Protective gear for DH?

Thought this read was bloody hilarious, thanks for the fight, thoroughly enjoyed it.

So I just bought a Leatt neck brace. Although crashes and the HANS neck brace in Formula 1 are a lot different than one used for a downhill bike I got the idea that surely some sort of neck support would be smart. I don't understand why there is such little "real" evidence behind these braces, especially when they have such a large market.

Found an article that you guys may enjoy reading where it talks about Leatt and EVS braces and how they are a "step" to reducing a severe injury, albeit with consequences; shifting an injury to a different location (Such as an upper spinal moved to a middle spinal). That energy has to go somewhere.

I can't really upload it as I accessed it through my University's library but here's the name of it and hopefully you can find it.

Investigation of motorcyclist safety systems contributions to prevent cervical spine injuries using HUMOS model
J. Sun , A. Rojas , R. Kraenzler & P. J. Arnoux
 

Mywifesirrational

I however am very normal. Trust me.
Thought this read was bloody hilarious, thanks for the fight, thoroughly enjoyed it.

So I just bought a Leatt neck brace. Although crashes and the HANS neck brace in Formula 1 are a lot different than one used for a downhill bike I got the idea that surely some sort of neck support would be smart. I don't understand why there is such little "real" evidence behind these braces, especially when they have such a large market.

Found an article that you guys may enjoy reading where it talks about Leatt and EVS braces and how they are a "step" to reducing a severe injury, albeit with consequences; shifting an injury to a different location (Such as an upper spinal moved to a middle spinal). That energy has to go somewhere.

I can't really upload it as I accessed it through my University's library but here's the name of it and hopefully you can find it.

Investigation of motorcyclist safety systems contributions to prevent cervical spine injuries using HUMOS model
J. Sun , A. Rojas , R. Kraenzler & P. J. Arnoux
Thanks for the article reference, I'll have a read later today when I get to work, the abstract is intriguing.

'The tested devices did not show significant changes regarding the whole neck kinematics'.

And interestingly Jarrod had a neck fracture just below his neck in the thoracic or upper back if you like - sounds a lot like the statement you quoted, interesting.

shifting an injury to a different location (Such as an upper spinal moved to a middle spinal). That energy has to go somewhere.
 

link1896

Eats Squid
Thanks for the article reference, I'll have a read later today when I get to work, the abstract is intriguing.

'The tested devices did not show significant changes regarding the whole neck kinematics'.

And interestingly Jarrod had a neck fracture just below his neck in the thoracic or upper back if you like - sounds a lot like the statement you quoted, interesting.
Seems the article is behind paywalls. If you could be kind enough to post their conclusions.
 

Mywifesirrational

I however am very normal. Trust me.
So for anyone wondering why more research has not been done in this area, this appears to be an unbiased paper with a decent method, on an interesting topic. It has had 5 citations in 4 years, in science terms that is tiny, and the research institute is not going to throw a lot of money at an area which has elicited so little scientific interest. I don't agree with this, but that i the reality.


Investigation of motorcyclist safety systems
contributions to prevent cervical spine injuries
using HUMOS model

From the discussion;

The three different safety systems technologies stud-
ied in this work did not show any major changes within
the whole cervical spine injury mechanisms
except regard-
ing movement amplitudes. Hence, according to simulations
performed, neck brace systems investigated did not propose
a technological means to improving neck injury protection
by modifying injury mechanisms.
The interactions with
thorax (or helmet) component were extremely important
regarding safety system capability to control joint kine-
matics. EVS and Leatt safety systems which are initially
well connected to thorax segment provide an optimal inter-
action with helmet component. On the opposite, Thuasne
neck brace with no fixation was free to move according
to the helmet kinematics and then followed the reference
kinematics without any influence on it.


As showed in Figure 16, the neck brace’s capability to
improve cervical spine safety could be postulated accord-
ing to both modification of joint kinematics (or delay for
bone potential failure) and on a shift of injury location from
proximal to distal cervical spine. Hence, as a synthesis, the
incidence of EVS and Leatt brace systems to modify kine-
matics and consequently injury risk level are summarised in
Figure 16. The results obtained showed a shift of injury risk
from the upper cervical spine to the lower cervical spine
which could be considered as a step towards reduction of
injury severity.


Basically what they have said here is if your going to break your neck a neck brace wont stop it, but it 'may' help turn a quadraplegic into a paraplegic, which is a good thing.

