This invention relates in general to protective head gear and more specifically to football helmets.
Helmets have long been worn in the sport of football to protect a player's head from injury resulting from impact with other players, ground impact, or impact with objects on or off the field. Typical prior art helmets include an outer shell made from durable plastic materials, a liner made from a shock absorbing material, a face guard and a chin strap which also functions in some designs as a chin protector. Resilient fitment pads that “fit” the helmet to the wearer are typically situated about the inner periphery of a football helmet and provide a means to eliminate a loose fitting helmet. However, fitment pads provide little if any impact absorption properties to the helmet since comfort demands that fitment pads have a fairly low compressive strength. Helmet liners have taken several forms over the years, including encased foam padding, fluid filled jackets or pockets, air inflated bags lining the inner surface of the helmet and other design approaches.
It is well recognized that no helmet can completely prevent injuries to persons playing the sport of football. The very nature of football is quite physical with much emphasis placed on strength and speed of the players. As players have increased their strength and speed, corresponding improvements in safety equipment, specifically helmets, has not occurred. Shock attenuation and impact force absorption are of foremost importance in the design of a football helmet.
Serious concerns have been raised in recent years regarding concussion injuries suffered by athletes while playing football and the long term affect such injuries have on the mental and physical health of those afflicted. Some commentators suggest there may be significant consequences for continuing to play football before recovery from a concussion injury has taken place. Later life cognitive difficulties suffered by former football players are now being associated with concussion injuries received while playing football.
Recently, researchers found football athletes were three times more likely to die from Alzheimer's, Parkinson's or Lou Gehrig's disease than the general population. Further, the adverse impact on football as a result of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) diagnosis in many deceased players has caused great alarm amongst all involved with the sport. CTE is believed by experts to result from concussion events and may even be caused by smaller concussive events repeated over an extended period of time where the player does not exhibit concussion symptoms, as opposed to an acute concussion event having well known and identifiable symptoms such as dizziness, headaches, nausea, etc.
Given the recent media coverage of high profile football players who received concussion injuries while playing football and have later in life suffered from maladies and diseases of the brain resulting in abnormal life experiences and behavior, it is abundantly clear that more attention and effort must be expended to protect players from such injuries.
In view of the need for better football helmet protection from concussions, any new development in football helmet design that improves the impact absorption or impact attenuation characteristics of a helmet and lessens the forces transmitted to the head of a player is needed by those participating in the sport of football as well as desired by parents of children who play football.
A football helmet according to one aspect of the present invention includes a shell having an inner surface, an outer surface, an opening adapted to be over a face area of a wearer, a crown area and wherein the shell is constructed of fiber reinforced epoxy resin and adapted to receive an athlete's head therein, a first energy absorbing layer situated adjacent and in contact with the inner surface of the shell and extending over the crown area of the shell, the first energy absorbing layer having a substantially uniform thickness, the first energy absorbing layer having an inner surface, and the first energy absorbing layer fabricated from resilient energy absorbing material, a liner having an outer surface conforming with the inner surface of the first energy absorbing layer and the inner surface of the shell outside the crown area of the shell, the liner situated within the shell and in contact with the first energy absorbing layer and the shell, the liner having a substantially uniform thickness and fabricated from resilient energy absorbing material, a second energy absorbing layer conforming with and in contact with the inner surface of the liner, the second energy absorbing layer having a substantially uniform thickness, the second energy absorbing layer having an inner surface closely conforming to the head of the wearer, the second energy absorbing layer having an inner periphery located about a lower portion of the inner surface of the second energy absorbing layer, the second energy absorbing layer fabricated from expanded polypropylene, a plurality of fitment pads situated about and attached to the inner periphery of the second energy absorbing layer for sizing the liner to the head of the wearer, a face guard attached to the shell over the face area of the shell, and wherein the first energy absorbing layer and the second energy absorbing layer are fabricated from resilient energy absorbing material having a compressive strength that is greater than the compressive strength of the energy absorbing material used to fabricate the liner.
One object of the present invention is to provide a football helmet having improved head protection elements.
Another object of the present invention is to provide a football helmet that is lighter than prior art helmets.
Still another object of the present invention is to provide a football helmet that includes improved impact attenuation and shock absorbing components that reduce the severity of higher velocity impacts with other players.
Yet another object of the present invention is to significantly reduce impact forces that are transmitted through a football helmet to the head of the player wearing the helmet so that the severity index measured for the helmet is reduced to the lowest possible level.
These and other objects of the present invention will become more apparent from the following description of the preferred embodiment.
