U.S. patent application number 16/930580 was filed with the patent office on 2020-11-05 for football helmet having exceptional impact performance.
This patent application is currently assigned to Kranos IP Corporation. The applicant listed for this patent is Kranos IP Corporation. Invention is credited to Robert ERB, Richard GROFF, III, Vincent R. LONG, Louis Anthony VANHOUTIN.
Application Number | 20200345096 16/930580 |
Document ID | / |
Family ID | 1000004958038 |
Filed Date | 2020-11-05 |
![](/patent/app/20200345096/US20200345096A1-20201105-D00000.png)
![](/patent/app/20200345096/US20200345096A1-20201105-D00001.png)
![](/patent/app/20200345096/US20200345096A1-20201105-D00002.png)
![](/patent/app/20200345096/US20200345096A1-20201105-D00003.png)
![](/patent/app/20200345096/US20200345096A1-20201105-D00004.png)
![](/patent/app/20200345096/US20200345096A1-20201105-D00005.png)
![](/patent/app/20200345096/US20200345096A1-20201105-D00006.png)
![](/patent/app/20200345096/US20200345096A1-20201105-D00007.png)
![](/patent/app/20200345096/US20200345096A1-20201105-D00008.png)
![](/patent/app/20200345096/US20200345096A1-20201105-D00009.png)
![](/patent/app/20200345096/US20200345096A1-20201105-D00010.png)
View All Diagrams
United States Patent
Application |
20200345096 |
Kind Code |
A1 |
VANHOUTIN; Louis Anthony ;
et al. |
November 5, 2020 |
FOOTBALL HELMET HAVING EXCEPTIONAL IMPACT PERFORMANCE
Abstract
A NOCSAE-certified football helmet having a shell, internal
padding attached to an inner surface of the shell, and a face guard
attachable to the shell, is configured and designed to have a
Predictive Concussion Incidence below 1.90, or 0.75 plus or minus
0.25, or in the range of 0.50 to 1.90, as measured by the 2018
Adult Football STAR Methodology. The face guard is attached to the
shell at a plurality of attachment points below a line constructed
through the midpoint of the height of the helmet and has an upper
portion which contacts the shell above the face opening, without
being attached to the shell at that point. The internal padding
includes a front pad attached within the shell above the face
opening, defining a first zone of a first stiffness and, adjacent
to and above the first zone, a second zone of a second stiffness
lower than the first stiffness. The internal padding also includes
helmet liners which are not inflatable, and which contain slow
response microcellular polyurethane pads.
Inventors: |
VANHOUTIN; Louis Anthony;
(Iuka, IL) ; LONG; Vincent R.; (St. Peters,
MO) ; ERB; Robert; (Plandome, NY) ; GROFF,
III; Richard; (Litchfield, IL) |
|
Applicant: |
Name |
City |
State |
Country |
Type |
Kranos IP Corporation |
Litchfield |
IL |
US |
|
|
Assignee: |
Kranos IP Corporation
Litchfield
IL
|
Family ID: |
1000004958038 |
Appl. No.: |
16/930580 |
Filed: |
July 16, 2020 |
Related U.S. Patent Documents
|
|
|
|
|
|
Application
Number |
Filing Date |
Patent Number |
|
|
16269664 |
Feb 7, 2019 |
|
|
|
16930580 |
|
|
|
|
62754582 |
Nov 1, 2018 |
|
|
|
Current U.S.
Class: |
1/1 |
Current CPC
Class: |
A42B 3/127 20130101;
A42B 3/20 20130101; A42B 3/128 20130101; A42B 3/063 20130101 |
International
Class: |
A42B 3/12 20060101
A42B003/12; A42B 3/20 20060101 A42B003/20; A42B 3/06 20060101
A42B003/06 |
Claims
1. A football helmet comprising a shell, internal padding attached
to an inner surface of the shell, and a face guard attachable to
the shell, provided that the football helmet has a Predictive
Concussion Incidence of 0.75 plus or minus 0.25.
2. The football helmet of claim 1 wherein the face guard is
attachable to the shell at a plurality of attachment points, all of
the plurality of attachment points below a line constructed through
the midpoint of the height of the helmet as viewed from a left side
of the helmet.
3. The football helmet of claim 2 wherein the plurality of
attachment points comprise an upper left attachment point
positioned forward of a lower left attachment point and an upper
right attachment point positioned forward of a lower right
attachment point.
4. The football helmet of claim 1 wherein the internal padding
comprises a front pad attached within the shell in a front area of
the helmet above a face opening of the shell, the front pad
defining a first zone of a first stiffness and, adjacent to and
above the first zone, a second zone of a second stiffness lower
than the first stiffness.
5. The football helmet of claim 1 wherein the internal padding
comprises a front pad attached within the shell in a front area of
the helmet above a face opening of the shell, the front pad
comprising a first polymer material having a first durometer and a
second section above the first section comprising a second polymer
material having a second durometer; wherein the first durometer is
greater than the second durometer.
6. The football helmet of claim 5 wherein the first durometer is 90
A plus or minus 3, or 95 A plus or minus 3; and the second
durometer is 85 A plus or minus 3; provided that the first
durometer is greater than the second durometer.
7. The football helmet of claim 1 wherein the internal padding
comprises a front pad attached within the shell in a front area of
the helmet above a face opening of the shell, the front pad
comprising a polymer sheet having integrally formed, tapering,
hollow projections extending from the sheet in both the first
section and the second section, the projections spaced apart from
each other, the projections in the first section being made of a
first polymer material having a first durometer, the projections in
the second section being made of a second polymer material having a
second durometer less than the first durometer.
8. The football helmet of claim 7 wherein the first durometer is 90
A plus or minus 3, or 95 A plus or minus 3; and the second
durometer is 85 A plus or minus 3; provided that the first
durometer is greater than the second durometer.
9. The football helmet of claim 1 wherein the internal padding
comprises one or more helmet liners wherein none of the helmet
liners are air liners.
10. The football helmet of claim 1 provided that the football
helmet is NOCSAE-certified, and the face guard is
NOCSAE-certified.
11. A football helmet comprising a shell, internal padding attached
to an inner surface of the shell, and a face guard attachable to
the shell, provided that the football helmet has a Predictive
Concussion Incidence of less than 1.9, the football helmet is
NOCSAE-certified, and the face guard is NOCSAE-certified.
12. A football helmet comprising a shell, internal padding attached
to an inner surface of the shell, and a face guard attachable to
the shell, provided that the football helmet has a Predictive
Concussion Incidence in the range of 0.50 to 1.90, the football
helmet is NOCSAE-certified, and the face guard is
NOCSAE-certified.
13. The football helmet of claim 11 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence of less than 1.8.
14. The football helmet of claim 11 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence of less than 1.7.
15. The football helmet of claim 11 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence of less than 1.6.
16. The football helmet of claim 11 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence of less than 1.5.
17. The football helmet of claim 11 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence of less than 1.4.
18. The football helmet of claim 11 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence of less than 1.3.
19. The football helmet of claim 11 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence of less than 1.2.
20. The football helmet of claim 11 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence of less than 1.1.
21. The football helmet of claim 11 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence of less than 1.0.
22. The football helmet of claim 12 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence in the range of 0.50
to 1.80.
23. The football helmet of claim 12 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence in the range of 0.50
to 1.70.
24. The football helmet of claim 12 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence in the range of 0.50
to 1.60.
25. The football helmet of claim 12 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence in the range of 0.50
to 1.50.
26. The football helmet of claim 12 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence in the range of 0.50
to 1.40.
27. The football helmet of claim 12 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence in the range of 0.50
to 1.30.
28. The football helmet of claim 12 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence in the range of 0.50
to 1.25.
29. The football helmet of claim 12 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence in the range of 0.50
to 1.10.
30. The football helmet of claim 12 provided that the football
helmet has a Predictive Concussion Incidence in the range of 0.50
to 1.0.
Description
CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
[0001] This application is a continuation of U.S. patent
application Ser. No. 16/269,664, filed Feb. 7, 2019, now pending,
which claims priority from U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser.
