Michael Schumacher in critical condition

I have always loved watching Micheal driving at F1. I just hope he pulls through. Lewis Hamilton has been posting his ski holiday photos on the internet, it seems a bit insensitive to me.
 
LondonJohn said:
Hmmmmmmmm

OK. Substitute in "....the impact of which exerted forces upon his body which resulted in propelling him....."

Is that better?
Click to expand...

Of course. That's what we have been saying, and you denying, since the physics of this came up.

And a fall is not always only due to gravity.
Click to expand...

By definition it is, and especially in physics:

fall, 1a- To drop or come down freely under the influence of gravity.

Someone running for a bus who trips and falls still has significant forward velocity that might make all the difference if that person (say) hit a bollard head on in the fall. Some falls have significant horizontal momentum components. They pretty much all involve a vertical downward component as well, which is usually the result of acceleration due to gravity, but they don't by any means have to be exclusively gravity-induced.
Click to expand...

You are interchanging the colloquial definition of fall" with the scientific definition. What we call a fall, ie.- "grandma took a bad fall today" brings in a bunch of forces that aren't considered in physics when discussing falling objects.

Forward momentum has no bearing on the definition of fall. A fall is only down and only due to gravity. Gravity defines what "down" is. In our case on Earth. it is a force that pulls us toward the centre of the Earth's mass. In physics only the part due to gravity is considered when discussing the "fall." A fall has a specific magnitude and direction due to gravity.

I only brought that all up to avoid an argument in semantics. So that you knew I was aware there was a difference in the definitions and that other forces do make the colloquial fall worse than the scientific "fall." :D
 
Damien Evans said:
So? Is someone who's an expert at something not allowed to do it for recreation in your world?
Click to expand...

You're a little late to the party and a whole lot off the target of the point, Damien. That point being: The speed wasn't all that high for an "expert" skier although someone thought it very high for a recreational skier.
 
qayak said:
You're a little late to the party and a whole lot off the target of the point, Damien. That point being: The speed wasn't all that high for an "expert" skier although someone thought it very high for a recreational skier.
Click to expand...

No, someone thought it high for recreational skiing.

LondonJohn said:
They're now saying that his helmet was cracked open, and they estimate that he was doing something around 50mph at the time of the accident (which is extremely fast for recreational skiing).
Click to expand...

By now your apparent confusion over this has been pointed out more than once:

qayak said:
I think you are the one failing to following the line of thought. The claim was that he was going very fast for a "recreational" skier. My point was that he was an "expert" skier so it wasn't particularly fast at all.
Click to expand...

Matthew Best said:
50mph is fast for recreational ski-ing, whether or not you're an expert.

But now it sounds like he wasn't going very fast at all so the whole argument is moot.
Click to expand...

angrysoba said:
The part you highlighted was "recreational skiiing", not a "recreational skiier", so you have moved the slalom gates.
Click to expand...

You can hardly complain that others are still pulling you up on the mistake when you haven't acknowledged it and continue to insist that someone else made a mistake, when they did not.
 
Not sure what to make of this.

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/leut...g-den-sturz-michael-schumachers-a-941827.html

Using Google Translate:

"An eyewitness could provide new insights into Michael Schumacher's skiing accident: According to information obtained by SPIEGEL, a German flight attendant has apparently filmed the fall of the former racing driver. He wants to transfer the video to the prosecutor."

"According to the witness, who reported to SPIEGEL on Friday, this skier was apparently Michael Schumacher. He is believed to have "slowly down" and with a speed of "up to 20 kilometers per hour.""
 
Orphia Nay said:
And here's Australia's ABC News reporting on the same news with possibly a better translation:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-...ed-schumacher-skiing-at-27leisurely27/5185222

"According to the witness, who contacted the German magazine on Friday, Schumacher was descending the slope at a "leisurely" pace - "a maximum speed of 20 kilometres an hour"."
Click to expand...



But on the other hand, there's this:


Conflicting statements have emerged, notably about how fast Schumacher was going when he crashed. Albertville prosecutors and the ski resort say Schumacher was skiing at great speed. Kehm has challenged that, saying he could not have been going fast 'because it appears he helped a friend who had just fallen'.

Investigators are tasked with determining responsibility in the accident, with high stakes possibly involved regarding any insurance compensation.
Click to expand...


It is believed he lost control after hitting a boulder which had been concealed by snow that had fallen the night before and was 'catapulted' headfirst into three other rocks.
Click to expand...


Schumacher is understood to have been travelling off-piste at speed when he crashed, hitting his head on a boulder with such force that his helmet cracked in two
Click to expand...


