Print

[TangoWhiskey]

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.



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

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.

[roco]

if you look on page 22 tom explains it as I was wrong with the above comment

[Ayrtek Cricket]

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.

[DiscoStu]

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?

[tim2000s]

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.

[Ayrtek Cricket]

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.

[Percy]

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.

[Ayrtek Cricket]

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.

[TopShot]

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.

[smilley792]

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?

[TopShot]

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.

[edge]

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?

[tim2000s]

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.

[Dan W]

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?

[TangoWhiskey]

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...