Does Anyone know of a club team or school that have Red helmets with A Purple T Yellow Background or Yellow TNH on it? Cascade returned the wrong Helmet to me. I will be returning to Cascade tomorrow.

New Hampshire Tomahawks

Tomahawk are purple and yellow.

http://fouronetwolax.com/2015/02/09/damaged-ohio-state-stx-helmet/

wow. never seen a cascade helmet get cracked like that.

Thats because it is an STX helmet.

Does anyone know if STX helmet has come out of the gates with good sales? Or if Cascade has been affected revenue wise as a result of this NOCSAE thing? Just wondering if the fallout changed much, if anything, in terms of market share.

According to the CEO of STX, they tested their helmet under different temperatures and other variables and never had a helmet shatter like that. But then he next said the STX helmet did the job and kept the Ohio State player from getting injured. I have seen players take a shot wearing a Cascade helmet and once saw a kid come over with a cracked helmet near the ear hole, but nothing like the picture of the STX helmet.

Hmmmm. The comment on the photo says the player was unavailable for the Detroit game, whatever that means.

STX, no thanks.

looks like snow in the background. At zero degrees everything cracks!

Based upon the extreme weather conditions we have been facing I am sure extreme cold played a role. Wonder what the temp was when this happened. I feel many people are a bit skeptical of the timing of Stallions release and the recall of the Cascade and Warrior helmets. Smells a bit fishy to me. The fact that this helmet cracked the way it did is in my opinion not a good indicator. There are a lot more Cascade R's out there and I have never seen one shatter that way. I am sure there will be some photos popping up of cracked Cascade helmets in the near future from anonymous sources.

No, not true at all.

The young man who got hit, was hit with a 100+mph shot directly to the helmet. He is fine, thank god, the helmet did its job in protecting his head from injury.

A factual check of what helmet the player was wearing would make sense, along with what actually happened, and WHO was wearing the helmet.
The information, other then the helmet sustained a crack is inaccurate.

Well, I am the guy who ran out and bought two STX Stallions in the throat of the controversy. I have also had the Cascade Rs re-fabricated for my sons as well. So now they have each. Frankly, I owe the other posters an apology. I am pretty "shattered" to learn more and more as I read and ask more questions about the helmets and the testing. Here is what I think is fair to represent now: STX wasn't blowing smoke when they concluded that if you wear a Cascade R at a tilted fit, then the R fails the NOCSAE baseline impact testing. To Cascade's credit they amended that flaw, but only after an STX splashy negative campaign. NOCSAE also looked pretty bad to me and others to leave so little detail on the ongoing testing of product they are licensees to conduct, which now seemed somewhere between very little and none at lease insofar as Cascade helmets are concerned.

I was skeptical about STX's claims of the Stallion "doing the job" given past representations. Here is what I found looking up what "doing the job" is defined as taken straight from the NOCSAE source. According to the NOCSAE guidelines, lacrosse balls and helmets are each tested at -- among other things -- different temperatures. Samples are first tested at ambient temperature, then same helmets are heated or frozen to sub zero temperatures. For helmets, the impact testing includes balls at various velocities.

http://nocsae.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/ND021-12m13-Projectile-Impact-Test-Method.pdf stipulates "cold extremes" as:
11. Conditioning
See Section 11, NOCSAE DOC.001.
11.1. See Section 12, NOCSAE DOC.001. 11.2. Low Temperature: Expose product to conditioned temperature of 32o F + 0F or - 3o C
(0o C + 0C or - 1o C) for at least four hours.

Then projectile impact testing is stipulated as:
12. Test Instruments and Equipment
12.3 Electronic speed monitors capable of measuring the inbound and rebound velocity of a ball when it is propelled at the strike plate through two gates at speeds of 60.0 ± 2.0 mph. The first gate is mounted 24 ± 0.125 in from the strike plate and the second gate is mounted 12 ± 0.125 in from the first gate. A “proof of accuracy” method (such as a paper target or high speed video) is required to determine that the trajectory of the ball does not deviate more than 6 in. while traveling through the light gates before and after impact with the strike plate before and after each series of tests.

So when STX states the Stallion meets requirements, those requirements read up to be withstanding a projectile velocity of 60mph with a 2mph variance, and a temperature of 32 degrees farenheit with a +0 to -3 degrees farenheit variance. One of the flaws I see straight away is there are no tests for temperature variance of the projectiles themselves: aren't frozen lacrosse balls harder/more rigid? I was a B student in high school physics, but I am pretty sure it is not too bold to suggest that the testing standards ignore the hardness extremes of FROZEN objects.

Second, are they (NOCSAE and these brands together) kidding us now? Most of the outdoor college lacrosse being played in February this year in the East and Midwest were at temps below 29 farenheit. Pretty much every college player can shoot a ball faster than 60mph. So can most U-13 players. An NCAA D1 shot is over 95mph and I'd wager the passes are often faster than 60mph. I have read somewhere that STX tests at velocities up to 70mph, but have seen no empirical data from them or in fairness from any other brand for above and beyond conditions impact testing on helmets.

I do know this: in cold temperatures with a collegiate play velocity shot, the STX Stallion failed miserably. I look at that picture and only think that the kid was lucky to escape a serious and life altering head trauma injury and not that he or anyone else should be thankful he was wearing the Stallion. I also know this, I've never seen a Cascade helmet go worse than a cracked facemask, cracked facemask molding to the helmet or ear area crack. I have not seen it all but have seen kids take high velocity shots to the head wearing a Cascade helmet and escape injury and also sometimes escape damage to the helmet itself. But my sample size is hardly thorough or scientific and most of what I have seen was in warm spring and summer conditions.

I'd like to see US Lacrosse demand a more stringent and also a more transparent testing of the extremes that this game is now endorsed to be played in conditions materially below 30 farenheit by players who put a velocity materially greater than 60mph on the ball.

The information out there about the picture which is circulating is incorrect. What s bothersome is the impact those falsehoods have.
As parents, do your homework, and understand that because of the consumer protection agency, tests are made on equipment. Unfortunately tests are not done utilizing 100+ MPH shots.
The view that the equipment "failed" is false, the young man wearing the helmet was uninjured AND played in the next game the team played in.
Many years ago my child was in a car accident, they escaped uninjured, however, the child seat did not and had to be thrown away. Does this mean the child seat was not effective? I think not.

Sorry to hear of the accident. Kindly don't take this as a snarky comment on top, but to be clear there is no consumer protection agency cognizant to the sport of lacrosse for safety equipment. That organization is NOCSAE, a private and industry funded regulator. The speeds at which the testing are done is arbitrary and set into rule. It could have been 40mph, or 60mph or 120mph for the projectile speed barrier tests. Here, 60mph was selected. The view that the equipment did not "fail" is true in the regard that the player was not seriously injured, but now what we have is a horrific picture of what happens to a Stallion when the speeds of a projectile are over 90mph and it does not inspire confidence, and it represents a whopping sample size of one. I am familiar with baby seats as we had kids, and we disposed of one after a fender bender pursuant with the safety guidelines for infant seats in autos. I believe Cascade is one brand that warns to not use a helmet again after a trauma (my read is after an impact event, Cascade recommends to get the helmet retro fitted or tested), and never to use a helmet at all after three years.

There are no falsehoods in what I wrote out or is the inference that the earliest data we have on the Stallion helmet is not confidence inspiring unfair or misleading in any way. The bottom line is the testing done on these helmets to celebrate them as NOCSAE certified is derelict to the extent it does not reflect the impact regularity factors in effect when lacrosse is played.