PROtector Skull NOT legal for BE XC

ester said:
Yes it can be approved for BE but not the XC as lots of fixed peaks with the correct safety standard would be.

What I do find a bit confusing is why a SNELL rating wouldn't pick up that the 'fixed peak' would be a problem if it truely was? Also at the end of the day if you hit the deck it how much does it matter if it was after a SJ or after a XC obstacle. It is really hard to see that this decision has been made on safety grounds!
Click to expand...

This. I also dont see why you're allowed a fixed peak for SJ and not for XC, especially when things like fillers are still pretty solid to fall onto (like a XC fence) so I assume they must be thinking its the speed that might be a problem with fixed peaks (or any peak as in this circumstance). I really dont know how BE work out their safety rules - they're pedantic about stuff like this, a tiny raised bit on a helmet yet you're allowed to wear an utterly ridiculous and useless top hat for dressage at a certain level (and I personally have fallen off more times in the dressage at BE than in anything else!)... it really is stupid.
 
ester said:
Am I right in thinking that the fixed peak rule is a BE not an FEI rule?
Click to expand...

I spent ages last night trying to find the FEI regs for hats cross country and failed miserably, but I swear I've seen peope ride xc with a fixed peak at FEI. Which if is true/correct, it seems bonkers that you can go round a 4* in one but not a BE 80...
 
Last edited:
I just thought i'd pop back here and update you all;

On Friday I saw the e-venting post on my time line and was a bit peeved because i'd just bought this hat, so I tagged a good friend of mine who runs the tack shop i'd bought mine from to see if she knew what was going on, she had no clue an immediately rang Ian who runs owns/ protector and is also a good friend. He too had no idea where this had come from as BE had made no contact with him and wasn't aware there had been a problem as for the last 5 years that they have been manufactured they have been tagged and used for the XC phase of BE. I have spoken to Emma again today to ask where we stand and shes told me not to do anything at the moment as there are currently emergency meetings being held between Protector/Patey, BE, Snell and other parties concerned to find out what has happened and find a way forward.

There has been no false advertising by ProTector as up until Saturday morning these hats had been tag approved by BE for the last 5years! From what i have heard, BE officials were not aware that the original email sent to the fence judges even existed so it was thought it was just scaremongering which is why BE did not actually make a statement until Saturday morning. The original post on e-venting has since been removed. Both Protector sponsored riders and other every day bods wearing the hat were allowed XC at Belton over the weekend wearing the Hat in question.
 
Yes I saw a pic of an older one without the air vents which still had the 'bump'.
I don't believe that peaks cause a genuine safety issue given that you can go round a 4* XC in them, and certainly don't think a) this is a peak or should be considered one, b) this is going to cause any more damage or be any less protective than it would be without it, in fact I think it was added precisely because it gave more frontal protection.
The whole thing seems a bit of a farce to me when it is concerning a SNELL rated hat, given that it is well known that surpasses both the EN and PAS ratings.
 
ester said:
Yes I saw a pic of an older one without the air vents which still had the 'bump'.
I don't believe that peaks cause a genuine safety issue given that you can go round a 4* XC in them, and certainly don't think a) this is a peak or should be considered one, b) this is going to cause any more damage or be any less protective than it would be without it, in fact I think it was added precisely because it gave more frontal protection.
The whole thing seems a bit of a farce to me when it is concerning a SNELL rated hat, given that it is well known that surpasses both the EN and PAS ratings.
Click to expand...

This is the exact point ProTector are making. The hats are approved by Snell, surely if there were an issue with the little ridge, it wouldn't be approved to the highest standard.

The design placement of the ridge is infact to reduce impact to the front of the head
 
LeannePip said:
This is the exact point ProTector are making. The hats are approved by Snell, surely if there were an issue with the little ridge, it wouldn't be approved to the highest standard.

The design placement of the ridge is infact to reduce impact to the front of the head
Click to expand...

Hats with peaks also have snell standards we are talking a different risk here as its not to do with the head protection but other parts of the face and neck. They do not ban peaks just for the hell of it. I suspect this issue has come about as there is no ruling on whats a ridge and whats a peak.
 
So why don't FEI ban peaks!?

I thought it was incase the peak broke and then did other damage? Seriously how is this bit going to break off!??
 
ester said:
So why don't FEI ban peaks!?

I thought it was incase the peak broke and then did other damage? Seriously how is this bit going to break off!??
Click to expand...

See I always thought it was in case the peak hit the ground first and forced your neck, head and body to move the wrong way?
 
So why don't the FEI ban them then?

This nobble is not going to force your head in the wrong direction any more than a normal skull so I still don't see how they can claim it is on a point of safety.
 
BE had to draw a line somewhere regarding peaks. This is where they drew it so any hat manufacturer daft enough to ignore the rule deserves to loose business or have disgruntled customers trying to return hats .
Way back in the 1970 s when what we would recognise as a jockey skull cap came in. Research was done with regard to the thickness of the hat . They found that there was a trade off betwean having a thick hat that could absorb blows and sharp object damage better ,and the risk of neck damage due to the leverage of a larger hat digging into the ground at speed. It is basicly the same reason why fixed peaks are not permitted. It does concern me that the modern hat has become a lot bulkier than its predecessors and it concerns me even more that to all intents and purposes,the hat manufacturers have designed the testing to suit the hats rather than the other way round.
 
Last edited:
We have a ProTector hat although the older model. Having had to replace one hat because of new rules, cue extra spend at Olympia, very annoyed that a hat that was tagged beginning of 2015 and used all last year might also now be not allowed for xc. With an event looming and very empty pockets due to recent horse purchase (people may recall our search for grassroots horse) I emailed photo of hat to BE who have replied that discussions are taking place. So who knows? Daughter upset as ProTector only hat shape that fitted, We changed from HS1 when we replaced hat as they had changed shape slightly but might have to dig out that old one that we replaced due to lots of wear just so she can compete while her top level safety hat cant be used.. utter madness )
 
Eventmum said:
We have a ProTector hat although the older model. Having had to replace one hat because of new rules, cue extra spend at Olympia, very annoyed that a hat that was tagged beginning of 2015 and used all last year might also now be not allowed for xc. With an event looming and very empty pockets due to recent horse purchase (people may recall our search for grassroots horse) I emailed photo of hat to BE who have replied that discussions are taking place. So who knows? Daughter upset as ProTector only hat shape that fitted, We changed from HS1 when we replaced hat as they had changed shape slightly but might have to dig out that old one that we replaced due to lots of wear just so she can compete while her top level safety hat cant be used.. utter madness )
Click to expand...

It all revolves around do you want your daughter to wear a hat CC that potentially could cause her injury? They did not ban peaks because somebody had a whim.

Members should be proud that often BE are at the leading edge as far as event safety is concerned and it is likely other NFs will follow(as they did with hat cams) and then FEI in time .

The outcome will be interesting as I think another manufacturer may be involved in this . Francis W could legitimately have worn the Hat at Belton as it was FEI.

It would have been relatively easy for Protector to design the same feature within a legal hat ,however I find it strange that it has took this long to be shown up as an issue. I suspect its because nobody has actually needed to have one tagged last season as they came out already tagged in 2015. This year all those hats needed retagging so somebody picked up on the rules maybe. As the rule is written the hat is clearly in contravention!!

If BE do allow these hats I suspect they may have to clarify strict dimensions for the ridge otherwise other manufacturers will push the boundaries again. Dont let protector try and push responsibility to BE they knew the ruling and chose to sell a hat that contravened it.
 
How exactly do you see this hat causing extended movement around it that is going to cause damage?! I don't think you have answered that anywhere yet. Or addressed the point that this was designed to provide more frontal protection. IMO they banned peaks a long time ago and it is a rule that has not kept up with current hat safety developments.

I'm confused about your point re-tagging? It seems there are plenty of old protector hats with the same feature that were tagged last season/before.
 
As this rule is an amendment in the 2016 rulebook I am curious to how it was worded before.

7.2.3 ‘Cross Country Protective Headwear’ is a “Jockey Skull” of an even round or elliptical shape with a smooth or
slightly abrasive surface, having no peak, peak type extensions or noticeable protuberances above the eyes or to
the front. It must also comply with the ‘Protective Headwear’ criteria and be tagged as set out above. A removable
hat cover with a light flexible peak may be used.'

I can't find the old version online, BRC and PC certainly just say 'no fixed peak'
 
Last edited:
ester said:
How exactly do you see this hat causing extended movement around it that is going to cause damage?! I don't think you have answered that anywhere yet. Or addressed the point that this was designed to provide more frontal protection. IMO they banned peaks a long time ago and it is a rule that has not kept up with current hat safety developments.

