Stop making comp vests!

I believe there was a thread on here a while ago where a kid wearing a jetpilot a-10 non cga drowned after being knocked out. That's why all those ads came out.

And you're right, i'll admit i am a hypocrit. In that pic i am wearing a helium vest, i bought that before i realised it wouldn't float me. Once i realised that i switched straight back to my old jetpilot vest that is as ugly as sin. Cause i'd rather look like a tard than be dead. The helium vest went in the trash along time ago.

If you wanna ride a non cga vest then do it by all means, but i don't think it's right telling everyone that they're the coolest or right choice. believe it or not CGA vests are made for a reason.

Socal Mob, I agree that a helmet can save your life many more times than not. However, doesn't it make just a little sense to you that your neck and Trap muscles developed to carry the weight and size of JUST your head and that adding more weight (however insignificant) and more surface area might be a bit of a problem when getting launched head first into the water at 20+ MPH?

I would love to see scientific studies as well

the helmet issue is another thread...not this one...sorry I said anything.

Calum...I tried an A-10 once and only once. I couldn't get over how it didn't float me at all. I switched back to a CGA vest last year but it was so bulky. I know they are safer but I found the Jet pilot Luxe floats me just as well as the CGA that I wear....as least as Shaun said while I am conscious.

And Calum...you were a little harsh on Tank and Kyle....I don't know Kyle but Tank is one of the greatest, selfless, generous person I have ever had the privilege to know. He would invite you out to ride in a heartbeat and would give you the shirt off his back. He loves life, loves to ride, loves the sport and has an awesome family. He is the kind of person that gives the boat industry and America a good representation....just FYI

Swatguy, despite what has become the general consensus of wakeworld.com on their theory of wearing helmets. I don't believe it for a second. I GUARANTEE that a helmet would help protect against impact falls to your head. The helmet and the padding is absorbing the brunt of the force instead of your head. When you are traveling at 23 mph and then edging for say a Raley possibly approaching 35 mph water is no longer soft, hence the reason you can get the wind knocked out of you or you can get a concussion. The water becomes hard enough to allow this therefore a helmet will 100% decrease this impact. Will it add more swing weight allowing for more neck injuries, a little, but definitely nothing of consequence. I rode for an entire season with a helmet because I took a few good head shots and got two REAL concussions (people love saying they got a concussion when they fall hard and hit their head) and the doctor told me to wear a helmet while I rode, and that is exactly what I did. My friends made fun of me, it looked "uncool" but I didn't have one fall that ever hurt my head, and I took plenty of high impact falls. Your cervical vertebrae are next to your femur, the strongest bones in the body and they are like that for a reason. When you get a whiplash injury, to break your neck ie one of your cervical vertebrae, it is very very very difficult, and I would say close to impossible doing it on the water at the speed we go at. The extra swing weight of a helmet may aid in whiplash, but it will not allow your neck to break.

I will also ask one of my neurology teachers about wearing a helmet vs not wearing a helmet, but I know what their answer is going to be. They will yell at me when I tell them "I don't wear a helmet when I ride" and that I am just being "dumb". I'm going to send her an email right now actually.

As a boat owner if someone is riding behind your boat and chit its the fan where someone is injured and the law gets involved you better hope that person was wearing a cga vest. Because that guy or gal maybe your best friend but god forbid they get killed their family will be looking to sue.And when the police report says person involved in accident was not wearing a cga vest your insurance company will wash their hands of it and now your on the hook and they will be coming after you and everything you own. So as the boat OWNER YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE for what goes on behind your boat.something to think about.I agree with you wakemikey. sad thing is i let a couple of guys ride behind mine with a comp vest.So i am taking the risk when they do. but i have none these guys since they were 6-8yrs old and know the folks very well. not that it changes anything or protects me. but anybody else on my boat try to wear their comp vest i say i dont think so and provide them with a cga vest.

(Message edited by kko13 on March 22, 2009)

Kyle, no offense man, but you might want to take a look at your anatomy book today. Your cervical vertebrae are in your neck, correct, and your femur is in your thigh above the knee. I'm sure you mistyped that.

Good point Kevin

Amo...I think he meant that the cervical vertibrae are next to the femur in bone strength....that's how I read it anyway

OH! My bad.

I didn't decipher Kyle's post very well. Coffee hasn't kicked in this morning.

Yeah AMO LOL!!! I was comparing bone strengths, not location. The femur is your strongest followed by your cervicals and they are VERY close in strength.

Thank you for clarifying. I shouldn't post that early in the morning anymore. LOL.

**** Hyjack ****

"Tank and kyle, you guys are the reason the rest of the world thinks americans are arrogant and plain stupid. I feel sorry for the intelligent people in your country who get a bad wrap from guys like you. I lived in the US for four months, i've seen guys like you before and all i can say is i'm sorry for everyone else."

Calum Moore - Why the personal attack? Could you please explain, or show anywhere on this discussion board that Kyle or myself warranted such a statement? I only experessed my opinion, and have in no way disrespected anyone else'e opinion. I did not rail anyone here. Why did you?

I don't get this post. People don't wear helmets on motorcycles, let alone give a rats ass about wearing a CGA. I weigh 195 lbs and have been knocked unconscious in my Jet Pilot A-10 vest. Look at me, I'm still alive. The vest floated me just fine.

This is a question for all the people who wear NCGA vests. Have you ever experienced losing a friend from drowning? Regardless if it was from wearing a NCGA vest or swimming at a dock and not wearing a vest.

Someone above said they ride in 5 feet of water and knew there friends would be able to find them if they went under. I had a friend who drowned at a dock when a ladder broke loose and took him down with it. His friends who were there could see him on the bottom but it was far too deep for them to dive down and do anything. Would you like to have your friends or family carry that baggage with them for the rest of their lives? If you don't wear a CGA vest because they don't look "cool" enough for you that's absurd. For me if you are going to wear a NCGA you might as well just be riding with out a life jacket.

