Helmet Failure

This was previously a discusion in a "Northern California" Forum entitled  "Death at Lover's Leap"

Gonna throw this here - 

helmets are designed primarily to protect you from overhead hazards (falling rocks).

While they can certainly help during a fall, they’re not focused to address that hazard and aren’t intended to withstand heavy impacts on the sides. 

Agreed that the primary function is protection from falling debris but they do offer significant protection from other impacts and some are better designed for side and rear protection than others.

Plus they look cool. 

almostrad wrote:

Gonna throw this here - 

helmets are designed primarily to protect you from overhead hazards (falling rocks).

While they can certainly help during a fall, they’re not focused to address that hazard and aren’t intended to withstand heavy impacts on the sides. 

Not quite.

Helmets are designed for penetration and impact. In the case of impact, test are performed vertically, frontal, lateral, and dorsal. The frontal, lateral, and dorsal are the sides of the helmet. All impact tests are performed with a falling flat and rounded 5 kg mass from 2 meters (IIRC).

A 5 kg mass is also upper end mass of the human head. As such, the impact can be from overhead hazards or from a fall. That is one could put a 5 kg head in the helmet and drop it instead. While that is the standard, no helmet will prevent injury or death from a catastrophic fall.

Picture below of my helmet after an approximate 3 m ground fall with a 5 kg head mass. A solid head landing into the ground yet no stars were seen. Other injuries but the head was fine physically (mentally is still questionable).

What is the point of this thread? Speculation about an accident?

Brooks K wrote:

What is the point of this thread? Speculation about an accident?

Brook, I believe this thread got started based on a conversation on a different thread about a recent accident resulting in a death. From what I read in that conversation, it took a few sideways turns about the effectiveness of climbing helmets during falls. I do not have any comments about that discussion, but I do think it is interesting to discuss what people's thoughts and ideas are regarding the perceived safety and gaps of climbing helmets.

I've read about how climbing helmets are rated and 'certified' from another post and noted the lack of realism in these tests. I certainly hope a helmet would help reduce the impact of hitting my head during an inverted fall. From what I understand, modern foam helmets are designed to break and disperse impact forces, but if the impact is too severe, the foam breaking may potentially be worse? In contrast, older helmets with suspension systems and hard plastic over foam don’t shatter and offer better protection against direct contact with the rock, though they might increase the forces transmitted to the brain.

Does anyone know of any instances where a climber wearing a modern foam helmet experienced a significant impact with the rock, where the helmet shattered but the climber survived with minimal injury? 

I actually have a video of a worst-case scenario where a climber takes a 20-foot fall, inverts, and hits their head on a rock. They survived and made a full recovery, and they would likely have died without any helmet. The climber was wearing an older style helmet that has space between the suspension and the hard shell, which probably contributed to their survival.

That was NOT a helmet failure.  I have seen many dead people wearing seatbelts but it wasn't a seatbelt failure. 

I too have split a BD half dome helmet 

Jake R wrote:

Brook, I believe this thread got started based on a conversation on a different thread about a recent accident resulting in a death. From what I read in that conversation, it took a few sideways turns about the effectiveness of climbing helmets during falls. I do not have any comments about that discussion, but I do think it is interesting to discuss what people's thoughts and ideas are regarding the perceived safety and gaps of climbing helmets.

I've read about how climbing helmets are rated and 'certified' from another post and noted the lack of realism in these tests. I certainly hope a helmet would help reduce the impact of hitting my head during an inverted fall. From what I understand, modern foam helmets are designed to break and disperse impact forces, but if the impact is too severe, the foam breaking may potentially be worse? In contrast, older helmets with suspension systems and hard plastic over foam don’t shatter and offer better protection against direct contact with the rock, though they might increase the forces transmitted to the brain.

Does anyone know of any instances where a climber wearing a modern foam helmet experienced a significant impact with the rock, where the helmet shattered but the climber survived with minimal injury? 

I actually have a video of a worst-case scenario where a climber takes a 20-foot fall, inverts, and hits their head on a rock. They survived and made a full recovery, and they would likely have died without any helmet. The climber was wearing an older style helmet that has space between the suspension and the hard shell, which probably contributed to their survival.