No. 62/754,582, filed Nov. 1, 2018, which is incorporated by
reference in its entirety, including all appendices, for all
purposes.
STATEMENT REGARDING PRIOR DISCLOSURES BY THE INVENTORS OR JOINT
INVENTORS UNDER 37 C.F.R. 1.77(b)(6)
[0002] Football helmets were offered for sale by the
applicant/assignee Schutt Sports less than one year before the
priority date of the present application, under the name SCHUTT F7
VTD and SCHUTT F7 LTD. The applicant/assignee obtained the SCHUTT
F7 VTD and SCHUTT F7 LTD football helmets directly or indirectly
from the named inventors of the present application. Said SCHUTT F7
VTD and SCHUTT F7 LTD football helmets are "inventor-originated
disclosures" within the exceptions defined in 35 U.S.C.
102(b)(1).
BACKGROUND OF THE SUBJECT TECHNOLOGY
[0003] The subject technology concerns football helmets, which are
worn to protect the head of a football player from impacts
sustained during play. An impact incident upon a helmet will impart
linear acceleration and rotational acceleration to the wearer's
head. Both linear acceleration and rotational acceleration, and the
combination of linear and rotational acceleration, can contribute
to the risk of injury, including the risk of concussion.
[0004] In the United States, the National Operating Committee on
Standards for Athletic Equipment ("NOCSAE") develops performance
standards for protective equipment used in a variety of sports,
including football helmets and faceguards. Generally, new football
helmets and face guards must meet NOCSAE standards, and must be
certified as such, to be marketable and usable in competitive
football play in at least the collegiate varsity and professional
levels. As used herein, "NOCSAE Standards" shall mean the effective
NOCSAE standards applicable to football helmets and faceguards as
amended.
[0005] Although NOCSAE sets performance and test standards for
athletic equipment, NOCSAE itself does not certify or approve
athletic equipment. At the present time, NOCSAE requires
third-party certification of compliance with its standards by a
neutral, independent body. Currently, Safety Equipment Institute
(SEI) oversees the certification of athletic equipment to NOCSAE
standards. Equipment including football helmets that is certified
to meet NOCSAE standards may be labeled or stamped with the
appropriate certification mark, such as "Meets NOCSAE Standards" or
"SEI Certified" or the like. As used herein, "NOCSAE-certified"
shall mean equipment that is certified to meet NOCSAE's
requirements for football helmets or faceguards as applicable, and
which may or may not bear a NOCSAE certification mark.
NOCSAE-certified equipment is deemed to meet NOCSAE Standards, as
those terms are used herein.
[0006] The NOSCAE standards and certifications are essentially
"pass-fail" tests and do not quantify the efficacy of certified
helmets, or comparatively rank certified helmets. While the risk of
injury from impacts during football play cannot be eliminated, the
structure of a football helmet and its components, and the
mechanical properties of the materials used therein, have a
significant effect on the efficacy of the helmet in protecting the
wearer. NOCSAE-certified football helmets in use today at the
varsity, collegiate, and professional levels of the sport exhibit a
wide range of efficacy in protecting wearers from injury.
[0007] The Helmet Lab of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University ("Virginia Tech"), College of Engineering,
Department of Biomedical Engineering and Mechanics has conducted
comparative testing and rating of helmets including football
helmets since 2011 according to its published methodologies. The
Helmet Lab's current (2018) methodology for collegiate varsity
football helmets is described in the "Adult Football STAR
Methodology" publication (hereinafter the "STAR Methodology" or
"2018 STAR Methodology"), which is incorporated by reference herein
for all purposes.
[0008] Applying the STAR Methodology to samples of a helmet yields
a score, or "STAR Value," as described in that publication. "STAR"
is an acronym for "Summation of Tests for the Analysis of Risk."
The STAR score is related to predictive concussion incidence, or
the probability of concussion of a player wearing the tested helmet
during a season of collegiate football play (see the STAR
Methodology publication for details). A lower STAR Value is better
and represents a lower predictive concussion incidence according to
the science underlying the methodology. The helmets tested by the
Helmet Lab are, generally, commercially available during the season
of the test, and are tested using the lightest standard facemask
for each helmet and a large-size shell.
[0009] Helmet manufacturers strive to achieve the lowest possible
STAR Values. The Helmet Lab rankings have become very important in
the marketplace, "kind of like the J.D. Power for ranking helmets"
according to one industry chief executive. This is the case
although the methodology is not immune to criticism and cannot
perfectly model the risk of injury for any individual player or
situation due to the incalculable factors and variables at play,
the helmet being only one such factor.
[0010] In 2018, the STAR test methodology was updated to evaluate
both linear and rotational acceleration. Prior to this update, the
methodology evaluated only linear acceleration. Old scores from
pre-2018 methodologies used by the Virginia Tech Helmet Lab do not
take into account rotational acceleration and are not comparable to
the 2018 STAR Methodology and the resultant STAR Values.
[0011] As used herein as a defined term, the "Predictive Concussion
Incidence" of a helmet shall mean the score resulting from the
application of the 2018 STAR Methodology test to samples of the
helmet, on the same or functionally equivalent apparatus (for
example, using a linear impactor) as the 2018 Helmet Lab tests. The
STAR Values resulting from the 2018 Helmet Lab tests are examples
of Predictive Concussion Incidence.
[0012] It should be noted that the NFL and the NFL Players
Association sponsors comparative football helmet testing by
Biokinetics Inc. of Ottawa, Canada. The Biokinetics test does not
use the STAR Methodology and the results are not comparable.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE SUBJECT TECHNOLOGY
[0013] According to the subject technology, a NOSCAE-certified
football helmet comprises a plastic shell, internal padding
attached to an inner surface of the shell, and a face guard
attached to the shell, and has an exceptionally low Predictive
Concussion Incidence. Preferably the helmet has a Predictive
Concussion Incidence of less than 1.9; or in the range of 0.50 to
1.90; or 0.75 plus or minus 0.25, for example.
[0014] In a non-limiting example of the subject technology, the
internal padding of the football helmet includes shock-absorbing
pads of thermoplastic polyurethane (TPU) polymer material having
shock-absorbing projections, the pads being attached to an inner
surface of the shell, including a dual-stiffness front pad which
defines a first zone of a first stiffness above the face opening in
the brow region, and above the first zone, a second zone of a
second stiffness higher than the first stiffness. The zones of
different stiffness can be achieved in one front pad by using TPU
materials having different durometers (higher durometers being
stiffer) and/or by providing different TPU structures including
different densities of projections (higher density being stiffer),
and by providing or omitting stiffening ribs adjoining adjacent
projections. Additionally, in this non-limiting example the face
guard is attached to the shell at two attachment points on each
side of the shell, all of the four attachment points being below a
line constructed through the midpoint of the height of the helmet,
and the face guard has an upper portion which contacts the shell
(or the nose bumper attached to the shell) above the face opening,
but is not attached to the shell at that point.
[0015] A range of different, exceptionally low Predictive
Concussion Incidence values is possible according to the subject
technology. Varying the properties of the front pad and other TPU
padding, the location of the face guard attachments, the thickness
and/or heaviness of the face guard, and the size and weight of the
shell, for example, influence the resulting Predictive Concussion
Incidence of the helmet.
[0016] The limitations of the claimed invention are pointed out
with particularity in the claims annexed to and forming a part of
this disclosure. Reference is made to the accompanying drawings and
written description in which non-limiting embodiments of the
subject technology are illustrated. It should be understood that
the scope of the invention is limited only by the recitations of
the claims, and not by any other choice of structure, materials,
theory of operation, method of manufacture, or method of use unless
specified in a given claim.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS
[0017] FIG. 1A is a rear view of a dual-stiffness, dual-durometer
TPU front pad according to a non-limiting aspect of the subject
technology.
[0018] FIG. 1B is a cross-sectional view of the dual-stiffness,
dual-durometer TPU front pad according to FIG. 1A along the line
1B-1B.
[0019] FIG. 1C is a front view of a dual-stiffness, dual-durometer
TPU front pad according to a non-limiting aspect of the subject
technology.
[0020] FIG. 1D is a perspective rendering of a dual-stiffness,
dual-durometer TPU front pad according to a non-limiting aspect of
the subject technology.