Think of it like the people in motocross with the neck brace discussion. Would you put further risk to your life by not wearing something that could keep you walking or alive for the rest of your life because you can't do a trick? We already participate in sports where we are one wrong move from major injury or death. Why not do everything we can to protect ourselves and keep us doing what we love?

(Message edited by dave23 on March 22, 2009)

Has anybody ever tried a gath helmet, it look like it wouldn't have a lot of swing weight.http://www.murrays.com/mm5/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=52-10&Category_Code=&Store_Code=MS

I am the Helium Rep for the Eastern half of the U.S. and wonder why the author chose to pick our brand apart. Having said that, initially wakeboarders didn't wear a vest at all in the early days of our sport. If they did it was a comp vest then the tricks and stunts started getting bigger, harder and more technical. People started wearing CGA and helmets and for good reason, some of these riders were getting broken off or dying. Helium's #1 selling vest for the last three years is the SWAT CGA Logo/Celtic in 09 we have 9 CGA vests and 4 Womens CGA vests look closer at the line. Th trend is mos def heading towards CGA. However, people should have the right to chose The law in my state of Indiana is you don't even have to wear a vest while you ride you just have to have a CGA in the boat. Therefore a lawsuit shouldn't apply to Dealers in this state. While this is not the norm for much of the U.S. check your state for laws that pertain to you. I liked Murray's method of letting the air out of your lungs and see how much you float or sink then decide what's right for you. I would like to stress that you always wear a vest when you ride preferably a Helium.
Thanks!

I would not use bone strength as a selling point for an argument. The two bones referred are also VERY commonly broken.

common term used to desribe getting hurt "broken off" sorry shouldn't use slang oops

youve obviously never worn an oneil guru.

I wear a CGA vest.. Jet Pilot.. can not left anyone ride without one on!

I've injured myself before and went into shock... thanks to god the vest floated me at the surface allowing me to breath an float till boat came around and buddies could lift me out of the water with my vest...

If I was 10' under.. not sure I'd be here typing about it... freak accidents happen.

If you are out riding and think it's too cool to wear a vest or it's restrictive... go see Shaun Murray pull a set behind the boat... he'll throw any trick with ease!

Re: what is the strongest bone in the human body?(without muscles to add power)

Date: Mon Jan 15 14:02:10 2001
Posted By: Paul Odgren, Instructor, Cell Biology, University of Massachusetts Medical School (Dept. of Cell Biology)
Area of science: Anatomy
ID: 979160218.An
Message:
Interesting question, David. After confirming my first choice with some experts in skeletal anatomy, the title "strongest" bone in the body goes to one of the bones that make up your skull, called the temporal bone. It's the very dense, hard bone on the side of your head that surrounds the inner part of your ear. If you want to see pictures, you can visit a website I found that has the famous, classic anatomy text, Gray's Analtomy available online:

http://www.bartleby.com/107/

Enter "temporal bone" in the search box, and have a look. Thanks for your question, and keep wondering. Paul Odgren, Ph.D. Cell Biology Univ. of Massachusetts Medical School Worcester

or :


The strongest bone in the human body is the femur, this is the bone from the hip to the knee. The second strongest bone is the scapula or shoulder blade. If you have enough trauma to break either of these bones then the chance of living from the force it takes to fracture one of these will be very slim.

I love it when you can find conflicting opinions. But I would seriously doubt the C spine as one of the strongest bones.
Atlas maybe helping with holding up the head, but it doesn't make it the strongest.

why do people think that helmets have swing weight.. thats stupid.. helmet weighs what 1 or 2 pounds max.. ha ya i bet you can really tell a difference.. stupid.. looks like alot of swing weight.. lol

Phantom, if you look at the C-Spine individually you would be amazed at the thickness and bulk of these bones. The strength of the bones are the sheer reason we can do all of the different Neck Manipulations when we perform OMT (osteopathic manipulative treatment). I personally have never heard the temporal bone referred to one of the strongest bones of the body in medical school yet, but in our OMT class, they specifically always refer back to the femur and the cervical vertebrae for strength.

William, I agree with you 100% with the helmet not having swing weight going along with this "adding the possibility of neck injuries and greater force on concussions". Wakeboard helmets are very light and I do not think affect the fall at all in regards to adding swing weight to impact. I really believe that the helmet also protects against brain injuries EVEN on the water, and I am waiting back on an email from my professor who is at the forefront of neurology and neurological anatomy in the country. The only issue is this seems to be more of a physics type question, but a simple one at that if anyone is good at physics.

