Equipment THEORY

[Thunderheads]

Hey all,

Don't take this post TOO seriously, but ......it's a thought starter for sure.....

In automotive crash testing, you have soft materials surrounding hard materials to dissipate energy. And, you have 'soft-wall' technology in Indy and some in NASCAR for the same theory.

Over in "our" world, ... it's been documented by umpires (because there isn't any known testing or standards [NOCSAE])...that hard-shell first, then soft padding underneath is far superior, i.e.; WVG, WVP, etc, .....than the soft shell CPs with ABS plastic sandwiched between the material, i.e.; Honig's K1.

Using the info from auto crash testing and Indy & NASCAR, what IS better at dissipating energy?

Unfortunately we don't know for sure, unless REAL testing is done, but ....based on the automotive info,...wouldn't a soft shell/hard ABS/soft shell protector be 'better' at dissipating energy [think K1] ??

Thoughts?

Caveat: this IS a friendly thought provoking thread

[Jboval]

Well in automotive you have to consider the fact that the passengers could come into contact with pieces/parts, so you have the hard stuff surrounded by soft products to protect the individual. In baseball, you don't have to worry about hurting that poor little baseball.

It is far better to have a hard panel that can absorb the contact, then dissipate the force across the entire surface of the absorbing, soft material (Think safer barrier in NASCAR).

[Thunderheads]

Well in automotive you have to consider the fact that the passengers could come into contact with pieces/parts, so you have the hard stuff surrounded by soft products to protect the individual. In baseball, you don't have to worry about hurting that poor little baseball.

Not occupant safety, ...vehicle performance, crush zones, etc ...

It is far better to have a hard panel that can absorb the contact, then dissipate the force across the entire surface of the absorbing, soft material (Think safer barrier in NASCAR).

Ok, but aren't those soft walls?

[cardinalfan]

Interesting theory. It is true that in racing the cars and walls are built to absorb energy. However:

I drove a dirt track stock car for several years and my most important piece of a safety equipment was an $800 Simpson helmet. It was definitely hardshell with state-of-the-art padding inside!

Using the theory, maybe the key to protection isn't in the design of the CP, but the baseball. If we could convince everyone to play with rubber, soft-shelled baseballs, we wouldn't get hurt nearly as much!

FWIW, I went from a Douglas (very good CP, mistake to sell) to a K1(great shoulder protection & never felt a shot all the way up to D2 college), but I am looking forward to wearing the Gold I bought this week when it arrives!

[Thunderheads]

Interesting theory. It is true that in racing the cars and walls are built to absorb energy. However:

I drove a dirt track stock car for several years and my most important piece of a safety equipment was an $800 Simpson helmet. It was definitely hardshell with state-of-the-art padding inside!

Ok then! That Simpson helmet analogy is a great one! Thanks cardinalfan....

[NovaScotiaBlue]

Hey all,

Don't take this post TOO seriously, but ......it's a thought starter for sure.....

In automotive crash testing, you have soft materials surrounding hard materials to dissipate energy. And, you have 'soft-wall' technology in Indy and some in NASCAR for the same theory.

Over in "our" world, ... it's been documented by umpires (because there isn't any known testing or standards [NOCSAE])...that hard-shell first, then soft padding underneath is far superior, i.e.; WVG, WVP, etc, .....than the soft shell CPs with ABS plastic sandwiched between the material, i.e.; Honig's K1.

Using the info from auto crash testing and Indy & NASCAR, what IS better at dissipating energy?

Unfortunately we don't know for sure, unless REAL testing is done, but ....based on the automotive info,...wouldn't a soft shell/hard ABS/soft shell protector be 'better' at dissipating energy [think K1] ??

Thoughts?

Caveat: this IS a friendly thought provoking thread

Let's take this to, "Mythbusters" :shrug:B):clap:

[Thunderheads]

Let's take this to, "Mythbusters"

THE THOUGHT HAS CROSSED MY MIND!!!!!!!!!B)

[Jboval]

Not occupant safety, ...vehicle performance, crush zones, etc ...

Ok, but aren't those soft walls?

Uh, I don't think so, the walls themselves are hard, but they protect huge blocks of soft foam that absorb the 'movement' of the rigid/hard walls that take the actual impact, just like your chest protector with the hard shell

And as far as the vehicles, I can't think of anything 'soft' (as far as I define the word soft) that isn't possibly going to come in contact with a passenger/driver.

The simple fact is, when something traveling at a high rate of speed hits soft material, that impact is absorbed almost exclusively by the material at the impact site, which dissipates the force by 'giving' inward. When that same object hits a rigid or hard panel, the impact is dissipated across the entire panel, with little or no give. The hard panel then transfers the energy to the soft material over a larger area, with less inward movement, therefore, less energy reaching you.

Yes, you can protect yourself well with what you described, a soft/hard/soft type of set-up, but the most efficient, and less bulky, alternative is the way they have it set up now, hard/soft. I mean, I guess you could stuff a really thick pillow in your shirt, but it's kind of in the way at that point.

I think the best way is how my Shock helmet is set up... shock absorbers! If they could come up with a chest protector with those, then look out!

hhhmmmmm... heading to the patent office right now! :shrug:

[noumpere]

Interesting theory. It is true that in racing the cars and walls are built to absorb energy. However:

I drove a dirt track stock car for several years and my most important piece of a safety equipment was an $800 Simpson helmet. It was definitely hardshell with state-of-the-art padding inside!

I think that part of the reason for the hard shell on the outside of the helmet is so that the helmet slides across surfaces it hits obliquely. A soft outside would tend to grab those surfaces. That's not an issue with chest protectors.

I agree that some sort of standardized testing would be nice.

