Z1 used in the Olympics

[danielcroft 2]

Yeah, the Ozone3 I have is the same. I'm honestly not sure statistically which areas are more frequently impacted in skydiving incidents. It has been found that the front/chin bar of motorcycles is more often impacted.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

*deletes longwinded reply that missed the point.

You're right, it's likely that the foam liner of a Z1 is better than a motorcycle style liner that packs down on first impact. The lightness is definitely a factor. I'd still be going with the GAS with D3O if it were my head *for skydiving*.

I was pretty keen on getting a gas until I noticed that the 3d0 was only on the top of the helmet. It seems like that offers a limited amount of additional protection; not quite enough to justify switching just yet.

That's sad if true, but then the 3DO seems unproven anyway. You want something that packs down during near linearly during the course of deceleration. That is impossible for all velocities so anything is a compromise. Something with dynamic response may be better than alternatives but it depends on the details. Simply making the claim while whacking silly putty with a hammer does not make the case for it's utility inside a hard shell, (the compelling case for 3DO seems to be where you don't have a hard shell but want flexibility).

And NOTHING in skydiving is anywhere close to the benefit of a motorcycle helmet where (most designs)pack down on first impact. That is utter bullshit.

It is worth pointing out that there are two competing requirements which demand different optimizations, one is a design that uses the crush space to maintain consciousness for a range of impacts and the other is one that uses the crush space to maximize survivability. Since there are impacts that might render you unconscious in skydiving that would not kill you directly it can legitimately be said that there are competing design criteria since staying conscious while skydiving is an issue of survivability. More space between your skull and the hard shell is always good and skydiving helmets compromise too much on this, and then worse, many have a sorry excuse for a liner in that space.

[danielcroft 2]

Not that it's the best rating around but D3O has is CE rated, that's not just silly putty and a hammer.

There usually are (at least) two competing requirements as has been found in motorcycle helmets too. Motorcycle accidents occupy the full spectrum of injuries, as do skydiving impacts.

IMO most skydiving helmets are made to fit the "looks cool" criteria because that's what the market demands. I'm not immune from this either but I think D3O is definitely a step in the right direction.

[Cookie 0]

Great Thread.

Just to clarify the d3o in our Gas helmets is in the brow, the crown and in the area that runs round from one ear to the other. The only area it is not is in the jaw and the cinching system (back part outside the helmet).

Did anyone see the Aussie bob sled team run 80% of the course on there heads
Cookie

[Cookie 0]

This is a very good question.

From the accidents I have seen most times the jumper strikes the ground feet then hips then shoulders then head. I can only think back to my inital training and PLF/R's and how most accidents landing related where the person generally breaks lots of bones first and do not die from head injuries.

So most impacts to the helmet I have seen is that the brow area above the right/left eye takes the brunt of the force. This of coarse excludes swoopers/tail strike where the dude strikes and object with forward speed rather than the ground with there head.

There is lots great info on helmet testing and the types of tests they do for bike helmet standards. Most of the testing relates specifically to the types of accidents encountered, like a motor bike rider striking a tree or the corner of a car etc. hence they test for intrusion, deceleration and a drop test to make sure the strap does not seperate from the helmet or break.

As far as the Olympic's go, there is no helmet standard required for the skelton guys. There only danger is hitting an object head on which is very unlikely to occur. ( Only if they leave the couse like the poor Georgian). The Bob sled guys have to were approved motor cycle helmets

See you all at the Skydive Expo. We have been busy in the design shop ready to roll out some cool new toys for 2010.

Cookie

[danielcroft 2]

Quote

This is a very good question.

From the accidents I have seen most times the jumper strikes the ground feet then hips then shoulders then head. I can only think back to my inital training and PLF/R's and how most accidents landing related where the person generally breaks lots of bones first and do not die from head injuries.

So most impacts to the helmet I have seen is that the brow area above the right/left eye takes the brunt of the force. This of coarse excludes swoopers/tail strike where the dude strikes and object with forward speed rather than the ground with there head.

There is lots great info on helmet testing and the types of tests they do for bike helmet standards. Most of the testing relates specifically to the types of accidents encountered, like a motor bike rider striking a tree or the corner of a car etc. hence they test for intrusion, deceleration and a drop test to make sure the strap does not seperate from the helmet or break.