Here is an article in the Journal "Pediatric Neurosurgery" titled "An Unusual Case of Traumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage Caused by Wakeboarding". Unfortunately we can only read the abstract which says:
Case Report
A 14-year-old Chinese male sustained a head injury while wake-
boarding and was referred to our neurosurgical service. Apparently,
the tow-bar which had been attached to the cable-traction device on
the powerboat malfunctioned and he tumbled off the board, hitting
the water face-on at high speed. There was no loss of consciousness,
but he was disoriented and unable to disengage himself from the
board. A safety boat rescued him and he was immediately brought to
our hospital.
On clinical evaluation, he complained of persistent headache and
neck pain. Clinical examination revealed no signs of external injury.
Neurologically, he was orientated with a Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS)
score of 15/15, equal and reactive pupils and no neurological deficits.
There was an area of localized tenderness in the upper cervical
region. Roentgenograms of the cervical spine did not show any frac-
ture or dislocation. Computerized tomographic (CT) scan of the cer-
vical spine excluded fracture or dislocation of the C1 and C2 verte-
brae. However, CT scan of the brain showed a small subdural hemor-
rhage in the left frontal-parietal region which extended to the vertex
(fig.2). In addition, subdural blood was seen in the tentorial cerebelli
bilaterally and in the interhemispheric fissure (fig.3). There was also
mild midline shift to the right with slight compression of the lateral
ventricle.
In view of his symptoms and the radiologic findings, the patient
was admitted to the neurosurgical ward for close observation, pro-
phylactic anticonvulsant treatment and mannitol. The following day,
the patient complained of diplopia. The ophthalmologist discovered
an injury of the left inferior oblique muscle and pupil sparing third
nerve injury. Management was conservative. Over the next few days,
he improved clinically with resolution of signs and symptoms. A
repeat CT scan of the brain on the third day showed that the left
frontal subdural hemorrhage was stable, while there was slight
improvement in the interhemispheric subdural hemorrhage. The
patient continued to improve clinically and was discharged home on
the fifth postinjury day with no surgical intervention required and no
neurologic sequelae.
Discussion
Intracranial hemorrhage is often seen in sports in
which there is direct trauma to the head such as boxing,
and this is the most frequent direct cause of sport-related
death [1, 2]. Head trauma is also often seen in cycling and
motor sports as a result of accidents. There is a miscon-
ception that such injuries are unlikely if the medium in
which the sport is carried out is softer, such as in water.
However, water-related sports do carry certain risks.
Some sporting activities, as in this case of wakeboarding,
involve high speeds, and the high kinetic energy and large
deceleration forces involved in a fall in unobstructed
water can render the athlete vulnerable to significant trau-
ma. Also, there is the inherent risk of drowning if an indi-
vidual is concussed and disorientated. Other possible
types of injury caused by falling into unobstructed water
include ligament sprains, torn knee meniscus, shoulder
dislocations and fractures of the humerus [1].
This particular case is interesting because the type of
head injury sustained is unusual in itself and, to our
knowledge, the first reported in this relatively new sport-
ing activity. Subdural hemorrhages are generally classi-
fied as acute, subacute or chronic, depending on the duraTraumatic Intracranial Hemorrhage Caused
by Wakeboarding
Pediatr Neurosurg 2000;32:291–294 293
tion of symptoms, pace of evolution and age group of
patients. Patients present with headache, confusion, vom-
iting and sometimes hemiparesis. Examination may show
a decrease in GCS, focal neurological deficits, papillede-
ma and anisocoria. The current hypothesis is that subdu-
ral hematomas result from the disruption of the relatively
weak subdural portions of the bridging veins within the
cranial cavity and are caused by linear acceleration-decel-
eration as well as shearing forces that arise from the rota-
tion of the brain within a rigid cranium [3, 4]. There have
been reports of subdural hemorrhage resulting from the
rotational forces experienced in roller-coaster rides in
which forces of 3 gravitational forces can be attained [5].
Rotational forces have also been incriminated in subdural
hemorrhage in the absence of trauma to the head. Christo-
pher [6] reported small bilateral subdural hematomas in a
young man with no predisposing cause.
We hypothesize that the mechanism of injury in our
case involved both acceleration-deceleration as well as
rotational forces to the brain. The sudden deceleration of
the frontal fall coupled with the flips and somersaults that
are part of the routine in wakeboarding probably resulted
in the subdural bleed.
The other point of interest in this case concerns the
type of subdural hematoma (fig. 2). While interhemi-
spheric hematoma are not rare, they are certainly uncom-
mon. A review of the literature shows a dichotomy in the
age group of cases. It is often seen in the pediatric age
group as part of the ‘shaken baby syndrome’ of child
abuse, and again in the older adult (mean age of 56 years)
[7, 8]. Other contributory factors include coagulopathies,
anticoagulation therapy and alcohol abuse [9]. Presenta-
tion includes hemiplegia with crural predominance (‘falx
syndrome’) [10]. The mechanism of injury involves lacer-
ation of the bridging veins due to brain acceleration
imparted by a blow to the occipital region. CT appearance
is typically that of a high-density lesion in the parafalcine
area over the length of the interhemispheric fissure in a
convex lentiform shape. A pseudodelta sign (due to hyper-
attenuated extra-axial blood surrounding blood flowing
within the superior sagittal sinus) has been reported in
bilateral hematomas [11]. Treatment is usually conserva-
tive in patients without loss of consciousness and stable
neurologic examination. Surgical evacuation of the clot is
appropriate when there is clinical deterioration [9]. To
our knowledge, there has been no previous report of a
sports-related interhemispheric subdural hematoma, es-
pecially in a teenager.
In view of the head injury sustained by our patient, we
recommend certain measures to minimize the risk of inju-
ry. Firstly, a floatation vest should be mandatory to pre-
vent drowning in the event of loss of consciousness. Sec-
ondly, a speed limit should be imposed on the towing
speedboat, as this would limit the severity of the impact in
the event of a fall. Thirdly, the issue of wearing a helmet
should be considered, although this would probably im-
pede the athlete’s performance. Yet, a helmet is effective
in reducing the extent of a head injury by functioning as a
direct barrier between the head and the surface of impact,
by dissipating the kinetic injury of the impact, and by
functioning like the crumple-zones of an automobile. Un-
fortunately, these mechanisms may not apply in the water
medium of wakeboarding. It can be argued that by in-
creasing the cross-sectional area of the head, resistance is
increased in the water, and a helmet would increase the
decelerating forces on impact on the water surface. The
increased torque could conceivably place additional stress
on the cervical spine. This issue therefore requires a closer
surveillance of the types of injury encountered in this
sport in the future.
Lastly, prevention and education should take a more
prominent role. Awareness of the risks of injury should be
imparted to instructors and participants alike. Guidelines
have been issued regarding the initial management of con-
cussion as well as the time frame for safe return to sports
in general, and these should also apply to wakeboarding
[12–14]. It should be emphasized that repeated head inju-
ry has a cumulative effect on intellectual function, and
prior injury renders the brain susceptible to subsequent,
even minor, trauma. A suggested time frame of 1 month
of absenteeism from contact sports is recommended after
a grade III concussion in the first instance [15].
Wakeboarding is a new and exciting form of sporting
activity. However, safety issues have still to be resolved,
and participants who sustain injuries, in particular head
injuries, must be carefully followed.ry. Firstly, a floatation vest should be mandatory to pre-
vent drowning in the event of loss of consciousness. Sec-
ondly, a speed limit should be imposed on the towing
speedboat, as this would limit the severity of the impact in
the event of a fall. Thirdly, the issue of wearing a helmet
should be considered, although this would probably im-
pede the athlete’s performance. Yet, a helmet is effective
in reducing the extent of a head injury by functioning as a
direct barrier between the head and the surface of impact,
by dissipating the kinetic injury of the impact, and by
functioning like the crumple-zones of an automobile. Un-
fortunately, these mechanisms may not apply in the water
medium of wakeboarding. It can be argued that by in-
creasing the cross-sectional area of the head, resistance is
increased in the water, and a helmet would increase the
decelerating forces on impact on the water surface. The
increased torque could conceivably place additional stress
on the cervical spine. This issue therefore requires a closer
surveillance of the types of injury encountered in this
sport in the future.
Lastly, prevention and education should take a more
prominent role. Awareness of the risks of injury should be
imparted to instructors and participants alike. Guidelines
have been issued regarding the initial management of con-
cussion as well as the time frame for safe return to sports
in general, and these should also apply to wakeboarding
[12–14]. It should be emphasized that repeated head inju-
ry has a cumulative effect on intellectual function, and
prior injury renders the brain susceptible to subsequent,
even minor, trauma. A suggested time frame of 1 month
of absenteeism from contact sports is recommended after
a grade III concussion in the first instance [15].
Wakeboarding is a new and exciting form of sporting
activity. However, safety issues have still to be resolved"

