personal protective equipment for pwc racing

65
CASE STUDY: PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT FOR PWC COMPETITION Safety in Personal Water Craft Motorsports regarding the use of personal protective equipment is vital component of enjoying a competitive experience and should be regarded as top priority for participants to educate and inspect equipment and design features of product selection 2014 Booklet on PPE Safety Considerations

Post on 11-Sep-2014

1.373 views

Category:

Education


7 download

DESCRIPTION

Safety in Motorsports. Have you seen the F1 movie regarding safety in Formula one racing? That says it all. Or have you paid attention to the safety changes in NASCAR? Look at every motorsport and what do you see? The sport of PWC racing is far behind. Here are facts, studies and terminology to assist the layperson gain a better understanding of the PPE for competition. It is time to change, here is the first measure towards understanding what direction the sport should address, check out this informative booklet.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT

FOR PWC COMPETITION

Safety in Personal Water Craft Motorsports regarding the use of personal

protective equipment is vital component of enjoying a competitive

experience and should be regarded as top priority for participants to

educate and inspect equipment and design features of product selection

2014 Booklet on

PPE Safety

Considerations

Page 2: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

1

Table of Contents

Chapter 1: How Protective is PWC PPE? – Page 2 Chapter 2: Branding Versus Testing – Page 6 Chapter 3: Back Protector – Page 8 Chapter 4. Review of Back Protector Standards – Page 17 Chapter 4: Leg Protectors - Page 20 Chapter 5: Neck Braces – Page 21 Chapter 6: Lifejackets – Page 29 Chapter 7: Helmets – Page 35 Chapter 8: Cameras – Page 61 Final: About – Page 64

CASE STUDY - PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE) IN MOTORSPORTS

HOW PROTECTIVE IS PERSONAL WATERCRAFT PPE?

Chapter 1: The Realities, Needs and the Myths of PPE Safety

Shawn Alladio – Water Safety PWC Subject Matter Expert (SME)

Historically PWC competitive associate bodies have failed to address safety in motorsports concerns related to track safety and personal safety of competitors and teams. What does this mean?

Other power sport governing bodies and promoters have addressed safety concerns of their track design, staff, equipment standardization and apparel needs, usually because of dissatisfaction from members or an increase in injury/accidents. This includes the accessories that are utilized for safety or impact related incidents and not limited to the environmental changes occurring during various methods of competition.

While there have been meetings and discussions which have not amounted to any official direction or amendments regarding scientific reviews, there still have to date neither been a panel of experts that addresses the PPE concerns of PWC competitive operations.

Personal watercraft race teams and participants are the core value supporters of the sport. They care about their sport and invest readily into its competition spirit and supporting companies whom produce quality products they can utilize to achieve their best performance. This is an essential partnership bond.

Read all the operational instructions, owner’s manuals and stay current on product recalls and notices. You will have to update and replace your gear as needed. This booklet will assist the reader in making sound judgment and selection respective to PWC required and recommended safety gear. When all else

Page 3: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

2

fails, contact the company and or their representative directly to clarify your inquiry, best source is the manufacturer for updates.

PWC participants at special events are passionate about their sport. They will produce only what is required or recommended by governing bodies. The majority are committed to the sport, however we have seen an extensive downturn in racing participation the past few years. Those that have remained are funding the sport with their participation. They want to do better and expect the same for their sport leadership.

In an effort to support their pursuit of competitive excellence but not at the expense of ignoring safety inspections, values and product design claims that do not support real world test evaluations or theory this study was conducted with current information.

Reference links are provided throughout the booklet for personal review. The teams decide what they are willing to employ and place in use.

In partnership we will further advance the level of professionalism for safety in PWC events and we believe this booklet will enhance the educational knowledge and what standards are current or what standards are non-existent in exoskeleton protective devices.

We are reliant upon their input and experience and will do our best to seek counsel and support from industry subject matter experts in the motorsports field in the hope that water contact evaluations are placed in proper perspective for evaluation.

PIT CREW SAFETY

Have you ever heard a discussion relative to your pit crew, such as the person you employ as your ‘Holder’? Pit Crew and Holder safety are equally as important to the success of any event.

“Since 2002, NASCAR has implemented a rule where all over the wall pit members are required to wear helmets, no visors needed, full fire suits, and gloves; while the gas man must wear a fire apron as well as the suit. While it is not required yet, it is recommended that tire changers wear safety glasses to prevent eye injuries from lug nuts thrown off the car and fuel spills. Some tire changers wear face shields or goggles”.

Page 4: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

3

Safety in Motorsports has an origin, and that is unfortunately derived from the loss of life at an event.

Tragic circumstances have driven the need for better safety measures.

Unfortunately in the PWC field, these incidents have not been tested, and we are not willing to endure any tragic circumstances related to a lack of safety in racing.

As a leader in safety I have set firm standardization and best practices for our water rescue element, however it is very difficult to find the fact from fiction regarding PPE.

We expect our teams and race members to enforce and insure that when they come to a race track they are prepared and ready to do their job with the highest level of professionalism known in this sport.

COMPARATIVE SAFETY STUDY

F1 car racing suffered many horrific race deaths. The idea was not to race and die, it was to race for as long as possible. Once the sport took responsibility, the attitude changed. It was then that the safety in motorsports was awakened. NASCAR was next.

When NASCAR began applying safety in their motorsport they address several identifiable criteria:

1. Track Design 2. Safety Response and Staff Measures 3. Competitor Personal Protective Equipment 4. Vehicle Design and Modifications

Safety in NASCAR has evolved into one of the biggest concerns in the sport of NASCAR. Mainly after the death of Dale Earnhardt, a seven time Winston Cup Series champion, NASCAR has decided to change all of their safety policies, such as the use of the HANS device.

Since 2001, NASCAR has also changed the cars for the Sprint Cup Series and the Nationwide Series. NASCAR's safety policy includes the racing fire suit, carbon fiber seating, and roof flaps.

They looked at historical data regarding other race track fatalities. They addressed the increased speed of the race vehicles to track design and conditions.

They look at the common denominator of crashes, fires, survivability and safety for the responders and pit crew members.

Page 5: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

4

Let’s face the fear. Nobody wants to sustain a significant traumatic injury. Companies recognize the need to supply product that supports reduction of this concern by designing products that can assist in collisions or accidents.

But how are they evaluated and tested for safety ratings that produce results?

Everyone will have an opinion or a commentary to supply. They will be backed by personal experience, listening to their peers, or the marketing promises of products.

When it gets down to it, we need to address the core realities of design, function and features applied to these realities.

Until the PWC community equipment designers are prepared to present their products for professional testing, it is safe to say we maintain no true safety record that can prove these products are preventable measures.

Needless to say, this does not mean one will not wear or support products for bracing or impact.

We will not endorse products that have not undergone thorough testing and evaluation with an approval from a recognized authority. In the meantime we strive to educate, inquire and observe what the best practices and trends are in current production and we will apply ourselves as those products are revealed that match standardization for the best coverage and continue to share the dialogue and results.

Participant Injury Concerns Cervical spine injuries are often due to hyperextension (head moves backward and the back of the head touches the upper back) and hyper flexion (head moves forward and chin touches chest).

Blunt Force Trauma

Cervical Injury

Spinal Injury

Head Injury

The top five Personal Watercraft Competition Injuries are related to the extreme body stress with the forces of action and vessel technical handling of the operator(s) and risk of injury during competition and practice (training).

Page 6: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

5

The percentage of injuries for PWC competitors is approximately 90% have sustained some form of injury. Since injuries are so common many operators expect to receive at injury of varying degree at some time, from minor contusion, concussion or fractures of bones or torn musculature or ligaments/tendons.

The majority of these injuries occur during a fall onboard or overboard or a crash in competition or practice. The speed of the vessel. Loss of temporary vision is a contributing factor.

Contact with the water surface or another vessel and the resultant forces are high, injuries can be extremely serious in nature. More men are injured than women during competitions.

A majority of PWC related injuries are typically sustained by newcomers to the sport and most are lower limb extremity injuries. The majority of injuries on a race track occur at the start to first turn buoy (generally a left handed turn) at a turn that has a higher degree of bend in its arc. Also when the weather and water conditions decline from flat or calm water conditions to increased water movement.

Accidents can also occur from the trailing wake of another vessel that draws or drafts the centerline keel of the following PWC into a offset track line.

Since there are no brakes it is imperative that competitors have a thorough understanding of water movement and their hull configuration with speed applied and the forces of action taking place to make the best technical applications possible. Landing from jumps also creates a higher risk of injury.

Page 7: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

6

There is some argument that devices can create a ‘fulcrum’ point that actually increases the risk of a fracture or break depending upon the location, amount of forces applied and the type of product in use.

Due to the risk of injury in personal protective equipment is essential as operator maintains positive efficiency of balance, physical conditioning and vessel control.

These are taken from a poll online regarding Closed Course racing, offshore/endurance racing, or freeride/freestyle formats regarding stand-up, sport and runabout type of watercraft. They are not broken down by vessel type or activity but used as a general overall consensus

1. Broken Ribs 2. Broken Tibia/Fibula/femur (Leg injury) 3. Broken wrist 4. Lacerations (sutures) 5. Fractured Pelvis/Hip injury

These injuries reflect the transvers plane of the body folding forward while underway on plane generally resulting in forward impact with their Personal Water Craft of from impact collision of another PWC striking them.

Freeride/freestyle injuries typically result in offset body trim landings or striking the hull with their head.

Injuries have also been sustained by spectators and media representatives who are in dangerous areas off the track standing in waist deep water due to strikes from race boats. Or from standing behind the starting line when they are struck by the jet thrust water stream, which may include small pebbles or rocks.

BRANDING VERSUS TESTING

Most of the standards employed in this booklet are derived from the motocross industry examples mainly because there are no current PWC studies to apply. The motocross examples are not water related, tested or vetted through our aquatic oriented activity, which has a different measure of risk and impact.

There are currently no standards or testing procedures necessary to call a piece of cardboard "the best protection system on the planet" in the United States. It seems ridiculous to buy gear based on marketing hype, sponsorship deals, rumors, arbitrary crash experience, looks, feel, and name recognition.

Real, factual scientifically derived numbers should be the first reason for buying a piece of "protective" gear, unless it simply makes you ‘feel better’. Confidence itself can also go a long way, along with proper handling of a PWC underway not limited to physical fitness levels and a positive sportsmanlike manner.

When a company issues in their branding or marketing sales pitch a blanket statement and or assumptions back up with zero safety or medical evaluation, this can prove dangerous.

Page 8: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

7

A few years ago lifejackets used to be called (PFD’s) Personal Flotation Devices. The common term now is to use ‘lifejacket’ so those who use them realize the relationship to ‘life saving’ for practical use.

Regarding lifejackets, there used to be 100 to 50 miles per hour impact ratings that were quickly endorsed in the boating safety community. Lifejackets are your single most important safety item.

This was a great idea for the consumer so they would realize that their lifejacket at falls averaging those speeds would not break apart of create a failure ensuring they would stay intact. This did not ensure that the person wearing them would not suffer any injury.

The problem is the assumption of an ignorant or uneducated user believing this would prevent injury. The terminology is no longer a factor in sales due to the ignorance of the user believing this would prevent injury at high speed falls into the water.

It does our community no good will to make assumptions and not to address safety concerns regarding PPE. Consumer products should be reviewed by a team of orthopedic physicians and biomechanics experts to determine the viability of product design, construction materials and safety claims. That is what standardization requires, effect and professional testing regarding impact and the forces of action applied.

We will follow online dialogue that asks the questions regarding protective personal equipment. Although we have no studies or evaluations conducted by authorized testing organizations for PPE that are sold within the Personal Watercraft industry, we are forced to delve into what other motorsports have been experiencing. Through this research we begin to discover that there is a common thread of concern. There are no products currently for waterborne speed events select for PWC use that are tested and endorsed by any governing or sanctioning safety board or medical review. It can be very confusing, but after some discussions and some simple research I have found a few companies that offer CE certified back protectors and specify compliance with the proper back protector standards (MOTOCROSS ONLY). The standard establishes a unified testing procedure to be used by clothing or protector manufacturers who intend to have their products qualified for sale in Europe and who want to offer their protective wear in all countries of the European Union. The result of this testing procedure determines whether manufacturers can market the protective equipment as "protectors" or simply "protective padding". All of the certified back protectors are only good for a single-use due to the structure and/or crushable materials used to absorb impact, though a few offer better protection for multiple impacts during a crash.

Types of compression due to hyperextension and hyper flexion

1. Wedge compression fracture is caused by the result of hyper flexion 2. Burst compression fractures are caused by vertical and little horizontal movement and descend

squarely onto the head 3. Garden-variety compression fractures are the most common

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/824380-overview

Regardless of all the chatter, commentary and theory do not result in reality. The only true markings of product testing will be those who are authorized by a scientific group of applied sciences, checks and balances comparing various brands and their claims.

Page 9: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

8

Chapter 2: BACK PROTECTOR

The most important question I offer for discussion to a medical board would be should these devices be worn ‘over’ a lifejacket or ‘under’ a lifejacket? Which would increase coverage or decrease coverage due to risk of impact? Does this mean that the lifejacket should be replaced upon a strike along with the back protector? Who will be responsible for inspections and maintenance?

Most of the CE certified back protectors employ some sort of deformable aluminum honeycomb to handle the impact energy. In most cases these are one use devices. This means you need to destroy them after

a strike or any direct impact.

There is also some debate as to the value of a back protector as most back injuries in motorcycle accidents seem to come from flexion or torsion to the trunk of the body and not impact strikes. There is no study of water use applications during motorsports events on the water, so we only have land based comparisons.

The CE BACK PROTECTOR standard is labeled EN1621-2. The test is performed with a 5kg “kerbstone” dropped from one meter to create the test impact force of 50 Joules The standard contains two levels of energy transmission performance. 18kN passes LEVEL 1 "basic" compliance and 9kN passes LEVEL 2 "high performance" compliance. So LEVEL 2 protectors allow 50% less energy to reach the spine/ribs. The CE LIMB/JOINT PROTECTOR standard is labeled EN1621-1. It allows joint/limb armor to transmit no more than 35kN of force for all levels. Both of the CE body armor standards (back or limb) use the same amount of energy as a starting point, 50 joules.

However, limb/joint armor ratings are based on performance at an initial force of 50 joules, 75 joules, or 100 joules, leading to 3 levels of performance within this standard. All 3 levels allow no more than 35 kN of energy to transmit: LEVEL 1 (50 joules), LEVEL 2 "high performance" (75 joules), and LEVEL 3 "extreme performance" (100 joules).

“Astrene” gel/foam is the highest rated material used in body armor (extreme performance level in 8mm non-perforated thickness), followed closely by varying thickness and perforated forms of “Astrosorb”, and T-Pro’s four layers of “Armour-Flex” material. http://www.pva-ppe.org.uk/ PART%203...20EXPLAINED.html Here's an excerpt from the link above with an explanation of the current CE Back Protector Standards: "There has been criticism of the standard from medical experts who consider the transmitted force levels too severe; citing decades of automotive research which indicates 4 kN is the maximum force the brittle bones which form the human ribcage can withstand before they fracture.

Four kiloNewtons is the requirement adopted in standards covering, for example, horse riders' body protectors and martial arts equipment.” Attempts to reduce the transmitted force requirement to 4 kN and to correspondingly reduce the 50 Joule impact energy requirement were strongly resisted by industry, who claimed consumers would be

Page 10: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

9

confused by different impact energy requirements between EN1621-1 and EN1621-2. In truth, it was in the industry's commercial interests to test both types of protector at 50J, since they could then extol the efficacy of back protectors which, when struck with the same impact energy as limb protectors, transmitted only 9 or 18 kN compared to 35 kN. The consumer would be unaware that subtle differences in the impactor and anvil were responsible, and still less aware that 9 kN was still more than double the safe limit supported by medical experts. Furthermore, during the late 1990s, some companies had used the wholly inappropriate EN 1621-1 to CE mark their back protectors.

Commercial objectives were given priority over consumer safety. Despite these concerns, EN1621-2 represents a starting point from wholly unsafe products should be rendered obsolete and unsellable. It will be important, however, for consumers to ensure back protectors are marked with the correct standard number, if they are not to mistakenly purchase an old stock. Finally, there are a small number of back protectors on the market which have been dual-tested against the requirements of EN1621-2 and also against a 4 kN transmitted force requirement. Reading the manufacturer's technical information will disclose which the superior products are.” Don't we only wish that was true. So there are two levels that are considered passing, but both of these levels fall within that 1621-2 back protector standard. However, 4kN is the medically recommended level of transmitted force, but is NOT actually required by the current CE back protector standard, and most protectors cannot provide this level at the 50 Joule impact level.

