Stop making comp vests!

people governing people is not good. CGA vest are good and they are promoted by the magazine's and pro's. My kid wears a CGA vest for sure, when she moves out of the house, she is an adult and can wear what she wants at her discretion. my only hope is i taught her to be safe. that is my job, the rest is up to her.

I choose a vest that i feel comfortable with my riding skill and ability and provides floating assistance i need. This vest i ride is not CGA but i feel comfortable with it if i was to get knocked out face down it will float me to be found.

i am so excited to ride soon YIPPY.

I got my Colin Wright CGA Helium vest off ebay for $25 and it was new in the plastic with tags...

It does look a little gay with the rainbow on it, but what do I care?

Jim... I am not trying to be an a$$... but why do you post about how you feel the non cg floats you fine and "provides floating assistance i need"? Have you ever done the test where you grab the 5 lb or 10 lb weight?

My argument is not about freedoms... but more about posting your experience like it will be that way for everyone. Trust me, it won't.

I have a friend who is my body weight. He wears an A-10 and says it floats him fine. For me, If I wear it, I sink like a rock. Body fat is a HUGE contributor to this argument about flotation. More body float, more flotation. People with <18% body fat + non-cg is a bad combo... People who state they float fine... maybe they are carrying a little more % points... I am not bringing up the % body fat to be an a$$, I am just saying there are many factors involved and that is a big one.

Again, my point is posting that just because YOU are fine doesn't mean the next guy will be. AND we have tons and tons of young adults reading these posts influenced by what they read.

Why post supporting a highly controversial issue when you cannot say for sure everyone will have your experience?

Why post supporting a highly controversial issue when you cannot say for sure everyone will have your experience?

Because others are trying to tell us what we should be experiencing. Jim simply states what works for him. You made best point yourself. You wear an A-10 and sink like a rock. That should tell you something. Like maybe *you* need a CGA vest.

Seems to me the real point is not wanting to send the message to kids that there is no reason to wear a cga vest when the other ones are cooler and just as good. If that's the case then people shouldn't get distracted from the point by telling other adults what's best for them.

"Seems to me the real point is not wanting to send the message to kids that there is no reason to wear a cga vest when the other ones are cooler and just as good. If that's the case then people shouldn't get distracted from the point by telling other adults what's best for them"

-- I 100% agree.

That's why I'm surprised when a thread titled... "They should stop making comp vests" doesn't address the real reason for the statement. Otherwise it leads to controversy and ultimately it's a failure. People do all kinds of dangerous things. Now someone will argue that whatever you do that's dangerous you should always do it in the most safe fashion. But I feel 1000x safer wearing a non-cga vest then I do getting on my motorcycle for a ride.

The reality is that as an adult I know how hard it is to get your children to comply to your demands when the rest of the world is telling them you're wrong. That is the real problem with non-comp vests.

I got a ticket in AZ for wearing a comp vest. It wasn't cga and I had to pay a fine. Yay for me! I wear CGA now.

Lots of bad info being passed off as fact in this thread. Those that are doing so are making assumptions and not only making themselves look silly, but are also endangering the lives of others that might believe what they are saying. I'm sure there are more falsehoods that I missed in this huge thread, but here are the top three...

- No one has ever died wearing a non-CGA vest: FALSE. I spoke with the widow of a guy that died in eight feet of water. He was a search and rescue guy and so were all the guys in the boat, but they still didn't find his sunken body until it was too late.

- My non-CGA vest floats me just fine: most likely FALSE. Essentially, 99.99% of people who say this do not know the real answer to this question because they haven't tried filling their lungs with water and taken a dive into the lake to see if they will float. Yes, there are non-CGA vests that have enough flotation to be CGA if the manufacturer chose to pay what it costs to get it approved, but very few "comp" vests would fall into this category.

- Helmets reduce the chance of concussion when hitting the water: UNKNOWN. To my knowledge, there has been no conclusive study in this area. There are legit arguments on both sides and the only way to know for sure would be to do a whole lot of testing. Does the helmet cushion the head enough to overcome the increased deceleration brought on by the larger surface area? That's the million dollar question. If you are going to argue one direction or the other, please provide a link to the evidence you have to support your argument.

I'm going to agree with Dave on all of these.

There was a kid in Mexico that also died wearing and A-10 a few years ago. He actually got back on the boat after a bad fall and was sitting on the side of the boat and passed out I guess, and then fell in. All of his friends thought he was kidding until it was too late.