[0021] FIG. 2A is a rear view of a dual-stiffness, single-durometer
TPU front pad according to a non-limiting aspect of the subject
technology.
[0022] FIG. 2B is a cross-sectional view of the dual-stiffness,
single-durometer TPU front pad according to FIG. 2A along the line
2B-2B.
[0023] FIG. 2C is a front view of a dual-stiffness,
single-durometer TPU front pad according to a non-limiting aspect
of the subject technology.
[0024] FIG. 2D is a perspective rendering of a dual-stiffness,
single-durometer TPU front pad according to a non-limiting aspect
of the subject technology.
[0025] FIG. 3A is a view of a front pad liner according to a
non-limiting aspect of the subject technology, turned inside-out to
show the inner surface of the comfort pad.
[0026] FIG. 3B is a view of a front pad liner according to a
non-limiting aspect of the subject technology, turned
right-side-out.
[0027] FIG. 3C is a view of a front pad liner according to a
non-limiting aspect of the subject technology, with a PORON.RTM.
pad inserted into the liner.
[0028] FIG. 3D is a view of a front pad liner according to a
non-limiting aspect of the subject technology, with a nose bumper
attached.
[0029] FIG. 3E is a view of a front pad liner according to a
non-limiting aspect of the subject technology, with a nose bumper
attached and TPU pad inserted.
[0030] FIG. 4 is a left-side view of a football helmet according to
a non-limiting aspect of the subject technology, showing especially
the face guard and its attachment to the shell.
[0031] FIG. 5 is a perspective view of a football helmet according
to a non-limiting aspect of the subject technology, showing
especially the face guard and its attachment to the shell.
[0032] FIG. 6A is a top view (of the side facing the wearer) of a
helmet liner according to a non-limiting aspect of the subject
technology.
[0033] FIG. 6B is a cross-sectional view of a helmet liner
according to FIG. 6A along the line 6B-6B.
[0034] FIG. 6C is a bottom view of a helmet liner according to a
non-limiting aspect of the subject technology.
[0035] FIG. 7 is a perspective view of a football helmet shell
according to a non-limiting aspect of the subject technology.
[0036] FIG. 8 is a dimensioned top view of a football helmet shell
according to a non-limiting aspect of the subject technology.
Dimensions in inches.
[0037] FIG. 9 is a dimensioned front view of a football helmet
shell according to a non-limiting aspect of the subject technology.
Dimensions in inches.
[0038] FIG. 10 is a dimensioned right-side view of a football
helmet shell according to a non-limiting aspect of the subject
technology. Dimensions in inches.
[0039] FIG. 11 is a bar graph of the results of the 2018 Virginia
Tech Helmet Lab STAR ratings.
[0040] FIG. 12 is a series of side and front views of a football
helmet shell showing alternative face guard attachment points.
[0041] FIG. 13 is a bottom view of the interior of a football
helmet according to a non-limiting aspect of the subject
technology.
[0042] FIG. 14 is a front view into the interior of a football
helmet according to a non-limiting aspect of the subject
technology.
[0043] FIG. 15 is a bottom view of the interior of a football
helmet according to a non-limiting aspect of the subject
technology, with the front liner lifted out to show the front
pad.
[0044] FIG. 16A is a top view (the side facing the wearer) of a
helmet crown liner according to a non-limiting aspect of the
subject technology.
[0045] FIG. 16B is a bottom view of a helmet crown liner according
to a non-limiting aspect of the subject technology.
[0046] FIG. 17 is a view of the interior of a football helmet
according to a non-limiting aspect of the subject technology, with
the front liner lifted out to show the front pad, and the remainder
of the liners removed to show the lateral and crown TPU shock
absorbing pads.
[0047] FIG. 18A is a top view (the side facing the wearer) of a
helmet front liner according to a non-limiting aspect of the
subject technology.
[0048] FIG. 18B is a bottom view of a helmet front liner according
to a non-limiting aspect of the subject technology.
[0049] FIG. 19A is a front view of a face guard according to a
non-limiting aspect of the subject technology.
[0050] FIG. 19B is a left-side view of a face guard according to a
non-limiting aspect of the subject technology.
[0051] FIG. 20 is a view of the interior of a football helmet
according to a non-limiting aspect of the subject technology, with
the front liner lifted out to show the front pad.
[0052] FIG. 21 is a sectional view along the Z-plane of a football
helmet according to a non-limiting aspect of the subject
technology, in the area of the top of the face opening of the
shell, showing the relationship between the shell, the front pad,
the zones of stiffness defined by the front pad, and the top of the
face guard.
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE SUBJECT TECHNOLOGY
[0053] The subject technology concerns football helmets having
outstanding performance in laboratory tests of predictive
concussion incidence.
[0054] Modern football helmets generally comprise a plastic shell,
usually a one-piece shell made of ABS or polycarbonate plastic;
internal padding inside the shell, attached directly or indirectly
to the inner surface of the shell by, for example, T-nuts or
hook-and-loop tape; and a face guard (i.e. a facemask) attached to
the shell. It will be understood that various types of plastic and
other rigid materials including composites incorporating
INNEGRA.RTM., KEVLAR.RTM., fiberglass, and carbon fiber materials,
may be used to make a football shell and are within the scope of
the subject technology. A football helmet shell has a front region,
a crown region, a rear region, a left side region, a right side
region, an inner surface and an outer surface. Earflaps of the
shell cover the left and right sides of the head and contain ear
holes. Additional holes are formed in the shell for ventilation or
for attachment of internal padding, chinstraps, face guards, and
visors.
[0055] Many varieties and structures of internal padding are known
in the art. Internal padding may include helmet liners, for
example, foam elements encapsulated within cells formed between
polymer (e.g. vinyl or TPU) layers, and some or all of the cells
may be inflatable through a valve in the case of an "air liner."
Internal padding may also include a comfort layer or layers inside
the liners (i.e. between the liners and the wearer's head),
comprising a soft material to improve fit and comfort. Internal
padding structures and systems which may be used with the subject
technology are disclosed, for example, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,069,498,
9,131,744, and 9,622,533, and co-pending U.S. patent application
Ser. No. 15/855,876 (published as U.S. Published Patent Application
No. 2018/0343953), all of which are owned by the assignee of the
present application and are incorporated herein by reference for
their technical teachings.
[0056] Internal padding of a football helmet may include
shock-absorbing pads or padding made of formed, thermoformed or
molded sheets of thermoplastic urethane (TPU) polymer material.
Football helmets with internal padding comprising (among other
elements) shock-absorbing pads or padding made of TPU are
described, for example, in U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,069,498, 9,131,744, and
9,622,533, and co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No.
15/855,876.
[0057] These TPU shock absorbers generally take the form of a sheet
of TPU material having integrally formed, tapering projections (for
example, domes, cones, pyramids, frustums of cones, pyramidal
frustums or other tapering projections) extending from the sheet.
The projections are spaced apart from each other and are
distributed over an area of the TPU sheet. The projections are
hollow and will collapse upon receiving a shock, thereby partially
or completely absorbing and cushioning the shock, and will
resiliently return to their initial shape after the impact event is
over. The projections may be connected to neighboring projections
by integrally formed ribs or bridges of the TPU material, to
stiffen their response to impacts. Such TPU pads have been used in
the rear, sides, crown, and front of helmets. TPU is a preferred
polymer for the subject technology, however, alternative polymers
could be used, provided that the polymer materials will resiliently
return to their original shape.
[0058] Various TPU materials are commercially available from
suppliers, for example Bayer Material Science, having various
physical and chemical properties. TPU material is available in a
variety of nominal durometers (i.e. material hardness). The
durometer or hardness of TPU material is conventionally quantified
in terms of the Shore "A" durometer scale.
[0059] Relevant to the subject technology, as applied to TPU shock
absorbing pads, a relatively harder TPU material (i.e. having a
higher durometer on the Shore "A" scale) will be stiffer than a
relatively softer TPU material and will respond more stiffly to
impact shocks. That is, a softer TPU projection will collapse more
readily than a harder TPU projection in response to a shock.