Keep in mind that when a protector is just labeled as CE Approved, and no mention is made of the level of performance, it probably implies Level 1 compliance, but the claim should be verified (European sold models must comply by law). Here's a list of all of the back protectors I have found (BUT IS NOT ALL INCLUSIVE, TECHNOLOGIES HAVE CHANGED AND COMPANY DESIGNS), starting with the LEVEL 2 rated protectors, followed by some LEVEL 1 protectors, and finally by those that are NOT RATED and/or offer no performance data or verification of claims: BKS is the only motorcycle clothing manufacturer that offers back protectors that meet the medically established 4kN energy transmission level with their Astroshock model protector. BKS also offers limb/joint armor that meets the CE 1621-1 standard's highest rating, the "extreme performance" energy absorption level (35kN@100J). They seem to have the right attitude and the highest quality merchandise available, but they are also THE most expensive producer of leather motorcycle apparel on the planet. Should we really have to pay $3000.00 for the kind overall protection we need?

Nobody else claims suits that are 100% CE approved as a whole (abrasion, tearing, seam burst, and impact).

Why is there only one manufacturer willing to meet the baseline testing requirements and apply for certification? It’s a sad statement about level of respect we are shown as consumers by the majority of gear manufacturers. http://www.bksleather.co.uk/techno.htm

T-Pro offers similar products, their website is full of good info and their products clearly stand-out as the highest-rated in crash protection.

Page 11: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

10

Both BKS and T-Pro protectors and body armor are effective for multiple impacts during a crash event, and are made with no hard plastics which should be much more comfortable and is potentially safer than products made with hard materials. The most interesting piece of info from the T-Pro Body Armor site: "Back Protection for Motorcyclists--Only a few motorcyclists receive a direct blow to the spine causing serious injury; more spine injuries are probably due to direct blows to the shoulders and hips. The products commonly known as motorcyclists back protectors, if correctly designed and constructed may alleviate some minor direct impacts on the back, but will not prevent skeletal or neurological injuries to the spine in motorcycle accidents." It appears that most riders’ assumptions about the use and effectiveness of back protection is more than even the highest rated protectors can live-up to in actual performance. This information won’t stop people from purchasing a back protector, but it certainly gives us a better understanding of what to expect at current levels, so as not to be fooled by stories or sales pitches to the contrary. Is minimizing spinal, scapular, rib, and kidney bruising worth the cost of most of these protectors? Most would agree with that statement. T-Pro's Forcefield back protector is CE certified to the 1621-2 LEVEL 2 standards, making it one of the few that advertises meeting this higher level. They also claim that the "Armour Flex" material will absorb multiple impacts with the same effectiveness. However that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be used again after a crash, but, just like a helmet, it will protect against second or third blows in the same area in a crash. T-Pro also makes a chest protector/harness system, the 8100 harness, that they say conforms to the 1993 Swedish Off-Road Standards. I’m not familiar with the requirements for that certification. I would assume that off-road standards wouldn’t be ideal for street-speed impact protection, and I would consider 1993 to be archaic in terms of technology and materials advancements. How stringent that standard is, and if it applies favorably for street protectors? Johnson Leather, in the U.S., sells the T-Pro Forcefield products, as well as what looks to be the BKS "Astroshock" back protector inserts under their own name, and BKS now also sells a re-badged version of the T-pro Forcefield protector as well. http://www.tprobodyarmour.co.uk/ff_back.html http://www.johnsonleather.com/armor/

Page 12: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

11

DAINESE

Dainese doesn't tout or even mention CE approval anywhere on their website, but I did manage to find some info on the Dainese protectors from MotoLiberty's website. Dainese makes quite a few different models, not all advertise the same levels of protection, but most appear to be certified. They use an aluminum honeycomb structure, similar to the Knox protectors. "The Dainese folding back protector--Paraaschiena Ripegabile, is made with a hard plastic tortoise-shell type construction. It has an optimum shock absorption capacity which easily superseded the tough test at the highest level, EN1621-2 LEVEL 2." It also has the added convenience of being foldable for storage. The Dainese Wave 2 protector is CE rated LEVEL 1. The BAP protectors are also CE approved, LEVEL 1. The Back Space and Gilet Space models are also CE approved to the LEVEL 1 standard, passing with 15kN of transmitted force in tests. http://www.dainese.it http://www.motoliberty.com/prod_detail.asp?ProdID=34

Knox was the first company to apply for CE approval for their KC protectors back in 1997, under the previously established limb/joint protector standards (EN1621-1). For a while, Knox was the only company that offered a certified protector. All of the Knox protectors are approved to the current and proper 1621-2 standard (Level 1). They claim to surpass the basic requirements, but not higher level compliance. They offer the largest coverage area of any of the protectors available with all of their models. The Stowaway model is flexible enough to roll-up for convenient storage, and comes with its own storage bag and is still approved to the LEVEL 1 standard. http://www.planet-knox.com/Knox/index.asp Alpinestars states that their Tech Protector and RC back pad inserts are EN1621-2 approved (LEVEL 1). http://www.alpinestars.com/_lp/moto_protection.htm

Spidi offers two families of back protector options, the Airback and Warriors. The Airback protector is CE Level 1 approved according to the Italian Spidi website. However, SpidiUSA doesn’t mention any of this info. The European versions are updated and not yet available in the U.S

Page 13: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

12

which could explain these differences. The Warrior “mid” and “low” options are LEVEL 1 approved, but offer very little coverage area, focusing on the lumbar region with no shoulder blade coverage. Spidi touts the Airback protector as being more effective because of its shoulder blade coverage and the nature of most initial crash impacts hitting the shoulder blade region. It is also confusing with the standard and compact Warrior protectors. I noticed a difference the photos of the Spidi Warrior protectors on the Spidi USA website vs. the Italian site (English version). The US website shows a Warrior protector that looks different than the Warrior protectors on the Italian website. Again, I was told that the European version is updated and not yet available in the U.S which would explain these differences. Both Spidi websites state that the regular and compact versions of the Warrior are compliant with the CE Directives for PPE (Personal Protective Equipment), which have nothing to do with the actual testing performance or standards for the equipment. The Directives are simply an ethics code and basis for testing procedures and standards operations. This is a very misleading statement regarding the effectiveness of these products. Have they been properly tested and certified to the EN1621-2 standard? It certainly doesn’t appear that way. http://www.spidi.it/spidi-jsp/index.jsp?lang=en http://www.spidiusa.com/Category.php...ory=protection http://www.ce-marking.org/directive-89686eec-PPE.html

The Giali protector claims CE approval. No mention of level. It is a European model, so it is probably properly approved to the LEVEL 1 standard. http://www.motorcycle-uk.com/giali/G...rotectors.html

Clover, another European brand, has a couple of models specified to meet LEVEL 1 standards, no word of availability of Clover protectors in the U.S. http://www.bbbikeshop.co.uk/acatalog...ctors_329.html

Kobe back protectors claim CE approval as well, but no mention of which standard or level. http://www.1888fastlap.com/kobe_fast...ck_protect.htm

Fieldsheer makes claims in their marketing copy for the X20 back protector that leaves the specifics to the imagination by not directly referring to the standard that their protector has passed. "The X20 back protector provides protection internally using a new "honey comb" plastic core, proved to exceed all European CE standards." Maybe I'm over-analyzing, but if you read it carefully, what is that really saying? Has it been certified? Has it been tested as a whole? Is the design or the final product proven to CE levels? All CE standards?

Page 14: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

13

I have received confirmation from an X20 owner that it is properly rated to the 1621-2 LEVEL 1 standard. Not the best, as they make it sound, but properly rated and certified nonetheless. It would have been easier, if they just would have stated that in their ads. www.fieldsheer.com

Helimot carries a German brand of protectors, Erbo. The models on Erbo’s own website are shrouded in a Cordura cover. I don’t know if they are the same models sold by Helimot, but Erbo states that those protectors are CE LEVEL 1 approved. Helimot has an interesting theory behind their TLV protector, but makes no claims of protection (It’s an American market product). I have heard stories of the owner of Helimot performing "real world" tests with a hammer for skeptics. Uh sorry, I'd rather have repeatable measurements than seat-of my-pants guesses at what crash forces are going to feel like. These dramatic exhibitions should be saved for differentiating the meaning of the data, rather than basing your presumptions of efficacy on them. http://www.helimot.com/catalog/other...tlv_data.shtml http://www.helimot.com/catalog/other...ack_data.shtml

Knox makes reference to improper use of CE claims by other companies. They don't name names, but it appears to be in response to Bohn's non-certified CE labeling practice. Bohn uses a CE label without actually being certified. Bohn also does not specify which standard they are referring to in their marketing statements of "exceeding CE specs" or "built to European CE standards".

An article on the British Motorcycle Federation website implies that unnamed companies are being sued for improperly using the CE mark and not complying with the proper specs for back protectors. I cannot find any actual information that directly refers to Bohn or the standards that Bohn allegedly meets or exceeds. http://www.bmf.co.uk/briefing/index....ef24.inc.shtml

Bohn lists the Pro-Racer protectors as being "made to European CE standards", though they have NOT actually been certified. Is Bohn referring to the correct back protector standard when they make this claim? Well, Bohn’s claim was not only made prior to the existence of the 1621-2 back protector standard, but they have still refused to submit for proper testing and certification. Bohn makes no certification, rating, or other protection claims with any of the Carbon/Kevlar models or the Pro-Racer Motard version, and offers no performance data or levels or verification of protection for those model either. The Bohn X-Ploit chest and back harnesses claim to be "made to the Scandinavian Off-road Protection Standard." No word on whether these protectors are actually certified to that standard either. I don't know too much about the Swedish(Scandinavian) off-road standard, but it was instituted in 1993 and is probably not at the current level required by CE for street use items. Bohn's website offers no specific information regarding which CE specs are being met and how it is being proven. I find this claim to be blatantly deceptive and deceitful. Such claims should be backed-up with formal proof. Any company that tries to tag-on to safety standards and markings without actually providing open evidence or paying for the right to market its products using the standard is not selling in good faith. The other claim by Bohn is that their protectors can be used for multiple crashes.

Page 15: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

14

This goes against all other information about the only materials in use that will absorb the necessary amount of energy to meet the 1621-2 standard. So far, there are no companies that meet the proper standards without using materials that permanently deform after a crash impact or multiple impacts during a single crash, just like helmets. But they do offer-up some gems, like this quote from Eric Bostrom: "After testing at the Jan 2000 Laguna Shakedown Eric reported: '...really comfortable, and made me feel safe on the bike' " Boy that was convincing, haha. Yes, that is the entire testimonial. http://www.bohnarmor.com/bohnarmor/index.asp http://www.actionstation.com/proracer.html

Impact Armor claims their protectors are "Designed to exceed ALL European CE specifications for armor", but are NOT actually CE certified and do not provide any performance data either.

The CE had not introduced the 1621-2 back protector standards at the time that statement about the "design" was originally published. There is no reference to the proper standard, and the lack of open proof leaves that statement worthless. Impact Armor relies on testimonials from unpaid professional racers, but nothing in the way of proven results of crash worthiness or protective levels in their marketing or correspondence. I had email correspondence with Michael Braxton, owner of Impact Armor. He seemed friendly, but unwilling to divulge any real information about how his Impact Armor protectors have performed in tests.

In fact, I got the gist that they haven't been tested at all or at least in the current form. He focuses on theory and a “patented design“, but the design and theory need to be proven by repeatable testing of a final product to be worthwhile.

In fact, in Mr. Braxton’s allusions to CE, the website states that “prototypes were submitted for testing to the Cambridge Institute in Britain”. Results of these “prototype” tests are not shown, and the assertion is qualified by a statement about a 6-year long “wear ability program” as if they were the same issue.

Also, the “patented design” is not in reference to a protective feature, but a convenience feature that allows disposal and replacement of damaged components after an impact-use.

A patent doesn’t say anything about the design’s effectiveness. This all amounts to a lot of hype without actually saying anything substantial about the actual crash-worthiness of the product. I inferred that these theories were tested in the early '90s while working with T-Pro.

I don't know the complete history of T-Pro and Impact Armor or Michael Braxton, but I am leery of his evasiveness and lip service to safety and standards in our correspondence, though his intentions did sound sincere at times. However when it comes to safety, somebody's sincere intentions won't buy a cup of coffee.

One statement he made did bother me though: According to Braxton, “Frankly, the cost, time and bureaucracy to obtain CE certification is just not worth the hassle... And if you did subject yourself to the process, the quality of your product is treated no differently than the others.…”

Page 16: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

15

Frankly, I think that the “quality of your product” would be revealed by performance testing. What does he really mean by that statement? Does it sound arrogant or just ignorant? Either way, it’s certainly laughable. Apparently it’s less of a hassle to claim something meaningful without paying for its use, but he is certainly willing to reap the benefits of the association. According to Paul Varnessy, head of PVA Technical File Services, “It actually costs less to test and certify a motorcycle suit than it does the average pair of safety shoes - as proven by the fact that the first companies to achieve EC type approval were the small, UK manufacturers of bespoke motorcyclists’ clothing.” www.impactarmor.com

Teknic makes no specific claims of protective levels or performance results with their 4 or 7 link protectors, but they also sell the CE approved Knox back protectors. http://www.teknicgear.com/pages/coll.../4_7_link.html http://www.forcefieldbodyarmour.com/product/extreme-harness-adventure/2347

Joe Rocket's website says very little about their GPX back protector. It is NOT shown to be CE certified. It is, however, made with the same material that BKS uses in their body armor, "Astrosorb", one of the

highest-rated foams used in LIMB/JOINT armor, but make no reference to the thickness used or performance results, just that it is one-piece.

Other companies have stated that Astrosorb alone will not meet the CE back protector standards. http://www.joerocket.com/catalog/ite...roducts_id=233

The NJK, another American model that offers nothing about protection levels or certifications: The Italian made UFO back protectors. Don't know about their availability in the U.S., or certification, but they are likely properly approved as a European product. There are plenty more out there, the important thing is to know what to look for before you spend any more money thinking you have the safest possible piece of equipment.

In the end you have to ask yourself just how much limited personal experience, limited arbitrary crash experience, limited knowledge of the real forces at work in any crash story, and the beliefs of others in what they have heard through the grapevine will get you the right answers.

The problem with any of that information is that it is never complete or accurate, no matter how well-intentioned it may be.

Is any of this sort of speculation going to satisfy your motivation to part with your money?

What information will provide you with the safety expectations you have decided are appropriate? The need for a Snell-type standard in the US that is clear, comprehensive, and concise is the only solution.

Page 17: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

16

We have no standards for motorcycle gear in the United States, which means somebody can slap a piece of cardboard together, and call it the world's best protection system ever, and it may even look the part. I'm also sure that you could find some racers or average Joe's to swear by it as well.

Perpetuation of poor information and marketing hype leaves too much to our own speculation as the basis for our protective measures. All of these questions, and any misinformation, marketing hype, and rumors can be avoided with a simple testing procedure. Snell labeling for helmets has been largely successful and we need to demand something similar for the rest of our body. If "something is better than nothing" then "something better" can be just that.

Back protectors were designed for road crashes.

Water impact and forces of action and speed contact via physical body positioning is far different in terms of contact, gear coming loose, and the protective measures are vastly different and not comparable.

What does our PWC industry offer in comparison to the motorcycle industry? At least this company is trying. What are the bare bone facts per marketing and standard approvals and what do they mean to the user?

Do not forget this: Contact with water, any garments/protective gear that is LOOSE will ‘catch’ and can create a ‘SNAP BACK’ or catch point effect!

I have to give these companies some credit they are trying, but there is not a testing or evaluation standard. So what does this mean in terms of product use and function?

Page 18: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

17

REVIEW OF SAFETY STANDARDIZATION FOR BACK PROTECTORS IMPACT LEVEL STANDARDS 4kN is the medically recommended level of transmitted force.

This is the maximum force which the human ribcage can withstand before they fracture.

Performance Levels

All three levels of performance allow no more than 35 kN of energy to transmit

Level 1 - 50 Joule ‘Initial Force’

Level 2 - ‘High Performance’

Level 3 - ‘Extreme Performance’

1. EN1621-1

(BASIC) 5kg ‘kerbstone’ test impact force of 50 joules dropped 1 meter 18kN passes. This is the least desirable and inappropriate level for back protection, products that fall in this category appear to be unsafe.

2. EN1621-2

(HIGH PERFORMANCE) 5kg ‘kerbstone’ test impact force dropped 1 meter 9kN passes allowing 50% less energy to reach the spine/ribs.

These are considered with dual tests, and most back protectors cannot even provide this basic standard.

CE LIMB/JOINT Protector Standard - Meets energy absorption level (35kN@100J)

CE RATED LEVEL 1

CE APPROVED, LEVEL 1

What should you look for?