It is believed that his life was saved by his skiing helmet, which split on impact.
Click to expand...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-left-fighting-life-GoPro-helmet-camera.html


Yes, it's from the Mail, and it doesn't appear to be all that well-sourced. But I think it's still of some value in assessing the possible speeds involved - especially the claim that the Albertville prosecutors and the ski resort* both say that he was skiing "at great speed". And if the helmet did indeed "crack in two" (but bearing in mind that this claim is totally unsourced), I'd suggest this is pretty powerful evidence of high skiing speed - I don't think a low-speed accident could possibly result in a properly-constructed helmet breaking in two, even accounting for possible whiplash effects or fulcrum effects.

Obviously an undamaged helmetcam recording and/or footage taken by a third party would provide an objective - and probably definitive - indication of the downhill speed Schumacher was doing at the moment of initial impact, together with the mechanism of the accident (e.g. the alleged "catapulting" into the air).

I think the best that outside observers can say right now is that there's not enough reliable information to make a definitive call on speed. However, I would stick to my original opinion that the combination of 1) the apparent condition of the helmet, 2) the nature of the brain injury, 3) the apparent mechanism of the accident (being thrown into the air and "catapulting" head-first into the second rock), and 4) the apparent belief by the authorities that high speeds were involved, all point to a preliminary conclusion that he was indeed skiing at high speed at the moment of initial impact.


* And one might presume (assuming for a moment that this claim is correct) that prosecutors and the ski resort are basing their assessment of speed on rather more than a hunch or a finger in the air: one might imagine that they have obtained witness statements from other skiers, from the doctors treating Schumacher, and possibly from professional accident investigators such as those who work on behalf of insurers. They might even have gathered video footage of the accident.
 
Last edited:
I think the helmet is a pretty good indicator of the impact force. Helmets are certified and must meet impact standards so they will have a pretty good idea of what the minimum force exerted was and then work back from there.

I am thinking that the helmet being split in half is a pretty good indicator that the rate of speed was close to the 50 mph claim than the 20 km/h claim.
 
qayak said:
I think the helmet is a pretty good indicator of the impact force. Helmets are certified and must meet impact standards so they will have a pretty good idea of what the minimum force exerted was and then work back from there.

I am thinking that the helmet being split in half is a pretty good indicator that the rate of speed was close to the 50 mph claim than the 20 km/h claim.
Click to expand...
I will agree that the impact speed of his head was probably pretty close to 50.
That, however, is not a reliable indicator of how fast he was actually skiing.
 
rwguinn said:
I will agree that the impact speed of his head was probably pretty close to 50.
That, however, is not a reliable indicator of how fast he was actually skiing.
Click to expand...

Well, I don't think a helmet would split at 50 mph, they are pretty tough. I think the actual speed of his head will be higher. I think once they work backwards from the force of impact that could split the helmet, they are going to find he had to have been travelling more that 20 km/h.

(Throwing a ski/snowboard helmet against a concrete floor as hard as you can will replicate the 50 mph speed and the helmet won't have the support of the head to protect it from splitting. I doubt the helmet will break.)
 
qayak said:
Well, I don't think a helmet would split at 50 mph, they are pretty tough. I think the actual speed of his head will be higher. I think once they work backwards from the force of impact that could split the helmet, they are going to find he had to have been travelling more that 20 km/h.

(Throwing a ski/snowboard helmet against a concrete floor as hard as you can will replicate the 50 mph speed and the helmet won't have the support of the head to protect it from splitting. I doubt the helmet will break.)
Click to expand...

Again speaking from some ignorance of the details, would the same thing apply to a helmet hitting, not a floor, but a rounded or pointed edge of rock?

It's hard and not very rewarding to try to read the standards for these things, because the impacts are measured using G force and mass, and not easily translated to visualizing a head hitting the ground at a given speed. But penetration is definitely evaluated separately from simple impact.

e.t.a. reading your post again, I think you may have the effect of a head backwards. It's really easy to throw an empty helmet around and not damage it. But what would happen if you put, say, a pumpkin inside it? I'm guessing it would split more easily, not less.
 
Last edited:
bruto said:
e.t.a. reading your post again, I think you may have the effect of a head backwards. It's really easy to throw an empty helmet around and not damage it. But what would happen if you put, say, a pumpkin inside it? I'm guessing it would split more easily, not less.
Click to expand...

You could be correct. At this point I don't agree but that doesn't make you wrong.

Helmets certified for recreational skiing (ASTM F2040) are tested at speeds of about 14 mph 6.2 m/s) and must not allow forces of more than 300Gs on the head. At these impact forces on the brain, there is no damage. They do flat anvil, hemispherical and solid steel edge tests. There is no penetration requirement.