That is a LOT of speculation.

A hard shell helmet with suspension webbing and an air gap does not seem likely to disperse energy more so than a lighter sacrificial foam helmet. It could take more rock falls without needing replacement sure, but that doesn't mean it is protecting your head better. Think crumple zones in vehicles. 

This thread is pointless.

It will not yield any useful or new points that have not already come up on MP in the past. Helmets are tied with dogs for the most controversial climbing topic. 

Eric Craig wrote:

I am not saying you are wrong,  but the neither the helmet nor the person wearing it survived. Head trauma appears to be the cause of death. But I am all ears.

I believe that the information available here on MP is not complete enough to move past conjecture. Apparently the climber was upside down at the end of the fall. How that occurred might be significant. An account of what occurred from the belayer could provide the answer. Acquiring such information is not the responsibility of us here. 

Apparently Kevin has emergency response experience. So do I,  11 winters as an EMT professional ski patroller and participating in several mountaineering rescues. Two of the lessons learned are 1) the human body can survive an amazing amount of punishment,  and 2) it takes amazingly little to kill you. You agree Kevin?

I always looked at a helmet as a device that might help you not will help you.  A helmet is definitely better than no helmet and for someone to think that you couldn't or shouldn't suffer a head injury after a massive fall and blame it as a helmet failure is kinda ignorant.   I didn't see the other thread but just the title of this thread kinda got my blood pressure up.  Wear a helmet.

Yes, I have some EMS experience.  30 years FF/PM for Los Angeles City Fire and 15 years pro patrol at Mt Baldy.  Your observation is correct about how the body can handle trauma, which is to say, its a crap shoot.  Ive seen people take a gunshot to the head and be up walking and talking and refusing any treatment and Ive seen a gunshot to the foot and the person bled out and died because the round ricocheted off a bone and severed an artery, that's piss poor luck.  

370 grams 

https://bernhelmets.com/products/hudson?variant=32700544090171

tom donnelly wrote:

370 grams 

https://bernhelmets.com/products/hudson?variant=32700544090171

This is the type of helmet we have our kids wear at the crag

Though I’m not sure even a helmet with a certification will save you in certain big falls. Even small falls at the leap can be bad due to the dikes.

I have a Mammut wall rider helmet which is made from polypropylene foam, it's my only climbing helmet. I've brought it canyoneering in a wet canyon getting it completely soaked/ submerged all day,  then washing it off with fresh water after the trip. 

Does soaking a foam helmet in water (river or fresh)  affect it's integrity at all? I was going to email the manufacturer but I felt for liability reasons I would get a answer that erred on the side of caution. I know nothing about styrofoam except brake cleaner will melt it. Lol

Helmets with the MIPS design are specifically designed to include side impact protection. That have the same design as ANSI Type 2 hard-hats.

That being said, I don’t think falsely putting MIPS in the helmet’s description or wording is going to get a company in legal trouble they way the falsely claiming an ANSI certification would. So do your research and buy from trusted companies.

I just took the Petzl Vision MIPS out yesterday in the Red River Gorge and it was great.

TThurman wrote:

Helmets with the MIPS design are specifically designed to include side impact protection. That have the same design as ANSI Type 2 hard-hats.

Can you cite any source for this opinion. I am quite familiar with Mips tech and especially bike helmets in general, however it seems to me that hard hats are completely different. Hard hats have to be fire resistant and also not be able to be impaled I recall. I would say that all helmets that have sides are designed to include side impact protection, Mips or no Mips.

We've talked about helmets before, but it's an important topic, so I think it's valuable to discuss again (and again and again). 

As others have indicated, climbing and cycling helmets are certified in different ways; as I understand it, historically climbing helmets were required to offer more protection against sharp falling things, while cycling helmets needed to protect against more blunt impact force, but comparing the various current standards now it's not easy to tell if that's still the case.

You can read about the certification tests for climbing helmets here and cycling helmets here.

Another important point is that simply passing a certification test does not mean that helmets are equally safe.  Helmets for climbing and helmets for cycling vary greatly in how well they perform.  For example, see this comparison and rating of different cycling helmets.  When you compound difference in design and performance with fit, there is a huge amount of variability.  