- First look at the Product Description. - Second look at the Product Specifications. Do you see any commentary in writing that reflects a direct relationship and substantiated claim to the any of the following:

1. Level of Performance 2. Approval (abrasion, tearing, seam burst and impact rating) 3. Rating 4. Energy Transmits Level

Page 19: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

18

Jet Tribe-TsunJet Ski Deflector

Product Description Excerpts: “PWCs are getting faster and more powerful every year. But in 2011, riders are still relying on motocross equipment not designed for PWC use to protect themselves from the hazards of high speed racing. What's wrong with that picture? PWC riders need just as much protection as their land cousins and they deserve protection they can call their own. This thing has clear overlapping polycarbonate panels to protect that ever so precious spine of ours while not covering the ridiculously cool Flying Skulls print that decorates the Race Vest. Break-away plastic rivets and 6-point velcro mounting keep it in place. Built-in water drain vents ensures that water doesn't weigh it down. And it's a great piece of lightweight armor should the Zombie Apocalypse ever happen. How's that for multi-purpose?” PWC Back Deflector Skull Model

● High impact injection molded polycarbonate plates. ● Articulating sections conform to the curvature of your back. ● Break-away plastic rivets and 6-point velcro system mounts back deflector to the RS-16 Race Vest securely. ● Built-in water drain vents ensures that water does not get captured but flows through without weighing down the vest.

JTG Stealth 71 Back Deflector

Eva Compression Molded Outer Shell.

Impact Cell Internal Core.

2 Layers of ABS Plastic Sheets.

Laminated Poly Carbonate Cells.

Universal Fit for any Jettribe Side-Entry Vest: RS-16, RS-17, Moto-1, Moto1-G2, JetPilot

Side-Entry and QuakySense, Fly Side-Entry Vest.

IJSBA, TJSBA Race Compliant.

Floats Independently.

http://www.tsunamijetski.com/jtg-11433s-pwc-back-deflector-smoke/

Page 20: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

19

KNOX CONTOUR BACK PROTECTOR http://www.jazzmotorsports.com/knox-contour-tour-back-protector-p-318887.html

Highest performance and ultra light so you forget you are wearing a back protector!

CE approved to Level 2 of EN1621-2.

Transmits only 6KN of energy.

Ultra light weight at only 600g.

Engineered and formed in a 5 layer mould that follows the contour of the back.

Fully adjustable and removable kidney protectors in soft PU give added performance.

Quick release straps that also cross over for increased comfort.

Technically advanced spacer fabric for breathability and antibacterial waist straps with Coolmax for comfort.

Optional CE approved chest protector can be purchased separately.

With additional coccyx protection

References: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jaDCBXnfnk http://www.jobesports.com/products/pwc-gear/accessories/shield-back-protector/ This one is CE approved but exactly what does that mean in terms of protection and impact? http://www.landway.com.tw/back-protectors.shtml This manufacturer doesn’t even give a proper description of the benefits or justifications medically in terms of PWC use?

Page 21: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

20

Chapter 3: LEG PROTECTORS

Are there any ratings for leg protectors available as a support device? In motocross they have strong supportive designed boots that cover the entire lower leg. I couldn’t find anything regarding leg protection ratings.

Leg Protectors or leg guards are sold as a protective device for lower limb coverage. What coverage is to be expected? Contact with another Personal Watercraft on a race track and at what angle or force or pressure applied?

How many lbs. per square inch of pressure can these devices manage before failure of the human frame?

What type of strike are they going to deflect and how secure to the body are these products? When we discuss impact, it is either water impact, body impact to our own PWC or impact from another PWC.

Many times on the race track as a course marshal I would pick up neck braces and discarded leg protectors! How were these riders losing them?

Sometimes it was from the jet thrust or bow water spray leading up to the first turn from other race craft, other times it was their body digging into a turn or their bow plunging below the water surface and forcing a hard plume of water against their body in the footwell.

Or the elastic binders (fasteners) would age or did not fit the competitor body frame properly. They often would slide down on their legs not staying in place. These products also have a lifespan to them and should be replaced and they should be inspected for damage and cared for accordingly.

The kinetic energy that is transferred at point of contact can run all the way up to ‘blunt force trauma’. This can also be a ‘pin’ between the seated straddle position on their PWC against the hull pressure of a competitor boat. On a runabout the seated position typically places a bend at the knee joint.

The angle of contact and force applied would need to be measured inline from the knee to the ankle joint, One would need an exoskeleton protection such as a hull, cage or physical barrier to reduce or offset some of that energy applied, made of construction material that can take many kN’s of force

http://worldwidewatersports.co.uk/product.php?product=262 These are just water spray related http://www.justwatersports.com/contents/en-uk/d108_pwcbodyarmour.html http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ649Nlu5Yc Great advice on the replacement of the product from impact. Race Guards went out of business for leg protectors, Dianese is not making any more

Page 22: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

21

Chapter 4: Neck Braces

“Fiine 2008: The MFF command a study INRETS, a laboratory of Applied Biomechanics at the Faculty Hospital north of Marseille, France. After a year and a half years of study, preliminary results are provided by the FFM at the awards ceremony held in Paris in November 2010. Jacques Bolle, president of the federation, said that "The protections flexible neck provide no gain protection. The collars rigid type Leatt Brace, may in some cases offer additional protection, but not sufficient for the FFM make them mandatory. At the announcement of preliminary results of the experiment in Marseille, we have reopened the case, and conducted our own investigation by going on site in south and exploring the tests conducted by some manufacturers. Our investigations suggest large areas of shadow. Impossible at present to define the real usefulness of these protections. Only certainty, they provide no additional danger to the driver in an accident. The intégbralité this broad survey and comments from experts should be read by all those involved.”

Excerpt below from Dirt Rider

http://www.leatt-brace.com/

RESPONSE FROM DR. JOHN BODNAR I want to applaud Pete Peterson and the staff of Dirt Rider for taking the effort to produce a very balanced report on a topic of major importance to the motorcycle community. There are many misconceptions in the area of neck injuries and the issues of neck brace usage in our sport. This article presents the facts as they stand today and hopefully will continue the discussion of protective gear in motorcycling, especially in off-road and motocross riders. The topic of motorcycle safety is one that at times can seem to take a back seat to other issues, and Dirt Rider has performed a genuine service to all riders in bringing this article to the forefront. John A. Bodnar, MD Medical Director, Asterisk Mobile Medical Center RESPONSE FROM JIMMY BUTTON “I am happy to see someone finally presented a non-bias story on it and just gave the facts.” RESPONSE FROM DR. STEPHEN SWISHER I’m an emergency physician at Mammoth Hospital, in Mammoth Lakes, CA. We treat motocross injuries every summer, particularly during the Mammoth Motocross. An increasing number of our patients arrive wearing neck braces. Often the brace was broken in the crash. Many of these riders tell me they wouldn’t have walked away from the crash without a neck brace. Sounds promising. Unfortunately, it’s difficult to separate promise from reality. Currently there’s no large, randomized controlled trial to show that the braces have any effect. In fact, there are few studies regarding neck braces. Most neck brace research thus far is manufacturer-sponsored and potentially biased (bias can be unintentional–the desire for a study outcome can lead you to that very outcome). Quality research takes time and large numbers of patients. For example, it took years to establish that ski/snowboard helmets actually decrease the rate and severity of head injuries. The medical literature is filled with promising therapies and interventions that never panned out. It’s too early to say whether neck braces will be shown to be beneficial, like ski helmets, or of no benefit, like antibiotics for the common cold. And here’s the counter-narrative. In my practice, every patient who walked away from a crash wearing a neck brace was matched by a patient without a neck brace who also walked away from a crash. Although I’ve treated several hundred motocross patients, it’s unclear to me whether the neck braces make a difference. My patient numbers are simply too small for a trend to be noticeable.

Page 23: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

22

I want to believe in neck braces. The theory behind them seems sound. They aren’t cheap but they aren’t expensive either. It’s unlikely that they increase the risk of other injuries such as clavicle fractures. It’s up to you. Stephen A. Swisher, MD Mammoth Hospital Mammoth Lakes, CA RESPONSE FROM DR. ERIK SWARTZ I was honored, and fortunate, to be contacted by Mr. Peterson as he was developing this excellent article on the practice of wearing neck braces in motorcycle riding. My primary area of interest actually concerns the management of catastrophic head and neck injury in equipment intensive ‘collision’ sports, such as American Football. I conduct research on this topic and also serve on the National Football League’s Head, Neck, and Spine’s Subcommittee on Safety Equipment and Rules. Obviously motorcycle riding and American football are similar in that the participant typically wears protective equipment to prevent injury, such as a helmet. So, I was immediately intrigued with the concept of a protective neck brace to mitigate spine injury, primarily because of my lack of familiarity with the sport and its associated injury mechanisms. I was also keenly interested since my uncle is a long time participant in Enduro racing, and has had his share of crashes and injuries. When first confronted with a new protective device or design I tend to be of a skeptical mindset until I am convinced of its merit. After reviewing materials that were provided to me I was immediately impressed with the detailed work that one of the neck brace companies had already undertaken to produce validity and reliability data for their product. These efforts are commendable, and clearly are critical, in manufacturing a device that not only does what it is designed to do, but equally important, doesn’t do anything it’s not supposed to do. These efforts should not be halted, however. Rather, companies should be willing to accept that validity, reliability, and effectiveness of a product designed to prevent (or minimize) injury is essentially a never-ending pursuit and empirical data should be reproduced externally, and independently wherever possible. Internally produced data and anecdotal claims are of a lower level of evidence in the medical and scientific communities. Another element I was pleased to see with one of the company’s materials, and also reflected in the article, is that the manufacturer of a neck brace is careful with the claims they make regarding its products’ protective capabilities. For example, when I first looked at the device my initial conclusion was that it would not help prevent spine injuries due to an axial load mechanism, (when an impact is directed at the crown of the head and compresses the cervical spine) the most common mechanism for serious spine injury in American football. It was refreshing to see that the company states from the outset that their product is, indeed, not designed to prevent injury from this mechanism. The tempered claims of the protective equipment a manufacturer enhances the confidence in the claims the manufacturer makes about what the product can do. We have recently seen the US Federal Trade Commission investigate and charge companies regarding deceptive claims made about the health benefits of their products, most notably with products that claim to reduce the risk of concussion. A cautious marketing strategy for any manufacturer of protective equipment is warranted. Finally, I would like to comment on a side effect, sort of speak, inherent to the introduction of new protective equipment into any sport or activity. Namely, a phenomenon described by others as ‘risk compensation’ means that individuals may increase their threshold of risk if they feel more protected. An easy example I tend to use to describe this is with sky-diving. Most people’s threshold for risk is such that if standing at an open door of an airplane in flight, thousands of feet off the ground, most would probably not elect to jump out of the plane. However, give a person a parachute that will protect them from harm and their threshold for risk is now elevated so much that they feel safe enough to change their behavior and accept the risk of jumping from the airplane.

Page 24: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

23

American football experienced an unfortunate outcome of this risk compensation in the late 60’s and 70’s when helmet designs moved to incorporating a hard outer shell and a facemask. Players began to use their heads during tackling (spearing); a behavior that previously was avoided because their helmets did not afford much protection; and the rate of catastrophic neck injuries sky rocketed. Therefore, we navigate a fine line between protecting participants of sport from injury, and avoiding the unintended consequences that might come from them gaining a false sense of security. Honestly, from my perspective it’s hard to imagine motorcycle riders doing anything more risky than they already are, but I’m always mindful of the individual that assumes higher risk because they feel more protected. Erik E Swartz, PhD, ATC, FNATA Associate Professor, Clinical Coordinator Athletic Training Education Program University of New Hampshire RESPONSE FROM ATLAS BRACE OUR DESIGN Atlas is extremely unique when it comes to neck brace technology. Every Atlas Brace is based our patented flexible technology. By incorporating flex into the neck brace, our goal is to not only reduce the forces on the head and neck, but also for the brace itself to dissipate and possibly reduce those impact forces before they are transferred to other areas of the body. By sitting around the spine and sternum, and using dual chest and back supports we increase the surface area that the brace rests on the body, which can help to spread out the impact forces rather than concentrate them in small areas. This flexible technology creates many unique characteristics that are not possible to achieve with rigid designs, and which is why we believe so strongly in our products. OUR MISSION Atlas’ mission was to create a testing method that could get as close to mimicking real life as possible. We use a 3rd party team of experts to perform our testing, so we are able to obtain un-bias results that are not under our own influence or design. The bulk of Atlas’ impact testing is performed by Dynamic Research, Inc. (DRI) in Torrance, CA by their extremely knowledgeable staff of Bio-Mechanical Engineers and Doctors, who are regular off road motorcycle riders themselves that understand what kind of dangerous scenarios they may be faced with. DRI has previous experience testing braces, and had multiple ideas on how to not only better the technology and the testing performed on them. Their team started from scratch to come up with something radically different that would provide us with useful repeatable tests, and more accurate data from scenarios which we see in real life. HOW WE TEST Since most crashes riders experience are very violent and can include multi-directional forces, a better real-world testing method was needed. DRI was able to create a custom built, forward/downward pendulum test rig (think Superman in flying position) that not only measures deflection in the direction of our choice, but also compression to the head and neck caused by the body’s weight crashing down behind the head as it typically does in various motorcycle crashes. With our one of a kind test rig we are able to repeat multiple controlled impacts into a custom built adjustable-angle surface. These mimic various scenarios of common crashes, including the “lawn dart” scenario of a rider going over the bars, and impacting head first into the ground, or an upcoming obstacle. This type of testing gives us extremely useful, and repeatable data that we can use to further develop our products. Our Dummy is made up of an instrumented upper torso surrogate fitted with a Hybrid III head-form and a Motorcycle Anthropometric Test Device (MATD) neck, which was specifically developed (and certified) by DRI to be more realistic for data acquisition during motorcycle crash scenarios than a standard car crash type neck. Instrumentation on the surrogate includes a 9 accelerometer array mounted inside the Hybrid III head-form for measurement of linear and angular accelerations as well as a 6-degree-of- freedom upper neck load cell that monitors three dimensional forces and moments. A digital high speed video

Page 25: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

24

camera collecting data at 1000 frames per second is used to capture all impacts. The complete upper torso fixture is illustrated in Fig. 1, and the MATD neck is shown in Fig. 2.

In all our testing, each test scenario was performed with, and without an Atlas Brace to provide comparative results. We were very pleased to find positive results in every impact scenario we performed, and that in each situation wearing an Atlas Brace was successful in reducing the forces to the head and neck, comparative to not wearing a brace in the same impacts. Although this does not in any way guarantee an injury will prevented or reduced, it does give us extremely valuable data related to our products positive performance while helping to further the development and understanding of impacts that riders may experience and how we can better control these forces. While our testing is unique and not directly comparative to some of our competitors testing, we still feel very strongly that neck braces are a vital component of rider safety, and should be highly considered as part of every rider’s program. CERTIFICATION In addition to our lab testing performed in the USA, the Atlas Brace is lab tested in Europe to meet various CE standards. The Atlas Brace conforms to the requirements of the European Directive 89/686/EEC concerning Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). CE is the only current certification for neck braces, and Atlas is proud to meet these requirements. THE REAL WORLD Often times devices which perform extremely well in Lab scenarios pose multiple challenges in the real world. During the initial design phase of the Atlas Brace we found this to be a very difficult to overcome, and searched for the best way to combine mobility and comfort, with safety and protection. Since the development was led by a former professional motocross racer, we were able to carefully develop this mix over a 3 year period. We credit a huge portion of this to our real world rider testing, input, and feedback, as well as the developmental input from DRI who had a big influence on how to create a controlled flexible design that would provide the safety results we were looking for. The results are exactly what we hoped for, and we believe that having former Champions Ryan Villopoto and Jake Weimer choose to wear our product shows that we have created a great product. When asked about riders who choose to wear, or not wear a neck brace, this is what Ryan Villopoto had to say: “For me, it’s a choice I make, and even if a neck brace only helped me one percent, that’s a one percent advantage I have and it’s only going to help.”

Page 26: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

25

RESPONSE FROM LEATT CORPORATION In our history there have been many articles written about our neck braces and neck braces in general. No journalist has ever before gone into such detail and found so many independent, qualified resources for information and opinions. All we have ever tried to do, here at Leatt, is make a business out of helping protect riders and for this detailed article we owe thanks to Dirt Rider for effort, investment and integrity to publish this. Leatt has an open door policy on our science, technology, testing and test results. It has been this way for many years now and even our legal team has said that full disclosure reduces liability and promotes informed decisions by riders. Sadly, in my 36 years of motorcycle industry experience, most legal advice about safety products is “say nothing”. In our opinion that advice just leads to confusion, misunderstandings and more injured riders. It concerns us that some other safety product companies either don’t have the test procedures and test results or choose not to share them. I just don’t see how that policy benefits the riders or the companies and we can only hope they change their policies. Yes, I work for Leatt. But I am also a rider and racer. I had a motorcycle shop owner I did business with who was tragically killed in a desert race crash from a neck injury. I was a supplier to that shop of protective equipment and remember how helpless I felt facing his wife and knowing that there was nothing made, at that time, to help protect from that injury. I don’t have to work at Leatt, I choose to. Dr. Leatt didn’t need to make neck braces; he already had a nice career. We all choose to do what we do for the riders. Provided by Phil Davy, Leatt International Marketing manager and Leatt USA General Manager Leatt Video – http://youtu.be/fJ5NvChWbpo

END NOTES FOR MAGAZINE STORY Below are the endnotes to the May 2013 Dirt Rider feature story “The Neck Brace.” As the story pointed out under in the “The Trouble with Numbers” section, “It’s very difficult to find medical statistics on SCI from off-road and motocross crashes; too many of these statistics are from streetbike crashes, and many of those don’t even show if the rider was wearing a helmet.” In nearly all cases the statistics are for general injuries and do not take neck brace effectiveness into account, since none of the studies cited here collected that data. These endnotes then should be thought of as information on injuries, in most cases from motorcycle crashes, but there is no conclusive “with a neck brace vs. without a neck brace” motorcycle crash injury statistics that could be found during the writing of this magazine story.

