Topic: Are helmets now frangible? (Read 6584 times)

Cover_Drive · « **on:** August 17, 2014, 05:20:16 AM »

After Stuart Broad incident not too long ago, yesterday Junaid Khan got struck on his Shrey helmet and later had concussion which ruled him out for the whole test match.

After both incidents, I began to saw more and more Masuri helmets, are they considered as safest?

So my question is, with all the technology, research and material are helmets not secure enough?

- Have bowlers have gotten faster (while historically bowlers pace in this era has declined significantly compared to preceding eras).
- Balls have gotten stiffer?
- Material being used is not unassailable enough?
- Fattus Testing Standards are lacking?

What is it? Discuss.

Number4 · « **Reply #1 on:** August 17, 2014, 06:44:05 AM »

Where on the helmet did he get struck to give him concussion?

Taking away the grill impact zones, which helmet would people prefer to wear when being hit on the helmet shell area???

sarg · « **Reply #2 on:** August 17, 2014, 06:49:51 AM »

Concussions are caused by the brain's movement within the skull. The sudden acceleration of the head at the point of impact causes this to occur. The helmet can prevent physical damage to the face, but can't stop what goes on within the skull.

Here in Australia with AFL there was a lot of talk about introducing headgear to prevent this, but it's been proven that a helmet cannot.

The ball hitting the face due to equipment failure or poor adjustment of the grill is just plain unfortunate. Lots of threads in the forum over recent law changes to prevent people opening up the grill to much. And when it's a top edge, there a certain amount of bad luck involved too.

tim2000s · « **Reply #3 on:** August 17, 2014, 06:50:11 AM »

I'd suggest that until all the helmets are tested to the new standards and results of all are published, we'd be foolish to discuss what the safest are.
Certainly so far, there have been no claims from either shrey or Albion as to the protection afforded by their helmets. Masuri have not yet stated that they meet or exceed the new standard and Ayrtek, while meeting the 67mph impact in their own testing still have an adjustable grille which may have a setting that isn't as compliant as the rest.

Until all have been given the bsi kitemark that confirms they pass the test, you can't really discuss whether helmets are up to the job.

Personally I just think more attention is being given to this following recent incidents.

Sent from my LG-D802 using Tapatalk

Number4 · « **Reply #4 on:** August 17, 2014, 07:04:26 AM »

Quote from: sarg on August 17, 2014, 06:49:51 AM

Concussions are caused by the brain's movement within the skull. The sudden acceleration of the head at the point of impact causes this to occur. The helmet can prevent physical damage to the face, but can't stop what goes on within the skull.

Here in Australia with AFL there was a lot of talk about introducing headgear to prevent this, but it's been proven that a helmet cannot.

The ball hitting the face due to equipment failure or poor adjustment of the grill is just plain unfortunate. Lots of threads in the forum over recent law changes to prevent people opening up the grill to much. And when it's a top edge, there a certain amount of bad luck involved too.

Is this taking into account the Ayrtek Air Impact Cushioning System (acis)?..

smilley792 · « **Reply #5 on:** August 17, 2014, 07:43:12 AM »

No.4 if you watchtower he barker video in an ayrtek(acis liner) his head still has a ridiculously violent jolt back.
Although, he does seem to come of unscathed(or unconcussed), a similar incident to others may have resulted in concussion.

One thing that interest me r.e the ayrtek, I believe it says "helmet tested at max 67 mph, which is what a ball is perceived to be travelling after bouncing from an 80mph delivery"

Broads delivery started at 86mph
Kiesy delivery started at 84mph

Johnson bowls at 95(I'm talking maximum bi effort delivery not constant)
Mills 93
Plunkett 91
Broad can touch 90
Akthar hit 100mph!

Why on earth are helmets tested to only 80mph when even the "clubbie" Anderson can constantly bowl quicker?

Number4 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 17, 2014, 08:07:20 AM »

From memory Barker was hit direct on the grill and a lot of the head jolting back is in part him pulling back ie instinct.... I asked about being hit direct on the helmet shell itself....

Dan W · « **Reply #7 on:** August 17, 2014, 08:46:53 AM »

frangible
ˈfran(d)ʒɪb(ə)
adjective
able to be broken into fragments; brittle or fragile.
"the frangible skull of an infant"
denoting ammunition designed to disintegrate into very small particles on impact.
"frangible bullets"

^in case anyone else wants to know!

sarg · « **Reply #8 on:** August 17, 2014, 09:00:50 AM »

Quote from: Number4 on August 17, 2014, 07:04:26 AM

Is this taking into account the Ayrtek Air Impact Cushioning System (acis)?..

Irrelevant, the brain is a passenger inside the skull and the rotational acceleration forces that cause it to bounce are not stopped by a cricket helmet.

This is a article on the AFL info, but you do a search for why don't helmets prevent concussion and you will find more. I suppose racing style helmet that stops the neck moving will reduce it, but that does not suit cricket and most other sports.

http://theconversation.com/helmets-wont-cure-footballs-concussion-headache-7483

Number4 · « **Reply #9 on:** August 17, 2014, 09:21:31 AM »

So an "airbag" inside a "cricket" helmet won't absorb any impact??

"Under BSi testing, the A.C.I.S� liner consistently outperforms other more traditional polystyrene helmet liners. When cricket helmets are tested, they are checked by measuring the peak acceleration of a helmeted steel head form falling onto a steel surface.

In these tests, AdiPower helmets combined with the A.C.I.S� liner can provide as much as 3 times more protection than other leading helmet brands."

Taken from Ayrtek website... Hope Tom doesn't mind

smilley792 · « **Reply #10 on:** August 17, 2014, 09:25:26 AM »

Sky sports doing a pice on helmets now for anyone interested.

MD2812 · « **Reply #11 on:** August 17, 2014, 09:36:48 AM »

Quote from: smilley792 on August 17, 2014, 09:25:26 AM

Sky sports doing a pice on helmets now for anyone interested.

Can someone please sum up the discussions on each helmet? Away from the tele

ProCricketer1982 · « **Reply #12 on:** August 17, 2014, 09:46:05 AM »

They didn't do different helmets. they just mentioned the grill gap and the need to protect the temples. However, athers said he'd not like to bat in the current close gap as he can't see the ball fully so would take the risk.

TangoWhiskey · « **Reply #13 on:** August 17, 2014, 10:14:40 AM »

Broad in the Masuri

uknsaunders · « **Reply #14 on:** August 17, 2014, 01:14:13 PM »

Its pure luck nobody has been hit yet in a new masuri. Not sure that plastic peak won't just smash to bits.

Author Topic: Are helmets now frangible? (Read 6584 times)

Cover_Drive

Are helmets now frangible?

Number4

Re: Are helmets now frangible?

sarg

Re: Are helmets now frangible?

tim2000s

Re: Are helmets now frangible?

Number4

Re: Are helmets now frangible?

smilley792

Re: Are helmets now frangible?

Number4

Re: Are helmets now frangible?

Dan W

Re: Are helmets now frangible?

sarg

Re: Are helmets now frangible?

Number4

Re: Are helmets now frangible?

smilley792

Re: Are helmets now frangible?

MD2812

Re: Are helmets now frangible?

ProCricketer1982

Re: Are helmets now frangible?

TangoWhiskey

Re: Are helmets now frangible?

uknsaunders

Re: Are helmets now frangible?