Also one of the data graphs shows the EVS brace appears to be slightly better than the Leatt overall, particularly for oblique (diagonal) frontal and rear impacts.

Conclusion
To our knowledge, this study is the first to present a com-
prehensive comparative analysis of cervical spine safety
systems regarding multi-directional impact conditions by
comparison to a reference simulation. The methodology
used in this work could be used as a basis for the evaluation
and optimisation of such safety systems toward, the defini-
tion of a global framework to evaluate efficiency of such
devices.
With the design of safety systems, the challenge could
be to keep the same injury mechanisms limiting joint ampli-
tudes or to modify injury mechanisms in order to shift injury
occurrence or location. With the current safety devices we
never showed any modification of injury mechanisms or
important modification of joint amplitudes.
With the same behaviour as the reference simulation,
soft safety device tested did not show any efficiency. EVS
and Leatt brace have a contribution to neck safety with
slight modification of rotation amplitude and a shift of upper
cervical spine injury to middle cervical spine injury. These
results could be considered as a step towards the reduction
of injury severity of such safety devices.
At least, an optimal
interaction with thorax and helmet obtained with Leatt and
EVS safety system was reported as an important feature to
support more efficient safety devices.

So they are saying that they essentially don't work and research like this is needed to help improve the efficiency (ensure they actually do what they are meant to do) of such devices.

Hence, my statement on page one of thread has been validated, there is no evidence that they work (but, they 'may' work?).

The paper has 11 pages and lots of graphs, can post more if requested.
 

Miguel75

Likes Dirt
... SNIP...

So they are saying that they essentially don't work and research like this is needed to help improve the efficiency (ensure they actually do what they are meant to do) of such devices.

Hence, my statement on page one of thread has been validated, there is no evidence that they work (but, they 'may' work?).

The paper has 11 pages and lots of graphs, can post more if requested.
Will you be emailing Jarrod a copy? ;)
 

ForkinGreat

Random Krishna
So for anyone wondering why more research has not been done in this area, this appears to be an unbiased paper with a decent method, on an interesting topic. It has had 5 citations in 4 years, in science terms that is tiny, and the research institute is not going to throw a lot of money at an area which has elicited so little scientific interest. I don't agree with this, but that i the reality.


Investigation of motorcyclist safety systems
contributions to prevent cervical spine injuries
using HUMOS model

From the discussion;

The three different safety systems technologies stud-
ied in this work did not show any major changes within
the whole cervical spine injury mechanisms
except regard-
ing movement amplitudes. Hence, according to simulations
performed, neck brace systems investigated did not propose
a technological means to improving neck injury protection
by modifying injury mechanisms.
The interactions with
thorax (or helmet) component were extremely important
regarding safety system capability to control joint kine-
matics. EVS and Leatt safety systems which are initially
well connected to thorax segment provide an optimal inter-
action with helmet component. On the opposite, Thuasne
neck brace with no fixation was free to move according
to the helmet kinematics and then followed the reference
kinematics without any influence on it.


As showed in Figure 16, the neck brace’s capability to
improve cervical spine safety could be postulated accord-
ing to both modification of joint kinematics (or delay for
bone potential failure) and on a shift of injury location from
proximal to distal cervical spine. Hence, as a synthesis, the
incidence of EVS and Leatt brace systems to modify kine-
matics and consequently injury risk level are summarised in
Figure 16. The results obtained showed a shift of injury risk
from the upper cervical spine to the lower cervical spine
which could be considered as a step towards reduction of
injury severity.


Basically what they have said here is if your going to break your neck a neck brace wont stop it, but it 'may' help turn a quadraplegic into a paraplegic, which is a good thing.

Also one of the data graphs shows the EVS brace appears to be slightly better than the Leatt overall, particularly for oblique (diagonal) frontal and rear impacts.

Conclusion
To our knowledge, this study is the first to present a com-
prehensive comparative analysis of cervical spine safety
systems regarding multi-directional impact conditions by
comparison to a reference simulation. The methodology
used in this work could be used as a basis for the evaluation
and optimisation of such safety systems toward, the defini-
tion of a global framework to evaluate efficiency of such
devices.
With the design of safety systems, the challenge could
be to keep the same injury mechanisms limiting joint ampli-
tudes or to modify injury mechanisms in order to shift injury
occurrence or location. With the current safety devices we
never showed any modification of injury mechanisms or
important modification of joint amplitudes.
With the same behaviour as the reference simulation,
soft safety device tested did not show any efficiency. EVS
and Leatt brace have a contribution to neck safety with
slight modification of rotation amplitude and a shift of upper
cervical spine injury to middle cervical spine injury. These
results could be considered as a step towards the reduction
of injury severity of such safety devices.
At least, an optimal
interaction with thorax and helmet obtained with Leatt and
EVS safety system was reported as an important feature to
support more efficient safety devices.