This article questions the helmet as well but says it needs to be further looked into. They are saying that when dealing with water, you are potentially increasing the surface area and increading the torque therefore increases the deceleration force when you impact the water which translates to increased stress on THE CERVICAL SPINE.
It does not address unfortunately the important point that would the helmet have stopped the intracranial hemorrhage from occurring. Personally, I would be happier dealing with some whiplash then being brain dead.

Kyle...that's a great case study....thanks for sharing it.

We haven't replaced our stock on NCGA after we had a scare last year. I don't want to call somebody's mom and tell them that their son drowned wearing a tuxedo jacket.

Socal M.O.B., no problem, it only cost me $25 hahahahahah!!!! I was praying that there was a part on helmets in there, and then further praying that it supported my theory. First prayer was granted, but unfortunately not the second. I am trying to find the authors email address, so I can ask his opinion. Normally with articles like that, the authors love answering any questions because they are just pumped that someone decided to read it.

Interesting thread and great to see someone like Shaun chiming in. Wearing a NCGA is better than nothing but not all are created the same. Some of these super thin pullovers have almost no buoyancy and simply won't do you a bit of good if you were unconscious. Plenty of other ones are just as good as CGA vests.

I think the Coast Guard has really done itself a disservice by making the approval requirements too stringent. I believe an approved vests needs 15.5 lbs buoyancy min, so of course most vests have significantly more than that even to account for variation, degradation, etc. In reality you only need 8-12 lbs of buoyancy(depending on size,gender, and body type) to keep your head out of water. The European requirements reflect this and are on a graduated scale which makes more sense. If someone only reasonably needs 8lbs of added buoyancy to float, why make them wear 16 lbs or more and something twice as thick and restricting as it needs to be. Also someone mentioned that CGA vests have to flip you over, that is not true for a type III, only type II's, the big orange vests no one wears. Even in a type II, I doubt you would roll over with a wakeboard on.

By making the requirments too high, the Coast Guard forces the vests to be too thick, and probably drives wear rates down. On this board over 50% of the people in Dave's poll claim to wear either non-approved or no vest at all, that's crazy. The CG really needs to take another look at their laws and approval process, who knows when they were written or last updated, the way they are now just drives people away.

I never wear CGA, haven't for years, but do make sure I get something that will float me with lungs full of water. I wish that the NCGA vests could at least have ratings on them so you knew how much buoyancy they provided, you can kinda tell just by how thick they are, but something/anything to educate people and let them know what they are getting.

I don't think you can blame the manufacturers because obviously there is a huge demand for NCGA, manufacturers chase demand not create it (unless you are big 3 auto ). As soon as the first company came out with them, everybody else had to jump in or miss out.

(Message edited by rico80 on March 23, 2009)

I can see both sides of the argument. On one side I see people who aren't wearing a vest at all because of the "cool" factor. It's kind of sad to say that a lot of the wakeboard videos support this idea. On the other side I guess would be the people that don't even get in the water because of the potential for injury. I guess my take is know and understand the risks involved in whatever you do and make an informed decision based on the facts. Don't kid yourself about what those facts really are. Take responsibility for your decision and I don't care if you ride in your underwear.

Just throwing some extra wood in the fire with random thoughts, but, having it CGA is also an extra inherited cost the companies have to take. Now yes there is prob the additional insurance needed if making non-CGA vests, but I had a smaller companies' "non CGA" vest that was more than enough flotation (I did all the water tests imaginable). I bring this up because I somewhat feel the vest could have been approved, but it wasn't, and possibly the cost savings was then passed on to the consumer? Of course it wouldn't pass any savings on if I get checked by DNR.