[0060] The stiffness of a TPU shock absorber and its projections
may also be modified by providing (or omitting) ribs or bridges of
TPU, which may be integrally formed with the projections and/or
base sheet, and which join adjacent projections. Ribs or bridges
between projections buttresses the projections so that they respond
more stiffly to shocks than projections which stand alone.
[0061] In addition to using different durometers and/or connecting
ribs, the stiffness of a section of a TPU shock absorber may also
be modified by selecting the density of projections. The more
densely the projections populate a given area of the shock
absorber, the more stiffly the shock absorber will react to shock
applied to that area.
[0062] The subject technology is especially applicable to impact
upon the front of a football helmet, which may land directly on the
front region of the helmet shell or on the face guard which is
connected to the shell. In football, impacts may come from any
direction and land on any part of a helmet, however, the front of
the shell is frequently impacted during play, for example, at the
line of scrimmage or during blocking and tackling. The applicants
have discovered that it is very advantageous, in a TPU shock
absorbing pad for the front of the helmet (i.e., a TPU pad
installed above the face opening, about the area of the wearer's
brow and/or forehead), to configure the pad so that it defines two
adjacent zones of different stiffness (i.e., is a "dual-stiffness"
pad); particularly a first zone of relatively high stiffness above
and adjacent to the helmet face opening, and generally overlying
all or part of the wearer's brow; and, adjacent to and above the
first zone, a second zone of relatively lower stiffness (relative
to the first zone) generally overlying the wearer's upper forehead.
Preferably the two adjacent zones of different stiffness are
side-by-side and do not overlap. The front pad is installed in the
helmet shell, connected to the inner surface of the helmet shell
directly or indirectly by, for example, T-nuts or hook-and-loop
fasteners, at a location in the front region of the shell just
above and adjacent to the face opening. The front pad overall is
curved so that the peaks of the projections conform to the concave
inner surface of the helmet, and the base sheet is curved to allow
for the convex curvature of the wearer's head. The subject
technology is not limited to pads of two different stiffnesses, and
can be applied to pads with three or more different stiffnesses in
three or more zones.
[0063] To describe this aspect of the subject technology another
way: a front shock-absorbing dual-stiffness pad is comprised of a
sheet of TPU with integrally formed, tapering projections, in two
sections. The first section is just above the face opening and is
positioned generally over the brow area of the wearer, and the
second section is above the first section (i.e, is attached (or is
formed) at or near the top edge of the first section) and
positioned generally over the higher-forehead area of the wearer.
The first section may be positioned adjacent to, and may partially
overlie, the area of the inferior border of the frontal bone of the
skull just above the supraorbital ridge, while the second section
may be positioned higher, partially overlying the area of the
frontal bone. Each section has a width (in the direction
left-to-right as installed in the helmet) and a height. Typically,
the width of each section is greater than the height, so that each
section constitutes a horizontal band. The first section is
configured to have a higher stiffness than the second section by an
appropriate selection of TPU material durometer and structure (i.e.
the shape of projections, density of projections, and presence or
absence of buttressing ribs between projections) in each respective
section. The height of the first section may be 1 inch, or
approximately 1 inch, or 1.5 inches, or approximately 1.5 inches,
or 2 inches, or approximately 2 inches, or in the range of 1 inch
to 1.5 inches, or in the range of 1 to 2 inches, above the
brow.
[0064] In a non-limiting embodiment of this aspect of the subject
technology, a single-layer, dual-stiffness, dual-durometer TPU pad
for inclusion in a football helmet has two or more adjacent
sections made of differing TPU material having differing
durometers, resulting in sections of differing stiffness, i.e. the
projections in the different sections have different stiffness, at
least partially due to the fact that they are made from TPU
materials of different hardness. For example, a TPU pad may have a
first section made of TPU material having a first durometer and a
second section adjacent to the first section made of TPU material
having a second durometer that is not equal to the first
durometer.
[0065] Such a TPU pad may be manufactured, for example, by
separately manufacturing the two sections as separate parts by, for
example, thermoforming, injection molding, or blow molding using
two different TPU materials having different durometers. The
separate parts may then be joined by welding, adhering, clipping,
snapping, interlocking or sealing one part to the other,
edge-to-edge or slightly overlapping, so that they constitute a
single pad. A separate part may be formed with tabs extending from
an edge or perimeter of the part so that the tabs may be sealed to
the other part and thereby comprise a single shock absorbing pad.
Alternatively, the separate parts may be joined by attaching them
both, side-by-side, to a third, backing, sheet of polymer
material.
[0066] In this preferred but non-limiting embodiment, the
projections of the single TPU pad having different durometers are
in the same general orientation, e.g. they are all oriented from
the base sheet or sheets toward the inner surface of the shell as
opposed to being oriented in opposite directions (i.e. toward the
shell and away from the shell). "Orientation" is intended to mean
the general direction of a TPU cone or tapered projection from the
base sheet toward the tip of the cone or tapered projection. In
this orientation, the base sheet is separated from the inner
surface of the shell by the projections of both adjacent sections.
This feature is best seen in FIG. 21.
[0067] It should be appreciated that the single-layer,
dual-stiffness, dual-durometer TPU pad of this embodiment comprises
a single integral base sheet, or a single base sheet composed of
two base sheets joined at or near their respective edges to form
essentially a single base sheet, the single TPU pad having a first
region of TPU projections extending from the base sheet having a
first durometer, and a second region, adjacent to the first region,
of TPU projections extending in the same orientation as the first
region but having a different durometer and therefore a different
hardness and stiffness.
[0068] In a preferred, non-limiting embodiment of the subject
technology, as illustrated in FIGS. 1A-1D, a front pad 10 for a
football helmet is composed of TPU material in the form of a sheet
11 of TPU material with hollow frusto-conical projections 12 (only
one is numbered) extending therefrom, spaced apart from each other,
and distributed over an area of TPU sheet 11. The embodiment of
FIGS. 1A-1D has a first section 13 having first durometer and an
adjacent second section 14 having a second durometer. With
reference to the orientation of front pad 10 when installed inside
the helmet, the tapering projections 12 extend from the base sheet
11 in the direction of the inner surface of the helmet.
[0069] In a preferred, non-limiting embodiment, the first durometer
is higher than the second durometer. That is, the TPU material of
first section 13 (i.e., the brow section), which is positioned
immediately over the face opening and generally overlying all or
part of the wearer's brow, is harder (and therefore stiffer) than
the TPU material of second section 14 (i.e., the forehead section),
which is attached (or is formed) at or near the top edge of first
section 13 and positioned generally over the higher forehead area
of the wearer. It should be understood from the foregoing
description and FIGS. 1A-1D that the TPU pad 10 of this embodiment
defines two adjacent zones 18, 19 of different stiffness;
particularly a first zone 18 of relatively high stiffness generally
overlying all or part of the wearer's brow, and, adjacent to and
above first zone 18, a second zone 19 of relatively low stiffness
generally overlying the wearer's upper forehead.
[0070] In a preferred, non-limiting embodiment, the first durometer
is 90 A, or approximately 90 A, or 90 A plus or minus 3; and the
second durometer is 85 A, or approximately 85 A, or 85 A plus or
minus 3; provided that the first durometer is greater than the
second durometer; all of the foregoing durometers on the Shore "A"
scale.
[0071] In a second preferred, non-limiting embodiment, the first
durometer is 95 A, or approximately 95 A, or 95 A plus or minus 3;
and the second durometer is 85 A, or approximately 85 A, or 85 A
plus or minus 3; provided that the first durometer is greater than
the second durometer; all of the foregoing durometers on the Shore
"A" scale.
[0072] In a third preferred, non-limiting embodiment, the first
durometer is 85 A, or approximately 85 A, or 85 A plus or minus 3;
and the second durometer is 80 A, or approximately 80 A, or 80 A
plus or minus 3; provided that the first durometer is greater than
the second durometer; all of the foregoing durometers on the Shore
"A" scale.
[0073] In general, in a non-limiting embodiment the first durometer
and second durometer are in the range of 80 A-105 A or in the range
of 85 A-105 A, provided that the first durometer is greater than
the second durometer.
[0074] In foregoing embodiments, the brow section 13 is formed of a
harder TPU material and therefore is stiffer than the forehead
section 14. More particularly, the projections of the first (brow)
section 13 are formed of a harder TPU material than the projections
of the second (forehead) section 14, and therefore the projections
of the brow section 13 are stiffer than the projections of the
forehead section 14.
[0075] Optionally, as shown in FIGS. 1A-1D the first and second
sections 13, 14 include integrated areas 15 in the base sheet 11
that are thickened to enable proper measurement and verification of
the durometer of the respective materials in those areas.
[0076] Additionally, in the non-limiting embodiment of FIGS. 1A-1D,
the stiffness of the first section 13 and second section 14 may be
further modified by providing (or omitting) ribs or bridges 16
(only one is numbered) which join and buttress adjacent projections
12. In the preferred, non-limiting embodiment of FIGS. 1A-1D,
projections of the brow section 13 are joined by two, three, or
four integrally formed ribs 16 to two, three, or four neighboring
projections 12, as shown for example in FIG. 1C; while the
projections 12 of the forehead section 14 are without ribs and
stand alone, making them relatively more yielding (i.e. less stiff)
when subjected to impact. In the preferred, non-limiting
embodiment, the projections 12 of the first section 13 and the
projections of the second section 14 all have the same orientation
and extend from their respective TPU sheets toward the inner
surface of the helmet.
[0077] In the embodiment of FIGS. 1A-1D, first section 13 and
second section 14 are each manufactured separately by thermoforming
each part from TPU material of the chosen durometer. First section
13 has tabs 17 (only one is numbered) on the margin, edge, or
periphery of its base sheet, which is sealed to the base sheet of
the second section 14 so that the sheets form essentially a single
base sheet 11. Alternatively, second section 14 could have tabs for
connecting to first section 13.
[0078] As an alternative to thermoforming, a polymer helmet pad
having a plurality of sections of differing durometers may be
formed by injection-molding, i.e., injecting hot, molten polymer
material, for example TPU polymer, into an injection mold. The
molten material then cools and solidifies in the mold, and the
solid part is ejected from the mold. A dual-hardness pad according
to an embodiment of the present technology may be manufactured by
an injection-molding process in a single mold by injecting a molten
first polymer that will have a first durometer when solidified to
partially fill the mold, followed by injecting a molten second
polymer that will have a second durometer when solidified (which
may be higher or lower than the first durometer). Optionally, the
injection of the second polymer may be followed by injection of a
molten third polymer that will have a third durometer when
solidified (which may be higher or lower than either the first or
second durometers). After solidification and ejection from the
mold, the pad will be an integral single-piece pad having a first
region or section formed of the first polymer having a first
durometer, and a second region or section formed of the second
polymer having a second durometer. Optionally, the pad would have a
third region or section formed of the third polymer having a third
durometer. The subject technology is not limited to any method of
manufacturing unless specified as a claim recitation.
[0079] In another, non-limiting embodiment of this aspect of the
subject technology, FIGS. 2A-2D show a single-layer,
dual-stiffness, single-durometer TPU front pad 20 having sections
23, 24 of different stiffness, which comprises a single, integral
TPU pad of a single material (i.e., the entire pad is made of the
same TPU material with the same durometer) comprising a base sheet
21 and projections 22 (only one is numbered). Sections of differing
stiffness 23, 24 are achieved by providing connecting ribs 26 (only
one is numbered) between some or all projections 22 in the stiffer
section 23 while omitting the ribs from some or all projections in
the softer section 24; or, the projections 22 are more densely
populated in the stiffer section 23 than in the softer section 24;
or both (as in the embodiment of FIGS. 2A-2D). In this manner, the
single-durometer TPU of this non-limiting embodiment defines two
adjacent zones 18, 19 of different stiffness; particularly a first
zone 18 of relatively high stiffness generally overlying all or
part of the wearer's brow, and, adjacent to and above first zone
18, a second zone 19 of relatively low stiffness generally
overlying the wearer's upper forehead.
[0080] In non-limiting embodiments, the hardness of the TPU
material of a single durometer pad may be 95 A, or approximately 95
A, or 95 A plus or minus 3; or 53 D, or approximately 53 D, or 53 D
plus or minus 7. Other durometers of TPU could be used in this
dual-stiffness, single-durometer front pad, for example, 90 A, or
approximately 90 A, or 90 A plus or minus 3; or 85 A, or
approximately 85 A, or 85 A plus or minus 3; or 85 A, or
approximately 80 A, or 80 A plus or minus 3; or in the range of 80
A-105 A or in the range of 85 A-105 A. Optionally, base sheet 21
has a thickened area 25 to enable proper measurement and
verification of the durometer of material.
[0081] It is believed that the dual-stiffness TPU front pad of the
subject technology (whether dual-durometer or single-durometer)
improves football helmet performance during an impact at the front
of the helmet or at the front boss of the helmet by stiffly
resisting the initial shock of impact, but less-stiffly resisting
the continuation of the impact after the initial shock. This
results in less transmission of linear and rotational acceleration
to the wearer's head, overall. This theory of operation does not
limit the scope of the subject technology unless specified as a
claim recitation.
[0082] The dual-stiffness TPU front pad of the subject technology,
for example the embodiment of FIGS. 1A-1D or FIGS. 2A-2D, could be
used in the football helmet of co-pending U.S. patent application
Ser. No. 15/855,876 as a substitute for front pad assembly 153; or
in the football helmet of U.S. Pat. No. 9,622,533 as a substitute
for front pad 32; or in the football helmet of U.S. Pat. No.
9,131,744 as a substitute for front pad 32; or in the football
helmet of U.S. Pat. No. 8,069,498 as a substitute for frontal pad
12. It may be used with any football helmet to improve its
Predictive Concussion Incidence.
[0083] As shown for example in the non-limiting embodiment of FIGS.
3A-3E, a dual-stiffness TPU front pad 31 of the subject technology,
for example the embodiment of FIGS. 1A-1D or FIGS. 2A-2D, may be
enclosed in a liner 30 consisting of a soft comfort pad 33 on the
side of the pad facing the wearer, which may be soft EVA foam or
"fit foam," and a fabric backing 32 made of a material such as
nylon, tricot or cotton on the side facing the inner surface of
shell, substantially as described in U.S. patent application Ser.
No. 15/855,876 and FIGS. 38-39 of that application, for example.
Preferably a pad 34 of PORON.RTM. memory foam is inserted inside
the liner 30 between the soft comfort pad and the dual-stiffness
TPU front pad. FIG. 3A shows the liner turned inside-out for
attachment of a fabric backing. FIG. 3B shows the same liner turned
right-side out. FIG. 3C shows a PORON.RTM. pad 34 inserted into the
liner. FIG. 3D shows the other side of the liner (the side facing
the wearer) with a nose bumper attached. FIG. 3E shows a
dual-stiffness pad inserted into the liner. The completed liner
would then be removable attached to the inner surface of the helmet
shell, in the front above the face opening.
[0084] According to a further aspect of the subject technology, a
face guard is attached to a football helmet shell at certain
locations (i.e. attachment points) on the shell. Face guards for
football helmets are typically in the form of a rigid cage of metal
wires, for example, steel wires, carbon steel wires, or titanium
wires, attached to the shell at attachment points. Several examples
of face guards, means and hardware for attaching face guards, and
attachment points are shown in U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,069,498, 9,131,744,
and 9,622,533, and co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No.
15/855,876 (published as U.S. Published Patent Application No.
2018/0343953), all of which are owned by the assignee of the
present application and are incorporated herein by reference for
their technical teachings.
[0085] The face guard attachment points are locations at which
shocks, impacts, blows or other forces incident upon the face guard
may be transmitted to the shell, and ultimately to the wearer's
head. The face guard also acts as a mechanical brace to the shell
which tends to stiffen the helmet and modify its response to shock
forces during football play. It is advantageous to allow for some
flexibility in the shell, and between the shell and face guard, to
allow the flexure of the shell to modulate the forces applied
during an impact shock. However, too much flexibility can result in
exposure of part of the wearer's face during an impact, or other
failure of the helmet to protect the wearer, which would be unsafe
and would not comply with NOCSAE Standards.
