: johnnyw on March 04, 2015, 01:18:02 PM
Andy balbirnie of Ireland started the wc wearing an Ayrtek but wore an albion yesterday
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Stumper on March 04, 2015, 01:21:40 PM
I have watched most of the matches, and as yet I have not seen anyone wearing this helmet, personally and this is only my opinion, i find this helmet to be the most ugly i have ever seen.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Jaffa on March 04, 2015, 01:39:54 PM
Am I right in thinking the impact tests are done with a ball shot directly at the gap and not from a lower angle so the underside of the peak takes the full impact and there is a component failure?
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Percy on March 04, 2015, 02:01:17 PM
I have watched most of the matches, and as yet I have not seen anyone wearing this helmet, personally and this is only my opinion, i find this helmet to be the most ugly i have ever seen.

I fear that the Broad incident and the "quirky" design may well be damaging for the future of the helmet. Yes, it may be great from a saftey aspect but if none of the professionals are wearing them there seems little chance that "Little Johnny", or the majority of club cricketers, will want one. Its a shame,  I hope I am wrong but time will tell.
Title: Re: the stuart broad incident
Post by: Ayrtek Cricket on March 04, 2015, 05:18:15 PM
Andy balbirnie of Ireland started the wc wearing an Ayrtek but wore an albion yesterday

Balbo got pinned in nets in his adidas lid so had to use an alternative option as the grille took the brunt of the impact and got bent.