Page 27: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

26

Another challenge is that these documents are not easily available for people outside the medical/research field. I have included a few helpful links for readers who want to read the full studies. The links will lead you to an Abstract (summary), and you will have to subscribe/pay to see the entire document. These endnotes are supplied to assist you if you want to delve deeper into this topic of neck protection effectiveness. If you’d like to share insight or information with Dirt Rider please email to [email protected] and cc [email protected]. [1] I will use for this first endnote some AMA motocross statistics that are unpublished but were provided to the authors of the Leatt White Paper. For this data see Table 2-6 on page 17 of the Leatt White Paper (http://www.leatt-brace.com/images/uploads/library/LEATT_WHITE_PAPER_FINAL_rev1.pdf ), or check their General Injury Statistics page (http://www.leatt-brace.com/images/uploads/accident_form/Injury_Stats.pdf ) Which reference some AMA Motocross statistics that shows that approximately 29% of spinal fracture injuries in the very small collection of motocross crash data resulted in spinal cord injury. This percentage is not very reliable since it was drawn from such a small body of date. Drawing from a larger pool of data- [Reference provided by Leatt, and cited in Leatt’s White Paper] Robertson A, Giannoudis PV, Branfoot T, Barlow I, Matthews SJ, Smith RM. Spinal injuries in motorcycle crashes: Patterns and outcomes. The Journal of Trauma. 2002;53:5-8. - shows approximately 20% of spinal injuries resulted in spinal cord injury (25 out of 126). Here’s a link to get access to this paper on a ‘subscribe to read’ site that hosts papers from many medical journals – http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Fulltext/2002/07000/Spinal_Injuries_in_Motorcycle_Crashes__Patterns.2.aspx [2] From Dr. Chris Leatt, “The incident of neurological deficit depends on the study group e.g. MVA [motor vehicle accidents] vs. dirt bike accidents. The risk of spinal column injury may be 3 – 7%, of these approximately 20% plus may have a neurological deficit, but for the dirt bike groups the study groups are relatively small and statistical significance difficult to prove. The [Leatt] white paper includes this topic.” A neurological deficit generally means full or partial loss of muscle groups and organ function, and that neurological deficit can be temporary, incomplete, or complete. [3] [these same references are used for endnote 5] [[EN – concentration in thoracic area]] – These statistics are possibly misleading since so many motorcycle spinal cord injury statistics are gathered from motorcycle riding on streets (motorcycle or scooter), and it was pointed out to me during my research for the Dirt Rider story that in many of these studies the details surrounding the rider’s gear and the crash are not available. This is frustrating for the sake of researching the effectiveness of neck protection in motocross and off-road motorcycle crashes, but in the grand scope of things it is overall good news, as was pointed out to me, that these types of injuries are rare enough that gathering a large enough body of information is difficult. The references to the medical journals, however, are –[same reference cited in endnote #1] [Reference provided by Leatt, and cited in Leatt’s White Paper] Robertson A, Giannoudis PV, Branfoot

Page 28: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

27

T, Barlow I, Matthews SJ, Smith RM. Spinal injuries in motorcycle crashes: Patterns and outcomes. The Journal of Trauma. 2002;53:5-8. Here’s a link to get access to this paper on a ‘subscribe to read’ site that hosts papers from many medical journals – http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Fulltext/2002/07000/Spinal_Injuries_in_Motorcycle_Crashes__Patterns.2.aspx [Reference provided by Leatt, and cited in Leatt’s White Paper] Robertson A, Branfoot T, Barlow IF, Giannoudis PV.Spinal injury patterns resulting from car and motorcycle accidents. Spine. 2002; 27(24):2825-2830. Here’s a link to get access to this paper on a ‘subscribe to read’ site that hosts papers from many medical journals – http://journals.lww.com/spinejournal/Fulltext/2002/12150/Spinal_Injury_Patterns_Resulting_From_Car_and.19.aspx [Reference provided by Leatt, and cited in Leatt’s White Paper] Shrosbree RD. Spinal cord injuries of motorcycle accidents. Paraplegia. 1979; 16:102–12. [Reference provided by Leatt, and cited in Leatt’s White Paper] Kuppferschmid JP, Weaver ML, Raves JJ, Diamond DL. Thoracic spine injuries in victims of motorcycle accidents. Journal of Trauma.1989; 29:593–596. Here’s a link to get access to this paper on a ‘subscribe to read’ site that hosts papers from many medical journals – http://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/Abstract/1989/05000/Thoracic_Spine_Injuries_in_Victims_of_Motorcycle.9.aspx Gorski TF, Gorski YC, McLeod G, Suh D, Cordero R, Essien F, Berry D, Festus D. Patterns of injury and outcomes associated with motocross accidents. The American Surgeon. 2003; 69; 10: 895-98. [4] These are the specifications of the test dummy that the Leatt Laboratory uses – Hybrid III 50

th percentile Anthropomorphic Test Dummy with:

Chest Potentiometer

3 x Uni-axial Head Accelerometers

6-Axis Upper Neck Load Cell

6-Axis Lower Neck Load Cell

2 x 2-Axis Clavicle Load Cell

3 x Uni-axial Chest Accelerometers

2 x Tri-axial Head Gryometers

MATD & Hybrid III neck

Hydraulic Automotive Impact Pendulum – 6.5m vertical lift = ±40km/h impact High Speed Camera – PhotronFastCAM SAE3 – 1000fps @ 1024×1024 Non-flicker lights – Dedo DLH 200D Data Acquisition Unit – 28 measured channels – SoMateDAQ Lite Post-Processing software – nCodeGlyphworks HBM PACELine CMC 120kN piezoelectric force transducer Various S Beam Load Cells Shaft Encoder for shaft rotation measurement

Page 29: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

28

Inverted Impact pendulum for unrestraint torso testing Horizontal Impact pendulum for unrestraint torso testing Helmet drop tower to test according to various test standards – up to 10m/s impact CE drop tower for PPE certification testing Fatigue tester Slow tension / compression testing equipment 6m Vertical Drop tower for dynamic material testing Various temperature chambers R &D workshop with the following capabilities:

Carbon Fibre / Kevlar / Fibre Glass Layup

Precision Drilling

Milling Machine

Grinding Room

Spray Painting

[5] See endnote 3 [6] SVEMO letter Leatt looked into the Internet rumor of a rider in Sweden being cut with a shattered neck brace. Leatt couldn’t find any evidence of this rumor being true, and their search actually resulted in a letter from SVEMO (The Swedish Motorcycle and Snowmobile Federation) stating that none of the fatal injuries from that year were associated with head or neck trauma or with neck braces. You can read that letter, it’s posted on Leatt’s website, with this link – http://www.leatt-brace.com/images/uploads/library/FIM_Sweden_Letter.pdf The magazine feature story and this web story are, as has been mentioned before, not an end point, but just a discussion of information available today. Hopefully more information will becomes available, more advancements in protective gear will be made, and more discussion will help share all the facts, concerns, theories, and advice with motocross and off-road riders.

Read more: http://www.dirtrider.com/features/the-neck-brace-web-component/#ixzz2tQQ8TbX0

Page 30: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

29

Chapter 5: LIFEJACKETS

Impact reality, is your lifejacket properly fitted, sized and maintained for spills, falls and contact at speed?

This lifejacket below does not have a Silkscreened ‘LOT NO.’ That area is left blank. Does this make it

illegal? Will my lifejackets that have no ‘LOT NO.’ be considered non-approved?

The answer is this is an illegal Lifejacket.

These items are required:

1. MODEL NUMBER

2. LOT NO.

3. Type

4. USCG Approval Number

USCG Approved have LOT NO’s that are silkscreened of each panel with the corresponding Serial and

approval certifications for each design.

Page 31: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

30

If you are using a ‘one size fits all’, you must then appropriately affix the sizing straps so they are secure against the frame of your body and the loose webbing ends are tied back and secure.

(c) Lifejacket lots. A lot number must be assigned to each group of lifejackets produced. No lot may exceed 1000 lifejackets. A new lot must be started whenever any change in materials or a revision to a production method is made, and whenever any substantial discontinuity in the production process occurs. Changes in lots of component materials must be treated as changes in materials. Lots must be numbered serially. The lot number assigned, along with the approval number, must enable the lifejacket manufacturer, by referring to the records required by this subpart, to determine who produced the components used in the lifejacket. http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/46/160.176-15

Page 32: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

31

The History of Underwriter Laboratories (UL)

History UL has a proud history that continues to motivate us each and every day. For more than a century we have employed exacting scientific processes and the highest ethical principles to deliver trusted results. Today, we are still focusing on the next generation of safety challenges, helping new geographies, new industries and new stakeholders create safer living and work environments.

Products Certified to Underwriter Laboratories (UL) Standards for Safety

Lifejackets are certified under the following product categories in accordance with requirements in one or more of the UL standards identified for each category.

Flotation aids and special-use devices (OPZY) - Includes Type III PFDs, such as buoyant vests and jackets. Devices to be worn are designated as Type III and Type V special-use devices evaluated for a specific restricted activity (UL 1123). Near-shore buoyant vests (OQFZ) - Includes Type II devices intended for use on uninspected commercial vessels less than 40 feet in length that do not carry passengers for hire (UL 1123, UL 1177). Buoyant throwable devices (OPPR) - Buoyant cushions, horseshoe and ring buoys suitable for use on recreational boats less than 16 feet in length, and as throwable devices for recreational boats (UL 1175). Inflatable personal flotation devices (OTDG) - Inflatable PFDs for use on either recreational boats or commercial vessels, as indicated on the product markings (UL 1180). Hybrid PFDs (OTHZ) - Wearable PFDs with both inherently and inflatable buoyancy intended for use on recreational boats (UL 1517). Rearming kits (OTFQ) - Rearming kits for inflatable and hybrid personal flotation devices, intended for field installation by the consumer (UL 1180). Immersion suits (NCPR) - Immersion suits designed to minimize thermal shock upon entering cold water, to lessen the effect of hypothermia, and to provide flotation for the wearer while in the water (UL 1197). Commercial ring buoys (OUDX) - Commercial ring buoys intended primarily for use as throwable devices on merchant vessels, but also suitable for use on recreational boats less than 16 feet in length and all canoes and kayaks (UL 1516). Lifesaving equipment components (OPET2) - Components intended for factory installation in complete lifesaving equipment that is to be investigated as part of the overall end product lifesaving equipment. (UL 1191). Fabricated parts of foam flotation material (OTAW2) - Material traceability of skived die-cut and other fabricated parts. These fabricated parts are intended to provide a mechanism for identifying such factory installed materials when used in the end-use product (UL 1191). Marine lifesaving device components (OPET2) - Includes components for marine lifesaving device components such as thread, fabrics, foam, hardware, inflation systems, etc.

Page 33: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

32

Products certified to ULC Canadian requirements

PFDs are certified under the following product category in accordance with requirements in one or more of the following standards.

CAN/CGSB 65.7 - Life Jackets CAN/CGSB 65.11 - Personal Flotation Devices CAN/CGSB 65.15 - Personal Flotation Devices for Children CAN/CGSB 65.16 - Immersion Suit Systems CAN/CGSB 65.18 - Closed Cell Polymeric Foam Materials CAN/CGSB 65.19 - Textile Components of Life Jackets and Personal Flotation Devices

Personal buoyant water safety products (ZDTQC) - PFDs, life jackets, and immersion suits intended for use on recreational boats. Products certified to 46 CFR federal regulations

PFDs are certified under the following product categories in accordance with applicable requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations defined within 46CFR

Life preservers and life jackets (OTPS) - Type I personal flotation devices designed to turn unconscious wearers face up in the water. Certified life preservers and life jackets are approved by the Commandant, United States Coast Guard (USCG), and are marked with a USCG approval number. Special-use Personal Flotation Devices (OUFV) - Special-use personal flotation devices approved by the Commandant, United States Coast Guard (USCG) and marked with the Coast Guard Approval number. The USCG has designated these devices as Type V PFDs. Devices designated as Type V have special or restricted provisions associated with their USCG Approval as marked on the device.

Improper size and fit of lifejackets will not be tolerated at a PWC event due to safety and boating

laws and regulations Improperly sized and fitted lifejackets are a disaster for use, when you hit the water at high speed ejections they can catch, create a drag effect and ride up over your frame. This can cause the fast tech buckles to break apart, rendering the lifejacket useless. CE Approval ISO lifejacket approval Lifejacket ISO Approval

Since July 1995, it has been illegal to sell Lifejackets or Buoyancy Aids that have not been tested to European or International specifications.

Every Lifejacket and Buoyancy aid sold by Marine Warehouse is fully approved and carries the relevant CE or ISO mark.

Page 34: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

33

There are several classifications for ISO Approval:

CE standards deal with various categories of buoyancy performance, the big four are shown below. The rating is for an adult size so smaller sizes have proportionally less buoyancy:

ISO12402-5, Covers 50N buoyancy aids, providing a minimum of 5kg of buoyancy. Products that carry this approval include our specialist range which includes anglers vests, waterski vests, PWC vests, wakeboarding vests, and the various dinghy and canoe vests.

ISO12402-4, Covers 100N lifejackets, providing a minimum of 10kg of buoyancy. Products that carry this approval include our orange foam range of lifejackets for both adults and children.

ISO12402-3, Covers 150N lifejackets, providing a minimum of 15kg of buoyancy. Products that carry this approval include the majority of our Manual and automatic lifejackets for both adults and children.

ISO12402-2, Covers 275N lifejackets, providing a minimum of 27.5kg of buoyancy. Products that carry this approval include our specialist range of lifejackets for offshore use.

Buoyancy explained

Newtons, are a measure of force. 10 Newtons (or 10N in lifejacket speak) is equivalent to 1 kilogram of buoyancy. So a 150 Newton lifejacket (or 150N) provides 15kg of buoyancy. Remember these are the minimum buoyancy requirements for the European standard, so the actual vest or lifejacket may provide more.

Kids life jackets are commonly rated as 100N or 150N but they don’t actually have that much buoyancy. For example a kid’s foam lifejacket size 10-20kg has 30N of buoyancy.

What else does ISO approval cover?

ISO approval also covers other features not just buoyancy ratings. These include the design, performance, specification of materials used in manufacture, and even the information that the user guide provides. For example our Harness jackets are approved to ISO12402-6 in addition to the standard certification.

Lifejacket CE/EN Approval

Every Lifejacket and Buoyancy aid sold by Marine Warehouse is fully approved and carries the relevant CE or ISO mark.

Testing is carried out at the Fleetwood Testing Laboratory in Lancashire who are accredited by The United Kingdom Accreditation Service (UKAS) to the ISO 17025 standard.

CE approved Lifejackets

All Marine Warehouse Lifejackets carry the relevant CE or ISO approval.

Testing is carried out in the UK by the Fleetwood Testing Laboratory.

Fleetwood are known in the industry as having rigorous standards.

Page 35: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

34

There are several classifications for CE Approval.

CE standards deal with various categories of buoyancy performance, the big four are shown below. The rating is for an adult size so smaller sizes have proportionally less buoyancy:

EN393, Covers 50N buoyancy aids, providing a minimum of 5kg of buoyancy. Products that carry this approval include our specialist range which includes anglers vests, waterski vests, PWC vests, wakeboarding vests, and the various dinghy and canoe vests.

EN395, Covers 100N lifejackets, providing a minimum of 10kg of buoyancy. Products that carry this approval include our orange foam range of lifejackets for both adults and children.

EN396, Covers 150N lifejackets, providing a minimum of 15kg of buoyancy. Products that carry this approval include the majority of our Manual and automatic lifejackets for both adults and children.

EN399, Covers 275N lifejackets, providing a minimum of 27.5kg of buoyancy. Products that carry this approval include our specialist range of lifejackets for offshore use.

Buoyancy explained

Newtons are a measure of force. 10 Newtons (or 10N in lifejacket speak) is equivalent to 1 kilogram of buoyancy. So a 150 Newton lifejacket (or 150N) provides 15kg of buoyancy.

Remember these are the minimum buoyancy requirements for the European standard, so the actual vest or lifejacket may provide more.

Kids life jackets are commonly rated as 100N or 150N but they don’t actually have that much buoyancy. For example a kids foam lifejacket size 10-20kg has 30N of buoyancy.