[0086] As shown for example in the non-limiting embodiments of
FIGS. 4 and 5, the inventors have discovered that it is
advantageous, and significantly improves performance of the helmet,
to select attachment points below a line constructed through the
midpoint, or approximately the midpoint, or 45%, or 40%, or 35%, of
the height of the helmet as viewed from the right side or left
side, the shell being oriented as shown in FIG. 4, substantially as
shown for example in the non-limiting embodiments of FIGS. 4 and 5.
In this aspect of the subject technology, preferably the face guard
is not attached to the shell at any point above the line. This
structure shall be referred to herein as a "below-the-line" face
guard connection. Although in this embodiment the face guard is not
attached to the shell "above-the-line," preferably the face guard
has an upper portion that contacts the shell at a point or points
above-the-line when at rest and/or when subjected to impacts. The
upper portion of the face guard may contact the shell at or above
the face opening, including at a nose bumper attached to the front
of the shell at the center of the face opening. Preferably the
upper portion of the face guard is not attached to the shell and is
free to slide somewhat against the outer surface of the shell or
the nose bumper when subjected to impacts.
[0087] More specifically, in the non-limiting embodiments of FIGS.
4 and 5, a football helmet 1 has a plastic shell 40, and faceguard
41 is removably attached to shell 40 at four attachment points,
42-45. Two attachment points 42, 43 are on the left side of shell
40, two attachment points 44, 45 are on the right side. All four
attachment points 42-45 are below a horizontal line A constructed
through the midpoint, or approximately the midpoint, of the height
of the helmet shell 40 along the vertical line B through the upper
attachment point 42 or 44, the shell being oriented as shown in
FIG. 4. With respect to the two attachment points on each side of
the shell, the upper attachment point 42 or 44 is forward of the
lower attachment point 43 or 45 respectively, the shell 40 being
oriented as shown in FIG. 4. Also, the upper attachment point 42 or
44 is preferably higher than the lower attachment point 43 or 45
respectively by a distance of 20%-25%, preferably 23% or
approximately 23%, of the height of the shell along the line B.
Face guard 41 has an upper portion 46 which may touch the shell 40
or nose bumper 47 (if present), but is not attached to shell 40 or
nose bumper 47 so it may slide or slip somewhat against or relative
to the surface of shell 40 or nose bumper 47 when subjected to
impacts.
[0088] In an alternative embodiment of this aspect of the subject
technology (not shown in the Figures), the face guard may be
additionally attached to the shell at one or more attachment points
above the line A. Preferably, if the face guard is attached to the
shell at one or more points above the line, those attachments are
relatively soft and yielding compared to the below-the-line
attachments, as for example, attachment via one or more relatively
soft plastic loop straps or similar fasteners as known in the art,
to reduce the transmission of impact force from the face guard to
the shell at those points.
[0089] It should be understood that the below-the-line faceguard
attachment of the subject technology may be used in conjunction
with the dual-stiffness front pad 10 or 20 heretofore described, in
the same helmet 1. However, the below-the-line faceguard attachment
be used with any football helmet to improve its Predictive
Concussion Incidence.
[0090] According to a further aspect of the subject technology, an
inner liner for a football helmet comprises a top sheet of a
suitable thin, flexible material such as TPU, vinyl, or the like,
bonded to a bottom sheet of such material. Pockets are formed in
the top sheet, which when bonded to the bottom sheet form cells
which are distributed over the area of the top sheet facing the
wearer, to provide comfort, fit and shock absorption. Some or all
of the cells contain pads of slow-response foam (i.e. "memory
foam"). Preferably, the slow-response foam is microcellular
polyurethane, PORON.RTM., OMALON.RTM., or D30 foam. PORON.RTM. is a
product of Rogers Corporation of Rogers, Conn.; OMALON.RTM. is a
product of Carpenter Co. of Richmond, Va.; D30 is a product of D30
Lab, Croydon, UK. Ordinary polymer foam, e.g. "fit foam" may also
be used in cells in a liner of this nature. The cells may be
connected by passages and a valve admitted to one of the cells for
inflation with an air pump, to form what is known in the art as an
"air liner," for example, as shown in in U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,069,498,
9,131,744, and 9,622,533, or co-pending U.S. patent application
Ser. No. 15/855,876. Alternatively, the liner may have no valve or
other provision for introducing air, and/or no air passages between
cells. In this alternative, the padding is provided solely by the
included foam pads in the cells.
[0091] In the non-limiting embodiment of FIG. 6, for example, a
lateral liner 50 for a football helmet has a top sheet 51 of TPU
material bonded to a bottom sheet 52 of TPU material. Lateral liner
50 is adapted to be disposed in the rear and side areas of the
inside of a helmet. Pockets 54 (only one is numbered) are formed in
the top sheet, to form cells 55 (only one is numbered) distributed
over the area of the top sheet 51 facing the wearer. All of the
cells 55 contain pads 53 (only one is numbered) of PORON.RTM. foam,
which mostly or substantially entirely fill cells 55. In this
non-limiting embodiment, cells 55 are optionally not connected by
passages, and there is no valve provided to inflate cells 55 with
air. Cells 55 may be vented to the atmosphere through small vent
holes 56 (only one is numbered) formed in bottom sheet 52. The
liner 50 is sized and shaped to be positioned to cover the back and
side of the wearer's head, but a liner according to a non-limiting
aspect of the subject technology could be sized and shaped to be
disposed in the crown area of the helmet (as for examples in FIGS.
16A and 16B) or the front area (as in FIGS. 18A and 18B). The
applicants have achieved exceptional performance in a football
helmet comprising a plurality of inner liners, in which all of the
liners have cells filled with PORON.RTM. foam, and no valve or
other means to inflate the cells is provided (i.e., the helmet does
not have "air liners").
[0092] Non-limiting commercial embodiments of aspects of the
subject technology by the assignee of the present application d/b/a
Schutt Sports include the Schutt F7 VTD, Schutt F7 LTD, and Schutt
F7 UR1 football helmets. These helmets are variants of the Schutt
F7 football helmet, which is substantially as described in
co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 15/855,876 (the "'876
application"), published as U.S. Published Patent Application No.
2018/0343953. The unmodified Schutt F7 helmet, the Schutt F7 VTD
helmet, Schutt F7 LTD helmet are all NOCSAE-certified and are
commercially available products of Schutt Sports. The Schutt F7 UR1
helmet is a forthcoming product.
[0093] In the Schutt F7 VTD helmet, the front pad assembly 153 (of
the '876 application) is replaced by the dual-stiffness,
single-durometer pad of FIGS. 2A-2D herein, enclosed in a liner as
in FIGS. 3A-3E with an inserted PORON.RTM. pad. The weight of the
tested F7 VTD helmet with face guard was 4.1 pounds.
[0094] The Schutt F7 LTD helmet, its parts and configuration are
shown in FIGS. 1A-1D, 4-10, and 13-20, while other aspects of the
F7 LTD helmet are unmodified with respect to the base F7 helmet
described in the '876 application. The F7 LTD helmet has the
following modifications with respect to the unmodified Schutt F7
helmet. The front pad assembly of the base F7 helmet (numbered 153
in the '876 application) is replaced by the dual-stiffness,
dual-durometer pad 10 of FIGS. 1A-1D herein. The LTD liners are
shown separately in FIGS. 6A-6D (the lateral liner 50), 16A-16B
(crown liner 57) and 18A-18B (front liner 58). According to a
non-limiting aspect of the subject technology, the cells of liners
50, 57, 58 in the LTD helmet contain PORON.RTM. pads, are not
inflatable, and have exhaust holes for allowing air out of the
cells. The liners are shown as installed in FIGS. 13-15. In FIG.