So they are saying that they essentially don't work and research like this is needed to help improve the efficiency (ensure they actually do what they are meant to do) of such devices.

Hence, my statement on page one of thread has been validated, there is no evidence that they work (but, they 'may' work?).

The paper has 11 pages and lots of graphs, can post more if requested.
MOAR PAGES AND GRAPHS PLZ :cheer2::cheer2:
 

dhd

Downhill Direct
Haven't been on Rotorburn a much for a long time. Just read this thread from start to finish (slow day at work!) and you Mr wifesirrational are a rock. well done sir. I salute your ability to remain calm and rational!
 

cokeonspecialtwodollars

Likes Bikes and Dirt
Haven't been on Rotorburn a much for a long time. Just read this thread from start to finish (slow day at work!) and you Mr wifesirrational are a rock. well done sir. I salute your ability to remain calm and rational!
If his wife really is irrational one could assume that he's had plenty of practice.
 

tkdbboy

Likes Dirt
Bit of a thread revive but came across an interesting read in the recent AMA with a Trauma & Orthopaedic Doctor on Pinkbike.

Q. Whats your take on neck braces?

A.
Great question. Neck braces cause ALOT of online debate and I've scanned the articles trying to find a simple answer to whether they help to reduce injuries or not. A study done by the Great lakes EMS included more than 9000 patients between 2008 and 2018. They concluded the following:
  1. A Critical Cervical Spine injury is 89% more likely without a neck brace
  2. Death is 69%+* more likely (due to Cervical Spine Injury) without a neck brace
  3. A Non-Critical Cervical Spine injury is 75% more likely without a neck brace.
  4. A Clavicle (collarbone) fracture is 45% more likely without a neck brace.
5)Cervical Spine injuries sustained without a neck brace are more severe, require greater care.
6) A Cervical Spine injury of any kind is 82% more likely without a neck brace.

This study looked back at injuries and its level/strength is not as great as a fully randomised, blinded, etc trial (which would be ethically difficult to perform in any case) and many people argue that the data is incomplete for several reasons( you can check on the forums for detail)

My opinion is this: If you have a big crash and you are wearing a brace, it will most likely reduce the severity of the injury and may even prevent a serious injury from happening in the first place. If I were doing DH, I would wear one.

More info:
http://www.directmotocross.com/neck-brace-effectiveness-statistics-by-great-lakes-ems-inc/
 

pink poodle

Clinically Inane
Thats a classic straw man.

The pertinent question is what is the cost to you of wearing a neck brace vs the expected cost of a serious neck injury.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk
I would've expected you of all people to see the real issue here, economics. What is the cost to the health care system and welfare system if I don't wear a neck brace? These items need an unique Australian standard and to be compulsory immediately.
 

Mattyp

Likes Dirt
Percentages of chance of injury are all bullshit anyway. Every crash is different, I have been riding mountain bikes and motorbikes for many years, and have only had 1 crash where I have hit my head whilst cartwheeling down a motocross track. Maybe 1 or 2 where I have lightly grazed an mtb helmet. I've had 1 crash out of lets say 50 or even 100 over a period of 15 years. whilst not wearing a neck brace, which DID NOT result in a neck or spine injury, even though I did about 6 head over heel rolls at speed. What was the percentage for injury in that crash? (how would you even work that out) 0.1%? so because I didn't have a neck brace, my likely hood of neck injury was 89% greater, = 0.2%

Im not telling anyone not to wear a neck brack, wear whatever you want. But im not dressing up like Robocop to go for a ride on my bike. A lot of it is probably mindset, if you think you're going to crash because of how dangerous the track you are riding is and that rock garden is scary, you probably will.
 

pink poodle

Clinically Inane
But @Mattyp there is so much written material available about how good these things are! Why would any of the leading manufacturers waste their time making up bullshit about how great their products are?
 

Mattyp

Likes Dirt
im yet to see a manufacturer release something and have them say "this is sooooo shit, don't buy it",
Except for maybe Ohlins.
 
Top