What else does CE approval cover?

CE approval also covers other features not just buoyancy ratings. These include the design, performance, specification of materials used in manufacture, and even the information that the user guide provides.

The author freeriding, photos by David Pu’u

Page 36: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

35

CHAPTER 6: HELMETS

Let’s check in with the helmet issue. What makes a good helmet for PWC usage? Don’t let branding claims persuade your purchase. Along with a Lifejacket this is your most important investment for personal safety. Choose wisely! Water testing standards ARE NOT the same as land based, however with that differences of the forces of action and body movement it is far more difficult to assess safety with crashes on the water and in the body positions with the increased speeds of newer PWC’s. We will take a look at what is available, even though it is severely limited.

“Sorting out differences in helmet ratings”. Here is an interesting article for your review in the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/automobiles/27SNELL.html?_r=0

DOT- Department of Transportation

http://www.motosport.com/blog/the-big-list-of-dot-snell-ece-approved-motocross-helmets#DOT

HELMET SAFETY STANDARD TESTING There is not one true ‘water standard helmet’ available today on the market that has been thoroughly tested. Our PWC sport utilizes motorcycle ‘motocross’ style helmets. The problem we have is fit and sizing. Once you get your motorcross helmet wet the interior foam panels will start to decompress and lessen the fit you first enjoyed. These are things you must consider in purchasing your helmet. If the helmet ‘rides down over your brow it does not fit you properly. Likewise if your goggles ride down on your nose it does not fit you head properly. NOTE: FreeRide and Freestyle helmets come under a lesser classification of CE Standards. Due to the ‘snap back’ effect of striking the forward part of your PWC or falls to the water, a visor is not advisable and can assist in neck injuries due to snap back effect. The same thing goes for affixing a filming camera to your helmet.

SNELL has set the safety standard testing for helmets. The Snell Memorial Foundation is a non-profit founded in 1957 after the death of William "Pete" Snell, who died in 1956 after sustaining injuries to his head in a car race. Snell standards raise the bar compared to those set by DOT and are updated every five years. The current standard of M2010 allows a peak acceleration of 300g and uses five different anvil shapes. The number of tests and actual testing is much more rigorous than DOT.

Achieving a Snell standard designation is voluntary and manufacturers submit their helmets for testing. Snell also randomly buys Snell approved helmets and re-tests them for compliance. Snell has questioned the validity of DOT's criteria on gravity constant measures as they were taken from helmet standards in 1972.

Page 37: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

36

However, in 2005 an article in Motorcyclist magazine criticized Snell standards as too excessive. It was reported that a softer absorption material would transfer less g force to the head as opposed to the harder material used in Snell helmets. Though Snell offered a rebuttal at the time, the M2010 standards addressed some of those criticisms.

ECE Certification

The ECE or United Nations Economic Commission for Europe is actually the most common internationally recognized helmet certification as more than 50 countries have adopted the ECE standards for helmets. The ECE standard, like DOT, favors impact absorbing helmets. The current standard is known as ECE 22.05.

ECE standards are similar to DOT standards in that it tests helmets on penetration, impact attenuation, retention and peripheral vision. There are some differences most notably the peak acceleration energy allowed for impact attenuation is 275g and ECE tests for abrasion resistance on how well the helmet shears away. DOT requires extensions from the helmet, like snaps and rivets, to be no more than 5mm; ECE requires no more than 2mm.

Unlike the DOT standard which relies on the manufacturer being honest, the ECE batch tests helmets prior to public release to ensure quality before the helmet leaves the factory.

TRIFECTA When a helmet passes all three testing measures. Reference Material: http://www.motosport.com/blog/the-big-list-of-dot-snell-ece-approved-motocross-helmets#DOT How do helmets work? Helmets are normally comprised of four elements; a rigid outer shell, a crushable liner, chin straps or a retaining system, and fit or comfort padding. The rigid outer shell, when present, adds a load-spreading capability, and prevents objects from penetrating the helmet. The liner, usually made of EPS (expanded polystyrene) or similar types of materials, absorbs the energy of an impact by crushing. The chin strap when properly buckled and adjusted along with the fit padding helps the helmet remain in position during a crash.

Helmets work like a brake or shock absorber. During a fall or crash, a head is traveling at a certain speed. Since the head has weight and is moving, there is a certain amount of energy associated with the moving head. When the helmet along with the accompanying head impacts an unyielding object, a rock, a wall, a curb or the ground, the hard shell starts by taking the energy generated by the falling helmet (head) and spreads it over a larger portion of the helmet, specifically, the internal foam liner. The foam liner then starts to crush and break which uses up a lot of the energy, keeping it from reaching the head inside. Depending on how fast the head is traveling, and how big, heavy and immovable the object is, the faster the head slows down, and the more energy is present. In short, everything slows down really quickly. A helmet will effectively reduce the speed of the head by breaking and crushing which reduces the amount of energy transferred to the brain. The whole process takes only milliseconds to turn a potentially lethal blow into a survivable one.

Why should you replace your helmet every five years? The five-year replacement recommendation is based on a consensus by both helmet manufacturers and the Snell Foundation. Glues, resins and other materials used in helmet production can affect liner materials. Hair oils, body fluids and cosmetics, as well as normal "wear and tear" all contribute to helmet degradation. Petroleum based products present in cleaners, paints, fuels and other commonly encountered materials may also degrade materials used in many helmets possibly degrading performance.

Page 38: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

37

Additionally, experience indicates there will be a noticeable improvement in the protective characteristic of helmets over a five-year period due to advances in materials, designs, production methods and the standards. Thus, the recommendation for five-year helmet replacement is a judgment call stemming from a prudent safety philosophy.

If a helmet is altered from its shell integrity, say if a person drills a hole or a series of mounting holes for a GoPro camera, this will void the warranty and security of its construction. Shall the IJSBA allow only ‘glued in place’ helmet mounts?

Why does Snell make my racing association upgrade to the newest Snell Standards? Each association and/or track has the responsibility for the safety of its members or participants, which generally creates a unique set of issues that must be dealt with, and rules to be set accordingly. Snell recommends the latest Snell Standards to all consumers who need head protection.

Why won't Snell certify some types of helmets like flip up front designs? Snell does not dismiss out of hand any helmet design that strays from the conventional. Snell does not point out any design specifications other than general requirements in its standards. We are, however, always concerned with innovations and new designs that may affect helmet's ability to protect the wearer, or in some cases helmet's potential to cause injury. At present the Foundation has not had the opportunity to test any of the flip up front type helmets for certification. We do not find any fault with these designs as long as they are used according to the manufacturer’s instructions and meet all of the requirements of the standard. We will also certify any size of helmet as long as it meets the same requirements as any other Snell certified helmet.

Where's the Snell label located? There are two forms of the Snell serialized label. The most common is the adhesive label, but there is also a cloth type for the M, SA and RS standards. The adhesive label, or decal is usually affixed somewhere on the inside of the helmet. If it is not readily visible, check underneath the flaps of the comfort padding. The cloth type labels a generally sewn onto the chin strap and folded over. If a thorough search fails to turn up a decal, then regardless of any claims or advertisements, your helmet is not part of the Snell certification program and does not have the confidence of the Foundation.

What are the differences between the SA, M and K standards? The SA standard was designed for competitive auto racing while the M standard was for motorcycling and other motorsports. The K standard was released to accommodate helmets used in karting. There are three major differences between them:

1. The SA standard requires flammability test while the M and K standards do not. 2. The SA and K standards allow for a narrower visual field than the M standard (Some SA and K

certified helmets may not be street legal). 3. The SA and K standards include a rollbar multi-impact test while the M standard does not.

Who/What is Snell?

William "Pete" Snell was an amateur auto racer. He died needlessly in a racing event in 1956 when his then state-of- the-art helmet utterly failed to protect him. In memory of Pete, a number of his friends, colleagues and fellow racers including Dr. George Snively, formed the Snell Memorial Foundation to try to improve helmet design and capabilities, and to encourage the development and use of truly protective helmets.

Snell certification services are conducted on a fee for service basis. Charges are levied for testing and for the Snell certification labels which go into each Snell certified helmet.

Page 39: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

38

These are the only revenues. Snell’s directors and staff (www.smf.org) are not allowed any financial connection with the helmet industry. This is customary for any not-for-profit organization serving the public interest. Further, Snell’s charges to the industry are minimal.

The real costs of Snell certification go into the additional engineering and quality control necessary to meet Snell Standards. The value is in the helmets. Helmets must meet the government requirements or they are not eligible for sale. Snell motorcycle helmets distributed for sale in the US meet DOT requirements. It’s the law.

And there is no real cause for conflict between Snell Standards and those who prefer the mandatory minimums set forth in the United States’ DOT standard or in ECE 22-05 now required in Europe. Snell Standards are voluntary. Manufacturers choose to produce Snell certified helmets and riders choose to wear them.

The reason Snell has been able to set standards and certify helmets for the last fifty years is that many riders, experts and manufacturers agree that Snell Standards and Snell certification demand more than the mandatory minimums. There are at least two dimensions to helmet performance: momentum and energy.

The helmet must control the momentum transfer between the wearer’s head and the impact surface, that is; it must be sufficiently soft to keep the g’s within safe levels. But the helmet must also manage the total impact energy. Because once the energy management is exhausted, the helmet loses all capacity to limit g levels.

Any remaining shock will, instead, test the physical limits of the rider’s bone and tissue. There seems to be no upper limit to the amount of energy management a rider might ever need. And street riders certainly need as much or more than riders in many competitive events. Snell Standards look for all the energy management any rider, street or competition, could reasonably be expected to wear.

DOT requires only a fraction of the impact energy management demanded in Snell Standards and ECE 22-05 demands even less than DOT. But there is no official objection to helmets managing more than these mandatory minimums. And there is a considerable gap between these minimums and the most that current technology can provide. Snell certification identifies helmets with premium levels of impact management and, in so doing, serves those who choose to build those helmets and those who choose to wear them.

The Snell Memorial Foundation has been actively conducting and supporting research to understand the nature and severity of head and brain injury and to increase head impact protection in such activities as bicycling, motorcycling, auto racing and other non-motorized recreational activities. Basic studies of injury mechanism and protection, as well as field research related to injury severity and causation have been undertaken.

What's a batch test, and is it better than RST? Batch testing is another form of compliance checking. It is a common method used by many European and other country's Governmental Standards as well as some of the private ones. Batch test schemes are used to test many types of products. It's called a batch test is because a manufacturer will produce a batch of product and be required to submit a certain number of samples from the batch for testing, or in some cases test data collected by the manufacturer these products to the organization requiring the test. The drawbacks of batch testing are that the system may be manipulated too easily. Unscrupulous manufacturers could make sure the tests performed on their products in their own lab, or by a hired one, indicate that they technically are in compliance with the requirements of the standard. Additionally, if it is required that the batch helmet samples are tested at an outside source, it is possible to make sure the helmets selected will perform as required.

Page 40: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

39

The potential benefit of batch testing is that if everything is operating idyllically, and inferior batch of helmets can be identified and distribution halted until the problem is corrected. Over the years, Snell has tried to implement batch programs to supplement the RST program, but have consistently seen that the Snell RST program tends to successfully find inferior product more readily.

How do I choose a helmet? Buying a helmet is much like buying anything that is important to you. You should choose a helmet based on its ability to do the job it's intended for, regardless of whether or not it's to satisfy a law or if you want the best protection available. First you need to decide about the things that matter to you. There are a number of items that are important in finding a helmet that suits you. Snell recommends the following no matter what helmet you buy:

Fit - Make sure that the size and shape of the helmet are suited to your head. Sizing in helmets, even many of the numerical sizes may not be consistent from brand to brand or even model to model. Additionally make sure the retaining system is effective comfortable and easy to use.

Comfort - Make sure the helmet is as comfortable to wear as possible. It is likely to be on your head for a while and it should not become so annoying that you are distracted from the important task of riding safely. Also, choose an appropriate helmet for the type of riding you will do most frequently and the environment you're riding in. Full face helmets offer a measure of protection from impacts to the face, and flying debris like cigarette butts and gravel as well as helping to avoid the dreaded ‘insectus dentus’ adhesion affliction, or "Bug Tooth Syndrome". Full face helmets do tend to retain more heat though which is a consideration as well.

Style - This may seem trivial and not related to safety, but it does have its place. Get a helmet you like. For many riding is a big part of their life. It's not just transportation, but also an important recreational activity, even a lifestyle. It is common sense to conclude that a rider is more likely to consistently wear something he or she likes rather than something that they do not.

Safety - The only thing that can be added is that Snell has been concerning itself solely with helmets and head protection for over fifty years. Our focus does not include trying to sell you a helmet, trying to require you wear a helmet or trying to limit the innovation of helmets. For years Snell has merely tried to educate consumers about the importance of a good helmet and point riders who are concerned with protecting the stuff between their ears toward helmets that perform to the Snell standards.

Every five years a Helmet should be replaced: FACT If the Helmet has been involved in an impact while in use replace it: FACT Do not buy a helmet online: You should test the size and fit against the circumference of your head. To check if the helmet is sized too large, you should buckle the strap to try to pull the lower back of the helmet forward and then push the front brow area of the helmet backward to see if the helmet will slip off either way. If it does, the helmet is too large. A new motorcycle helmet should fit very snugly. Most people buy a new motorcycle helmet one size too big. To make sure the helmet is not too small, you should leave the helmet on your head for at least five to ten minutes to see if there is any feeling of pressure point. Do not place your helmet so that a projection or any hard object, such as the motorcycle mirror, can damage the inner foam liner of the helmet. Only use mild soap water to clean the inside pads. Never use any chemical cleaning products for the inside or outside of your helmet. Never repaint your helmet with paints that are not authorized by the manufacturer.

How does a helmet prevent brain injuries? A good helmet provides the brain extra TIME and SPACE to avoid or reduce injuries.

Page 41: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

40

First, it is the sudden stop, not the fall, which causes brain injuries. Imagine yourself in a moving bus that comes to a sudden stop. Without a seat belt, your body would keep moving until you hit the back of the seat in front of you or the bus windshield. Imagine this: your brain tissues are like passengers on a moving bus. A good helmet acts like a good driver that gives your brain inside the helmet a little more time, a few taps on the brake, to come to a gentler stop. Secondly, when thumbtacks are used correctly, the wall is pierced, not the thumb. The flat of the thumbtack spreads the force over a broad area of thumb and the sharp point concentrates that same force against a small area of the wall. In the same way, a good helmet spreads concentrated forces from a rock or any irregular impact surface over a broad area of the helmet’s protective liner and the wearer’s scalp and skull. Instead of slicing through flesh and skull, the forces are redirected by the helmet. Not wearing a helmet is comparable to misusing a thumbtack, except that hardly anyone dies of thumb injuries. Here is the Snell Testing Policy guideline for your review: http://www.smf.org/docs/articles/pdf/SnellTestingPolicy.pdf Here is a list of certified Snell Helmets for your review: http://www.smf.org/cert

Final 10/17/2007 2010 STANDARD FOR PROTECTIVE HEADGEAR

For Use with Motorcycles and Other Motorized Vehicles Special Note to Helmet Users

There are four reasons for you to be interested in this Standard: 1. The use of motorcycles and other motorized vehicles imposes risks of death or permanent

impairment due to head injury. 2. The proper use of protective helmets can minimize the risk of death or permanent impairment. 3. The protective capacity of a helmet is difficult to estimate, particularly at the time of purchase or

use. Protective capability is currently measured by destructive testing which is beyond the means of most helmet wearers.

4. Snell certification backed by ongoing destructive testing samples taken randomly from dealers and distributors identifies those helmet models providing and maintaining the highest levels of head protection.

Four of the most critical elements affecting a helmet's protective properties are: 1. Impact management - how well the helmet protects against collisions with large objects. 2. Helmet positional stability - whether the helmet will be in place, on the head, when it's needed. 3. Retention system strength - whether the chin straps are sufficiently strong to hold the helmet

throughout a head impact. 4. Extent of Protection - the area of the head protected by the helmet.