For the record, I now only wear CGA vests except in competitions, where I expect to have enough safety precautions and measures taken that I would be okay wearing a comp vest. If you can't land something because of the thickness of your vest, I'm sorry.....

---

quote:

Answer me one question buddy. How many people have you heard drowned while wearing a non-cga vest while riding? That's right...ZERO.

---

Kyle, maybe you missed this post over on WB.com, there's been a few more cases than 'zero'...

http://forums.wakeboarder.com/viewtopic.php?t=72277

(Message edited by dirtysparks on March 23, 2009)

(Message edited by dirtysparks on March 23, 2009)

Comp vests are not responsible for holding back the advancement of USCG vests. The USCG is responsible for this, they mandate how much bouyancy is needed and where it is needed. The USCG demands a certain amount of bouyancy and there is a certain amount of foam it takes to acheive that amount thereby limiting what can be done to a vest design.

Sure you can shave the sides of the foam a little to make the vest a little more sleak but then you'll have to add foam somewhere else to still meet the approval.

At the end of the day you have to decide for yourself what you are comfortable wearing.

Here's a thought...will you CGA vest turn you over if you have a board still on your feet? absolutely no way. That's the point of CGA, right, to float you face up? There's not a vest on the market that will turn a face-down body over with a board attatched.

A vest doesn't need to turn you face up to be cga. Type I cga pfd's turn most unconscious wearers face up. Type II turns some face up and type III there are no guarantees. If you're unconscious in a type III it'll float you but won't turn you over. They're designed for someone to be within help's reach.

forgot link:
http://www.boatsafe.com/nauticalknowhow/pfdbasics.htm

(Message edited by dirtysparks on March 23, 2009)

I believe these vests are made to float, just float, not do the face up or turn you face up. The orange vests that go from over the shoulders and on the chest are the only ones made to float a person face up I believe.

Is it summer yet???

http://www.discountlifejacket.com/html/uscga_type_chart.html

Wow I am incredibly amazed at the amount of attention this thread has received. Again for the record I do not wish to eliminate comp vests or tell someone they must always wear CGA.

Louis thank you very much for reading and posting. The reason I picked Helium is because I think they are one of the best and most dedicated vest companies. I see your products and want to learn more when I look for myself and my girlfriend for a new vest. When I open my new issue of WBM every month there is a full page Helium ad. I may be wrong but I don't remember seeing an ad that wasn't a comp vest. So for me it's a 100% no-buy. I really wish the CGA vests would get featured. When I visit the website I really feel that it is comp heavy.

About the number of CGA model lines you are carrying I still do not count nine. I was not counting different colors. I think your dedication to kids cga vests is awesome.

Also I'm sorry I was mistaken as well about the womens vests. I see three right now when I am looking. They only say CGA when you look closer. I'm sorry I wasn't trying to pick apart Helium, I just wanted to provide one example to support my thinking.

Again I think Helium is a market leader in vests and I really wanted this thread to encourage people to focus more on CGA. It wasn't intended to tear anyone down or cause a negative reaction. Please try not to flame others.

(Message edited by wakemikey on March 23, 2009)

March Wake Boarding magazine features Tom Fooshee in our CGA Voodoo vest. Buy Helium!
Thanks!

Louis I would like to offer something positive in return for making Helium my example.

The Paisley looks like an awesome thin cga vest.
http://www.heliumwake.com/dyn_prod.php?p=5760PSL&k=149888

This post has really getting under my skin. People are comparing apples and oranges. There are many different kinds of 'strengths' of bones, depending on the stresses applied to it. Just like a straw can be bent very easily in half, but is increadibly strong if force is applied down through the straw. Our bones are the same way. Cervical vertibrae are NOT strong to certain forces. The lamina of the vertibrae are actually quite thin, and easily injured, and many times this is the area that causes injury to the spinal cord when fractured. (and in the above article the boy acually had a C1-2 fracture) The body of the vertibrae is strong and dense, and is much stronger, but is not usually the part that is injured. For example, cervical vertibrae cannot take strong forces directed down from the head: hence spearing being illegal in football. This is how many quadripillegics become that way. However, this force is not usually just straight down the neck, but has a rotational and flexion/extension component, making it even worse, and more likely to fracture. These forces are very common in wakeboarding falls
Now to concussion. Yes the water can be very hard at high speeds, however much of the protection that a helmet gives is from getting a skull fracture from a hitting a solid, unyielding surface, causing brain injury. Thus why it should be worn while doing rails and such. Water does yield, and does not usually cause a skull fracture. I would think it would also help more at lower speeds. However, a concussion/intercranial bleed is truly caused by the force of the brain hitting the inside of the skull after the impact, and the shearing forces to the blood vessels. The brain still moves at 22mph in the skull and slams up against the bone at that speed and gets bruised, or creates a bleed. A helmet most likely will not dissipate enough force quickly enough to protect against impact at that speed (not saying it doesn't at all). My personal opinion is that the helmet would increase injury to the neck, and would not significantly reduce the chance of concussion/bleed. We would need to find a way to cushion our brains from impact with our skulls. Many times these injuries have less to do with sheer physical strength of our anatomy, but are more affected by the kinesiology, biomechanics, and force vectors placed upon the structures. The 'bigger' tricks we begin doing, the 'harder' we fall, and our bodies can only withstand a certain amount of impact before failure, no matter how much we try to protect it.
Now for CGA approved vests--I always wear one. Why take the chance just to get a little more mobility or look a little better? Yes, some comp vests might float you, but I doubt your friends can stop the boat, turn around, and come get you turned rightside-up before you already have enough water in you lungs to kill you or cause brain damage from hypoxia, or lack of oxygen. But to each their own, I just don't want to be responsible for paying the medical bills for the rider who took that chance and doesn't have insurance to pay their bills while on life support. Accidents happen...we should just do our best to prevent them as much as possible.