Stepping back from all the testing and certification, it's obvious that 1) helmets can and do protect against injury, and 2) some impacts and forces are simply above what a helmet can reasonably absorb (but we shouldn't use that to rationalize not wearing a helmet).

For me, the choice is clear.  If I'm climbing, mountain biking, or skiing, I wear a helmet.  

I've had at least two accidents (one cycling, one skiing) where I struck my head and the expanded foam helmet cracked as it was designed to, possibly protecting me from brain injury.  Many years ago, I was involved in a more serious accident where the group of cyclists I was riding with was struck by a car traveling at very high speed (about 120 mph, intentional attack).  There were many injuries (broken arms, ribs, and so on).  Two of my friends were thrown about 100 yards up the roads.  Both were wearing helmets, and both helmets were badly damaged though still attached.   One of my friends had massive head trauma, was in a coma for three months, and had his leg amputated below the knee (he was never the same person again, but he went on to win multiple gold medals and world championships as an adaptive athlete).  My other friend died instantly.  He also had massive head trauma, as well as other non-surviable injuries (internal damage, aortic separation, etc.)

So, once again, helmets can and do protect against injuries and save lives, and to pretend otherwise is ridiculous.  At the same time, there are some injuries that are not survivable.

To end on a lighter note, and to stimulate conversation:

• I am curious about the use of combined ski/ski mountaineeringing/climbing helments for some climbing applications, and I think some cycling helmets, particularly mountain bike helmets, might offer similar penetration protection as expanded foam climbing helmets, while providing more coverage and absorption for impacts.  I've not worn a mountain bike helmet climbing yet, but I've always considered doing so.  
• Hockey helmets for ice climbing and dry tooling are a thing.  
• I was once climbing an alpine route around Chamonix.  I was struggling under a small roof and somehow got my head stuck in a crack.  I wiggled back and forth, but my helmet was wedged tight.  Finally, I unbuckled the strap.  As soon as I moved my head away, the helmet dropped out of the crack and fell a few hundred meters to the glacier.  I continued without the helmet.  So, even if you bring a helmet, you can still screw up :)

TThurman wrote:

Helmets with the MIPS design are specifically designed to include side impact protection. That have the same design as ANSI Type 2 hard-hats.

That being said, I don’t think falsely putting MIPS in the helmet’s description or wording is going to get a company in legal trouble they way the falsely claiming an ANSI certification would. So do your research and buy from trusted companies.

I just took the Petzl Vision MIPS out yesterday in the Red River Gorge and it was great.

just dropping in to say that this particular post is a complete word salad and every sentence in it is strictly incorrect 

- MIPS does a specific thing with a slip plane that absorbs rotational force from angled impacts, not side impacts. These are two different things

- MIPS has nothing to do with ANSI or side impact ratings 

- MIPS is an actual piece of physical helmet tech that you need to buy from the MIPS people and install on the helmet during manufacturing; it is not a test protocol. “Falsely claiming MIPS” would be like claiming a car has tank treads instead of wheels, not like claiming a car gets better gas mileage than it does 

- Petzl makes neither the Vision helmet specifically nor a MIPS helmet in general 

This is almost surely behind a paywall but is the cat's meow on helmet performance, side impact...:

https://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/testingevaluation/article-abstract/42/5/1257/1190342/Performance-of-Certified-Climbing-Helmets-During?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Fun fact: the primary source of variance in helmet testing is fitting the helmet to the head form and buckling it up. Your helmet performance at the crag will surely vary according to how well you followed the manufacturer's fitting directions. 

A ski mountaineering helmet inherently has the climbing helmet's impact from above + side impact resistance. They are tested differently--if I remember (one test drops the helmet with a "head" in it; the other drops things on a helmet strapped into a headform--but the protection of the head is designed to the similar/the same.

Fun fact from the ski industry: When lots of people started wearing helmets, the common cause of skiing deaths moved from head injury to thoracic trauma. I'm too lazy to find this reference this morning...

Brooks K wrote:

This thread is pointless.

It will not yield any useful or new points that have not already come up on MP in the past. Helmets are tied with dogs for the most controversial climbing topic. 

If this thread is pointless, then so are both of your comments.

I think the thread topic is begging the question