This Standard describes simple tests for all four of these items. However, the tests for the second item, helmet stability, of necessity presume that the helmet is well matched to the wearer's head and that it has been carefully adjusted to obtain the best fit possible. Unless you take similar care in the selection and fitting of your own helmet, you may not obtain the level of protection that current headgear can provide. The Foundation recommends the simple, straightforward procedure recommended to consumers by most helmet manufacturers:

Position the helmet on your head so that it sits low on your forehead; if you can't see the edge of the brim at the extreme upper range of your vision, the helmet is probably out of place. Adjust the retention

Page 42: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

41

system so that when in use, it will hold the helmet firmly in place. This positioning and adjusting should be repeated to obtain the very best result possible. The procedure initially may be time consuming. Take the time. Try to remove the helmet without undoing the retention system closures. If the helmet comes off or shifts over your eyes, readjust and try again. If no adjustment seems to work, this helmet is not for you; try another. This procedure is also the basis of the test for helmet stability described in this Standard. This test performs the same steps but uses standard head forms. However, you must still perform this procedure for yourself when buying a helmet and every time you wear a helmet. Only in this way will you be able to make all the proper adjustments to get the best fit possible. Furthermore, your test on your own head will be an improvement on ours; you will determine whether the helmet is appropriate for you personally. There are several other important aspects of helmets to consider. Full face helmets provide a measure of protection from facial injuries. The external shell of these helmets includes a rigid "chin" guard that passes from left to right over the lower part of the face. The Foundation has devised special tests for the chin bars of full face helmet Some helmets come with a separate structure which bolts to the helmet and which is intended to cover the lower part of the face. These removable chin bars are often intended to deflect small stones and debris encountered in some motorcycle sports and may not be effective facial protection in falls and accidents. The Foundation does not test removable chin bars and considers any headgear equipped with them to be an open face helmet. Helmets may also be equipped with a chin or full face guard that pivots or flips up for the rider’s convenience. These structures are considered as integral parts of the helmet and helmets equipped with them are considered full face helmets and are required to meet all of the test criteria for full face helmets. These flip up face guards must always be used in their locked position, or in accordance with the instructions from the manufacturer. Misuse of these fixtures may diminish the overall protective capabilities of the helmet. If a full face helmet is equipped with a face shield, it may also provide a measure of eye protection. The Foundation tests the face shields of full face helmets for particle penetration resistance. Face shields provided with open face helmets generally do not provide the same levels of eye protection and, for that reason are not considered. The shells of both open and full face helmets should also provide a measure of protection from penetration. The Foundation tests the shells of both full and open face helmets for penetration resistance.

Effective headgear must be removable. Paramedics and other emergency personnel must be able to quickly remove headgear from accident victims in order to check for vital signs and to perform emergency procedures. The Foundation has devised tests and criteria for helmet removability.

The Foundation tests helmets for visual field. The helmet must provide a minimum range of vision appropriate to its use as measured on standard head forms. Most Snell certified helmets will meet the requirements stated in this Standard and are considered appropriate for street use. However, the Foundation may also certify headgear with much more restricted visual fields for use only in carefully controlled competitive environments. Such headgear will include warning labels identifying them as appropriate only for certain activities.

Be absolutely certain that your helmet is appropriate for your intended uses. Furthermore, since the range of vision you obtain may vary considerably from our measurement, be absolutely certain that the helmet and face shield permit you adequate vision.

Page 43: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

42

There are several important factors which the Foundation does not consider directly but which bear on the effectiveness of protective helmets. Be certain your helmet is wearable, that is, that it's comfortable and adequately ventilated when worn for prolonged periods. Few people will wear an uncomfortable helmet. A helmet that is not worn won't protect anyone. Also, while you’re trying the helmet on, take a good look in a mirror and ask some friends what they think. Most people will quit using an ugly helmet much more quickly than one that is merely uncomfortable.

Check for conspicuity. Bright colors and reflective patches will make you more visible to others and therefore less likely to be involved in a collision. All your riding gear and especially your helmet should be unmistakable, even to the most inattentive driver. FOREWORD In a motorcycle accident, the rider may suffer injury or death. Helmets on the market today offer varying degrees of protection, but the consumer has little basis for judging the relative effectiveness of a given model. This Standard presents rational methods for identifying those helmet models which definitely meet specified standards for impact (crash) protection and retention system strength and, afterwards, identifying those which definitely have ceased to meet those standards.

The Snell Foundation urges that protective helmets be required for all individuals participating in supervised racing events and encourages the general public to wear helmets which meet appropriate performance standards

[1]

This 2010 Standard establishes performance characteristics suitable for motorcycling and for use with other open motorized vehicles in which the driver and passengers may not be enclosed such as boats, motorized carts, all-terrain vehicles and snowmobiles. This Standard does not establish construction and material specifications. The Foundation does not recommend specific materials or designs. Manufacturers voluntarily submit helmets to be tested to this Standard and if the submitted helmets pass, a certification is issued. The Foundation will make available the identity of those products which have been Snell certified but will not attempt to rank those products according to performance nor to any other criteria. Neither does the Foundation distinguish between the needs of participants in competitive events and those of the general public.

All of the requirements described herein, including both initial certification and random sample testing, are an integral part of this Standard. No helmet can satisfy the Standard unless it is subject to both certification and random sample testing by the Foundation.

Snell certification for protective headgear requires a specific contractual agreement between the primary headgear manufacturer and the Foundation. Certification procedures may be obtained upon application to the Foundation. SNELL MEMORIAL FOUNDATION is a registered certification mark and M2010 is a certification mark of the Snell Memorial Foundation.

INTRODUCTION This Standard addresses the problem of protecting the head from direct impact with surfaces or objects that might be encountered in a motorcycling accident. The Standard prescribes direct measures of several factors bearing on a helmet's ability to protect the head as well as its general serviceability as motorcyclist headgear. Thus, this Standard is directed towards the kinds of performance bearing on head protection that may not readily be discernable by even knowledgeable consumers at the time of purchase.

Some of these performance requirements have been expressed in terms of limitations on the various components and features of the single general helmet configuration currently available. These expressions have been used only for the sake of clarity and should not be misinterpreted as requiring

Page 44: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

43

specific configurations or materials. As newer helmet technologies appear, these limitations will be re-examined and, perhaps, restated. A motorcycle helmet consists generally of a rigid head covering and a retention system composed of flexible straps and hardware. The rigid covering consists of a strong, stiff outer shell and a crushable liner. The stiff outer shell protects by its capacity to spread a concentrated load at its outer surface over a larger area of the liner and the wearer's head. The crushable liner protects the head from direct impact by its capacity to manage impact energy. Since there is no certain way to anticipate the severity of a head impact or whether the impact surface will be such that it will spread the load over the helmet or concentrate it at a single point, the most generally effective helmet will combine the strongest, stiffest possible outer shell with a liner chosen to limit the peak deceleration of the wearer’s head to within tolerable limits. The retention system holds the headgear in position throughout normal usage and especially during falls and accidents, ensuring that the helmet will be in place to manage a direct impact. This Standard applies two different tests to the retention system. The first of these tests for stability by fitting the headgear to a standard head form and then attempting to displace it by applying tangential shock loadings. The second tests retention system strength by applying a shock load to the system components through a simulated chin. The quality of the fit and the care taken with the adjustments are absolutely critical elements in these tests. The manufacturer must provide suitable guidance so that the wearer will be able to select and adjust headgear to obtain the necessary quality of fit and positional stability. The capacity for impact protection is determined by direct measurement of the shock delivered through the helmet to a head form when the helmeted head form is dropped in a specified manner onto any of three unyielding anvils. Most motorcycle helmets are intended to accommodate a range of head sizes and shapes. Various thicknesses of resilient padding are sometimes placed within otherwise identical helmets during production or during fitting to configure the helmet to several different ranges of head size. This resilient padding does not significantly affect the way the helmet absorbs and attenuates impact and is not directly addressed in this Standard.

The helmet must also resist penetration by sharp edged and pointed projections and projectiles. This capacity is tested by placing the helmet on a head form and dropping a metal cone of specified mass and geometry onto the shell. The tip of this cone must not penetrate to the head form. Similarly, the helmets must resist chemical attack by bodily fluids as well as solvents and chemicals associated with motorsports. This capacity may be tested by applying a solvent mix before further conditioning and testing. Full face helmets provide a measure of facial protection in addition to the impact protection generally sought. The principle feature of a full face helmet is a chin bar that extends forward to cover the jaw area converting the facial opening into a visual port. Frequently, a face shield is also provided so that the wearer's face is completely covered.

In order to be considered a full face helmet, the chin bar must be an integral part of the helmet structure. This interpretation specifically includes configurations in which the chin bar pivots about a hinge up and away from the face but excludes simple “bolt-on” chin coverings. The Standard then tests the rigidity of the chin bar by dropping a weight onto it at a specified velocity so as to attempt to force the chin bar toward the interior of the helmet. The chin bar must not deflect more than a specified amount.

Page 45: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

44

If a face shield is provided with a full face helmet, then this face shield must resist penetration by small particles. A sharp lead pellet of a specified weight is directed into the face shield at a specified velocity. The pellet must not penetrate into the helmet interior. This Standard also includes a test intended to determine whether the headgear may be removed from an unconscious accident victim quickly, easily and reliably in spite of any damage the headgear might reasonably be expected to sustain. Traditional helmet architectures have satisfied this requirement so readily that many Standards including previous Snell Foundation Standards have not mentioned it. Even so, it is unthinkable that a headgear might protect its wearer in an accident only to thwart attempts at rescue afterward. Inadequate ventilation may render a helmet unwearable in hot climates, especially if the helmet is full faced. But this Standard makes no direct demands on either the quantity or quality of air flow to the wearer. Other general features of motorcycle helmets may include eyeshades and accommodations for goggles, and visibility enhancements such as bright colors and reflective surfaces. These features all deal with matters of safety and comfort that are not directly addressed in this Standard but which merit the consideration of wearers as well as manufacturers. Although helmet use has been shown to reduce the risk of head injuries significantly, there are limits to a helmet's protective capability. No helmet can protect the wearer against all foreseeable accidents. Therefore injury may occur in accidents which exceed the protective capability of any helmet including even those helmets meeting the requirements of this Standard.

A helmet's protective capability may be exhausted protecting the wearer in an accident. Helmets are constructed so that the energy of a blow is managed by the helmet, causing its partial destruction. The damage may not be readily apparent and the Foundation strongly recommends that a helmet involved in an accident be returned to the manufacturer for complete inspection. If it is not possible to do so, the helmet should always be destroyed and replaced.

Finally, the protective capability may diminish over time. Some helmets are made of materials which deteriorate with age and therefore have a limited life span. At the present time, the Foundation recommends that motorcycle helmets be replaced after five (5) years, or less if the manufacturer so recommends.

CONSTRUCTION A. General The assembled helmet shall have smooth external and internal surfaces. Any feature projecting more than 7 mm beyond the outer surface must readily break away; all other projections on the outer surface shall be smoothly faired and offer minimal frictional resistance to tangential impact forces. Rivets and similar projections into the helmet interior must offer no laceration or puncture hazard. Restraint clips may be used at the rear or on the side of the helmet. The helmet shall provide as nearly uniform impact protection over the entire protected area as is possible. If the absence of any detachable component of the helmet does not prevent its being worn, then this absence must not compromise either the retention system or the impact protection. If any part of the helmet detaches during testing, it must offer no laceration or puncture hazard nor reduce the coverage of the head.

If the manufacturer provides add-ons such as visors, face shields and neck curtains with the helmet, these add-ons must not lessen the protective capability of the basic helmet nor reduce the visual field below standard requirements nor create a direct hazard for the wearer.

Page 46: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

45

B. Shell If rivets are used, the heads shall not have sharp edges and shall not project more than 2 mm from the outer surface of the helmet.

C. Materials

Ideally, materials used in the manufacture of the helmet should be of durable quality and not be harmed by exposure to sun, rain, dust, vibration, sweat or products applied to the skin or hair. Similarly, the materials should not degrade due to temperature extremes likely to be encountered in routine storage or transportation. Materials which are known to cause skin irritation or are conducive to disease shall not be used for the parts which contact the skin. Materials which support the growth of fungi or algae shall not be used. Fabric lining or padding materials, if used, may be detachable for the purpose of washing so long as their absence does not degrade the protective capabilities of the helmet.

D. Finish

All edges of the helmet shall be smoothed and rounded with no metallic parts or other rigid projections on the inside of the shell that might injure the wearer's head in the event of impact.

E. Retention System

The retention system shall be designed so as to discourage misuse. That is, of all the ways in which the retention system might be used, the design use shall be the simplest and quickest to implement. Helmets shall not be fitted with "non-essential" features which, if misused, can degrade the performance. Quick release buckles, if used, shall not be able to be released inadvertently.

Fabric chinstraps, if used, shall not be secured to the shell by a bolt, pin or rivet passing through the fabric itself. Although other alternatives may be proposed, the preferred method of attachment is that the strap be looped through and sewn about a metal hanger which can then be secured to the shell by bolt, rivet or other appropriate means.

F. Peripheral Vision

The helmet shall provide peripheral visual clearance as measured using a reference head form appropriate to the size of the helmet. This peripheral vision includes a horizontal clearance of at least 210º, an upward clearance of at least 7º and a downward clearance of at least 30º. However, this downward clearance makes specific allowance for breath deflectors. These clearances are described in terms of planes fixed in the reference head forms. Some competitive applications may require helmets with more restricted visual fields. When justified, special addenda to this Standard will define reduced visual fields, the procedures for determining whether a helmet satisfies the requirement and the additional labeling requirements warning that the headgear may be appropriate only for certain uses.

G. Sizing

The requirements of this standard are such that most helmets will perform optimally only when tested within a range of head circumferences. Outside this range, helmets may still provide a measure of protection but they may not meet requirements for certification. The manufacturer must specify this entire range when helmets are submitted for certification. Later, when helmets are distributed for sale, every helmet shall include a permanent label indicating the range of head circumferences for which it is intended. QUALIFICATIONS FOR CERTIFICATION For qualification testing, helmets shall be in the same condition as those offered for sale. No helmet or component which has been subjected to any tests described in this Standard shall be offered for sale after testing. At least five (5) and as many as seven (7) complete helmets must be submitted by the manufacturer for a certification test program for each distinct structural configuration of the models offered for sale. All but one of these samples will be destroyed in testing; the untested sample shall be retained for comparison and reference.

Page 47: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

46

If different fit pad configurations are planned in order to accommodate this head gear for different size ranges, five of the samples submitted must be configured for the largest size range. If seven samples are considered necessary, the remaining two samples must be configured for the smallest intended size. Additional samples representing different fit pad configurations may also be provided at the discretion of the submitter. MODIFICATIONS Cosmetic changes to certified headgear are permissible. Such changes are generally limited to marking or trimming the headgear with manufacturer approved paint or tape. Otherwise, modifications to certified headgear effectively create new configurations which shall not have the confidence and certification of the Foundation until properly evaluated. Manufacturers must not place the Foundation's certification label in any modified headgear without the Foundation’s written authorization. The Foundation recommends that helmet owners not modify or contract with someone else to modify their helmets. Any structural modification may adversely affect a helmet's protective capability. The Foundation’s certification and, quite likely, all manufacturer warranties apply to the headgear only in its as manufactured condition. RANDOM SAMPLE TESTING In addition to the certification testing, the Foundation will routinely obtain and test samples of previously certified models. These samples will be selected from among those stocks intended for retail sale to consumers. In this manner, the Foundation will attempt to ensure that the helmets made available to the public continue to meet the performance requirements of this Standard. For those cases in which helmets are provided directly to users and do not pass through a normal sales distribution system; the Foundation will set up alternative procedures to monitor certified products. Specifically, if helmets are provided directly to teams or individuals for use in events, the Foundation must have access to the helmets for spot checking and non-destructive evaluation. LABELING AND MARKING Each helmet shall have durable, visible and legible labeling identifying the manufacturer, the month and year of manufacture, the model and the size. Labeling shall be uncoded and either in English or a language common to the area where the helmets are to be distributed. The headgear shall also be labeled to the following effect:

1. No helmet can protect the wearer against all foreseeable impacts. However, for

maximum protection, the helmet must be of good fit and the retention system must be securely fastened to retain the helmet. The helmet, when fitted and fastened, shall not be removed easily.

2. This helmet is so constructed that the energy of an impact may be absorbed through its partial destruction, though damage may not be visible. If it suffers an impact, it must either be returned to the manufacturer for inspection or be destroyed and replaced.

3. Intended for head circumferences from XX cm through YY cm.

If any of the helmet components are sensitive to common solvents, adhesives, paints or cleansers; the helmet must also bear labels to the following effect: This helmet can be seriously damaged by some common substances without visible damage. Apply only the following: (Recommended cleaning agents, paints, adhesives and the like) as appropriate. If the helmet model was certified according to a special addendum to this standard, each helmet shall also include the warning labels required by that addendum.

Page 48: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

47

Each helmet shall also include one of the Foundation's serialized certification labels. The Snell certification label shall be placed either inside or on the outside of the helmet, as appropriate, in such a way that it cannot be removed intact.

The registered trademark (certification label) of the Snell Memorial Foundation may be used by the manufacturer only under license from the Snell Memorial Foundation. The specifics of licensure may be obtained from the Foundation. MARKING AND LABELING OF CRITICAL COMPONENTS If a helmet component may reasonably be replaced with an inappropriate substitute that might degrade wearer safety and performance in any of the tests called out in this standard, the manufacturer must mark those components so that users may avoid the purchase and use of inappropriate replacement parts. In particular, face shields on full face helmets must be marked to identify the manufacturer and the month and year of manufacture. HEAD FORMS This standard invokes six standard head forms for helmet inspection, marking and testing. The geometry of these head forms is according to the definitions for the ‘A’, ‘C’, ‘E’, ‘J’, ‘M’, and ‘O’ head forms described in International Standards Organization (ISO) Draft Standard ISO DIS 6220-1983. The impact mass specifications for the impact test phase are comparable to those in ECE 22-05 for these same head form designations.

