They would ideally release their own, repeatable analysis files of their own benchmark condition.
I suspect the best helmet for blunt impacts is probably a one/few-time use deal with crumple zones to absorb the energy of the impact and increase the time of the impact. After it's crumpled you would have to swap it out for a new helmet.
Curious why they wouldn't just drop their funding on a grant for research in any top10 mechanical engineering department - the knowledge to develop this is readily available and the problem space is a fairly solved one. That being said Tesla has improved crash safety over what decades of safety engineers could do so maybe there is always space for improvement.
One possible answer is that, in order to truly solve this problem, the sport must do away with facemasks or helmets altogether.
Mike Ditka has long proposed removing the facemask, claiming that it has encouraged players to weaponize their heads for hits without fear of injury .
Researchers in the medical community have been echoing this as well, arguing that helmets do far more damage than they prevent .
More and more, the league, and the sport in general, look
to treat the "symptoms" of this issue rather than addressing the root cause.
Rugby players just don't deliberately go in with their head for the tackle, which is something you often see with NFL players (some NFL teams have experimented with helmet free tackling practice and seen it improve the game-time tackling effectiveness)
The lack of a stop of play after every tackle in Rugby also tends to ensure players are opting for tackles that they can recover from.
In American Football the expectation is for contact / hit with every play. Contact is just a staple part of every single play for every player. In Rugby, contact is largely down to those with the ball, and those specifically attempting to tackle them. It's a very different contact profile, even before you consider things like helmets and padding and what that does to the mindset of the players.
On occasion players will still land badly or be tackled by multiple opponents. Studies are a bit rarer, but older players doesn't seem to nearly have the same level of issues as players from the NFL.
Increasingly, the take is that pre 12yo kids shouldn't be having any blows to the head. Having a helmet likely doesn't help that much until you get to the point of a major hit.
So I do not think your data means what you believe it means.
There is a reason they call NFL "Not For Long".
I would not let my children play either American football or rugby, existing options like basketball or tennis. Luckily most of the world plays soccer.
> For each of the sports, they looked at concussion rates based on minutes of athletic exposure (AE), which includes competitions or practices with the potential for injury. The overall concussion risk across all of the sports included in the analysis was 0.23 injuries per 1,000 AEs. By comparison, the concussion risk per 1,000 AEs for rugby was 4.18, while it was 1.2 for hockey and 0.53 for American football.
So on the one hand: research.
On the other hand: soccer (especially with sense enough not to be hitting headers all the time), has stupendously less physical contact than rugby or "football"... how could it be more damaging/dangerous with less contact?
Granted far more people play at lower levels but it's reasonable to consider cost benefits for each group. With the option to increase protection for people expected to continue to the next level.
So we are talking ~9 years vs up to 26+ when every year is more risky than the last because of cumulative damage.
Basically it just doesn't mesh well with the flow of the game.
There is a flow and rhythm to the game for those of us who enjoy the sport. Though I can understand where you are coming from.
Another interesting thing: one major advantage of speed is actually slowing the game down.
E.g., if you move quickly between plays, you can catch the other team with too many men on the field during a substitution. in that case, you sometimes get a "free throw" (if the play works out, you decline the "too many players on field" penalty; but if the play doesn't work out or the other team intercepts the ball, you take the penalty and pretend like the failed play didn't even happen.
So you can actually increase the length of the game by moving quickly in-between plays...
 A series being after the offenses/defenses swap out, this could be as little as one play, but rarely more than 15-18 and I would guess on average about 8 or 9.
CTE gets you, either way.
They enjoy the game being turned into a hyper-violent gladiator sport.
Was the lack of big-ass engine in the front an advantage for them? Seems like the empty frunk (and low center of mass?) allows for some engineering that can't be done in a conventional ICE car.
They do love to point out they are safer than the NTSB average, but it would be kind of apalling if their cars were not safer than a 10 year old Toyota Corolla (approximately the average car).
It's the current average score across today's cars.
Bicycle and motorbike helmets already work like this. The energy-dissipative layer is made from expanded polystyrene foam, which permanently deforms and fractures on impact. The downside is that they're a one-shot item - once a helmet has taken an impact, it loses integrity and should be disposed of.
Helmets for football and hockey use a polypropylene foam, which doesn't absorb as much energy but will withstand multiple impacts. Polystyrene foam would be impractical at best for these helmets. There is often no visible evidence that a polystyrene helmet liner has been structurally compromised, so a player or coach has no way of checking that the helmet is still providing useful protection. If the helmet isn't replaced after every impact, then it might be offering less protection in practice than a polyurethane helmet.
The real villain here isn't the blunt force of a linear impact, but the rotation of the brain within the skull. This causes deep structural damage in the lower parts of the brain. Dealing with these forces is far more challenging, but I suspect that there are significant gains to be made with respect to the shape and structure of the wire face shield. The smooth plastic of the helmet's shell tends to produce glancing impacts with minimal rotation, but the face shield can snag and create horrendous rotational forces.