P.S. I wish WW was really about people wanting to compare stories, ask questions and get nice answers, and be friendly. It seems that lately many of the discussions are more about arguing, rudeness, arrogance, defensiveness, and unyielding opinions. We can all learn from each other, but have to be open to it. There is no one correct answer for anything, and no one knows everything.
For those of you who don't agree with what I have said, slam and argue away. I have come to expect it any time I chime in with professional advice.

ON Helmets

somewhere i remember finding an article about the injuries of wakeboarders and/vs waterskiers. the result basically said that there were a significant amount more injuries in wakeboarding that head protection should be considered and researched...

i found it, (remembered i had posted it in the past when i had this kick going that I was gona do something about the helmet situation, and never got around to it) original thread discussion http://www.wakeworld.com/MB/Discus/messages/65919/552043.html?1204678508

Article Abstract

Characteristics of Water Skiing–Related
and Wakeboarding-Related Injuries
Treated in Emergency Departments
in the United States, 2001-2003
Sarah Grim Hostetler,* Todd L. Hostetler,† MD, Gary A. Smith,* MD, DrPH,
and Huiyun Xiang,*‡ MD, MPH, PhD
From the *Center for Injury Research and Policy, Columbus Children’s Research Institute,
Children’s Hospital, The Ohio State University College of Medicine and Public Health,
Columbus, Ohio, and the †Department of Internal Medicine/Pediatrics, Ohio State University
Medical Center and Children’s Hospital, Columbus, Ohio
Background: Water skiing and wakeboarding are popular sports with high potential for injury due to rapid boat acceleration,
lack of protective gear, and waterway obstacles. However, trends in water skiing– and wakeboarding-related injuries in the
United States have not been described using national data.
Hypothesis: The number of injuries, injury diagnoses, and body regions injured vary by sport.
Study Design: Descriptive epidemiology study.
Methods: Data regarding water skiing– and wakeboarding-related injuries presenting to 98 hospital emergency departments in
the United States between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2003, were extracted from the National Electronic Injury
Surveillance System. Data included demographics, injury diagnosis, and body region injured.
Results: Data were collected for 517 individuals with water skiing–related injuries and 95 individuals with wakeboarding-related
injuries. These injuries represent an estimated 23 460 water skiing– and 4810 wakeboarding-related injuries treated in US emergency
departments in 2001 to 2003. Head injuries represented the largest percentage of injuries for wakeboarders (28.8% of all
injuries) and the smallest percentage for water skiers (4.3%) (P < .01; relative risk [95% confidence interval], 6.73 [3.89-11.66]).
Analysis of injury diagnosis was consistent as wakeboarders had significantly more traumatic brain injuries (12.5% of all injuries)
than did water skiers (2.4%) (P < .05; relative risk [95% confidence interval], 5.27 [2.21-12.60]). Strains or sprains were the leading
injury diagnoses for water skiing (36.3% of all injuries), and the majority (55.7%) were to the lower extremity. Lacerations
were the most common diagnoses for wakeboarders (31.1% of all injuries), and the majority (59.6%) were to the face.
Conclusion: The analyses of water skiing– and wakeboarding-related injuries treated in US emergency departments in 2001 to 2003
highlight the differences in injury patterns for these 2 sports. The substantial number of head and facial injuries among wakeboarders
underscores the need for research on the potential role of helmets or other protective gear to reduce these common injuries.

---

quote:

The substantial number of head and facial injuries among wakeboarders
underscores the need for research on the potential role of helmets or other protective gear to reduce these common injuries.

---

-----------------------------------------------
ON Vests


as for vests, i am with many others and thanking Murray for posting on here, great post.
i like the helium CGA vests but i am just adamant about not having more than 50% of my vest straps hidden so i can more easily untwist them should they twist ;) murray's would be on the top of my list if it were not for my pickyness, but for now i think the hyperlite swat vest (tried it and liked) and the new watson side entry (have not tried) are on the top... when i get money again for it}

WOW what a read. My only questoin is whats a life jacket

As a retailer you have to stock the products that are in demand. If you try to assert your will on your customers they will go somewhere else and you will be out of business.

I do feel that retailers have a duty to inform all of their customers of the safety concerns of purchasing a noncga vest. I would never sell a noncga vest to a minor.

To me this argument is a lot like motorcycle helmet safety laws. Riders value freedom to choose above all else.

If you have a high tolerance for risk then go ahead and wear a noncga vest. If you have a family or a low tolerance for risk I would wear a CGA Vest.

I used to never wear a helmet snowboarding and concussed myself this past winter. I was ok initially, but as I rode back up the lift I became very disoriented and couldn't think clearly enough to know where to go for First Aid. Imagine how scary it was to see that celebrity who died from a head injury on the bunny slopes in Quebec. Lesson learned I will never snowboard without helmet ever again.

Funny you should try an give me an lesson about the C Spine, considering I've done ortho/neuro spine work.
I can honestly say that Cervical vertebrae are not in the same class of strength as the long bones or the skull.

Thanks for posting the pic of the cervical vertibrae Phantom. I wanted to do that to emphasize that point, but didn't. As can be seen the bone areas around the nerve roots and spinal cord are quite thin, and suseptible to injury.

Hey Renie! I'll be sure to bring my CGA vest when I ride with you in the future! The only reason I wear my outlaw is because I'm too chubby to do grabs in the CGA "law" vest! You know I own a proper CGA vest because of so many interactoins with Ranger Rodney!