As far as the Olympic's go, there is no helmet standard required for the skelton guys. There only danger is hitting an object head on which is very unlikely to occur. ( Only if they leave the couse like the poor Georgian). The Bob sled guys have to were approved motor cycle helmets

See you all at the Skydive Expo. We have been busy in the design shop ready to roll out some cool new toys for 2010.

Cookie

Thanks for the reply, I'm keenly waiting for the flipupGAS, love the GAS but always had condensation issues. Seems to happen with the anti-fog stuff people put on visors. I'd prefer a non-flip up but only if I don't have to try to remove it under canopy so I can see.

The article I posted a little earlier discusses the type of impact testing that's being done in the motorcycle industry and why it doesn't necessarily match up with accident stats. The basic gist of it is that the SNELL standard used in the US results in a very stiff helmet. While this works better for extreme impacts, these kinds of impacts are in the minority. In the majority of cases, the impact is glancing and on multiple places on the helmet. Cheaper helmets, only meeting the DOT standard (or ECE in the EU), actually work better in the majority of accidents due to the fact that the shell flexes more and the polystyrene liner is more flexible (rebounds a little).

I'm really glad that you guys have taken the time to invest in D3O (a little proud too being an ex-pat ) as it's one of the few efforts (it seems) being made to actually build some level of defined energy absorption into skydiving helmets. The Protek, unfortunately, suffers from an extreme case of uncool in spite of its CE rating.

I think I read somewhere that D3O was able to meet the higher CE ratings for greater energy transfer when the thickness was increased? Is this the case or am I getting confused with TPro body armor? I would be really interested to see a study into why kinds of head impacts were occurring in skydiving and the effectiveness of helmets in protecting their wearers. Has Cookie done any studies in the area? I'm trying to put you on the spot here, just curious.

[imsparticus 0]

can you give an example/magnitude of an impact that the gas user would be highly likely to 1,maintain conciousness 2,survive while the factory diver user would be 1,unconcious 2,not survive. I mean what is d3o saving us from that factory diver foam isnt??

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Not that it's the best rating around but D3O has is CE rated, that's not just silly putty and a hammer.

There usually are (at least) two competing requirements as has been found in motorcycle helmets too. Motorcycle accidents occupy the full spectrum of injuries, as do skydiving impacts.

IMO most skydiving helmets are made to fit the "looks cool" criteria because that's what the market demands. I'm not immune from this either but I think D3O is definitely a step in the right direction.

That CE rating (specific to particular garment designs) is a rating for clothing.

I'm was referring to a real demo promotional video where it pretty much was whacking a lump of stuff with a hammer at a trade show, looked and acted very much like silly putty to me. So it's not ME that made the demo up, but like you I take issue with it.

Again it seems clear that 3DO's strength is in it's ability to become rigid on impact when you need protection and FLEXIBILITY. That's not necessarily the same role you want for crushable liner inside a hard shell. However, I own a couple of skydiving helmets and 3DO is probably better than the crappy liners in either of them.

When you stick this wonder material in a hardshell I think you risk a lot of baseless marketing hype, until I see some numbers showing otherwise comparing a hard shell with 3DO vs. equivalent thickness of conventional liners.

Anyway good on them for taking the liner seriously instead just having cloth comfort pads.

[danielcroft 2]

Quote

can you give an example/magnitude of an impact that the gas user would be highly likely to 1,maintain conciousness 2,survive while the factory diver user would be 1,unconcious 2,not survive. I mean what is d3o saving us from that factory diver foam isnt??

No because there is no way to compare what isn't measured/rated. The D3O material has passed the CE certification process and therefore transmits a certain amount of energy (or less) to the wearer. Other than the Protek, no other skydiving helmet has the CE certification. How can I then compare the performance of these helmets without getting a whole bunch of empirical test data. If that's what you're looking for, you're barking up the wrong tree. It's an important question though because we should all wonder about what are helmets will do for us when we really need them.

Quote

When you stick this wonder material in a hardshell I think you risk a lot of baseless marketing hype, until I see some numbers showing otherwise comparing a hard shell with 3DO vs. equivalent thickness of conventional liners.

What do you mean by "in a hardshell"? There are a bunch of different CE ratings.

http://www.parachuteshop.com/protec_certified_to_cpsc_1203_u.htm
http://www.climbing.com/print/equipment/helmetcertif/
http://www.roadrunner.travel/article-5915.php

The amount of force required to cause damage to a human is known (I believe it's 4kN) so the CE rating isn't the be all, end all. It's a positive step for skydiving helmets to be incorporating measurable protection.