[Thunderheads]

The simple fact is, when something traveling at a high rate of speed hits soft material, that impact is absorbed almost exclusively by the material at the impact site, which dissipates the force by 'giving' inward. When that same object hits a rigid or hard panel, the impact is dissipated across the entire panel, with little or no give. The hard panel then transfers the energy to the soft material over a larger area, with less inward movement, therefore, less energy reaching you.

^^^^ That's good stuff!!

I think the best way is how my Shock helmet is set up... shock absorbers! If they could come up with a chest protector with those, then look out!

hhhmmmmm... heading to the patent office right now!

That's hilarious!!! But ...valid!

[willv28]

A soft wall in NASCAR is a different principle than the CP we wear. More akin to a shock helmets. A regular hard shell CP spreads the impact over a large area while the soft part dissipates it, the thicker of both, the better the results. The "SAFER" barriers in NASCAR provide a more shock absorbing effect, while having the ability to distort it's shape, lessening impact. Not really a technology we can wear at this time. The outside of the barrier is steel, it's just thin and hollow. This system puts the energy into a wider area of wall. Also, in this case, you're the object moving and trying to be protected, we're not caring about how the wall feels. It's merely an energy absorbing device.

Some of these things have to do with expense, of course someone could likely construct a CP with better and different materials/methods, but just hard over soft is expensive enough as it is.

You could also wear a 1/2 think iron plate and get some nice protection, it's just not comfortable to do so.

As for us, we're the wall and we don't care about how the ball feels, so we want the object hitting the hard surface. The soft absorbs and dissipates the spread energy and provides something soft to cushion the body from anything hard.

[Kevin Finnerty]

My only experience in this physics discussion is with punching a wall instead of my wife. With the plaster on the outside, it stops the object impacting it and lessens the energy of the blow considerably. It seems that if the wall were padded, my fist would have been a lot better off.

[NovaScotiaBlue]

I remember seeing a You Tube clip from a show, I think it's called,"Sports Science" where they were doing tests showing impacts of various sports related situations. I wonder if they have done a test on ball impact on protective gear ? To You Tube I go

[Umpire in Chief]

I remember seeing a You Tube clip from a show, I think it's called,"Sports Science" where they were doing tests showing impacts of various sports related situations. I wonder if they have done a test on ball impact on protective gear ? To You Tube I go

Keep tuned there may be something in the works. Check back both here and at midwestump.blogspot.com Pete is working very hard on something.

[Thunderheads]

Keep tuned there may be something in the works. Check back both here and at midwestump.blogspot.com Pete is working very hard on something.

Great point UIC, this is true..........

There's a lot of time and a lot of $$ involved with something like this, so ...it does take some time.

Sports Science has NOT done anything regarding chest protection or gear, that I'm aware of ....as of this time B)

[JaxRolo]

If anyone is interested I do have a Kevlar vest that I used while in the middle east.

It only weighs 44 pounds and provides maximum protection. You will be safe from baseballs and fans with guns. B)

[Thunderheads]

If anyone is interested I do have a Kevlar vest that I used while in the middle east.

It only weighs 44 pounds and provides maximum protection. You will be safe from baseballs and fans with guns. B)

But it won't stop any pain B)

[NovaScotiaBlue]

Great point UIC, this is true..........

There's a lot of time and a lot of $$ involved with something like this, so ...it does take some time.

Sports Science has NOT done anything regarding chest protection or gear, that I'm aware of ....as of this time B)

I thought they may have but alas no, although they do have a good one focussing on the, Bean Ball, and what a 95mph fastball can do to the human skull

[Thunderheads]

I thought they may have but alas no, although they do have a good one focussing on the, Bean Ball, and what a 95mph fastball can do to the human skull

Yes, and if you can find it, please post it. That's the only piece of 'baseball acceleration and force" data we have as of now!

[DirtyDawg]

I still think the nutty buddy episode was better!

[Thunderheads]

GOT IT!

WOW... 2400 lbs of force ....ok boys, at least we have our initial force number,... the tv show did it for us!

Edited April 15, 2010 by Thunderheads

[Thunderheads]

Interesting....

I just received some info that is saying there IS IN FACT a chest testing surrogate in the process that is intended for one sport originally, but planned to be used in chest injury testing for all sports ....

Sounds like the ball is indeed rolling:nod:

[Kevin Finnerty]

I threw a helmet out because it was discolored, indicating that it had taken a severe shot. It actually started a dispute, because they were asserting that it wasn't cracked. I insisted that they read the friggin' label, and accept that its integrity has been compromised, and it'll fail if it's hit there again.

Now, after seeing just how a helmet performs in that slo-mo vid, I feel rather fully vindicated.

[Thunderheads]

I threw a helmet out because it was discolored, indicating that it had taken a severe shot. It actually started a dispute, because they were asserting that it wasn't cracked. I insisted that they read the friggin' label, and accept that its integrity has been compromised, and it'll fail if it's hit there again.

Now, after seeing just how a helmet performs in that slo-mo vid, I feel rather fully vindicated.

:yippie:

[willv28]

I threw a helmet out because it was discolored, indicating that it had taken a severe shot. It actually started a dispute, because they were asserting that it wasn't cracked. I insisted that they read the friggin' label, and accept that its integrity has been compromised, and it'll fail if it's hit there again.

Now, after seeing just how a helmet performs in that slo-mo vid, I feel rather fully vindicated.

To add to your vindication. I've seen helmets crack severely after having discoloration from prior shots. I look at the corners of the bill and ear flap. Even late in the tournament I will still find the helmet now and then that has a very small crack or discoloration. I will point it out and explain it and never had a problem.