I challenge anyone who has a non-CGA vest to get in the water with it on and no board and blow all the air out of their lungs. I am sure your head will go under water. No think about that but with your lungs full of water. You are going to go down and fast.

Is there really a difference between having no air in your lungs or having water in them? Thought you used fat sacs with water just because they became neutral in the water and they wouldn't make your boat sink all the way to the bottom.

I went to McCormicks on saturday and had to rent one of their Obrien CGA vests. It was so bulky that where the padding ended at my lower back at around L1, i felt all of the pressure directly there and by the time I was done, my back was done as well. I happened to purchase a CGA vest there on sunday because I rented one 5x for either $3 or $5 each time but I hate it. It's a jet pilot side entry called the recoil. This one isn't as bad as the obrien but I still don't like it


(Message edited by lfxstar on April 07, 2009)

sorry here is the preggo vest

Dave, if you are wearing a properly fitting helmet, it will do its job and the foam will absorb the impact on your brain. The whiplash theory may indeed be true, but I really don't see the problem with that. If you are taking a hard enough fall that you are getting whiplash that badly, then the impact on your head is going to be high as well and the foam will absorb that impact. That's its job. I truly believe that if the people were wearing helmets that got the severe brain damage to death, they would be typing in this discussion right now saying the helmet saved their life. I took a really hard fall on a pete rose on sunday, completely ripped both of my bindings off, and if you ride Soven's you know that is very hard, and actually unzipped by BRAND NEW CGA JET PILOT RECOIL VEST and pulled it over my head, and the helmet definitely greatly reduced the impact of the fall.

So now you are saying/complaining that flotation has hurt your lumbar area?

Is there really a difference between having no air in your lungs or having water in them? Thought you used fat sacs with water just because they became neutral in the water and they wouldn't make your boat sink all the way to the bottom.

The tidal volume of an adult is around 5L. Once you replace/exhale that air your body becomes more dense than the water you are in. Hence you sink. Don't forget that we are 70% water and probably just the weight of our bones is enough to pull us on to the bottom.

Craig, not hurt, killed. This vest has SOO much padding and then it just ends right at your lower back putting all of the stress right there. My friend that was renting a vest complained of the exact same thing.

I understand that you will sink. But will you sink faster with your lungs filled with water compared to not having any air in them? As some people on this thread proclaim.

I am going to take a wild guess and say no. Even though you cannot consciously collapse your lungs, if that happened you would have nothing in there so the weight would be zero. If it was water the weight would still be zero.

I haven't read every post here but I don't recall the proclaim you are referring to. We did say that you could exhale with a non-cga vest on to see how well it would help you incase you did lose consciousness. To get the real effect though you would have to be holding a weight to off set the air that it is impossible to exhale.

You know they say a teaspoon of water can kill you.
You could step out of your car wrong and crack your head open.

Theres a million ways you could meet your end and a vest is at the bottom of the list.

Why not aviod the lake all together and increase your chances of survival.

However I think the marketing of this stuff without informing the consumer what it really is should be a crime.
I also think we have enough laws and people telling other people what they can and cannot do with there own body.

Again, Kyle, you're stating your "feelings" as facts and that is dangerous. That's great that you've convinced yourself that helmets will help you in every situation and have no chance of making any injury worse, and you might even be 100% correct. However, you are not basing your statement on any kind of scientific fact. It's just what you choose to believe. If you do have some facts, then please provide a link or other source for those facts. If you don't, then the responsible thing to do would be to stop "guaranteeing" things you cannot guarantee.

---

quote:

Is there really a difference between having no air in your lungs or having water in them? Thought you used fat sacs with water just because they became neutral in the water and they wouldn't make your boat sink all the way to the bottom.

---

No, but as Craig states above, the point is that it is not possible for you to "remove" all the air from your lungs just by exhaling for this "special test" that some claim proves the viability of their non-CGA vest. I guess that the Coast Guard can shut down their life jacket testing facility now that these geniuses have figured out the top secret "just exhale" method of testing life jackets. Hey, the USCG had a good run and really did a great job of keeping that secret for a lot of years!!

Just to make sure you are informed, I am arguing against non-CGA. I only agreed that the "special test", wonderful name BTW, will give you some idea of whether they find you floating in the water after a fall, or in a fishing net a couple of days later.