[240m3srt 0]

I have often wondered why skydiving helmets always have the disclaimer stating they arent intended for protection. If you buy a generic football or hockey helmet at a sporting good store its rated for some kind of impact. I would feel a lot better if my helmet had the minimum rating of a ski or football helmet(yes i realize it wont save me if i smash the ground at 120mph).

Do you think maybe its because of liability or the cost associated with smashing up helmets to get them crash rated?

[yoink 321]

How about because the second someone 'rates' something for a particular type of impact, they open themselves up for a lawsuit from sue-happy skydivers or family members after an accident.

If there's no requirement by the sport governing body for a rating, then it's just a lot of hassle, cost and risk for a comparatively low return.

I jump with a paraglider helmet for hop n pops as I feel it has the best combination of weight, protection and visability. It's not the coolest thing around, but is better and cheaper than most skydiving lids in my experience.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Skydiving helmets in general are not a good choice for real head protection. I'm surprised to see them in the olympics.

I didn't use my FD helmet for real head protection on the slopes. Until that last outing, I'd gone skiing without ANY head protection. I don't ski like the pros do and am cautious for the most part. What I did like about it was that it kept my head toasty warm, and if I fell down and slid down the slope a bit, it'd keep me from getting ice burn or scrapes.

No, it's not going to really protect me if I slam into a pole or tree. Then again, I'm not hauling ass down the slopes at breakneck speeds.

When I first started skydiving, years ago, a young student asked our DZO (an older, long-time jumper)
Why we wear helmets. Our DZO responded; "It helps keep the 'mess' together in case of impact!"


Chuck

[ridestrong 1]

Nearly any shell with some simple padding will get the job done during a dragging/skidding crash.

Most cheap helmets will be effective at a low speed direct impact crash at ~20 mph or so.

With sports like Skeleton they really don't need more than something for comfort. If they have a direct impact at 90mph the helmet isn't going to matter much. They really just need protection against skidding and or contact with the sled.

*I am not afraid of dying... I am afraid of missing life.*
----Disclaimer: I don't know shit about skydiving.----

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

Quote

When I first started skydiving, years ago, a young student asked our DZO (an older, long-time jumper)
Why we wear helmets. Our DZO responded; "It helps keep the 'mess' together in case of impact!"

Chuck

My FD helmet did serve its purpose one time. I was doing a Casa jump at the 2nd Dublin boogie, and there was a big guy right in front of me diving out. We had to dive out in a hurry cuz the organizer said so. Well, I got kicked hard in the chin by the guy in front of me when he went head down off the ramp and I was too close behind him. POW! I saw stars, but it cleared quickly and the rest of the jump went well. Back on the ground I looked over the helmet and there were hairline cracks in the jawline part of the helmet! They're still there today.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[imsparticus 0]

Quote

How about because the second someone 'rates' something for a particular type of impact, they open themselves up for a lawsuit from sue-happy skydivers or family members after an accident.

If there's no requirement by the sport governing body for a rating, then it's just a lot of hassle, cost and risk for a comparatively low return.

great answer thanks i guess i now understand why the gass is almost twice the price of my factory diver and can get a clue as to what the d3o is protecting me from that my factory dive isnt,
anyone care to enlighten us on why our governing body doesnt require a rating (i mean of anyone surely it would be then that would have our best interests at heart)?

[danielcroft 2]

Quote

anyone care to enlighten us on why our governing body doesnt require a rating (i mean of anyone surely it would be then that would have our best interests at heart)?

I'm sure it's the same reason they don't enforce wing loading limits if I'm being cynical. It may well be that they don't really know anything about these standards and don't feel that they should be forcing just about everyone in skydiving to buy a new helmet. Also, the industry isn't exactly flush with cash and setting a rule like this would make helmets and helmet development more expensive. Personally, I think that Cookie taking this step on their own is really awesome because it would have been much cheaper for them to just make the GAS and Ozone3 the same as the rest of the helmets on the market and charge about the same.

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

When I first started skydiving, years ago, a young student asked our DZO (an older, long-time jumper)
Why we wear helmets. Our DZO responded; "It helps keep the 'mess' together in case of impact!"