I'm confused about your point re-tagging? It seems there are plenty of old protector hats with the same feature that were tagged last season/before.
Click to expand...

Its a mechanical issue around the peak causing issues in one of three ways. One being when you land face down a the peak being proud of the face causes increased flexing of the neck on impact. two the p[eak actually burying itself in soft ground in a fall with the rider having forward momentum which also causes neck damage as it ends up the deceleration point. three physical damage if the peak breaks. I hope that helps I am sure you could have worked that out yourself. Or maybe you know something the safety committee at BE dont about fixed peaks.

I am not saying the design of this helmet is likely to have this issue however it is outside the ruling as it now stands.

The point on tagging is simple Protector are one of the manufacturers that were allowed to send out pre tagged hats so it is only this year when they will have needed to be retagged due to the rule change that BE officials will have needed to look at them.

It was only in the 2015 rule book that fixed peaks were banned AFAIAA
 
Last edited:
ester said:
As this rule is an amendment in the 2016 rulebook I am curious to how it was worded before.

7.2.3 ‘Cross Country Protective Headwear’ is a “Jockey Skull” of an even round or elliptical shape with a smooth or
slightly abrasive surface, having no peak, peak type extensions or noticeable protuberances above the eyes or to
the front. It must also comply with the ‘Protective Headwear’ criteria and be tagged as set out above. A removable
hat cover with a light flexible peak may be used.'

I can't find the old version online, BRC and PC certainly just say 'no fixed peak'
Click to expand...

The rule you quote there just about shows how clear cut it is so I dont see why you are questioning it . Like I say it could easily have been designed in a way to keep it within the current rules ie by not having the ledge but still retaining the added thickness at the front this could have been achieved by contouring it into the shape.
 
I'm not questioning it, I am asking how it read in the 2015 rules and whether the 2016 ones were rewritten to specifically highlight this type of hat. If it was exactly the same in the rules last year it would not be down as an amendment and the manufacturer may have altered the hat and contoured it into the shape as you suggest.

This link suggests that fixed peaks were permitted previously
http://www.eventingworldwide.com/latest-news/british-eventing-pre-season-checklist-2015/

I don't disagree with BE on fixed peaks and the mechanical issues associated with them, I didn't say I was I just cannot see how that applies to this hat. And BE are applying it to this hat if they are saying it is not permitted.
 
Last edited:
This is on the BE forum from 2010 by a BE staff member
'Now we need to be very clear about this - NO HAT THAT MEETS ANY OF THE BE APPROVED STANDARDS HAS A FIXED PEAK.'
https://www.britisheventing.com/asp...spx?topicid=8076&section=00010001000200490001

and found the original rule
'The Rule states that “For the Cross Country phase, protective head wear must not have a fixed peak.” Please note, helmets with fixed peaks can still be worn for the showjumping and dressage phases.'

I can't see how this hat would contravene the above.
 
ester said:
I'm not questioning it, I am asking how it read in the 2015 rules and whether the 2016 ones were rewritten to specifically highlight this type of hat. If it was exactly the same in the rules last year it would not be down as an amendment and the manufacturer may have altered the hat and contoured it into the shape as you suggest.

This link suggests that fixed peaks were permitted previously
http://www.eventingworldwide.com/latest-news/british-eventing-pre-season-checklist-2015/

I don't disagree with BE on fixed peaks and the mechanical issues associated with them, I didn't say I was I just cannot see how that applies to this hat. And BE are applying it to this hat if they are saying it is not permitted.
Click to expand...

The ruling was announced on 30th Jan 2015 and after it being questioned was ratified in late Feb so guess it missed last years rule book. Clearly if you read the rule this hat is not legal as it has a protuberance over the front and eyes it was also not legal last year however only now has it come to light. ,like I said maybe a dimension not to be exceeded may have helped however as it is it stands at zero.

I dont think any of us yet know what the real story is here. Has another manufacturer complained? Has somebody sustained an injury that may be linked ? Or has some jobs worth hat tagger brought it to attention? The list is endless.
 
Last edited:
I am aware that this hat is not legal as per the current rule. I would be surprised if someone had argued it had a fixed peak as per the previous rule.