17, the liners and mobility layers (as shown and described in the
'876 application) are removed to show the installed internal TPU
shock absorbers (including crown TPU pad 61 and lateral TPU pad 62,
as shown and described in the '876 application except for the front
pad 10 which is according to subject technology). In FIGS. 15, 17
and 20 the front liner 58 is folded out of the helmet to show the
dual-stiffness dual-durometer front pad 10 attached to the inner
surface of the shell. The face guard 41 and its connection to the
shell 40 are as shown in FIGS. 4, 5, 19A and 19B. The face guard 41
is attached to the shell 40 by loopstraps, T-nuts and screws as is
known in the art; or optionally, by loopstraps with partial-turn
faceguard mounting hardware substantially as disclosed in U.S. Pat.
No. 8,819,871 for "Helmet with partial turn faceguard mounting,"
the entire disclosure of which is hereby incorporated by reference,
which is assigned to the assignee of the present application. The
shell 40 also has cheek supports 60 attached. The weight of the
tested F7 LTD helmet with face guard was 5.1 pounds. (According to
an aspect of the subject technology, the helmet with face guard has
a weight of less than 5.5 pounds, or 5.1 pounds or less, or about 5
pounds.)
[0095] The published results of the 2018 Helmet Lab test are
provided in Table 1 and are graphed for easy comparison in FIG.
11.
TABLE-US-00001 TABLE 1 Helmet STAR Value Schutt F7 LTD 0.75 VICIS
Zero1 1.92 Schutt F7 VTD 2.54 Xenith X2E+ 2.92 Riddell
Precision-FIT 3.23 Xenith EPIC+ 3.79 Riddell SpeedFlex 4.49 SG
DBS.001 5.39 Schutt Vengeance Z10 6.28 Schutt Vengeance Pro 6.44
Schutt F7 [unmodified] 6.50 Riddell Speed 6.67 Schutt Air XP Pro
VTD II 6.98 Schutt Vengeance VTD II 7.35 Schutt Air XP Pro Q10 VTD
8.42 Riddell Speed Icon 9.95 Schutt Air XP Pro 18.22 Schutt Air XP
Pro Q10 25.77
[0096] These test results show the surprising superiority of the
subject technology over the prior art. The unmodified Schutt F7
helmet achieved a score of 6.50. The Schutt F7 VTD achieved a score
of 2.54, ranking third in the test, and a substantial improvement
over the unmodified Schutt F7. The Schutt F7 LTD achieved a score
of 0.75, a vast improvement over both the unmodified Schutt F7 and
the Schutt F7 VTD, and by far the best score of the 2018 Virginia
Tech tests.
[0097] To put these results in perspective: a collegiate football
player wearing the second-ranked helmet (having a score of 1.92)
instead of the tested Schutt F7 LTD helmet (having a score of 0.75)
during a season of play is reasonably expected to face more than
2.5 times the risk of concussion during the season, according to
the science underlying the STAR Methodology. The subject technology
is a quantum leap in impact absorption. However, it should be
understood that head injuries are possible in football or any
sport, even with the best available protection. The risk of injury
to any specific individual depends on many factors, not only the
qualities of the helmet worn by that individual. Better impact
absorption has not been shown to be correlated with reduced risk of
concussion.
[0098] It is within the scope of the subject technology to provide
a somewhat stiffer response to impacts than in the Schutt F7 LTD,
if desired for a particular application or playing position. This
can be achieved in several ways. The internal padding system may be
modified, for example, the stiffness of the front pad may be
increased by using TPU material(s) of higher durometer(s), or a
different (stiffer) configuration of TPU projections, as previously
described. Alternatively, a conventional front pad could be used,
which would result in stiffer response to a frontal shock.
Additionally, attaching the face guard to the shell at higher
attachment points that are near, at or above the median line may
stiffen the helmet. These alterations would be expected to raise
the Predictive Concussion Incidence of the helmet, such that a
person of skill in the art could achieve a football helmet with
higher Predictive Concussion Incidence than 0.75, as much as
desired. Of course, the helmet must comply with NOCSAE Standards
and be NOCSAE-certified to be suitable for use.
[0099] It will also be understood by those of skill in the art that
a STAR Value or Predictive Concussion Index of less than 0.75 can
be achieved by (relative to the Schutt F7 LTD helmet) placing the
face guard attachment points even lower and/or further out on the
helmet shell, and/or using a softer dual-stiffness front pad,
and/or using a larger shell with more offset from the wearer's
head, and/or using a thicker shell, and/or using thicker, stronger
and/or heavier wire members in the face guard (for example, using a
heavier carbon steel face guard instead of a lighter titanium face
guard). Such modifications could be reasonably expected to achieve
a STAR Value or Predictive Concussion Index of as low as 0.50 or
lower.
[0100] The effect of variations in material and structure on
Predictive Concussion Incidence are demonstrated, for example, by
the following tests conducted by the assignee of the present
application d/b/a Schutt. These tests were conducted on Schutt's
apparatus, which is functionally equivalent to the Virginia Tech
apparatus described in the STAR Methodology publication. The Schutt
tests varied from the full STAR Methodology tests as noted
below.
[0101] In a first series of tests, Schutt Sports conducted a
comparative test of two helmets: Helmet 1, a Schutt F7 VTD helmet
substantially as in the 2018 Virginia Tech test and Helmet 2, a
Schutt F7 LTD helmet substantially as in the 2018 Virginia Tech
test. The tests were conducted on Schutt's apparatus using a
modified STAR Methodology. In this modified methodology, only the
"front" and "front boss" locations were tested; and the impact
velocities (3.49-3.57, 5.21-5.35, and 7.19-7.31 m/s for Helmet 1
and 3.73-3.78, 5.73-5.79, and 7.6-7.67 m/s for Helmet 2) used were
slightly higher than in the STAR Methodology (3.0, 4.6, and 6.1
m/s). Tables 2A and 2B show the data for Helmet 1 and Helmet 2,
respectively. Because only two locations were tested, an overall
Predictive Concussion Incidence was not determined in this test.
However, the partial Predictive Concussion Incidence of Helmet 1
vs. Helmet 2 due to the tested impacts at the "front" and "front
boss" locations may be compared and are stated in Table 2.
("Partial Predictive Concussion Incidence" is used here because
only two impact locations were tested. The results are presented
separately for each of the two locations.) Lower partial Predictive
Concussion Incidence is better.
TABLE-US-00002 TABLE 2 Total of "Front" Partial Predictive Partial
Predictive and "Front Boss" Concussion Incidence at Concussion
Incidence at Partial Predictive Helmet "Front" Location "Front
Boss" Location Concussion Incidence Helmet 1 0.69 0.89 1.58 Helmet
2 0.38 0.15 0.53
[0102] Comparing the partial Predictive Concussion Incidence of
Helmet 1 to Helmet 2, these results show that use of the
dual-durometer front pad and below-the-line faceguard hookup in
Helmet 2 provide surprisingly improved performance over Helmet 1
with respect to impacts at "front" and "front boss" locations,
which are especially of interest in a football helmet.
[0103] In a second comparative test, Schutt tested a series of
helmets having the Schutt F7 LTD shell of FIGS. 7-10 and various
front pad and face guard attachment point configurations.
Specifically, as stated in Table 3 below, certain helmets had the
Schutt F7 VTD dual-stiffness single-durometer front pad within a
liner as in FIG. 3; others had the Schutt F7 LTD dual-stiffness
dual-durometer front pad within the liner (both as described above
in connection with the Helmet Lab tests). Two different
dual-durometer pads were tested (the difference being the
durometers of the TPU materials used). The various face guard
attachment points tested are shown in FIGS. 4, 5 and 12. The tests
were conducted on Schutt's apparatus which is functionally
equivalent to the Virginia Tech apparatus described in the STAR
Methodology publication, using a modified STAR Methodology. In this
modified methodology, only the "front" location was tested;
additionally, the impact velocities used (3.75, 5.75, and 7.63 m/s)
were slightly higher than in the STAR Methodology. Two samples of
each helmet were tested at each impact velocity, as provided by the
STAR Methodology. Because only one location was tested, an overall
Predictive Concussion Incidence was not determined in this test.
However, the partial Predictive Concussion Incidence of this series
of helmets due to the tested impacts at the "front" locations may
be compared and are stated in Table 3. ("Partial Predictive
Concussion Incidence" is used here because only one impact location
was tested.)
TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 3 "Front" Partial Predictive Concussion Helmet
Front Pad Face Guard Attachment Points Incidence Helmet A
Dual-stiffness, Central twist release and side 0.74
single-durometer mount loop straps, at points "A" shown in FIG. 12
Helmet B Dual-stiffness, Side mount loop straps only, at 0.65
single-durometer points "B" shown in FIG. 12 Helmet C
Dual-stiffness, Side mount loop straps only, at 0.53
single-durometer points "C" as shown in FIG. 12 Helmet D
Dual-stiffness, Side mount loop straps only, as 0.50
single-durometer in FIGS. 4 and 5 Helmet E Dual-stiffness, dual-
Side mount loop straps only, as 0.52 durometer, Part A = in FIGS. 4
and 5 90 A, Part B = 85 A Helmet F Dual-stiffness, dual- Side mount
loop straps only, as 0.41 durometer, Part A = in FIGS. 4 and 5 95
A, Part B = 85 A
[0104] From the foregoing tests, it will be understood that
selection of the face guard attachment points has a dramatic effect
on partial Predictive Concussion Incidence (and, therefore, total
Predictive Concussion Incidence) due to impact at, at least, the
"front" impact location. Especially considering the progression
from Helmet A (0.74) to Helmet D (0.50) as the attachment points
are moved away from the Z-plane (i.e. away from the middle and
toward the sides) and lower on the helmet shell, it is clear to one
of skill in the art that a range of results are possible. Since a
lower result is generally preferable, the attachment points of
FIGS. 4 and 5 are preferred; however, other attachment points are
within the scope of the subject technology and would result in a
stiffer or less-stiff helmet as may be desired for a given
application or playing position.
[0105] It will be understood that selecting the durometers of the
dual-durometer front pad also has a dramatic effect on partial
Predictive Concussion Incidence (and, therefore, total Predictive
Concussion Incidence) due to impact at, at least, the "front"
impact location. Especially considering the progression from Helmet
E to Helmet F, it is clear to one of skill in the art that a range
of results are possible. Since a lower result is generally
preferable, the front pad of FIGS. 1A-1D having Part A=95 A, Part
B=85 A is preferable; however, other selections of durometer are
within the scope of the subject technology and would result in a
stiffer or less-stiff helmet as may be desired for a given
application or playing position.
[0106] From the foregoing disclosure and the appended Drawings, it
will be understood that the subject technology includes a football
helmet which has a Predictive Concussion Incidence of 0.75; or
approximately 0.75; or 0.75 plus or minus 0.05; or 0.75 plus or
minus 0.10; or 0.75 plus or minus 0.15; or 0.75 plus or minus 0.20;
or 0.75 plus or minus 0.25. Preferably the football helmet meets
NOCSAE Standards and/or is NOCSAE-certified. Preferably the helmet
with face guard has a weight of less than 5.5 pounds, or 5.1 pounds
or less, or about 5 pounds or less.
[0107] Additionally, the subject technology includes a football
helmet which has a Predictive Concussion Incidence of less than
0.75; or less than 0.80; or less than 0.85; or less than 0.90; or
less than 0.95; or less than 1.0; or less than 1.1; or less than
1.2; or less than 1.3; or less than 1.4; or less than 1.5; or less
than 1.6; or less than 1.7; or less than 1.8; or less than 1.9.
Preferably the football helmet meets NOCSAE Standards and/or is
NOCSAE-certified. Preferably the helmet with face guard has a
weight of less than 5.5 pounds, or 5.1 pounds or less, or about 5
pounds or less.
[0108] From the foregoing, it will be understood that the subject
technology includes a football helmet which has a Predictive
Concussion Incidence in the range of 0.75 to 0.80; or 0.75 to 0.85;
or 0.75 to 0.90; or 0.75 to 0.95; or 0.75 to 1.00; or 0.75 to 1.05;
or 0.75 to 1.10; or 0.75 to 1.15; or 0.75 to 1.25; or 0.75 to 1.30;
or 0.75 to 1.35; or 0.75 to 1.40; or 0.75 to 1.45; or 0.75 to 1.50;
or 0.75 to 1.55; or 0.75 to 1.60; or 0.75 to 1.65; or 0.75 to 1.70;
or 0.75 to 1.75; or 0.75 to 1.80; or 0.75 to 1.85; or 0.75 to 1.90.
Preferably the football helmet meets NOCSAE Standards and/or is
NOCSAE-certified. Preferably the helmet with face guard has a
weight of less than 5.5 pounds, or 5.1 pounds or less, or about 5
pounds or less.
[0109] Additionally, the subject technology includes a football
helmet which has a Predictive Concussion Incidence in the range of
0.70 to 0.80; or 0.70 to 0.85; or 0.70 to 0.90; or 0.70 to 0.95; or
0.70 to 1.00; or 0.75 to 1.05; or 0.70 to 1.10; or 0.70 to 1.15; or
0.70 to 1.25; or 0.70 to 1.30; or 0.70 to 1.35; or 0.70 to 1.40; or
0.70 to 1.45; or 0.70 to 1.50; or 0.70 to 1.55; or 0.70 to 1.60; or
0.70 to 1.65; or 0.70 to 1.70; or 0.70 to 1.75; or 0.70 to 1.80; or
0.70 to 1.85; or 0.70 to 1.90. Preferably the football helmet meets
NOCSAE Standards and/or is NOCSAE-certified. Preferably the helmet
with face guard has a weight of less than 5.5 pounds, or 5.1 pounds
or less, or about 5 pounds or less.
[0110] Additionally, the subject technology includes a football
helmet which has a Predictive Concussion Incidence in the range of
0.60 to 0.80; or 0.60 to 0.85; or 0.60 to 0.90; or 0.60 to 0.95; or
0.60 to 1.00; or 0.75 to 1.05; or 0.60 to 1.10; or 0.60 to 1.15; or
0.60 to 1.25; or 0.60 to 1.30; or 0.60 to 1.35; or 0.60 to 1.40; or
0.60 to 1.45; or 0.60 to 1.50; or 0.60 to 1.55; or 0.60 to 1.60; or
0.60 to 1.65; or 0.60 to 1.70; or 0.60 to 1.75; or 0.60 to 1.80; or
0.60 to 1.85; or 0.60 to 1.90. Preferably the football helmet meets
NOCSAE Standards and/or is NOCSAE-certified. Preferably the helmet
with face guard has a weight of less than 5.5 pounds, or 5.1 pounds
or less, or about 5 pounds or less.
[0111] Additionally, the subject technology includes a football
helmet which has a Predictive Concussion Incidence in the range of
0.50 to 0.80; or 0.50 to 0.85; or 0.50 to 0.90; or 0.50 to 0.95; or
0.50 to 1.00; or 0.75 to 1.05; or 0.50 to 1.10; or 0.50 to 1.15; or
0.50 to 1.25; or 0.50 to 1.30; or 0.50 to 1.35; or 0.50 to 1.40; or
0.50 to 1.45; or 0.50 to 1.50; or 0.50 to 1.55; or 0.50 to 1.60; or
0.50 to 1.65; or 0.50 to 1.70; or 0.50 to 1.75; or 0.50 to 1.80; or
0.50 to 1.85; or 0.50 to 1.90. Preferably the football helmet meets
NOCSAE Standards and/or is NOCSAE-certified. Preferably the helmet
with face guard has a weight of less than 5.5 pounds, or 5.1 pounds
or less, or about 5 pounds or less.
[0112] Although the subject technology has outperformed the
competition in comparative impact testing, scientists have not
reached agreement on how the results of impact absorption tests
relate to concussions. No conclusions about a reduction of risk or
severity of concussive injury in any given instance should be drawn
from impact absorption tests. No helmet system can prevent
concussions or eliminate the risk of serious head or neck injuries
while playing football.
[0113] While a specific embodiment of the subject technology has
been shown and described in detail to illustrate the application of
the principles of the subject technology, it will be understood
that the subject technology may be embodied otherwise without
departing from such principles. It will also be understood that the
present subject technology includes any combination of the features
and elements disclosed herein and any combination of equivalent
features. The exemplary embodiments shown herein are presented for
the purposes of illustration only and are not meant to limit the
scope of the subject technology.
* * * * *