I wear A CGA vest (I think its a jetpilot)

I have never once even noticed that it was bulky while i'm riding.

There is no padding that will stop a contrecoup brain injury.

I personally don't see how under any circumstance the cushioning effect of the padding in a helmet is less than that of water. You are comparing a solid to a liquid. I choose to hit the liquid. I understand the ear drum protection though.

^^^ Aside from the eardrum protection, I think the helmet is beneficial when contacting other solids, not the water. Examples would be an impact with your board or if you ride rails and such.

But a liquid at 5 mph and a liquid at 35mph have very different dispersion rates. The key would be working out:

Dispersion rate at multiple speeds (from an 18mph faceplant to a 35+mph faceplant from a raley.) The most difficult measurement would be the "whip" like motion from the body it a faceplant, but maybe using levers it could be done. Use a "head" and then repeat test with head and helmet.

Then compare the forces from the non helmet tests to the helmet.

I wonder if mythbusters wouldn't mind having a go...

Problem solved.... breaks the surface tension, causing easy entry and it looks baaaaaadaaaaaaasss

Unless you can screw the top of your skull off and put padding all around that soft goey mass called your brain and put that skulltop back on , there is no way you're going to stop a brain injury with a helmet.
You maybe able to reduce the severity of the injury, but you're not going to stop it from happening.

Kyle, I agree with David Williams. You are speaking of what YOU THINK a helmet will do, when you have little knowledge of what actually happens in a head injury. As stated in my post here a while ago, the brain injury in a closed head injury (damage to the brain not caused by skull fracture) comes from the brain hitting the inside of your skull (coup), then basically bouncing off and hitting the other side of the skull (contra-coup). This causes the brain to swell and/or bleed and cause increased pressure inside the skull. When the brain has nowhere to expand, or has a hemmorage of blood pressing on it, it can cause severe brain injury or death. Helmets can dampen the impact a bit, but an inch of foam outside the head is not going to protect your brain from bouncing around in you skull when it is going 22mph. Like I said earlier, we would have to find a way to cushion the brain from hitting the skull to prevent a closed head injury. The helmet will do a better job from impact against a hard, unyielding surface that could cause brain injury from a skull fracture or a more focal closed head injury. In most instances, water would most likely cause a closed head injury, not a skull fracture.

Quoted from Phantom...
there is no way you're going to stop a brain injury with a helmet.

As an orthopedic surgeon who deals with head trauma on a daily basis and has a strong background in motorsports safety, I must say this is one of the most ridiculous statements I have ever read. Will it prevent all injuries? Certainly not. Will it prevent some injuries? Absolutely!

The last part of your statement is true, you may be able to reduce the severity of the injury, but a helmet will most certainly eliminate alot of head injuries from happening in the first place.

^^^ I do not have a status as high as yours so I doubt my agreeing with you proves much point. However, your theory is what is published in every trauma care and ITLS book I have read.

I like the spike helmet too.

You can be safe and look dangerous at the same time. The stache is equally terrifying.

Billknudson
I said brain - not skull .
Did you not read my statement about countrecoup injuries? Tell me how a helmet it going to stop the brain from sloshing back and forth inside the skull with a helmet on?
The exact samething I have referred to many times ( and the same as Irene Gaz )
I've been in the Sport Medicine world dealing with concussions and now work as a midlevel in the OR with neursosurgeons as well as many others.
I'm fairly certain I know what I'm talking about.

(Message edited by phantom5815 on April 07, 2009)

I kind of agree with DWs post on facts but suspect there may be more protection to SOME non-CGAs. I think in order to be CGA it must provide at least 13 lbs of bouyancy - I can't remember the exact figure but it is on the tags you get with a CGA vest. Some non-CGAs may provide almost no flotation, like 3 or 4 lbs and others a good bit more. If you are more naturally bouyant, you may not need 13 lbs to float lungs filled, might need only 9 or 10lbs. If the manufacturers would be required to put how many lbs of flotation or the percent min CGA lbs flotation their jackets provide, consumers could at least gauge how risky a vest they are buying. If a non-CGA provided 90% of the flotation required for CGA - I would consider it, 30% of min required - might as well wear a jersey. Of course even if you know the lbs or percentages, you are still dealing with maybes, mights, and educated guesses, but you would have a much better estimation of the risk.

Bottom line with most CGAs you would wear wakeboarding, there is still a risk of drowning / death, but you cut the risk a lot. How much so, I still haven't seen any data on that in this near 200 post thread, but common sense would tell you it is worth given the grave consequences.

