Full-face helmets are designed to protect against head and face injuries during downhill and free-ride mountain biking. This study assessed whether multiple impacts and helmet type are related to the protective properties of full-face helmets. A drop tower fitted with a helmeted headform simulated impacts to the chin following a forwards fall. Four models of full-face mountain biking helmets were tested. Three repeated trials were completed for each helmet at four impact velocities. Outcome variables included head injury criterion score, peak force, and peak acceleration. Peak accelerations for all trials were below the 300 g pass/fail criterion used in some testing standards. Multiple impacts reduced helmet protective properties, most noticeably at the higher impact velocities (increases in impact severity measures ranging from 11% to 22% for low and 17% to 49% for higher impact velocities). However, the effects of multiple impacts were smaller than the differences observed across individual helmet types. Helmet protective properties were associated with local chin bar characteristics, most notably chin bar length at higher impact velocities. Towards the goal of reducing overall head/brain injury risk in cyclists, there may be value in complimentary messaging about the importance of repeated impacts and helmet type on the protective properties of downhill mountain biking helmets.
CarmontMR. Mountain biking injuries: a review. Brit Med Bull2008; 85: 101–112.
2.
ChowTKKronischRL. Mechanisms of injury in competitive off-road bicycling. Wilderness Environ Med2002; 13: 27–30.
3.
ChowTKBrackerMPatrickK. Acute injuries from mountain biking. West J Med1993; 159: 145–148.
4.
NelsonNGMcKenzieLB. Mountain biking-related injuries treated in emergency departments in the United States, 1994–2007. Am J Sports Med2011; 39: 404–409.
5.
KimPTJangraDRitchieAH. Mountain biking injuries requiring trauma centre admission: a 10-year regional trauma system experience. J Trauma2006; 60: 312–318.
6.
AshwellZMcKayMPBrubacherJR. The epidemiology of mountain bike park injuries at the Whistler Bike Park, British Columbia (BC), Canada. Wilderness Environ Med2012; 23: 140–145.
7.
ChangCHChangLTChangGL. Head injury in facial impact – a finite element analysis of helmet chin-bar performance. J Biomech Eng2000; 122: 640–646.
8.
McDermottFTLaneJCBrazenorG. The effectiveness of bicyclist helmets: a study of 1710 casualties. J Trauma1993; 34: 834–845.
ElvikR. Publication bias and time-trend bias in meta-analysis of bicycle helmet efficacy: a re-analysis of Attewell, Glase and McFadden, 2001. Accident Anal Prev2011; 43: 1245–1251.
BouixRViotPLatailladeJL. Polypropylene foam behaviour under dynamic loadings: strain-rate, density and microstructure effects. Int J Impact Eng2009; 36: 329–342.
Canadian Standards Association CAN/CSA-D113.2-M89:2009. Cycling helmets.
21.
CPSC 16 CFR Part 1203:2012. Safety standard for bicycle helmets: final rule.
22.
Snell Memorial Foundation B95:1995. Standard for protective headgear.
23.
ASTM Standard F1952:2010. Standard specification for helmets used in downhill mountain bicycle racing.
24.
ASTM Standard F1446:2012. Standard test methods for equipment and procedures used in evaluating the performance characteristics of protective headgear.
25.
Snell Memorial Foundation M2015:2015. Standard for protective headgear: for use with motorcycles and other motorized equipment.
26.
UN ECE 22.04:2002. Uniform provisions concerning the approval of protective helmets and their visors for drivers and passengers of motor cycles and mopeds.
27.
Euro New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). Euro NCAP – for safer cars crash test safety rating, http://www.euroncap.com/home.aspx (2015, accessed February 2015).
28.
RowsonSDumaSM. Development of the STAR evaluation system for football helmets: integrating player head impact exposure and risk of concussion. Ann Biomed Eng2011; 39: 2130–2140.
29.
Government of the United Kingdom. SHARP – the helmet safety scheme, http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/ (2013, accessed January 2014).
30.