ISO DIS 6220-1983 includes descriptions for half head forms suitable for guided fall impact testing or for full head forms such as those used in the positional stability tests. Figures 1 and 2 depict the general shapes of the half head form configuration. The following table lists useful dimensions from the two references given above.

Page 49: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

48

Table 1 Useful Head Form Parameters

Head Form

Circumference Mass Crown to Basic

Plane Basic to Reference

Plane

A 50 cm 3.100 kg ± 100 g 113.5 mm 24.0 mm

C 52 cm 3.600 kg ± 100 g 118.0 mm 25.0 mm

E 54 cm 4.100 kg ± 100 g 122.0 mm 26.0 mm

J 57 cm 4.700 kg ± 100 g 130.0 mm 27.5 mm

M 60 cm 5.600 kg ± 100 g 136.0 mm 29.0 mm

O 62 cm 6.100 kg ± 100 g 140.0 mm 30.0 mm

EXTENT OF PROTECTION The extent of protection corresponds to that region of the head for which protection is sought. There are a number of planes fixed in the geometry of these head forms as shown in Figure 1. This description of the extent of protection uses the ISO definitions of the basic plane, the longitudinal plane, the transverse plane and the reference plane. Other planes have also been defined strictly for convenience and clarity.

The basic plane corresponds to the anatomical plane (Frankfort plane) that includes the auditory meatuses and the inferior orbital rims. The reference plane is above and parallel to the basic plane. The longitudinal or mid sagittal plane is perpendicular to the basic plane and is the plane of symmetry dividing the right half of the head form from the left. The transverse or coronal plane is perpendicular to both the longitudinal and basic planes. It corresponds to the anatomical plane that contains the two auditory meatuses and divides the front from the rear portions of the head. These planes are all well-known entities. Several other planes, however, have proven useful. The S0 plane is parallel to the basic plane and lies above it at a distance determined by the size of the head form. The S3 plane is parallel to the S0 plane and the basic plane and lies between them. The S4 plane is also parallel to these planes and lies below the basic plane.

The rear plane divides the rear third of the head from the front two thirds. It is parallel to the transverse plane and lies at a given distance behind the point where the reference plane and longitudinal planes intersect with the front surface of the head form. The distance from this point, hereafter called the reference point, is determined by the size of the head form. The fore plane is also parallel to the transverse plane. It lies behind the reference point at a distance determined by the size of the head form.

Page 50: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

49

Figure 2 Extent of Protection

Table 2 Extent of Protection

Head form Designation

Parameters

a b c d e

ISO A 39.0 mm 128.6 mm 26.1 mm 46.8 mm 52.2 mm

ISO C 40.6 mm 133.8 mm 27.2 mm 48.4 mm 54.3 mm

ISO E 42.2 mm 139.0 mm 28.2 mm 50.0 mm 56.4 mm

ISO J 45.2 mm 148.4 mm 30.0 mm 53.0 mm 60.0 mm

ISO M 47.4 mm 155.8 mm 31.5 mm 55.2 mm 63.0 mm

ISO O 49.2 mm 161.5 mm 32.2 mm 57.2 mm 64.5 mm

The extent of protection provided by the helmet must include the entire region above the S0 plane and forward of the fore plane, the entire region above the S3 plane and between the fore and rear planes and the entire region above the S4 plane and behind the rear plane. Figure 2 and the associated table lay out these additional defined features and show the extent of protection and the test line. TESTING

A. Inspection

Each helmet will be inspected for the required labels and for compliance with the general limitations made on structure. Samples received for certification testing must incorporate all the critical component labels but other labeling is not necessary for evaluation. Samples received for RST (enforcement) testing must have all the required labels.

Some helmets may incorporate innovations and other features not anticipated by this Standard but which raise concerns about the safety and effectiveness of the headgear. These will be referred to members of the Foundation's Board of Directors for evaluation. Any feature deemed to reduce the protective capacity of the headgear, whether explicitly mentioned in this Standard or not, will be a cause for rejection.

B. Head Forms and Helmet Positioning

The determination of which head forms are appropriate to a helmet is based on the specified smallest and largest head circumferences for the helmet. For samples submitted for certification, this specification must include the smallest and largest values of head circumference for every possible fit pad configuration of the helmet. For helmets received for RST testing, the smallest and largest head circumferences will be taken directly from the helmet label

Page 51: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

50

If the smallest head circumference specified for the helmet is less than 50 cm, the A head form is the smallest appropriate. Otherwise, the smallest appropriate head form for a particular helmet is the largest of the six head forms whose circumference is no greater than the manufacturer’s specified smallest circumference. The largest appropriate head form is the largest of the six specified head forms whose circumference is no greater than the manufacturer’s specified largest circumference.

Table 3 Test Head Forms as Determined by Size Specification

Largest Size Specified

50 - 51

52 - 53

54 - 56

57-59 60 -

61 >61

Smallest Size Specified

<50-51

A A,C A,E A,J A,M A,O

52-53

C C,E C,J C,M C,O

54-56

E E,J E,M E,O

57-59

J J,M J,O

60-61

M M,O

>61 O

If the test samples are determined to be too small to accommodate the largest head form identified as appropriate, the next smaller head form shall be considered the largest appropriate. If the samples are too small for even the smallest appropriate head form as indicated by the manufacture specification, the samples shall be rejected for certification.

The table shows which head forms will be used in certification testing for various head size specifications. Since the largest head size should never be smaller than the smallest head size, most of the lower left region of the table is blank.

If the size specification corresponds to one of the light gray cells along the table’s main diagonal, only a single test head form will be necessary and the manufacturer need only submit five samples identical samples configured with comfort padding for the largest intended head size for certification testing. Otherwise, two more samples are required, identical to the first five in all respects except that the comfort padding must be configured for the smallest intended head size. During testing, helmets will be positioned on the selected test head form according to the manufacturer’s specified helmet positioning indices. If the manufacturer fails to provide positioning information with certification samples, the helmets will be positioned according to the best judgment of the authorized technical personnel. If the helmets meet certification requirements, the helmet positioning indices will be those used in all future testing. These helmet positioning indices represent distances on the front of the head form from the basic plane along the intersection with the longitudinal plane upward to the lower brow edge of the helmet. Helmet positioning indices will be assigned for all head form sizes appropriate to the headgear. Each headgear

Page 52: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

51

could conceivably require as many as six helmet positioning indices, one each for the ‘A’, ‘C’, ‘E’, ‘J’, ‘M’ and ‘O’ head forms.

C. Marking

The helmet is placed upon the largest appropriate ISO head form, positioned according to the opposite helmet positioning index and held in place with an applied force of 50 newtons (11.25 lbs). The intersections of the shell with the various defined planes are then traced onto the outer surface of the helmet in the following manner:

The level of the S0 plane is marked on that portion of the helmet in front of the fore plane. The level of the S3 plane is marked on that portion lying between the fore and rear planes. The level of the S4 plane is marked on that portion behind the rear plane. Finally, line segments along the fore plane are marked to join the S0 and S3 planes and, similarly, line segments along the rear plane are marked to join the S3 and S4 planes.

These lines enclose the top of the helmet and are the boundary of the required extent of protection. However, it shall not be a cause for rejection if parts of this boundary fall below the edge of the helmet. A test line shall be constructed within the extent of protection 40 mm from the closest point on the boundary as shown in figure 2. If identical helmets are to be configured with different thicknesses of comfort padding to accommodate different ranges of head size, the required extent of protection marked on the test samples shall include the required extent of protection for each different configuration as marked on the largest head form appropriate for each. That is: the helmet must meet all the requirements of this Standard in each of the intended configurations.

D. Peripheral Vision The clearance for peripheral vision will be checked by placing the helmet on each appropriate ISO head form, positioning it according to the opposite helmet positioning index and holding it in place with a force of 50 newtons. The clearance must include the following solid angles to the front of the head form:

1. The upward visual clearance

3. The lateral visual clearance

2. The downward visual clearance except for the breath deflector allowance

Helmets certified to a special addendum to this standard and bearing the warning labels specified in the addendum will not be subjected to the following procedures and criteria for evaluating clearances for vision. However, the procedures and criteria specified in the addendum will be applied instead. The upward visual clearance is the solid angle bounded by the reference plane of the head form and a second plane tilted 7º up from the reference plane. This second plane intersects the reference plane at two points on the front surface of the head form that are 31 mm to the right and left of the longitudinal plane as shown in figure 3.

Page 53: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

52

The lateral visual clearance, as shown in figure 4, is the solid angle bounded by the reference plane, the S4 plane and two more planes that are perpendicular to the reference plane and that contain the reference point on the front of the head form. One of these two planes forms an angle of 105º with the longitudinal plane and lies to the left of the head form. The other forms the same angle to the right of the head form.

Figure 4 Lateral Visual Clearance

The downward visual clearance is the solid angle bounded by the basic plane of the head form and a second plane tilted 30º down from the basic plane that intersects it at two points on the front surface of the head form that are 31 mm to the right and left of the longitudinal plane as shown in figure 5.

However, intrusions into this downward clearance are permitted so long as the intrusions are within the breath deflector allowance.

Page 54: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

53

The breath deflector allowance is shown in figure 6. It includes the region that is within 31 mm to the right and left of the longitudinal plane and that lies below the two planes that form 45º angles with the longitudinal plane and that intersect it at the level of the S4 plane.

Figure 6 Breath Deflector Allowance

E. Performance Testing

The performance testing subjects helmets to a dynamic test of retention system strength, to a test for positional stability, to impact management tests, to helmet shell penetration tests, to a removability test, and to chin bar and face shield tests if appropriate. These tests are conducted upon helmet samples kept under laboratory ambient temperature and humidity or that have been conditioned in one of three environments simulating some of the conditions in which the helmet might reasonably be expected to be used. Prior to conditioning and testing, samples may be exposed to solvents common to motorsports which have been found to attack and degrade some helmet components.

Page 55: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

54

In certification testing, four samples are required for testing on the largest appropriate head form. The first of these is kept at laboratory ambient temperature and humidity and allowed to come to equilibrium. It is subjected first to the positional stability test and then to the impact management and other tests. The second, third and fourth samples are conditioned hot, cold and wet, and subjected to the dynamic test of the retention system, the impact management test and the other tests. If the smallest appropriate head form is not the same as the largest, two additional samples are required for testing on this head form. The first of these will be allowed to stabilize at laboratory ambient temperature and humidity and then will be subjected to the test for positional stability. This sample may then be conditioned hot or cold or kept at laboratory ambient for impact testing. The second additional sample shall be tested in impact conditioned hot, cold or wet or kept at lab ambient according to the best judgment of the test personnel. The selection of tests, conditioning and special conditioning is left to the discretion of the Foundation's technical personnel. However, for certification testing, each of the specified tests shall be applied to at least one sample. Furthermore, it is expected that all testing will be conducted so as to exercise all the likely failure modes of the helmet.

E1. Conditioning for Testing

Test samples may be kept at laboratory ambient temperature and humidity or may be conditioned cold, hot or wet according to the specifications given below. At the discretion of the Foundation's technical personnel and at any point during the testing, a sample previously kept at ambient may be conditioned cold, hot or wet. However, once a sample has been conditioned cold, hot or wet, the sample must be maintained in that condition throughout the rest of the testing.

The special solvent wipe conditioning described below may be applied to any sample at the discretion of the Foundation's technical personnel.

a. Special Conditioning. Prior to any impact or retention system testing helmets may first be

conditioned with a solvent mix of 50% toluene and 50% isooctane. A cotton cloth or suitable substitute shall be soaked in the solvent and used as an applicator. The solvent will be applied to the shell first in an area within 5 mm of the chin strap attachments for not less than five (5) seconds on each side and then applied to the remainder of the shell for not less than ten (10) seconds. At least thirty minutes shall elapse before further conditioning and testing.

b. Cold. The sample shall be conditioned by being exposed to a temperature of -20 ±2º C for a period of not less than four (4) hours, or more than twenty-four (24) hours.

c. Heat. The sample shall be conditioned by being exposed to a temperature of 50 ±2º C for a period of not less than four (4) hours, or more than twenty-four (24) hours.

d. Wet. The sample shall be conditioned by being continuously sprayed with water at a temperature of 25 ±5º C for a period of not less than four (4) hours, or more than twenty-four (24) hours. This spray shall be directed at the helmet's external surfaces. The helmet shall not be subjected to total immersion. All testing of these hot, cold and wet helmets shall begin within two (2) minutes from the time of removal from the conditioning apparatus. The samples shall be returned to the conditioning apparatus between tests.

E2. Positional Stability (Roll-Off)

The test for positional stability shall only be applied to samples kept at ambient laboratory temperature and humidity. The helmet shall not have been subjected to any prior performance testing.

The helmet shall be tested on the smallest appropriate standard full-face head form. The head form shall be supported on a stand so that its vertical axis points downward at an angle of 135º to the direction of gravity. The head form shall be oriented face down. The helmet shall be placed on the head form and

Page 56: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

55

adjusted to obtain the best configuration of the retention system. An inelastic strap shall be hooked to the edge of the helmet at the rear centerline and brought forward so that its free end hangs downward across the top of the helmet. An inertial hammer shall be suspended from the free end of the strap. This inertial hammer shall enable a 4.0 kg ±50 g mass to be dropped through a 0.6 m guided fall in order to deliver an abrupt shock load to the headgear. The shock load will force the helmet to rotate forward on the head form. The helmet may be shifted but must remain on the head form.

The head form shall be repositioned so that it is facing upward but with the vertical axis still oriented downward at 135º to gravity. The helmet shall be positioned and adjusted to obtain the best configuration of the retention system. The strap/inertial hammer shall be hooked to the brow edge of the helmet at the center line so that the strap lies along the centerline and the hammer is suspended from the top of the helmet. The shock weight shall be dropped through the 0.6 m guided fall delivering an abrupt shock load forcing the helmet to rotate rearward. The helmet may be shifted but must remain on the head form.

The entire portion of the inertial hammer assembly that participates in the loading of the helmet shall be such that its mass is no more than 5.0 kg including the 4.0 kg shock mass.

E3. Dynamic Test of Retention System

The dynamic test of the retention system may be applied to any sample either kept at ambient temperature and humidity or conditioned hot, cold or wet. This test may be performed before, after, or between any of the other procedures in the test sequence. However, the retention test shall not be valid if an integral chin bar has been removed from a full face helmet.

The helmet shall be supported on its lower shell edge in such a manner that the chin strap may be fastened under a device whose upper end approximates the contour of the bony structure of the jaw. The device will then be given a mechanical pre-load followed by a dynamic loading. The retention system fails if it cannot support the mechanical loads or if the maximum deflection during the dynamic load exceeds 30 mm. The retention system also fails if it cannot be easily and quickly unfastened after testing. If the technician determines that the helmet cannot be adequately supported on its lower shell edge, at his discretion, he may support the helmet on a head form for this test.

a. This chinstrap loading device shall consist of a simulated jaw and accommodations for the

pre-load and dynamic load. The jaw portion shall consist of two metal bars or rollers, each one 12.7 ±0.5 mm in diameter, separated by 76 ±0.5 mm on center. The mass of this device shall not exceed 6.0 kg.

b. A pre-load shall be applied for at least 60 seconds. This pre-load plus the mass of the chinstrap loading device shall total 23 kg±500 g.

c. A 38 kg±500 g mass shall be dropped in a vertical guided fall a distance of 120 mm so as to load the retaining system abruptly; the 38 kg mass and pre-load mass shall not be additive. In order to protect the test mechanism, the impact of the 38 kg mass may be cushioned with a 00-93 durometer rubber pad 150 mm in diameter by 6½ mm thick, or its equivalent.

E4. Impact Management Tests

The impact management tests may be performed on samples kept at ambient temperature and humidity or conditioned hot, cold or wet. The sample shall not have been subjected to the shell penetration test beforehand.

These tests involve a series of controlled impacts in which the helmet is positioned on a test head form. The helmeted head form is then dropped in guided falls onto specified test anvils. The impact site and the impact energy must meet certain requirements in order for the tests to be valid.

If the sample is so constructed that it interferes with the test equipment preventing impacts at sites within the test line, then, at the discretion of the Foundation's technical personnel, parts of the helmet may be cut away to facilitate testing. Every reasonable effort to minimize such cutting will be made. However, there shall be no relaxation of the impact levels or of the test criteria.

Page 57: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

56

Certain tests shall not be valid when performed on samples that have been cut for impact testing: the dynamic strength of retention system test of section E3., the positional stability test of section E2., the chin bar test of section E5. and the removability test of section E8.