Chuck

My FD helmet did serve its purpose one time. I was doing a Casa jump at the 2nd Dublin boogie, and there was a big guy right in front of me diving out. We had to dive out in a hurry cuz the organizer said so. Well, I got kicked hard in the chin by the guy in front of me when he went head down off the ramp and I was too close behind him. POW! I saw stars, but it cleared quickly and the rest of the jump went well. Back on the ground I looked over the helmet and there were hairline cracks in the jawline part of the helmet! They're still there today.

As soon as I was off student status, I quit wearing a helmet! Helmets weren't 'cool'! Back then, your choices for helmets was quite limited and looked 'f'ugly'. One day, I was on a 4-way with 3 experienced jumpers. One of the guys 'brain-farted' and turned wrong, kicking me on the side of the head. Really rang my bell! I came-out of it about 3,000ft. and just dumped! I vaguely recall flopping like a rag-doll. Had a good landing and a pounding head. By the next week-end, I had a brand new 'Arrowhead' and refused to jump without it! It only takes one time.


Chuck

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

When I first started skydiving, years ago, a young student asked our DZO (an older, long-time jumper)
Why we wear helmets. Our DZO responded; "It helps keep the 'mess' together in case of impact!"

Chuck

My FD helmet did serve its purpose one time. I was doing a Casa jump at the 2nd Dublin boogie, and there was a big guy right in front of me diving out. We had to dive out in a hurry cuz the organizer said so. Well, I got kicked hard in the chin by the guy in front of me when he went head down off the ramp and I was too close behind him. POW! I saw stars, but it cleared quickly and the rest of the jump went well. Back on the ground I looked over the helmet and there were hairline cracks in the jawline part of the helmet! They're still there today.

As soon as I was off student status, I quit wearing a helmet! Helmets weren't 'cool'! Back then, your choices for helmets was quite limited and looked 'f'ugly'. One day, I was on a 4-way with 3 experienced jumpers. One of the guys 'brain-farted' and turned wrong, kicking me on the side of the head. Really rang my bell! I came-out of it about 3,000ft. and just dumped! I vaguely recall flopping like a rag-doll. Had a good landing and a pounding head. By the next week-end, I had a brand new 'Arrowhead' and refused to jump without it! It only takes one time.


Chuck

A-fucking-men! I accidentally cold-cocked my friend that same way and he had a frap hat on! I didn't even feel the impact! He was okay after shaking his head in freefall a couple times.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Quote

can you give an example/magnitude of an impact that the gas user would be highly likely to 1,maintain conciousness 2,survive while the factory diver user would be 1,unconcious 2,not survive. I mean what is d3o saving us from that factory diver foam isnt??

No because there is no way to compare what isn't measured/rated. The D3O material has passed the CE certification process and therefore transmits a certain amount of energy (or less) to the wearer. Other than the Protek, no other skydiving helmet has the CE certification. How can I then compare the performance of these helmets without getting a whole bunch of empirical test data. If that's what you're looking for, you're barking up the wrong tree. It's an important question though because we should all wonder about what are helmets will do for us when we really need them.

Quote

When you stick this wonder material in a hardshell I think you risk a lot of baseless marketing hype, until I see some numbers showing otherwise comparing a hard shell with 3DO vs. equivalent thickness of conventional liners.

What do you mean by "in a hardshell"? There are a bunch of different CE ratings.

http://www.parachuteshop.com/protec_certified_to_cpsc_1203_u.htm
http://www.climbing.com/print/equipment/helmetcertif/
http://www.roadrunner.travel/article-5915.php

The amount of force required to cause damage to a human is known (I believe it's 4kN) so the CE rating isn't the be all, end all. It's a positive step for skydiving helmets to be incorporating measurable protection.

That first quote is not from me the second one is.

Materials don't have CE impact ratings, individual designs do. In any helmet design the thickness of the padding would be critical to attaining a rating. The CE ratings I could find for items incorporating 3DO were flexible garments with features like 3DO in the knees and other critical areas. Something the material seems perfect for, but it has nothing to do with helmet designs with a liner inside a shell. Even if a helmet with 3DO had an impact rating it would be irrelevant when discussing a different helmet design, especially one with a thinner liner.