For the purposes of promoting an understanding of the principles of the invention, reference will now be made to the embodiment illustrated in the drawings and specific language will be used to describe the same. It will nevertheless be understood that no limitation of the scope of the invention is thereby intended, such alterations and further modifications in the illustrated devices, and such further applications of the principles of the invention as illustrated therein being contemplated as would normally occur to one skilled in the art to which the invention relates.
Referring now to
Shell 12 is relatively thin (typically less than one-eighth inch or less than 3 mm thick) and constructed of fiber reinforced epoxy resin formed in a shape that is generally conforming with yet larger than a human head. Shell 12 includes a face opening 13 and a head opening 15. Shell 12 is thinner than prior art helmets and weighs substantially less than prior art shells made from polycarbonates or other known plastic materials. Situated within shell 12 are middle liner 16, inner liner 19 and outer liner 21 (shown in
Liner 16 is preferably constructed with external dimensions along the head opening 13 and face opening 15 of shell 12 that are slightly larger than the inner dimensions of shell 12 to create a slight interference fit within shell 12. The process for inserting liner 16 within shell 12 includes slightly compressing liner 16 toward the middle at the edges thereof for installation into shell 12. Liner 16 is retained within shell 12 as a result of the subsequent resilient expansion of liner 16 against the inner surfaces of shell 12. Alternatively, liner 16 may be constructed with external dimensions in the face and head openings to be an exact fit to the inner surfaces of shell 12 and liner 16 is then attached to the inner surfaces of shell 12 using contact adhesive or the like. Inner and outer liners 19 and 21 may also be fabricated from visco-elastic polymer material well known for their energy absorption properties and resilience.
Liners 16, 19 and 21 are preferably fabricated from expanded polypropylene (EPP) since it is a highly versatile closed-cell bead foam or foam form of polypropylene that provides a unique range of properties, including outstanding energy absorption, multiple impact resistance, thermal insulation, buoyancy, water and chemical resistance, exceptionally high strength to weight ratio and 100% recyclability. EPP has very good impact characteristics due to its low stiffness and resilience; this allows EPP to resume its shape after experiencing a high force impact. EPP foam possesses superior cushioning properties, is able to absorb kinetic impacts very well without breaking, retains its original shape, and exhibits memory form characteristics which allow it to return to its original shape in a short amount of time. Expanded polypropylene, in general, is not only resilient but also resistant to most solvents and glues. The liners may also be constructed of alternate materials well known in the art that are capable of absorbing energy from an impact yet resilient.
Referring now to
Liners 16 and 19 are shown in
Referring now to
Referring now to
Liner 16 is substantially thicker than liners 19 and 21 and is constructed of lower density EPP versus the density of the EPP used to fabricate liners 19 and 21. Lower density EPP will physically deform more in response to the same force applied to a higher density EPP material. Operationally, the combination of liners 16, 19 and 21 serve to absorb impact energy and attenuate impact forces transmitted to the head of the wearer.
Liners 19 and 21 are fabricated from EPP having a higher density than that of the EPP used to fabricate liner 16. Thus, liners 19 and 21 have a higher energy absorbing capability per unit thickness or increased impact attenuation as a result of the higher density of the EPP therein. The density of the EPP used to fabricate liner 16 is typically between 2 and 4 pounds per cubic foot and the density for the EPP used in fabricating liners 19 and 21 is typically between 4 and 6 pounds per cubic foot, though it is contemplated that other combinations of densities may be desirable to achieve specific impact attenuation results for the combination of liners 16, 19 and 21. For example, where players are young and smaller with less speed and strength abilities, lower commensurate densities of EPP for the liners may be more appropriate.
It is foreseeable that liners 16, 19 and 21 may be fabricated as a unitary liner by use of sophisticated EPP molding techniques that are presently known or may be developed in the future. If liners 16, 19 and 21 are fabricated as a unitary liner component then the outer surface of the unitary liner shall conform with the inner surface of shell 12. The unitary liner has an inner surface closely conforming to the head of the wearer. Further, the unitary liner would include a substantially uniform thickness and be fabricated from EPP. The expanded polypropylene at the outer surface and at the inner surface of the unitary liner up to a predetermined depth is fabricated from a higher density EPP than the inner or central regions of the liner.
Many different materials are known that have energy absorbing characteristics coupled with resiliency as exhibited by EPP and the substitution of such materials in the present invention is contemplated. Energy absorbing materials such as viscoelastic polymers having compressive strength or impact attenuation properties similar to the inner and outer liner components of the present invention are known. One such product is identified in my prior U.S. Pat. No. 9,572,390 and is sold under the trade name Zoombang® and is contemplated as a substitute material for the inner and outer liners of the present invention.
Football helmet performance or impact protection properties are oftentimes measured in accordance with standards developed by the National Operating Committee on Standards for Athletic Equipment (NOCSAE), an organization formed in the late 1960's to commission research in sports medicine and science and establish standards for athletic equipment certification and testing. NOCSAE has promulgated various standards defining the test equipment used to certify football helmet performance as well as testing procedures, equipment calibration procedures, and measurement and determination of performance characteristics of football helmets as well as various other athletic equipment. A “Severity Index” (SI) calculation was developed by NOCSEA as a measure of the severity of impact with respect to the instantaneous acceleration experienced by a player wearing a football helmet as the helmet is impacted by an external force. Side, frontal, rear and vertical impact SI values are some of the test data determined for a football helmet during certification testing. Helmet design improvements that produce lower SI test values are of particular interest and desired.
SI values are determined in accordance with the following formula:
SI=∫0TA2.5dt
Where: A is the instantaneous resultant acceleration expressed as a multiple of g (acceleration of gravity); dt are the time increments in seconds; and the integration is carried out over the essential duration (T) of the acceleration pulse.
NOCSAE helmet testing methodology includes a drop test of a headgear or helmet positioned on a headform and situated on a vertically moving assembly where motion of the assembly is guided by vertically oriented twin wire guides. The assembly, propelled by gravity, is dropped in order to achieve a desired free fall velocity. The helmet impacts a stationary thick rubber pad situated beneath the moving headform assembly. At impact, the instantaneous acceleration is measured by triaxial accelerometers positioned within the headform and the detected acceleration values are used to calculate an SI value corresponding with the measured helmet velocity just prior to impact. Peak acceleration values detected as the velocity of the test assembly rapidly changes from a gravity drop induced velocity to zero velocity at impact are of significant import.
The combination of elements, in particular the three layer impact absorbing liner, of the present invention provide a substantial improvement in severity index (SI) values versus my prior helmet invention described in U.S. Pat. No. 9,572,390. The below tables set forth test data showing acceleration and SI values determined for forehead, rear and side impact events of the present invention versus my prior helmet designs.
Table 1 sets forth measured acceleration and velocity values for ten forehead test impacts measured for a helmet fabricated in accordance with my prior art helmet designs shown in U.S. Pat. No. 9,572,390. NOCSAE test equipment was used to produce all test values set forth below. A calculated SI value is also set forth in the table for each test impact. Peak acceleration values are in “g-forces” and velocity is measured in feet per second just prior to impact. Table 2 includes test values for forehead impacts on a helmet incorporating the features of the present invention described above. Both Table 1 and 2 include measured acceleration values for impacts at a velocity of approximately 18 ft/sec.
Differences in test data are readily observed. Average peak acceleration values in Table 1 of 80.7 g's for a prior art helmet versus a 62 g average acceleration value from Table 2 measured for a helmet of the present invention. The present invention helmet reduced the average g forces transmitted through a helmet from 80.7 to 62 on average in 18 ft/sec velocity impacts, a substantial reduction with corresponding reductions in average SI calculated for the tests of 414.5 versus 309.25, a difference of 105.25 or approximately a 25 percent reduction.
Table 3 sets forth rear helmet impact test data for my prior art helmet and Table 4 includes rear helmet impact test data for a helmet of the present invention.
Table 4 values show a marked reduction in peak acceleration values detected during 18 ft/sec velocity rear impact tests. Impact acceleration averages were reduced by 18.85 g's for a helmet of the present invention versus my prior art helmet design for rear impact tests. Peak acceleration is very dependent upon velocity at impact, and comparison of the average calculated SI values shows an average of 418.4 (prior art) versus 336 (present invention), a reduction of 82.4 or an approximate reduction in SI values of 20 percent.
Side impact helmet test data is set forth in Tables 5 and 6, with Table 5 including test data for my prior art helmet and Table 6 including test data for a helmet of the present invention.
Side impact test data evidences a similar improvement in protection from impact forces with an average of 95.2 (prior art) versus 80.4 (present invention) g force reduction and an average SI value of 488.7 (prior art) versus 404.4 (present invention) a reduction of 84.3 or approximately 20 percent.
A substantial reduction of forces transmitted through helmet 10 to the head of the helmet wearer versus the prior art is achieved in view of the composition of the liners 16, 19 and 21, namely a lower impact attenuation material sandwiched between two higher impact attenuation material layers. In addition, the resilience of shell 12 to resiliently deform and absorb some quantity of energy upon impact further serves to provide an improved head protection gear for use by football players of all sizes.
While the invention has been illustrated and described in detail in the drawings and foregoing description of the preferred embodiments, the same is to be considered as illustrative and not restrictive in character, it being understood that only the preferred embodiments have been shown and described and that all changes and modifications that come within the spirit of the invention are desired to be protected.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
3116490 | Zbikowski | Jan 1964 | A |
3186004 | Carlini | Jun 1965 | A |
3465363 | Raney | Sep 1969 | A |
3720955 | Rawlings | Mar 1973 | A |
3849801 | Holt et al. | Nov 1974 | A |
3906546 | Gooding | Sep 1975 | A |
3935044 | Daly | Jan 1976 | A |
3992721 | Morton | Nov 1976 | A |
4016734 | Morton | Apr 1977 | A |
4020507 | Morton | May 1977 | A |
4023213 | Rovani | May 1977 | A |
4044399 | Morton | Aug 1977 | A |
4101983 | Dera et al. | Jul 1978 | A |
4404690 | Farquharson | Sep 1983 | A |
4912778 | Daniels | Apr 1990 | A |
4937888 | Straus | Jul 1990 | A |
4996724 | Dextrase | Mar 1991 | A |
5093936 | Copeland | Mar 1992 | A |
5150479 | Oleson | Sep 1992 | A |
5271103 | Darnell | Dec 1993 | A |
5272773 | Kamata | Dec 1993 | A |
5448780 | Gath | Sep 1995 | A |
5450631 | Egger | Sep 1995 | A |
5829065 | Cahill | Nov 1998 | A |
5871271 | Chien | Feb 1999 | A |
5915537 | Dallas et al. | Jun 1999 | A |
5940889 | Shirai | Aug 1999 | A |
6032297 | Barthold et al. | Mar 2000 | A |
6073271 | Alexander et al. | Jun 2000 | A |
6154889 | Moore et al. | Dec 2000 | A |
6219850 | Halstead et al. | Apr 2001 | B1 |
6604246 | Obreja | Aug 2003 | B1 |
7328462 | Straus | Feb 2008 | B1 |
40422 | Morgan | Jan 2010 | A1 |
7676854 | Berger et al. | Mar 2010 | B2 |
7841025 | Fink et al. | Nov 2010 | B1 |
8347419 | Cleva | Jan 2013 | B1 |
8615817 | Phillips | Dec 2013 | B2 |
8640267 | Cohen | Feb 2014 | B1 |
8782819 | Culpepper | Jul 2014 | B1 |
9572390 | Simpson | Feb 2017 | B1 |
9603408 | Simpson | Mar 2017 | B2 |
20010011388 | Nelson et al. | Aug 2001 | A1 |
20020068152 | Heath et al. | Jun 2002 | A1 |
20020120978 | Moore | Sep 2002 | A1 |
20040025231 | Ide et al. | Feb 2004 | A1 |
20050278834 | Lee | Dec 2005 | A1 |
20060123526 | Lim | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20070000032 | Morgan | Jan 2007 | A1 |
20090222964 | Wiles | Sep 2009 | A1 |
20100171349 | Dellanno | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100180362 | Glogowski | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100180363 | Glogowski | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100186150 | Ferrara | Jul 2010 | A1 |
20100258988 | Darnell et al. | Oct 2010 | A1 |
20110061154 | Turner et al. | Mar 2011 | A1 |
20110277223 | Turner | Nov 2011 | A1 |
20110296594 | Thomas | Dec 2011 | A1 |
20120005810 | Cheng | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120017358 | Princip et al. | Jan 2012 | A1 |
20120036620 | Harris | Feb 2012 | A1 |
20120047635 | Finiel et al. | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120052249 | Turner | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120060251 | Schimpf | Mar 2012 | A1 |
20120216327 | Turner | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20120233745 | Veazie | Sep 2012 | A1 |
20130061375 | Bologna et al. | Mar 2013 | A1 |
20130340146 | Dekker et al. | Dec 2013 | A1 |
20140007324 | Svehaug | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140020158 | Parsons et al. | Jan 2014 | A1 |
20140196198 | Cohen | Jul 2014 | A1 |
20150223546 | Cohen | Aug 2015 | A1 |
20160015111 | Latruffe | Jan 2016 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country |
---|---|---|
2005798 | Jan 2010 | NL |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20180326288 A1 | Nov 2018 | US |