Virginia Tech Study Shows Majority Of Hockey Helmets Are Unsafe

Nov 4, 2014; Boston, MA, USA; Florida Panthers right wing Jimmy Hayes helmet sits on the ice with a "Hockey Fights Cancer" sticker on it during the third period of Boston

Researchers at Virginia Tech have studied sports-related head impacts and which helmets reduce the risk of concussion best. Commencing in  2011, these researchers have released an unbiased rating system of helmets through a culmination of the last ten years of research. To ensure their system is unbiased, Virginia Tech has remained completely independent of both funding and influence from helmet manufacturers.

Equipment Standards organizations (such as the Hockey Equipment Certification Council and Canadian Standards Organization) created a minimum safety requirement for all helmets being sold. Not every helmet that passes the minimum requirement necessarily offers the same level of impact protection. Therefore, Virginia Tech looked to close the gap in the market with their rating— a system that provides the levels of impact protection to inform consumers.

Through Virginia Tech’s rating system, the helmets that best reduce the risk of concussions are identified. The safest helmets are ranked with five stars, while the worst do not receive any stars.

Numerous impact tests are performed on helmets in order to determine the ratings. Two fundamental concepts are evaluated during these tests— how frequently players experience impacts while wearing the helmets (each test is weighted based on this frequency) and that helmets with lower head acceleration reduce the risk of concussion. While testing, the impact conditions and weightings are based on each specific sport. A broad range of head impacts that athletes wearing the helmets are likely to experience are tested as well.

Stefan Duma, head of the department of biomedical engineering and mechanics at Virginia Tech, described the process of Virginia Tech’s Hockey STAR (Summation of Tests for the Analysis of Risk) Evaluation System. Sensor studies were used to develop the STAR system, including previous sensor studies looking at hits to the head during a season for both male and female players through numerous hockey levels. Data also was collected to represent how and where hits occur on the ice. Each helmet model was subjected to forty-eight impacts while being studied at Virginia Tech’s lab. The intention of the myriad of impacts was to replicate both the impact and velocity of hockey hits.

How able the helmet was in slowing acceleration to the brain and head was evaluated by researchers. “Rotational acceleration” or the head twisting upon impact, was a study factor for the first time. “Linear acceleration” which is when the head does not rotate or twist during a hit, is the sole consideration in current helmet standards. When a player is concussed, their brain is “accelerated.” A higher acceleration is directly correlated to an increase in brain stretching. Duma said researchers want to “bring that acceleration down.”

Virginia Tech researchers also are trying to decrease the G-forces exerted on the brain. “Let’s say you’re a helmeted player and you fall down and you hit your head on the ice. The helmet’s between your head and the ice. If it’s a really good helmet, that impact might only be 50 G’s. If it’s a poor-performing helmet, for that impact you might have 150 G’s. That’s the difference between an injury and a non-injury event.”

According to the Virginia Tech study, over a fourth of helmets worn by hockey players (ranging from youth hockey players to NHLers) are in fact unsafe. Thirty-two helmets available to hockey players in the market were assessed based on Virginia Tech’s five-star system. Only one helmet ranked as high as three stars (which is a mere “good” rating), while the rest fell to lower classifications. The ratings of these helmets were so dreadful according to this STAR ranking system, that nine did not even merit a single star.

Duma dedicated three years and $500,000 (none of which was funded by the helmet industry) developing these ratings. When discussing the non-recommended models, Duma said that the researchers at Virginia tech “don’t think anybody should be playing in these helmets.” They approximated players wearing those helmets incurred at least six concussions per season.

The helmets currently on the market do not properly represent the correlation between protection level and price. For example, the most expensive helmet on the market, the Bauer Re-Akt 100, sells for $269.99 and falls into the one star category. The second most expensive helmet on the market, the CCM Resistance at $229.99, can also be found under the one star ranking. Less expensive helmets like the Bauer 2100 helmet ($34.99) and Warrior Krown 360 (79.98) are found in higher rankings (two stars and three stars respectively) than the most expensive helmets.

The thirty-two helmets tested by Virginia Tech were all certified for their safety by the non-profit organization Hockey Equipment Certification Council (HECC). Representatives of helmet manufactures and consumer interests contribute to HECC’s certification committee. USA Hockey and the NCAA both require that the helmets used by their players are HECC-certified. The NHL’s helmets also must be certified by HECC and the Canadian Standards Organization.