NOCSAE ND002-13m13:2013. Standard performance specification for newly manufactured football helmets.
31.
NOCSAE ND030-11m12:2012. Standard performance specification for newly manufactured hockey helmets.
32.
RowsonBRowsonSDumaSM. Hockey STAR: a methodology for assessing the biomechanical performance of hockey helmets. Ann Biomed Eng. Epub ahead of print 30 March 2015. DOI: 10.1007/s10439-015-1278-7.
ASTM Standard F1292-04:2004. Standard specification for impact attenuation of surfacing materials within the use zone of playground equipment.
37.
NOCSAE Document 001-08m08b:2009. Standard test method and equipment used in evaluating the performance characteristics of protective headgear/equipment.
38.
DixonJLBrodieIKR. The new ISO standard for ice hockey helmets and face protectors: moving towards international standards harmonization and conformity assessment. In: CastaldiCRBishopPJHoernerEF (eds) Safety in ice hockey: second volume, STP1212. Philadelphia, PA: ASTM, 1993, pp.192–213.
39.
CriptonPADresslerDMStuartCA. Bicycle helmets are highly effective at preventing head injury during head impact: head-form accelerations and injury criteria for helmeted and unhelmeted impacts. Accid Anal Prev2014; 70: 1–7.
40.
SyedSHWillingRJenkynTR. Video analysis of the biomechanics of a bicycle accident resulting in significant facial fractures. J Craniofac Surg2013; 24: 2023–2029.
41.
ForbesJAAwadAJZuckermanS. Association between biomechanical parameters and concussion in helmeted collisions in American football: a review of the literature. Neurosurg Focus2012; 33: E10.
42.
ZhangLYangKHKingAI. A proposed injury threshold for mild traumatic brain injury. J Biomech Eng2004; 126: 226–236.
43.
PrasadPMertzHJ. The position of the United States delegation to the ISO working group 6 on the use of HIC in the automotive environment. SAE paper 851246, 1985.
44.
CraigMBirCVianoD. Biomechanical response of the human mandible to impacts of the chin. J Biomech2008; 41: 2972–2980.
45.
SchneiderDNahumA. Impact studies of facial bones and skull. SAE paper 720965, 1972.
46.
CormierJManoogianSBisplinghoffJ. The tolerance of the maxilla to blunt impact. J Biomech Eng2011; 133: 064501.
47.
CormierJManoogianSBisplinghoffJ. The tolerance of the nasal bone to blunt impact. Ann Adv Automot Med2010; 54: 3–14.
48.
Transport for NSW. CRASH – Consumer Rating and Assessment of Safety Helmets, http://www.crash.org.au/ (2015, accessed May 2015).
49.
KingAI. Comments on Rowson and Duma (2011). Ann Biomed Eng2012; 40: 2510–2511.
50.
RowsonSDumaSM. The Virginia Tech Response. Ann Biomed Eng2012; 40: 2512–2518.
51.
JadischkeRVianoDCDauN. On the accuracy of the Head Impact Telemetry (HIT) System used in football helmets. J Biomech2013; 46: 2310–2315.
52.
DumaSMRowsonS. Re: on the accuracy of the Head Impact Telemetry (HIT) System used in football helmets. J Biomech2014; 47: 1557–1558.
53.
JadischkeRMcCarthyJ. Response to the letter to the editor ‘Re: on the accuracy of the Head Impact Telemetry (HIT) System used in football helmets’. J Biomech2014; 47: 1558–1563.
RowsonSDumaSMGreenwaldRM. Can helmet design reduce the risk of concussion in football? Technical note. J Neurosurg2014; 120: 919–922.
56.
HardyWNMasonMJFosterCD. A study of the response of the human cadaver head to impact. Stapp Car Crash J2007; 51: 17–80.
57.
LloydAMNightingaleRWSongY. Impact properties of adult and ATD heads. In: Proceedings of the IRCOBI 2012 conference, Dublin, 12–14 September 2012, paper no. IRC-12-64.