I used to wear a non-CGA, but now got the whole boat rocking CGAs now.

Here is an engineer's view...

Think of a head to water impact as a pulse input to the skull (very narrow in time, and large amplitude). Let's first take the no helmet case. The impulse event would be
very narrow in time and would have a peak value of say 1G, (for aurgument's sake). Now let's have the head (skull) hit the water
through a soft spring,like a large thick peice of foam, and let's assume the foam does not bottom out. An accelerometer mounted
to the skull would now show a "wider" pulse (meaning longer event time) but with less peak magnitude, say 0.5 G (for argument's sake).
Force is equal to mass * acceleration... so solving backwards, we would see less Force on the skull when it hits the water through
foam.

All the same math applies now to the brain inside the skull. Less acceleration = less force and less force equals less displacement
when acting through a spring. The fuid between the brain and skull acts sort of like a spring and maybe, just maybe, the displacement
is reduced enough so the brain does not contact the skull and whola... less brain injury!

This is the same concept as any isolation product used for shipping (as an example). They place sensitive equipment on air isolated trucks so pot hole impulses won't damage the equipment. The impulse is "filtered" though the isolator and creates less acceleration--> Less acceleration = less force.

I am no doctor but to me, the physics says they should help.

The trade-off is surface area. More surface area means more force. I hear this argument ALL THE TIME. My helmut, I claim, has
less surface area in the front region because it has holes everyone. Those holes greatly reduce the surface area of the helmet and
also break up the water surface tension before the skull actually impacts the water, decreasing the force even more.

My 2 cents.

-Uj

oh... so my point to Phantom is that a helmet can in fact lesson the degree to which the brain sloshes back and forth... IMO.

-Uj

Phantom...

Brain vs. skull is kind of splitting hairs because the brain is not going to get injured unless the skull undergoes a rapid deceleration event in order to allow the brain to slam against the inside of the skull. The amplitude of the original impact of the brain into the skull is what determines the amplitude of the contrecoup injury. As UncleJesse as clearly shown, the use of a helmet reduces the peak force that the skull sees when it gets slammed. Therefore it must reduce the impact of the brain on the skull. Obviously, water is much less dense than say, concrete, and that is why watersports helmets used in low velocity activities are not as protective as those used in higher velocity activities such as motorsports as well as drag boat and formula boat racing. Again, I have no problems with people not using helmets for wakeboarding because I think the risks for closed head trauma caused from the head impacting water at those speeds is quite low. But a blanket statement the the helmet is worthless is wrong. The laws of physics I think are fairly clear here.

(Message edited by drknute3 on April 07, 2009)

Who gives a sh*t if you want to ride a comp vest ride a comp vest... If you want to wear a bulky vest wear a bulky vest

Another insightful, well thought out post. Thanks for your input and for finally giving us what we need to put this issue to bed.

http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/frm/f/9701967776

Lets get them to test the helmet and vests on the show. It would be nice if David Williams starts the thread, since he has the most legitimacy, and everyone else posts replies it will be one of the most highly discussed topics.

They can put some vests and helmets on dead pigs and chunk them out of a boat until they fall apart. It will be great!

This thread is full of science based on feelings. My feelings are that a helmet is a plus, and the choice to not wear a CGA vest is less dangerous than a lot of other things people do without being hassled by anyone other than their mother.

Done: http://community.discovery.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/9701967776/m/38719800101

boom.

Reply posted.

Maybe a sticky or an email blast to all the members should be considered. Clearly the answer to the helmet question is important and could have life altering consequences.

I think the vest test is obvious enough and not really worth the mythbusters time.

On a side note Bern helmets do not meet the standards of any government agency for head protection while skateboarding, snowboarding or wakeboarding. This information is printed on the inside of a new helmet on a warning label. This may mean they have never been tested and could pass if Bern wanted to pay for the test. It could alos mean that the helmets would not pass or have previously failed the test.

Done....

Done

I must say this has been entertaining.

Again for the record I didn't start this thread to start a big arguement like this that was dragged way off topic.

I think there the vest market is flooded with comp vests, and companies making more and more are helping to push a competition-designed vest to amature riders, used without the safety supervision found in a contest.

I'm not saying we should take away someones choice to wear ncga, but there are just too many of them! And the fact that some states require cga says to me it's pretty obvious.