By "in a hard shell" I mean that you have an outer helmet shell and a 3DO lining. This means that you do not need the impressive 3DO property of becoming rigid on impact and spreading point loads over space and time while being flexible when not under an impact load. The hard shell is already rigid, you primarily want a material that crushes offering an optimized level of resistance to that crushing over time (a matter of many scenarios, variables, choices and tradeoffs) to spread impact forces over time thereby reducing them. You also want as much space between your skull and teh shell within which that material can do it's job.

It may be that 3DO is good at this, but it may also may be that to prevent loss of consciousness going rigid at the moment of impact is not what you want from an impact absorbing liner. Perhaps it's rigidity IS optimal for this purpose and minimizes impact forces over a wider range of accelerations. We just don't know. It's simply hype. Sticking a thin layer of heavily promoted wonder-material in there does not resolve the space issue and really says nothing about its ability vs. good foam of equivalent thickness.

Now a soft frap-style hat made out of 3DO would have some significant justification (like the snowboarder hats with 3DO now). Something that you could put on a tandem passenger that would protect the TM's chin as well as the student's head.

CE rating for skydiving helmets could be a big step forward, I agree (provided it's not mandatory and customers get to decide). What's a huge step backwards is vaguely attributing the benefits of a CE impact rating to a range of helmets that have no such rating because they use a thin layer of some hyped material used in other designs in other markets that have properly earned their CE impact rating.

[danielcroft 2]

Quote

Materials don't have CE impact ratings, individual designs do. In any helmet design the thickness of the padding would be critical to attaining a rating. The CE ratings I could find for items incorporating 3DO were flexible garments with features like 3DO in the knees and other critical areas. Something the material seems perfect for, but it has nothing to do with helmet designs with a liner inside a shell. Even if a helmet with 3DO had an impact rating it would be irrelevant when discussing a different helmet design, especially one with a thinner liner.

I don't agree that the main factor is the thickness of the padding, different liner materials have different properties. For example, something made with soft comfort foam that's an inch thick isn't going to save you on a severe impact where as a polystyrene motorcycle style liner at the same thickness would at least have a chance.

edit:I want to clarify, thickness isn't the main factor when it comes to the same application because the limiting factor is actually the available space. What I mean is that you can't make a helmet that's 3 times the size of your head so the type of material in within one particular application has a lot more to do with it's ability to absorb energy than the amount because there are physical limitations on how much of any material you could use.

Quote

By "in a hard shell" I mean that you have an outer helmet shell and a 3DO lining. This means that you do not need the impressive 3DO property of becoming rigid on impact and spreading point loads over space and time while being flexible when not under an impact load. The hard shell is already rigid, you primarily want a material that crushes offering an optimized level of resistance to that crushing over time (a matter of many scenarios, variables, choices and tradeoffs) to spread impact forces over time thereby reducing them. You also want as much space between your skull and teh shell within which that material can do it's job.

I agree that an extremely ridged shell (CF for example) is inclined to pass energy through to the liner which would require a different style of liner as compared to a shell which would flex more and in doing so absorb some of the energy being generated on impact.

Quote

It may be that 3DO is good at this, but it may also may be that to prevent loss of consciousness going rigid at the moment of impact is not what you want from an impact absorbing liner. Perhaps it's rigidity IS optimal for this purpose and minimizes impact forces over a wider range of accelerations. We just don't know. It's simply hype. Sticking a thin layer of heavily promoted wonder-material in there does not resolve the space issue and really says nothing about its ability vs. good foam of equivalent thickness.

This is where I'm not sure that your argument holds up. D3O hardens on impact but does not become rigid. The (silly) demonstration with a hammer shows that while you receive less energy from the blow, D3O does not remove it completely (which a rigid material would as the material would not compress from the impact and you wouldn't really feel it at all).

Quote

Now a soft frap-style hat made out of 3DO would have some significant justification (like the snowboarder hats with 3DO now). Something that you could put on a tandem passenger that would protect the TM's chin as well as the student's head.

I agree with that, it's a great idea.

Quote

CE rating for skydiving helmets could be a big step forward, I agree (provided it's not mandatory and customers get to decide). What's a huge step backwards is vaguely attributing the benefits of a CE impact rating to a range of helmets that have no such rating because they use a thin layer of some hyped material used in other designs in other markets that have properly earned their CE impact rating.