Whether any of us agree or disagree with the information many have provided, there is no denying that this site has definitely changed and personal attacks are becoming more commonplace. We all frequent WW because of a shared passion for the sport, and we should try to show more respect! How about we do more sharing of the awesome feeling of being behind the boat/on the cable having a blast!?

Starting now...I appreciate the opinions/facts/research provided! Thanks to all who did so for caring about your fellow shredders!!

Irene and Kat: Totally in agreement, it's starting to look like our not so friendly neighbor site...

Swat guy,

"Spoken like a true know nothing.
A helmet for wake to wake riding has been discussed for years and years. The consensus has been it will not aide you in any way except to prevent a board or hard object from cracking you open."

Did you forget that helmets (with ear guards)are also used to prevent blown out ear drums?

As an orthopedic surgeon who sees a fair amount of spinal trauma, I find it interesting that there is alot of talk about the strength of the vertebral bones. The weak link is not the bones, but the soft tissue structures that hold them together. The use of CGA vs. non-CGA vests and the discussion about helmets is kinda a very personal decision for the rider or boat owner to be made. Will a CGA vest float you better than a non-CGA? YES Will a helmet help reduce brain injury with a hard impact or help prevent ear injuries? YES But unless the law requires, I dont feel that the use of either should be mandated by anyone other than the rider or the boat owner. A parallel arguement could be made for knee braces. Will the use of a knee brace reduce the risks of an ACL tear? YES But does that mean that everyone who rides should be wearing knee braces? Of course not. Its all about risk assessment. Do the research, learn the risks of not using certain levels of protection, and go ride!!!

Posted by Kat Laird

Whether any of us agree or disagree with the information many have provided, there is no denying that this site has definitely changed and personal attacks are becoming more commonplace. We all frequent WW because of a shared passion for the sport, and we should try to show more respect! How about we do more sharing of the awesome feeling of being behind the boat/on the cable having a blast!?

Werd

That's rather audacious of you to use your personal, professional experience to support your opinion, Bill.

That's not the way things are done around here, dammit! Get with the program.

^^^ Sorry, wont happen again

Bill,

Do you feel that a helmet will reduce impact/injury caused by wake to wake falls, with no hard object involved? If so, why? Thanks.

Very little research has been done with regards to helmet use in watersports other than drag boat racing. Obviously the speeds invloved are going to be alot less. The major concerns I have with potential head injury center around blunt force injury. Board impact is the main factor here as I dont feel impact with the water will create enough force to cause blunt force head trauma. Given that, use of a helmet will protect the head in cases of board impact. The other level of protection is the ears. The question is whether or not the incidence of board impact or ear drum injury warrants full time use of a helmet. I dont wear one. Again, to answer your original question, no, I dont believe w2w falls will produce enough energy to cause blunt force head injury.

The main point is, anything can happen to anyone at anytime. Bad crashes could create torsional forces to any part of the body. Head, spine, shoulders, wrists, knees, ankles are all at risk. Only way to totally protect yourself is to stay home, but then you are at greater risk of an armed intruder, lightning strike, or having a tree fall on your house and crush you.

To address the original point of this thread, I dont see that comp vests are a bad thing as long as the purchaser is adequately informed that the comp vests are not approved by the CG as a means of personal flotation. If adequately informed, the rider should be able to wear whatever he/she wants as long as it conforms to legal requirements.

I will ALWAYS wear a comp vest.....i can't imagine ever buyin a CGA vest ever again.......

The helmet issue aside, I will never understand why you'd want to entrust your life to a product that's clearly labeled as something that's "not intended as a life-saving device."

I like to call that Darwinism in action.

No helmets but CGA only in our boat. Water here is so dirty that you cant see more that 6 inches down. Good luck finding a sinker...

To pick on my favorite board and binding manufacturer, Liquid Force from their homepage store: http://www.shopatron.com/index/1001.0.8684.37078.0.0.0

They have 12 mens vests for 09. Nine are non-cga. Only three are CGA. They are the Flex, Hinge CGA, and Watson CGA.

What gives here? All three CGA models are given the most plain graphics of all their vests. Anyone can ride Henneshaw's board, but releaseing his comp vest as a full scale production model is imho a mistake. What if they were limited edition? In my mind the best mix would be about 8 CGA's, 3 non-cgas and a couple limited edition vests, maybe one CGA, one NCGA. Just sharing my ideas and opinions as this forum is intended. Keep the flame off please.

I'm sticking with my non-CGA Jet Pilot. Just the right buoyancy for me. And I can still duck when riders at the park run me over.

haha... i agree with josh

"Just the right buoyancy for me."

Only when you're conscious, and your lungs are full of air, not water.

Try exhaling while holding a 5 pound weight (to approximate what happens if your lungs are full of water) and see if you float.

For the billionth time: It's not about what happens when you're just waitin' for your ride to pick you up; it's about what happens if you knock yourself silly.

(I have noticed some lamenting going on re: the tone of this argument. If I argue with you, don't take it personally; I do so only because you're wrong.)

Swass, don't need to. Everything has it's risks and the risk of wearing a non-cga vest is not really high on the list of big bad ominous things that are destined to get you. It's up to each individual to judge. Besides I've come a long way. I spend many years trick skiing and wakeboarding without any kind of vest.

Wearing a vest is one of the most basic, simple and easy things to do that has the greatest impact on saving your life. I would put it up there with the seatbelt. I am not the safest person in the world. I will drink on my boat. But I will never ride without a vest. I know people who refuse to wear a seatbelt because it's too restrictive. Simply ridiculous.

Swass would it be closer to 10 pound weight? 5L of tidal volume in an adult. Fill up that area with water which is one kg per liter (1 kg=2.2 lbs). You would still need to add weight on top of that number to off set the air that is still in your lungs being we can't totally collapse out lungs when exhaling.