Special considerations apply when the helmet is a “flip-up” model, that is: configured with a chin bar that pivots up and away from the face of the wearer. Whenever possible, the impact tests will be performed with the chin bar locked in the closed position. In these tests, in addition to all the other test criteria, the chin bar must not release and “flip-up” inadvertently.

E4.1 Impact Management Test Equipment

The test equipment shall consist of at least the following items: a. The smallest and largest of the head forms appropriate for the helmet sample. This head

form shall be of rigid, low resonance metal such as magnesium alloy and shall conform to the 'A', 'C', 'E', 'J', 'M' or 'O' geometries specified in ISO DIS 6220-1983.

b. A ball-arm/collar assembly which is fitted to a socket machined into the base of the head form. The ball/socket configuration shall be such that the geometrical center of the ball is located on the central vertical axis of the head form 12.7 mm above the reference plane as described in ISO DIS 6220-1983. The ball-arm/collar assembly shall also include a uniaxial accelerometer fixed firmly into the ball.

c. A head form support assembly rigidly attached to the ball-arm. This support assembly shall be such that it and consequently the head form may be guided in a vertical drop. The mass of this support assembly shall not exceed 1.2 kg. The total mass of the head form plus ball-arm/collar assembly plus head form support assembly shall be within 100 grams of: 3.1 kg for the ISO A head form, 3.6 kg for the ISO C head form, 4.1 kg for the ISO E head form, 4.7 kg for the ISO J head form, 5.6 kg for the ISO M head form and 6.1 kg for the ISO O head form.

d. A guidance system such that the head form/support assembly is guided in a vertical drop onto a test anvil. This guidance system may consist of two or more wires or one or more rails. The head form/support - guidance system - test anvil alignment shall be such that:

d1. The drop trajectory shall be a straight line within 3º of vertical and within 5º of the sensitive axis of the uniaxial accelerometer.

d2. The line parallel to the drop trajectory and passing through the center of the head form ball-socket shall pass within 5 mm of the center of the test anvil, within 10 mm of the center of gravity of the head form/support assembly, and within 5 mm of the sensitive element of the uniaxial accelerometer.

e. A rigid anvil mount consisting of a solid mass of at least 500 kg. The upper surface of the anvil mount shall consist of a steel plate with a minimum thickness of 12 mm and a minimum surface area of 0.10 m

2.

f. Three test anvils: flat, hemispherical and edge. f1. The flat anvil shall have a minimum surface area of 0.0127 m

2, e.g. 127 mm diameter

face. When fixed in position on the anvil mount, the surface shall be perpendicular to the head form trajectory.

f2. The hemispherical anvil shall have a 48 ±0.5 mm radius. f3. The edge anvil shall have a striking face 6.3 mm wide with a depth of at least 35 mm. The

radius of the edges on the impact face shall not exceed 0.5 mm. When in position, the striking face shall be perpendicular to the head form trajectory. The anvil shall be sufficiently long that the ends do not contact the helmet during impact.

g. A uniaxial accelerometer. The acceleration data channel must comply with SAE recommended practice J 211 requirements for channel class 1000 with the exception that the frequency response need not include the range from dc to 10 hz which may not be obtainable using certain types of transducers.

h. A velocity measurement device which will yield the velocity of the head form/support assembly within the last 40 mm of travel before impact. The velocity measurement must be accurate to within ±1%.

Page 58: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

57

E4.2 Test Definitions a. The impact site refers to the portion of the helmet struck during an impact test. It is defined

as the point where a line passing through the center of the head form ball and the center of the anvil intersects the outer surface of the helmet at the instant the helmet first touches the anvil.

b. The impact velocity is the velocity of the head form/support assembly as measured within no more than 4 cm of the first contact between the helmet and the impact surface.

c. This standard specifies nominal impact velocities which must be adjusted in order to allow for deviations between the actual mass of the test head form assembly and the specified ideal value. The actual test impact velocity shall be the specified nominal velocity multiplied by the square root of the value obtained by dividing the ideal head form assembly mass by the actual mass. For example, if, for the ‘A’ head form, the mass of the head form plus ball-arm/collar and support assembly as in paragraph E4.1c masses 3.2 kg instead of the ideal mass of 3.1 kg, the test impact velocities shall be obtained by multiplying the nominal velocities by a factor of 0.984.

d. There are two levels of test: the first is the standard level used to identify those helmets which definitely meet this standard. It is applied to samples submitted for certification testing and to those acquired for the Foundation’s random sample test (RST) program. The second is the deviation level which is applied to samples acquired for second round RST procedures, that is: testing of samples of currently certified models for which previous samples have obtained failing results in RST testing. Failure to meet test criteria at the deviation levels indicates that the sample definitely does not meet the requirements of the standard.

E4.3 Test Impacts

Test impact sites shall be on or above the test line. Rivets, vents and any other helmet feature within this region shall be valid test sites. Each impact site will be subjected to a group of one or two impacts according to the anvil selected for that site.

The impact site for the first impact within in a group is the target for the successive impacts in the same group. However, if an impact group is sited closer than 120 mm to any previous impact group, that later impact shall be declared invalid.

There is no restriction regarding test anvil selection. The impact velocities for each test impact depend on the type of test and on the head form designation. Second impacts do not apply to helmets in tests against the edge anvil.

The technician may select either the largest or smallest appropriate head form for any particular group of impacts. In all cases the technician may impact any site on the helmet surface on or within the test lines as drawn for any of the head forms considered appropriate for that helmet.

The nominal impact velocities are listed in the following table:

Table 4 Nominal Impact Velocity Table

All Anvils Head Form

A C E J M O

Certification

1st

7.75 m/s

7.75 m/s

7.75 m/s

7.75 m/s

7.75 m/s

7.75 m/s

2nd

7.09m

/s 7.09

m/s 7.09

m/s 6.78

m/s 5.73

m/s 5.02

m/s

Deviation

1st

7.48 m/s

7.48 m/s

7.48 m/s

7.48 m/s

7.48 m/s

7.48 m/s

2nd

6.85

m/s 6.85

m/s 6.85

m/s 6.55

m/s 5.54

m/s 4.84

m/s

Page 59: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

58

a. Each site tested against the flat anvil shall be tested according to the values in the impact

velocity table adjusted for the mass of the head form assembly.

b. Each site tested against the hemispherical anvil shall be tested according to the values in the impact velocity table adjusted for the mass of the head form assembly.

c. Each site tested against the edge anvil shall be tested according to the values in the impact velocity table adjusted for the mass of the head form assembly. No helmet shall be subjected to the second impact for this anvil.

d. If the impact velocity for any test impact exceeds the specified mass adjusted velocity by

more than 1.5%, that impact shall be declared invalid.

Please Note: The impacts described above are based on specific velocities and not prescribed drop heights. To attain the proper velocity for an impact, it is likely that the drop height will need to be adjusted to compensate for frictions inherent in most mechanical helmet testing systems. Height adjustments for these frictions should not account for more than 10% of the total drop height.

Also, the 1.5% margin allowed for impact velocity reflects the uncertainties expected even for well-maintained drop equipment. It is expected that drop heights will always be selected to produce, as closely as possible, the precise impact velocity as called out in the standards and adjusted for head form assembly drop mass..

E4.4 Impact Test Interpretation

Table 5 Peak Acceleration Criteria

Head Form

A C E J M O

Certification 275 G 275 G 275 G 275 G 264 G 243 G

RST 285 G 285 G 285 G 285 G 273 G 251 G

The peak acceleration of the head form shall not exceed the values in the table above depending on the head form and the type of test. The helmet’s protective structures shall not break apart throughout the testing. If the Foundation's technical personnel conclude that fracture of the helmet shell, impact liner, retention system or other components could reasonably imply an undue laceration hazard either from the impact surface or from the helmet itself, the sample shall be considered to have failed.

A flip-up configuration tested with the chin bar closure locked at the outset of a valid impact and which releases inadvertently as a result of the impact will also be deemed to have failed. If, in certification testing, a sample is found to meet all the test criteria but any two of the impacts were at less than 98.5% of the specified impact velocity as adjusted for drop assembly mass, the testing for that sample shall be declared inconclusive and must be repeated. Similarly, if there are two instances where an impact falls beyond 10 mm from the first impacts in its group, the testing for the sample shall be declared inconclusive and must be repeated. Finally, if an invalid impact produces a peak acceleration exceeding the test criterion, the testing for the sample shall be declared inconclusive and must be repeated.

The impact test procedures leave considerable latitude to the helmet tester regarding site and anvil selection. It is expected that the tester will orchestrate each standard test series in order to investigate potential weaknesses and to exercise each likely failure mode and will conduct deviation level testing to exercise the failure modes identified previously.

Page 60: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

59

If at the end of a certification test series, the Foundation's technical personnel conclude that the results obtained in valid impacts are not sufficient to determine whether the helmet model meets the performance requirements of this standard, and additional samples may be conditioned and tested. It is expected that all samples submitted will meet all the test requirements.

E5. Chin Bar Test

The chin bar test applies to full face helmets only. At least one helmet in each certification series shall be tested. The helmet shall be firmly mounted on a rigid base so that the chin bar faces up and the reference plane is at 65 ±5º from horizontal. A mass of 5 ± .2 kg with a flat striking face of 0.01 m5 minimum area shall be dropped in a guided fall so as to strike the central portion of the chin bar with an impact velocity of 3.5 ±0.2 m/sec. The maximum downward deflection of the chin bar must not exceed 60 mm nor shall any component fail so as to cause a potential injury to the wearer.

E6. Shell Penetration Test

The shell penetration test may be applied to helmets kept at laboratory ambient temperature and humidity or helmets conditioned hot, cold or wet. At least one helmet sample shall be tested in shell penetration. The complete helmet shall be placed on a rigidly mounted head form. The test head form for the penetration test need not be the standard ISO head form shape used in the impact testing and helmet marking. It is expected only that the device used will provide reasonable support for the helmet and conformance with the interior of the helmet immediately beneath the site of the penetration test. If the helmet contains a sling or some other adjustable sizing component, it shall be relaxed to its most extendable position.

The penetration test striker shall have a mass of 3 kg ±50 g. The striker shall fall through a height of 3 m ±15 mm. The point of the striker shall be a cone with an included angle of 60º ±0.5º and an altitude of 38 ±0.38 mm. The striking tip shall have a hardness of 60 Rockwell (scale C ± 3 points) and a radius of 0.5 ± 0.1 mm.

The test striker may be directed at any site on or above the test line but the penetration test site must be at least 7.5 cm removed from the center of any impact test site or any other penetration test site. At the test technician’s discretion, samples may be tested at more than one site on the shell.

For all penetration tests performed, the test striker must not penetrate to achieve even momentary contact with the test head form.

E7. Face Shield Penetration Test

If a face shield is provided with a full face helmet, this face shield shall be tested for penetration resistance in the following manner: The face shield shall be tested on the appropriate helmet, correctly deployed across the facial opening and under laboratory ambient conditions. A soft lead pellet weighing 1 ±0.1 g with a diameter of 5.5 ±0.1 mm and traveling at a velocity of 500 ±20 km per hour shall strike the face shield normal to the surface. The face shield shall be tested in at least three different locations: the center line and 80 ±5 mm to either side of the center line. The pellet must not penetrate to the interior of the helmet.

E8. Removability

The helmet removability test determines whether the helmet can be removed from an unconscious victim without resorting to any buckles, clasps or other mechanisms which may be rendered non-functional by impact stresses. The helmet is placed on the largest appropriate complete ISO head form with all the closures and retention systems engaged. A technician must remove the helmet from the head form using simple, common hand tools but without accessing any of the helmet mechanisms.

The hand tools for this test are limited to shears, simple edged tools and flat bladed screw drivers. The operation must not require more than thirty seconds.

Page 61: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

60

E9. Post-testing Disassembly and Inspection If a set of helmets is submitted for and passes certification testing, at least one of the tested samples shall be disassembled and inspected. If the laboratory staff identifies any internal feature that is not plausible for inclusion in a production helmet, the model shall be rejected. If an internal projection on the helmet shell is deemed to present an undue laceration or puncture hazard, the model shall be rejected. In evaluating these internal projections, no allowance shall be made for liner thickness. At the discretion of the technician, any helmet may be disassembled in order to check for internal projections, plausibility or for deviations from the originally certified configuration.

[1]The Foundation has also published Standards for headgear used in bicycling, non-motorized sports,

automobile racing, karting, competitive skiing, skiing and snowboarding and equestrian activities. Copies of these Standards are available upon request.

http://www.smf.org/standards/m/2010/m2010_final

Page 62: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

61

HELMET AND BOAT CAMERAS

Cameras offer several problems while they support rider recordings of their race they also can produce a

‘snap back effect’ against the neck. It is also a strike and contact point and a distraction on the track if

lost or floating.

If a competitor drills a hole through the shell of their helmet they have voided the construction materials

rendering that helmet worthless for competition.

Helmet cameras also change the weight distribution and balance point of a helmet.

2014 ACCIDENT REVIEW:

“7 time world champion, Formula 1 Legend, Michael Schumacher’s life threatening skiing accident has

led investigators to explore the theory that his helmet camera could have caused the helmet to shatter,

leading to serious head injuries.

Experts from ENSA, the world-renowned ski and climbing academy in the French ski resort of Chamonix,

have conducted tests to determine whether the presence of a solid object between a helmet colliding with

a rock would weaken the structure.

The helmet smashed, but the camera he had attached to it, on order to record him and his son skiing was

undamaged. The footage, audio and visual, has provided police with crucial information about the crash.

The helmet completely broke. It was in at least two parts.

ENSA analyzed the piece of the helmet to check the material and all was OK. The video which includes

audio was minutely analyzed by N-Tec a research division within the police at Albertville that specializes

in new technology.’

U.I.M. has banned cameras at their events by participant usage, as many other type of competitive

venues are beginning to do in the realm of safety within their sport due to concerns regarding the snap

back effect on the head and point of contact when an accident occurs.

Page 63: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

62

The author has reconsidered the use of helmet cameras in dynamic water conditions. Pictured above R

Placement of helmet style, accessory mounted cameras is also a safety consideration if they are placed

in an area of the water craft that can have any point of contact with the human body. The forces of action

applied from water immersion can snap a mounted camera as well.

2014 AUSTRLIAN HELMET CAMERA REVIEW:

The Australian Standards says that no protrusion of greater than 5mm is allowed, but that refers to the

manufacturing process as opposed to aftermarket products such as cameras and Bluetooth. If a camera

or other device is screwed into the helmet by drilling holes then it is interfering with the structural integrity

of the helmet and the safety of the rider, and an offence is committed. [In Queensland it is an offence for

riders under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009 Section

270 (1) (a) Wearing motorbike helmets; and for passengers it is under Transport Operations (Road Use

Management—Road Rules) Regulation 2009 Section 271(2).] In Queensland, the penalty is $330 and

three points.

Page 64: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

63

END NOTE: The data collected in this booklet and references online are dated early 2013.-2014

Changes may have occurred and neither the author, the reference material nor the associate bodies mentioned or companies do not endorse this booklet. Use at your own risk.

Contact the resources direct and conduct your own fact checking verification for accuracy and currency.

Safety is YOUR responsibility first!

Do not leave your personal safety to anyone else to manage for you, ask pertinent questions conduct inquiries, investigation and look for product testing values and insights.

If you are not satisfied with the level of content, information, data or resources it is advised you continue to question authority and company product, values and information until you are given a satisfactory response and are satisfied with the information.

This is for informational purposes only to assist PWC community members to take the initiative in their own safety and not to ignore the responsibility and care and proper use of products you employ.

All Excerpts in this booklet were taken from internet postings, links or forums and were not all

written by the booklet organizer.

The author, 1990, photo by Mr. Ed Hiroaki at Cabrillo Beach, San Pedro, CA.

Page 65: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Racing

CASE STUDY: Personal Protective Equipment for PWC Competition 2014

64

ABOUT

Shawn Alladio is the founder of K38. She is a world renowned subject matter expert regarding Personal Water Craft (PWC); consultant, expert witness, and boating safety manager and educator. K38 affiliates located in 7 international locations and are National Safe Boating Council certified instructors. K38 teaches Personal Watercraft and Rescue Water Craft courses in swiftwater rescue, big wave safety, PWC competitions, flood, open water, surf and disaster management for occupational lifesavers. K38 Maritime provides services for the Law Enforcement and Military communities. Shawn is an inductee of the NSBC United States prestigious ‘Boating Safety Hall of Fame’, and has received numerous awards for her contribution in the reduction of boating related drowning and injuries worldwide. K38 is a partner of the American Watercraft Association (AWA) H2O Responder program. She has been appointed to panels such as the International Conference of Transport in Safety (ICOSIT), and the Dubai International Powerboat Safety Workshop (UIM). She is a professional PWC racer and program founder for PWC event staff training and water safety. Her professional goal is to revolutionize lifesaving worldwide, and to promote and educate competitors in the value of lifesaving through safety in motorsports. K38 is an associate member of National Association of State Boating Law Administrators, the National Safe Boating Council and the California Boating Safety Officers Association. www.K38rescue.com