Apparently we disagree on your second point, not on the first by any means. Without getting the exact details of the CE certification for D3O and it what capacity it was gained, we can't really say either way if it's over hyped. The fact is that D3O has attained some level of certification in the dissipation of impact energy is (IMO obviously) a step forward from what we have now.

[masterrig 1]

I never cared for frap hats. Pro-Tecs made you look like a student. Until they started coming-out with Pro-Tecs in different colors. I did see a student get dragged by her main and she went head-first into the side of a concrete culvert. She cracked the Pro-Tec and had a bit of a headache afterwards but I did gain a whole new respect for Pro-Tecs!


Chuck

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

I never cared for frap hats. Pro-Tecs made you look like a student. Until they started coming-out with Pro-Tecs in different colors. I did see a student get dragged by her main and she went head-first into the side of a concrete culvert. She cracked the Pro-Tec and had a bit of a headache afterwards but I did gain a whole new respect for Pro-Tecs!


Chuck

Hey, stainless steel protecs are cool looking! At least one of the crwdogs I met and jumped with, uses one. Looks like a human lightning rod to me.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[masterrig 1]

Quote

Quote

I never cared for frap hats. Pro-Tecs made you look like a student. Until they started coming-out with Pro-Tecs in different colors. I did see a student get dragged by her main and she went head-first into the side of a concrete culvert. She cracked the Pro-Tec and had a bit of a headache afterwards but I did gain a whole new respect for Pro-Tecs!


Chuck

Hey, stainless steel protecs are cool looking! At least one of the crwdogs I met and jumped with, uses one. Looks like a human lightning rod to me.

Stainless-steel Pro-tecs? Good grief! Highly polished, I presume?


Chuck

[dorbie 0]

Thickness of the padding is absolutely critical because it sets the absolute lower limit of acceleration forces in any impact, it's basic physics, and of course it is limited by the space between the head and the helmet, as I mentioned. Space between the shell and the skull is not a random number, it is something designed by the manufacturer. It is specific to the helmet design and is why you cannot rate a material for head protection, only a helmet design.

If you're saying thickness is not a factor because space is the factor and space determines thickness then you have have that idiotic debate with yourself.

So you simply cannot cite the material CE rating or even the standard you think the material meets, you've just heard it from somewhere: Hype. Again, helmet CE ratings are awarded to designs. You can no more say 3DO is rated for head protection than you can say cardboard is, it's a silly claim.

Your argument boils down to "believe the marketing". NO, what skydiving helmet can I purchase incorporating 3DO that has passed any CE rating for head protection and cite the specific CE test. The ones I could find were for specific garment designs.

Right now my working assumption for this material is; no better than good foam padding when inside a hard shell, but probably a lot better than the pads I have in my current Cookie helmet. Hype will not change that, numbers might.

Still probably the ideal choice for a modern frap style tandem hat.

[danielcroft 2]

Ok, so when you decide to take a pretty derisive tone I'll say this, trying to stay polite and respectful and that'll be the end of my posting in this thread.

http://www.d3o.com/downloads/d3o-brochures/flo_data_sheet_09.pdf

That's the datasheet from D3O showing what standards the material meets. Not hype, fact.

As far as space goes, like I said, thickness is definitely a big deal but not when helmets are all basically the same size, could they redesign them? Sure but we already have that, it's called Protec and it's not very popular because it's not "cool". At that point a more important factor is whether or not the material taking up the 20mm between your skull and the shell of your helmet is capable of reducing the amount of energy transference to an acceptable level or at all. The type of material and how much energy it can dissipate before transferring that energy to your head is a really big deal. You don't seem to agree with that and I'm not sure why.

I'd prefer a material that at least has been shown to perform at a certain level lining my helmet than something that is a complete unknown. There are currently SNELL, CE, ATSM and other standards bodies with published helmet standards that could be used but may not be applicable for a skydiving application. The fact is that even if there was a helmet for skydiving that were rated to one of these standards, that wouldn't necessarily make it any better for us depending on how compatible the application was for use in skydiving.

What does that leave us with? No applicable standard for anyone to actually comply with and therefor no way to actually satisfy your argument.

Cookie has taken the first step in a direction that may lead us to some actual quantifiable level of protection in our helmets, that's a good thing. I support them for that and would hope that other people do to. Is it a panacea for all possible impacts, of course not but I believe it's going in the right direction.