It would look absurd and reduce their mobility, but it would shift the impacts from the head to the torso.
I spent a fair bit of time as a student employee a ME department. Students who have little real world experience, assignments with specific criteria they need to fill and a handful of other classes and activities competing for their time are not the kind of people you want designing things. You can make them design things but you'll probably toss basically all of it out and start from near scratch if you want to make it suitable for production. ME degrees are about teaching students the process of engineering not about teaching students to produce results and predictably students suck at producing results but do fine with the process. Even the students who are good at delivery results make rookie mistakes and go down time consuming dead ends left and right. Sure you can get some real engineers to hold their hands and help produce results but you'd need to have them so involved that you're better off just having an program to help place students in internships.
>Tesla has improved crash safety over what decades of safety engineers could do
How so? By building an incrementally stiffer (with regard to passenger cabin) box on wheels enabled by better packaging requirements of an electric drive-train?
Pretty neat stuff.
The helmet compresses into the bumpers?
I hope one day I will get to see the end of football. Why would any parent enroll their child in this sport?
The problem is if the those responsible for the athletes are not upfront on the risks, or if the athlete is not able to make a proper judgement to consent, like a child.
Up in Canada the pro-contact hockey crowd loves to talk about "teaching kids how to hit properly" which I'd suspect is a similar attitude to those coaching 5-yr-olds in full-pads football. But what does this mean? They seem to think that by addressing the technique of what is at it's a core a violent and damaging activity you can somehow mitigate the effects. I'm not buying it. Football is even worse; it's not the highlight reel tackles but the every single play collisions at the line that lead to long term, consistently demonstrated traumatic head injuries.
Frankly I feel that the NFL working to address the root causes of head injuries is like asking Facebook to take care of personal information and privacy protection. They are entirely incompatible.
Hitting properly means using your shoulders and hitting the player in the shoulders or chest.
Field hockey ( just called hockey in Europe ) doesn't involve bodily contact.
It comes across as though you've never actually played football or been on a football team. Players on one team largely go out of their way to avoid injuring players on the other team. The vast majority of the game is free motion, not the application of violence. Another large fraction of the game is what can best be described as aggressive shoving and using your body to push or block, not super violent at all.
The quarterback, further, doesn't lead the defense. The job of the offense, which the QB leads, is to score. Ideally that occurs with the minimum amount of violence necessary, not the maximum amount. Offensive players mostly want to avoid that whenever possible. The quarterback does not inherently lead the team and does not lead the defense at all (ie the primary appliers of violence).
The quarterback is popular because he's the center of the offense, which does the scoring, which is exciting. Not because he leads a violent machine. Basketball players in high school that are talented, are equally popular, because scoring points is exciting in every sport.
Hockey is occasionally a quite violent sport. Gretzky wasn't one of the most popular players in hockey history because he was violent - it was because he scored at a rate nobody else ever has. The same goes for Mario Lemieux and countless other scorers.
Baseball is particularly not violent. You know, America's pastime sport that tens of millions of people go to see every year and is wildly popular.
Basketball is no more violent than soccer.
The big open-field head-on-head hits are horrific but not the ones that lead to every single brain that's been analyzed showing evidence of CTE.
The NFL will live with having to handle the freak accidents; they can't exist in a world where playing football => long term traumatic brain injury
Perhaps an actual argument that supports your claim would be better. You haven't even established for a fact that the US likes violent entertainment more than other nations. So start there before moving on to 1980's teenage comedy notions of high school popularity to explain it.
For the poor, it is a way out. Even if you don't hit the pro level, being good at football can get you a full ride scholarship to a great school.
One of my friends at Berkeley was in exactly this situation. He grew up very very poor, played football at the local high school, and managed to get a football scholarship to Berkeley. He wasn't very good at football, and rarely played at all, but he did get a full ride scholarship that covered tuition, housing, food, books, and a small stipend for living expenses. He also got a job working in the residence halls, which also came with free housing and food, so he basically made money in college.
Then he graduated with a PhD in Education. He could have never afforded that without football.
That's a lot of student athletes getting scholarships, and most of them don't continue in their sport after graduation.
There are major downsides too: The kids are often used; they work incredibly hard, get paid nothing, and then get tossed in the gutter unless they make the NFL. Literally, I've read many stories where the coach stops talking to the kid (remember, 18, 19 years old often) and then someone gives him a bus ticket home - so much for education. The great majority of those who stay don't make the NFL; they leave with a lifetime of injuries, poor education (because they were discouraged from taking serious classes and often don't graduate), and no skills or prospects. The school, however, made tens or hundreds of millions, the coach made millions, TV networks made millions (billions?) ... a great business having free labor.
Also, the money and the intense loyalty invites incredible corruption; almost every leading program has had major corruption problems, with Penn State being the worst (systematic child rape covered up for years, so that the football program wouldn't be disrupted).
EDIT: Major edits
Which, frankly, makes the fact that you cannot enter the NFL at 18 even more egregious. It's a mutually beneficial scenario for the NCAA and the NFL at the expense of (often disadvantaged) people at or near the physical peak of their career.
Which one do you think the NFL cares more about?
But the thing is: they still watch. Yeah, there'd be calls of it being "soft" or "these guys couldn't play with the greats from yesteryear" or the like as there are now, but they'd still watch. The second biggest sport in the US that I can think of (could very well be wrong) is the NBA and it isn't really known for violence being beneficial to the players/game (after the 90s, a lot of what would fly before stopped). Yeah, there are flops or drawing flags by intentionally getting into a play, but it seems the preferred method to force fouls at the end of the game isn't to blindside your opponent but to draw the ref's attention and hold/grab the opposing player.
I was a bit bummed with the "boycott" over the knee taking as I had actually stopped watching around the same time due to all of the CTE research that came out around the same time. Hated the feeling that somehow me not watching due to that was going to get tallied in with people who are anti-protest. I do think if they could solve this problem (CTE), I'd be game to watch again, but I honestly think it isn't solvable.
It's core to the image of Football.
"Now why did we invent the helmet? Well, because we were participating in many activities that were cracking our heads. We looked at the situation. We chose not to avoid these activities, but to just make little plastic hats so that we can continue our head-cracking lifestyles."
"if you develop an Improvement based on or utilizing the Content, and you ...agree that you will not assert any claim, including any claim of infringement, against Biocore for our use of any Improvement"
> FE models are computational tools developed by breaking an object down into simpler parts (finite elements) and assembling them into a larger system of equations to model an entire structure—this facilitates the efficient analysis of design changes to that structure. FE models have been used to improve designs in many engineered products, including those in the aeronautics and automotive industries.
However, while the models are open source they seem to be created for LS-DYNA, which is a fairly expensive program. I'm not aware of any good open source finite element packages, but I bet this will limit uptake of their models.
I'm unsure if this sport can be played safely with any equipment, and playsmartplaysafe.com does little to assure me new changes to helmets are coming to sharply reduce concussions. It does show me that the NFL is open to changes in their helmet design. I'd be interesting in listening to people active in the helmet industry, physicists and doctors about this new platform.
And yes, you can still easily tackle without ramming your helmeted skull into someone elses head. Just watch Rugby, or any kids play pick-up football on a field, both are entirely without pads and helmets, and tackling is a major part of the experience.
The extra foam was always on the outside, I believe. Not sure how well it worked.
If that’s really the case then the troubling conclusion might be that the game is very hard to make safe through technology.
Umm, has anyone considered just not doing this activity? I don't mean to be trite, but that's what it looks like from the perspective of one who has little interest in football. If so much protection is required to not turn participants into literal mental cases, the logical next step would be...
Sure, the same could be said about, say, motorcycling. But at least my motorcycle takes me places. OTOH, no one is paying millions in broadcast rights so that people can watch me ride a motorcycle on TV.
I've yet to be shown evidence that rugby players are suffering the same kinds of injuries NFL players are. Seems to be the same case with bare-knuckle or UFC fighting vs boxing.
The trouble is size. In order to spread out the impulse in time, the helmet must spread out the impact in space. There's really no way to do that by an order of magnitude without making the helmet much larger.
I feel like you must be aware of the professional racing scene and have just momentarily forgotten? It's a massive industry and it's driven the majority of advancements in street-bike technology.
But it was more about the utility. Dangerous as it might be, I can at least get to work on a motorcycle. No one is dashing to work 10 yards at a time in pads.
To pose a different question, I always wonder if this is the wrong direction. Why not remove the helmets altogether? Or go back to the leather ones? Has their been any comparative studies from head injuries back before the plastic shell was introduced? Or perhaps relativeness to Rugby head injuries?
However I do find the strategy and team aspect of the game compelling. I wonder if it's possible to take the violence out and retain the tactical/athletic aspects that make it interesting to watch.
More interesting is the subtle strategic parts that are easy to overlook: how you line up a offence/defense (coach), play calling (coach), decision making (players/coach), reading offensive/defensive schemes and adjusting (players), etc. etc.
One thing I think is really unique (maybe I'm wrong about this) is that it's a team sport, half of the game is played by the other half of the team, each depending on the other to put them in a good position.
It will never go away completely but it is already shrinking:
The younger you get the larger the loss in popularity. Contrast that against "soccer" (football) which has gained in popularity over the same period:
And basketball has also been surging in popularity:
Since I've become aware of the long term repercussions of repeated head strikes, I've pretty much stopped watching football. I used to watch every game (NFL and college) I could and now I'm down to basically tuning in for the Super Bowl and that's it.
On the plus side, I've started watching baseball more and I think I enjoy watching that game more than I ever did football.
Sensor suits like those used to enable motion capture  and some multidirectional treadmill  would enable the same activities in a much safer environment.