Im not trying to correct you but more so add to your's, Murry's, ect's theory. Some of you guys on here must have a fat ass. Without the weight I would still be able to sink to the bottom in the Jet Pilot A-10 I use to own. After they started loosing people due to these things I found an approved vest that fits just as good as the A-10. Now girlie can at least get to me and get the water out of my lungs if I wipe out. I couldn't imagine one of use having to go back to the dock without the other. For those of you who have low body fat (skinny) like me the only thing that is going to find you is a fishing net if you wear an A-10.

Oh and I forgot to add.... barefooting.

Craig, water weighs nothing in water. You only need enough weight to offset the air that's still in your lungs after you exhale it all out. And that's assuming you completely fill your lungs with water.

I had to pull my dad out after he dislocated his shoulder (he was busy trying to hold it still as it came all the way out and stayed out). Even with a CGA vest he thought he was drowning, talk about a mess. Also a good lesson in making sure you always have a third...

Well I think for my impending birthday I'm going to see if my pops will hook up Murray's approved vest. I saved his butt once, he can return the favor. Hey Murray, got any good deals on that Murray vest? I hear you know people...

Nintzel, you really read all that crap?

Your are right 10 pounds would only work if you didn't exhale. I guess you could get the full drowning effect though!

I know i will be wearing a helmet behind the boat this year for the simple fact that iv managed to blow out an ear drum 4 times now, 3 of which were on the same side and at 19 i already have noticable hearing loss in that ear. Im not feeling wearing hearing-aids by the time im thirty.

(Message edited by macanudo247 on March 24, 2009)

You guys said to hold a 10lb weight, which fits with what I said earlier, most people need 8-10lbs buoyancy to keep their airways above water, which is the intention of a type III vest. There are NCGA vests that provide 10lbs buoyancy which would be fine for most people, the law requires 15.5lbs, and most vests are 16.5-20 lbs just to make sure they comply. That is all over kill. If 10lbs will float you safely why wear 20lbs, something twice as thick and bulky as you need?

If you are only wearing 3-5 lbs like the pullovers or molded vests like the A-10, yes you absolutely will sink/drown. That's why the CG needs to revise things, maybe lower the req'd buoyancy for a type III, or at least regulate NCGA's so they at least have to publish the intended buoyancy. It's like having a 30mph speed limit on the highway in Montana, everyone will speed anyway because it's too restricting and doesn't make sense. When 50% of the people in the sport aren't following the rules because the safety gained isn't worth the restriction, maybe there is something wrong with the rules. Cutting just a few pounds of buoyancy can make a big difference to a vest, maybe 15.5lbs should be the mean, not the minimum, maybe even lower is acceptable.

wakemikey, the reason why there are more NCGA vests then CGA vests in each company's line is because there is only so much you can do with a vest and maintain the the coast guard approval.

jb, publishing the intended buoyancy on a NCGA would send out the wrong message. The vests are not intended with floatation as the main function so if buoyancy is what you are concerned about then a NCGA would not be the right choice for that person.

"The vests are not intended with floatation as the main function"

LOL @ comp vests

i took a hard fall one time and was unconscious for a brief while....i was wearing an o'neil gooru jacket (non-cga), and it worked absolutely perfect

I don't get responses like the one above from Phil and others... so I guess since Phil says he was fine, everyone would be fine? Maybe Phil was knocked out, but were his lungs filled with water, or out of air?

Just because one person had one experience that turned out (luckily) to be ok, doesn't mean everyones experience will go so well.

I bet that if Phil had 10 bad falls where on each one he gets the wind knocked out of him AND gets knocked out... he will sink with a non CG vest on at least one of those falls before the boat gets back to him... I am using 1 in 10 as point... I have no idea what the true number is, but it isn't 1/1000, or even 1/100.

I am using Phil as an example... there were others on the thread that basically say the same thing...

My question to all of you who posted things like Phil did... do you really believe what happened to you that ONE time will always turn out so good? And do you think if everyone gets knocked out they will also be fine with a non cg vest?

I read a post like that as basically promoting the use of a non cg vest. I am all for doing your own thing... but why get on a public forum and post your ONE experience like it is a gaurentee the next guy will also be as lucky? Take some responsibility and think before you post...

What happens if some kid sinks this summer who had on a non cg vest... All of you posting here with your one positive experience will sleep good...or not...?

-Uj

That's weird. A lot of people are talking up the gooru on this thread saying it floats them really well, but I used to wear one and it didn't float me for $#!t. I had an XL at 175lbs and I could swim under water with it on no problem, and had to tread water a bit just to keep my head above water while waiting for the boat to get me if there was any kind of chop at all.

I really don't care if someone wants to rock a comp vest while they're riding. What worries me are kids and newcomers to the sport who aren't educated on the differences or think the differences are minimal. I know a lot of people who picked up a comp vest as their first vest simply because they look cooler.

I agree with the original post that there should at least be more options and focus placed on cga vests so that people can still wear a nice looking vest that's also safe. I have no complaints with my cga jetpilot og vest by the way.

I would even argue that I've progressed my riding a lot more once I started wearing a cga vest because in the back of my mind, before I would try a new trick, I was always a little worried that I'd mess it up real bad, get hurt and have to rely on my comp vest for flotation.

just my .02 on the cga topic.

Phil, you need to go knock yourself out some more and report back. Apparently there aren't enough people getting knocked out to get a good base of information. Seems to me that before people get all hot and bothered other making rules for others there ought to an issue that has demonstrated itself to be a problem.

A while back the city here made a rule that you had to install a water back flow device at the cost of several hundred dollars if you wanted to keep your garden well. The reasoning was that you might hook your garden well up to the house faucet and push ground water into the city water system. The fact that nobody has ever had this happen didn't deter them from making the rule.