Check out page three here:

http://bcsnowboard.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Helmet-Information-Sheet-Canada-Snowboard-2011.pdf

20 km/h is only 5.6 m/s, far below the safe level for the helmet to protect the head. With the additional forces that could be generated in this type of fall, MS could have been mildly injured but I doubt very much that the helmet would split in half. I would say that little damage to the helmet would occur at even twice the test speed, or roughly 30 mph. That's why I am leaning toward the 50 mph speed.
 
As one of the few (if not only) people on this forum formally trained and board-certified in neurocritical care, I can tell you that the speed of the accident is irrelevant and non-prognostic. People have fallen from standing height, struck their head, and have had catastrophic traumatic brain injury (TBI) as a result. I know. I've taken care of such patients.

So, it doesn't matter if it was a direct blow, the helmet didn't function properly, whatever. Even deceleration injury in a perfectly intact helmet with all the factors being the same can cause such TBI.

What matters now primarily is the extent of ongoing swelling in his brain, what actual areas of the brain were damaged, and what the so-called "secondary injury" will be as a result of subsequent latent factors such as inflammation, gliosis, and ischemia.

Treatment of TBI is based on the Monroe-Kellie doctrine. Namely, that the head is an enclosed space and that, once damaged, has limited ability to swell. What they will look at is his intracerebral pressure, which is monitored by an internally placed sensor. There are various maneuvers and medications used to mitigate this, and to maintain adequate cerebral perfusion pressure.

Even given the absolute best-case scenario, his racing career is done. The likelihood of a full recovery in any event is questionable at this point. But, even so, no one in their right mind would get back into a race car after such an episode. The brain can only take so much.

And, again, I've taken care of many patients in this scenario and a "good" recovery is often considered someone who is able to feed themselves and take care of basic activities of daily living without assistance. While I clearly don't know exactly what his clinical condition is, I'm not a gambling man based on the media reports thus far that his is going to be one in the "miraculous" recovery group.

My best wishes go out to his friends, family, and loved ones.

Now, feel free to continue back to the debate about pumpkins and helmets.

~Dr. Imago
 
This reminds me of the fifteen-year-old daughter of friends of mine. She tripped at school, and hit her head on the edge of a stone step. She died. She wasn't even running at the time. (Of course, nor was she wearing a skiing helmet.)

I'm saddened by your thoughts on the prognosis, Dr. Imago. (I thought Schumacher was already retired from motor racing, though.)

Rolfe.
 
Dr. Imago said:
But, even so, no one in their right mind would get back into a race car after such an episode. The brain can only take so much.
Click to expand...


Well, it's Schumi. He had a severe motorcycle accident in 2009 which, according to his doctor, already damaged his brain, leaving unfunctional a major artery on the left side. Now the injury is mostly to the right side. :(

edit: Rolfe, he retired from F1 in 2012.
 
Last edited:
Dr. Imago said:
As one of the few (if not only) people on this forum formally trained and board-certified in neurocritical care, I can tell you that the speed of the accident is irrelevant and non-prognostic. People have fallen from standing height, struck their head, and have had catastrophic traumatic brain injury (TBI) as a result. I know. I've taken care of such patients.

So, it doesn't matter if it was a direct blow, the helmet didn't function properly, whatever. Even deceleration injury in a perfectly intact helmet with all the factors being the same can cause such TBI.

What matters now primarily is the extent of ongoing swelling in his brain, what actual areas of the brain were damaged, and what the so-called "secondary injury" will be as a result of subsequent latent factors such as inflammation, gliosis, and ischemia.

Treatment of TBI is based on the Monroe-Kellie doctrine. Namely, that the head is an enclosed space and that, once damaged, has limited ability to swell. What they will look at is his intracerebral pressure, which is monitored by an internally placed sensor. There are various maneuvers and medications used to mitigate this, and to maintain adequate cerebral perfusion pressure.

Even given the absolute best-case scenario, his racing career is done. The likelihood of a full recovery in any event is questionable at this point. But, even so, no one in their right mind would get back into a race car after such an episode. The brain can only take so much.

And, again, I've taken care of many patients in this scenario and a "good" recovery is often considered someone who is able to feed themselves and take care of basic activities of daily living without assistance. While I clearly don't know exactly what his clinical condition is, I'm not a gambling man based on the media reports thus far that his is going to be one in the "miraculous" recovery group.

My best wishes go out to his friends, family, and loved ones.

Now, feel free to continue back to the debate about pumpkins and helmets.

~Dr. Imago
Click to expand...

If I were his doctor I wouldn't care about the speed or how well the helmet worked but I am not. I am a guy discussing the details of the collision on an internet site.

Thanks for your expert opinion on the actual injury though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom