Mythbusters did a test recently based on a movie of “Would two fat guys cushion you in the back seat?” They used a highly realistic synthetic human body, with bones and muscles. Alone, the guy was merely dead from the very severe impact. But with the two guys, he was decapitated and crushed with force readings off the scale.
I knew there wouldn’t be “cushioning.” But it is counterintuitive - even the Mythbusters thought the guy would be safer in the impact.
[QUOTE=vineyridge;7074472]
Are air vests commonly used in any other competitive sport, horse or otherwise. They developed for motorcycle riders, but do motorcycle racers use them?[/QUOTE]
In MotoGP (the highest end of motorcycle racing, equivalent to F1) the air-vests used are only to protect the shoulders and have multiple accelerometers to detect the need to deploy without having a mechanical fixation to the bike. They also use a dual use nitrogen system so the rider can remount and go. A lanyard connecting the rider to the bike as they go off at 168mph is just asking to kill the rider.
These were developed after instrumenting riders for over 10 years, measuring the forces of impacts and falls of top, seriously the top riders. The best protection is still the stiff plastic and heavy padding for the torso.
[QUOTE=poltroon;7074630]
Mythbusters did a test recently based on a movie of “Would two fat guys cushion you in the back seat?” They used a highly realistic synthetic human body, with bones and muscles. Alone, the guy was merely dead from the very severe impact. But with the two guys, he was decapitated and crushed with force readings off the scale.
I knew there wouldn’t be “cushioning.” But it is counterintuitive - even the Mythbusters thought the guy would be safer in the impact.[/QUOTE]
Darn it! I was going to start riding with two fat guys for safety. I had “heard” that other riders had much easier falls while riding with their fat guys and some even claim they saved their life! :lol:
[QUOTE=Winding Down;7074471]
I would guess there are more severe injuries with the vests for many possible reasons. First and foremost, the people most likely to wear them are the ones who are jumping at the most risk. Just look at the percentage of air vests worn at the 4* level as compared to the BN level.
We really have to have data, real data, and not just conjecture, guesses, etc. On both sides. Bad advertising and bad bashing… don’t get us anywhere, at all.[/QUOTE]
Just to comment on this - I meant more severe injuries after rotational falls then before - relating to riding upper levels. I would hear of a lot of falls but rarely would they be seriously injured - now it seems common when they are wearing the vests.
I actually sadly see a tonne of them at the lower levels, a lot of kids wearing them. I just hate not knowing whether they are helping or harming.
From Lauras website, it looks like she normally rides in a point two.
[QUOTE=eqsiu;7072907]
Off topic, but this is why people should leave their babies rear-facing as long as they can. I get tired of hearing “I want to be able to SEE them in the rear view mirror.” Anyway, as an example of that, the weight of a baby’s head moving forward is enough to sever that baby’s spine.[/QUOTE]
Yep, the most common cause of AO dislocation (atlanto-axial dislocation, aka “internal decapitation”) that I see is young children in high speed car accidents. There is no impact required. Which is why my 16 month old angrily rides backwards all over town!
Not much to add to what DW and Reed have said, except that as a brain/spine surgeon I will not put an air vest on. My major concern personally is failing to detach in a fall, and I see nothing to convince me of any significant benefit.
[QUOTE=blackwly;7075105]
Yep, the most common cause of AO dislocation (atlanto-axial dislocation, aka “internal decapitation”) that I see is young children in high speed car accidents. There is no impact required. Which is why my 16 month old angrily rides backwards all over town!
Not much to add to what DW and Reed have said, except that as a brain/spine surgeon I will not put an air vest on. My major concern personally is failing to detach in a fall, and I see nothing to convince me of any significant benefit.[/QUOTE]
Ok, you have some clout, haha! I have a question. From your prospective, barring failure to release from the saddle, do you feel the neck and sacral role to be beneficial? I worry about cervical hyperextension and thought maybe the neck role would help.
[QUOTE=CindyCRNA;7075141]
Ok, you have some clout, haha! I have a question. From your prospective, barring failure to release from the saddle, do you feel the neck and sacral role to be beneficial? I worry about cervical hyperextension and thought maybe the neck role would help.[/QUOTE]
While not a surgeon, I am in the Spine surgery group in orthopaedics, conducting research on bone regeneration (along with explosives).
To answer your question, a soft bolster (roll, as you call it) does little to prevent neck injury. The HANS device (a rigid bolster) is the only proven device that prevents hyperextension/flexion as the head becomes rigidly fixed to the upper torso.
as a brain/spine surgeon I will not put an air vest on
Worth repeating. I would think an opinion like this is of somewhat more value than what someone’s trainer, a BNR, or a YouTube video would tell us. :yes:
^^^ I am not sure how… At first blush, it seems like a surgeon would be more knowledgeable. But the issues with the vest go beyond physiology. It’s engineering, physics, and much more. There are also engineers on this list who do wear the vests. Yadayada
We need research. Good research. In the meantime, we make our own decisions about the vests and hope that we’re making the right one.
Mythbusters did a test recently based on a movie of “Would two fat guys cushion you in the back seat?” They used a highly realistic synthetic human body, with bones and muscles. Alone, the guy was merely dead from the very severe impact. But with the two guys, he was decapitated and crushed with force readings off the scale.
I knew there wouldn’t be “cushioning.” But it is counterintuitive - even the Mythbusters thought the guy would be safer in the impact.
How silly…MythBusters was using a “fat guy” as cushioning (another human body albeit with some fat), when air bags in cars was the safety comparison…and airbags in cars with the compressed force of air has been shown to save lives and prevent injuries.
The air vest is a version of airbags for cars. Now an airbag in a car is much more powerful and remains stationary till an impact opens it and the passenger is seated so a lot is different. The auto industry of course had billions to spend on R and D and years to perfect it.
I also wish the airvests for riders had more extensive testing…I suppose if we cared enough all horsemen/women could donate to a safety development fund. The profit margin and scale of sales is not big enough to allow a manufacturer to do more than some basic testing…seems like it has been a help in a number of falls and the fears that some express has not actually been seen, far as I know, in any actual events …have their been any incidents or an airvest actually making an injury worse, for example? If so, I don’t recall reading about it. Whether the injury prevention is worth getting one re the expense I am not sure yet myself, am leaning toward it but keep waiting for a bit more refinement/ development in design.
Have you read RAyers posts here, and on other threads? Yes, there have actual cases.
…have their been any incidents or an airvest actually making an injury worse, for example? If so, I don’t recall reading about it.
KOC for one, is a case where the airbag may have made the injury MUCH worse. Without access to the actual medical records, it is impossible to know for sure. But I believe the medical experts who think it is highly likely.
ROFL, I am pretty sure P2’s profit margin is fairly significant. No, I don’t have their tax returns. But at $800 a pop for an air bladder and a canister mechanism, I’d imagine there’s a fair bit of net profit at the end. Now WANTING to spend the money, not so much.
[QUOTE=Countrywood;7075824]
How silly…MythBusters was using a “fat guy” as cushioning (another human body albeit with some fat), when air bags in cars was the safety comparison…and airbags in cars with the compressed force of air has been shown to save lives and prevent injuries.
The air vest is a version of airbags for cars. Now an airbag in a car is much more powerful and remains stationary till an impact opens it and the passenger is seated so a lot is different. The auto industry of course had billions to spend on R and D and years to perfect it…[/QUOTE]
I am going to pick on you a bit as an example of the difference between MARKETING and RESEARCH.
Automotive airbags do not use compressed air. They operate on an explosive charge (just a few grams) that generates Nitrogen. Iit is a sodium azide thermite reaction, fun to play with but not as fun as others. 
Nitrogen is a better flowing gas then air and allows a better bag design for deflation.
No, the airbag does not remain stationary, it is designed to DEFLATE within milliseconds after impact thus dissipating the forces the passenger experiences. Originally, they open and remained inflated but it was soon discovered that that was CAUSING injuries, not preventing them. The passing of the nitrogen through the porous bag is where the energy goes. For an example, look up air bags for high fall stunts.
An inflated airbag is a semi-rigid body. This is where when it is stated that airvest could cause injuries you need to see item 2. Another example is that you see stuntmen doing high falls fall into COMPRESSIBLE structures such as cardboard boxes or airbags with HUGE holes.
Marketers play on people’s emotions and in general they exploit popular perception (as you describe in your understanding of airbags) rather than state facts. There is no penalty nor risk in what they do in terms of responsibility.
Why you don’t hear about exacerbating of injuries is because that is being examined via research. At the same time, HIPAA etc. must be adhered to.
[QUOTE=Winding Down;7075620]
^^^ I am not sure how… At first blush, it seems like a surgeon would be more knowledgeable. But the issues with the vest go beyond physiology. It’s engineering, physics, and much more. [/QUOTE]
I believe RAyers not only is an engineer but has a phd in engineering and extensive experience in materials and safety testing and is a college professor in the same area. He kind of knows what he is talking about (no RAyers I am not stalking you but someone ages ago posted a link to your college’s bio profile on here when we were having one of these discussions and this is what I remember :))
I appreciate the input, Rayers and others…I have no expertise in this area, just trying to apply common sense…yes auto airbags deflate, just as the rider vest airbags deflate after blow up…when I said the auto airbag was stationary, I meant the housing for it (steering wheel or glove box) is stationary within the moving vehicle, of course once the airbag is released it is not stationary.
It boggles my mind how “common sense” is preferable to science or informed scientific/expert opinion.
I’m not just talking about this thread either…
[QUOTE=Countrywood;7076022]
…yes auto airbags deflate, just as the rider vest airbags deflate after blow up…[/QUOTE]
No. You’re not understanding it.
The deployment of auto air bags is timed so that the bag has begun its deflation when the person makes contact with it.
An equestrian air vest begins to inflate very shortly before, or sometimes after, the rider hits the ground. The vest remains inflated for approximately 18-20 seconds before starting its deflation. Inflation is compression. Compression on its own can cause injuries; compression followed by rapid deflation can be very, very dangerous.
With accidents like Laura Collett’s and Sinead Halpin’s, fractured ribs are of ICU-level concern because (1) a series of fractures makes the chest wall unstable (you can google ‘flail chest’ for more on this), and (2) fractures and fragments in an unstable chest can puncture vital organs, like the liver, heart, aorta or lung.
I haven’t seen any images of Laura Collett’s fall but it is reported as a rotational fall, so there’s a very good possibility that the vest didn’t deploy until after the fall, and even until the mare got back on her feet. If you’ve got flail chest and multiple segments, you don’t want sudden rapid compression followed by rapid deflation.
Reports also said LC needed an emergency tracheotomy at the scene. She either had an obstructed airway or was in respiratory arrest, possibly from the flail chest, which could have been complicated by an air vest.
To explain further – you may be able to breathe after the fall, because the fractures haven’t compromised the mechanics of breathing. But then the vest deploys, and the force causes the fractures to shift, and suddenly you’re in respiratory failure.
I’ve deployed an automotive airbag twice, as well as being in a head on collision (low speed) pre-airbag.
I’ve also tested the airvest at the USEA meeting.
There is very little similarity, except that they both “go boom!”
The airbag blows up in your face, as inertia is thowing your body forward. It prevents your body hitting the steering wheel, windscreen etc. As soon as your body stops accelerating wrt the car, the airbag isn’t “doing anything”.
The airbag is triggered by rapid deceleration of the car, which is the SAME thing that thorws your body forward.
From personal experience, the difference between a low speed collision w and w/o airbags is that, w/o an airbag I had nasty bruises form the seatbelt, and slightly stretched my neck. With airbag, I didn’t get bruises and (AFAIK) I did not stretch my neck.
On the other hand, the airvest is triggered by the disconnection of the lanyard, which may be significantly before, or after, the rapid decceleration.
Furthermore, the airvest wraps tightly around the body, which is VERY DIFFERENT from the airbag which simply creates a buffer between you and the car interior. Regardless of the actual deflation rate, the airvest continues to have an affect on your body MUCH longer than an airbag.
Comparison between airbags and airvests make sense form a PR/advertising POV. But it doesn’t make any sense in terms of actual operation.
If common sense were a widely accepted means of answering sticky and complicated medical questions, there would be no room left in cemeteries . . . common sense doesn’t hold a candle to good, solid, dispassionate research. And dispassionate is the biggest stumbling block. People are INTENSELY invested in the value of their own personal experiences, observations, and pet theories, and rarely acknowledge (because it’s difficult) the incredible level to which our own eyes, memories, and judgments deceive us on a regular basis. 
I’m not talking about simple stuff like “it’s a good idea to stop bleeding and clean dirty wounds” here, but things as complicated as injury prevention and the mechanisms of different sorts of ways a body can be ruined are not simply “body meets ground, injury happens, ergo cushioning the impact is always good”.
Did Sinead have an air vest on when she fell in stadium jumping?
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