I just happen to think that claiming that on the basis of safety is bonkers! and pointing out that it is a new wording about what a 'peak' is and therefore should potentially be subject to reworking when things like this come up. To me it would have been much more appropriate for BE to say it contravenes the current ruling but as it doesn't present a safety issue as highlighted by it's SNELL standard (which I believe is not held by any fixed peaked hats) they would be amending the rule slightly to say 'protrudence >1cm'. To say that a hat is illegal on safety grounds when it has the highest possible standard is just bizarre.
 
Last edited:
I wonder whether they are including the older style protectors that people have been using for some time/their other soft peak SNELL hats have. It would indicate that they have made some sort of judgement on how big a protrusion has to be as they all have a ridge too.
image_15.jpg
 
Last edited:
ester said:
I am aware that this hat is not legal as per the current rule. I would be surprised if someone had argued it had a fixed peak as per the previous rule.

I just happen to think that claiming that on the basis of safety is bonkers! and pointing out that it is a new wording about what a 'peak' is and therefore should potentially be subject to reworking when things like this come up. To me it would have been much more appropriate for BE to say it contravenes the current ruling but as it doesn't present a safety issue as highlighted by it's SNELL standard (which I believe is not held by any fixed peaked hats) they would be amending the rule slightly to say 'protrudence >1cm'. To say that a hat is illegal on safety grounds when it has the highest possible standard is just bizarre.
Click to expand...

There are plenty of Snell standard hats with peaks that would not be OK for BE ie most of the protector range the peak is not part of the testing process.
 
popsdosh said:
Its a mechanical issue around the peak causing issues in one of three ways. One being when you land face down a the peak being proud of the face causes increased flexing of the neck on impact. two the p[eak actually burying itself in soft ground in a fall with the rider having forward momentum which also causes neck damage as it ends up the deceleration point. three physical damage if the peak breaks. I hope that helps I am sure you could have worked that out yourself. Or maybe you know something the safety committee at BE dont about fixed peaks.

I am not saying the design of this helmet is likely to have this issue however it is outside the ruling as it now stands.

The point on tagging is simple Protector are one of the manufacturers that were allowed to send out pre tagged hats so it is only this year when they will have needed to be retagged due to the rule change that BE officials will have needed to look at them.

It was only in the 2015 rule book that fixed peaks were banned AFAIAA
Click to expand...

I have had exactly this kind of a face plant fall ,....in a PROtector hat,.... to the extent that they thought I had broken my nose, & had deep cuts/grazing to my face from the stone that had been put down on the landing side ( now there's another safety issue).

I returned the hat to protector , who confirmed the hat had done its job very efficiently, & dissipated the blow around the whole hat.

I had no neck or other injuries ( except ankle!).

My new protector hat was then tagged at the next event I went to, ...it was not pretagged....& then re tagged this spring at my 1st event of the season with the new red tag with no issues......so clearly the hat was not flagged up to be any kind of issue by BE at this point.
 
Last edited:
ester said:
are there?
I only know HS1, RXC1, charles own 4*.

and the upward visual clearance is a requirement of the testing so thought there weren't any.
http://www.smf.org/standards/e2001/e01std#QUALIFICATIONS

aha found one!
http://www.gatehouserange.co.uk/challenger-p-356.html
Click to expand...

There are 4 peaked hats in the protector range alone that are Snell 2001 all say they are approved BE and PC perhaps it might be helpful to buyers if they were a bit more specific. I think this wording is wrong particularly when a parent is buying for a child and is not aware they cannot be used CC BE or PC
 
I would not want my daughter to ride in an unsafe hat that's one reason I was happy with the Protector, as far as I am concerned it was the safest hat I could buy her and does not have a 'bump' as it is level with the hat rim, the rest of the hat is further back. If top riders see it as the safest and lets be honest they do have a vested interest in having the safest hat available why has someone made the decision it is not. If we have to get a new hat then what do we buy as no other now fits the shape of her head, a problem I suspect many people will have. There is nothing wrong with our current hat, so why suddenly is it unsafe (daughter went round Badminton Grassroots final in it last year) it has the highest safety and does not have a peak!! I am sure the 'jobsworth' thought they were doing the right thing but surely someone has common sense.
 
popsdosh said:
There are 4 peaked hats in the protector range alone that are Snell 2001 all say they are approved BE and PC perhaps it might be helpful to buyers if they were a bit more specific. I think this wording is wrong particularly when a parent is buying for a child and is not aware they cannot be used CC BE or PC
Click to expand...

I thought their peaks were removable, as they look it but perhaps not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top