In order to become certified by HECC, a helmet must withstand at least 300 G’s. G force is the force produced by gravity or acceleration. To give some perspective on G force, a study on high school football and hockey players examining the G force of hits to players’ heads can be referenced. The force ranged from 20 Gs (which is equivalent to heading a soccer ball) to 300 Gs. If a person was hit with a thirteen-pound bowling ball, while traveling 20 mph, 52 Gs would have been exerted. While this is the standard for helmets because it prevents most skull fractures, most concussion require exposure to much less force– therefore these helmets do not necessarily protect players from particular traumatic brain injuries.

President of HECC, Dr. Alan Ashare, said he was concerned about the findings of Virginia Tech’s study, but still does not know if the higher star rating will actually lower the concussion risk because no helmet can “guarantee that you’re not going to have concussions.” Ashare acknowledged the potential of this data though, “Once I see the data, I’ll be really happy, and then we’ll change it. Or somebody should change something.”

HECC also released a statement on the STAR ratings by Virginia Tech— saying how the publications will be reviewed to recognize the potential improvements in ice hockey head protection.

How much will Duma’s study at Virginia Tech affect the hockey helmet market?

Four years ago when their football helmet rankings were released, companies had numerous reactions. Some disagreed with the study and one company actually went out of business after Virginia Tech rated their helmet “not recommended.” The actions of the companies showed the influence of this study though due to the rapid improvement of football helmets. Originally, only one tested helmet received five stars. More recently, helmets were testing again through this system and twelve out of twenty-six helmets peaked at five stars. Another eight helmets reached the four star level too. The findings from the hockey helmet study are much worse than the football study though, so if history is correct— there will be major improvements in hockey helmets.

Bauer has already made comments on Virginia Tech’s study. All twelve of their helmets received low ratings. Even their most “impressive” helmet the RE-AKT 100 has a disclaimer: “Experts state that concussions are mainly due to acceleration or deceleration of the brain, and helmets may not prevent concussions caused by these forces” under the the boast of “an enhanced level of protection.”

Kevin Davis, the president and CEO of Bauer’s parent company Performance Sports Group, said to ESPN “while we welcome an opportunity to collaborate with Virginia Tech and understand some of the research that they have done, we absolutely stand behind this helmet as being the best helmet in our line.”

Davis claims the company is working to understand “how they are correlating the protection of the helmet with the likelihood of receiving a concussion, which is something that we have been very careful not to associate our products with.” According to Davis, too many factors can cause concussions, therefore his company does not claim to reduce concussion risks.

CCM and Reebok helmets also ranked low on the STAR rating. Researcher and developer at CCM and Reebok, Evangelos Spyrou told ESPN the company will welcome any research that potentially can improve safety, “But we are missing at this point information that is needed to replicate the test. We need to fully understand what it entails, and how it compares to existing standards.”

While Duma acknowledges that “there will never be a perfect helmet that will prevent all concussions” Hockey STAR can still help players, “It’s about risk reduction. The reality is when you look at the bottom and the top helmets, you’re talking about massive reductions in acceleration, over half. I think almost all biomechanical engineers would agree that that’s a significant difference.” Assistant professor of biomedical engineering at Virginia Tech Steven Rowson investigated hockey helmets through the STAR program as well. “Part of the strategy to reduce the incidences of concussions at all levels of competitive hockey involves improvements in head protection. The aim of our research is to identify helmets that demonstrate the strongest potential to minimize the risk of on-ice concussions” said Rowson to ASME.

Furthermore, even at the highest rating, no helmet is completely concussion-proof. The objective of the helmet ranking system is to identify which helmet best reduces the risk of an athlete sustaining a concussion. Helmets are not the sole factor in players’ concussions— protocols and rule implements influence the occurrence of head injuries. Regardless, the equipment protecting an athlete’s head is crucial in reducing potential head injuries. And in hockey, that is especially important because according to the Centers for Disease Control, the rate of concussions in hockey is higher than any other sport. Therefore, the insights provided by Virginia Tech’s study into concussion prevention should not only be acknowledged, but throughout studied.

The study on Hockey STAR will be published in the scientific journal , Annals of Biomedical Engineering.