Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
Having done a bit of research in the past, its going to take a lot of money and manpower to basically follow two groups of people - those who wear neck braces, and those who don't, for a long period to get any statistically useful data.
Further complicating the picture: My initial suspicion is the rate of injury (spinal cord injuries), is so small that it would be virtually impossible to get enough sample size (people) to detect a difference in the injury rate between the two groups. You would literally need to follow thousands of people for 10-20 years to know if there was a real-world difference in the spinal cord injury rate. Not gonna happen when the product in question costs all of 300 dollars.
Maybe someone with more knowledge of statistics will correct me, but....
My conclusion? The models seem to predict some benefit but will we ever really know? Unlikely. If you believe the models, wear one. If you don't, don't
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
However, in the injury models used in Leatt's white paper, the forces transmitted through the t-spine were not significantly different between "with brace" and "without brace" and theoretically would be lower because some of the force would be absorbed by the strut as well as distributed to the thoracic spinal muscles.
Further, in the models, the strut reduces the bending moment on the thoracic spine (since the most common injury is at T6/T7 when the T-spine bends like a stick) and give-way before the spine does by absorbing the bending energy and fracturing the strut...kind of like the way a helmet is designed to break in a fashion that protects your melon.
Even just limiting yourself to the pros makes it complicated as uk125250 has done above. Only Canard was injured with the neckbrace on, but perhaps many fewer people wear the braces. Therefore, you'd expect to see less injury even if the brace did nothing. So you'd have to control for the number of riders wearing the brace. And even then, the sample size is simply too small to produce reliable results, not to mention that the samples could be skewed (for example, younger riders wear the brace while the elders do not).
I can relate!
The thread talking about the interview
Like me, some of you will hear good enough arguments to wear one and feel "safe", while those who don't feel as safe can feel free to skip it and lean against the lack of info.
Important questions are:
1. Can it prevent what it say it prevents (cervical injuries)? No, studies will show the truth.
2. Can it induce injuries? No, studies will show the truth.
3. Most importantly right now. Are they serious in their attempt? Have they made good enough lab-testing before sending the product out to the masses? I feel yes they have.
I wear mine to death (hopefully not necessary), until studies shows them/me wrong. I dig the ambition to attempt reducing spine injuries, and feel an urge to support a gadget that make sense both on paper and in lab.
I can feel at least I made what was possible, right or wrong...
Pit Row
Not that am criticizing the brace. I wear mine when I ride.
What I'd like to see available is a brace compatible chest protector with a spine protector (like the one Ken Roczen put together) Extra credit if it is comfortable.
Post a reply to: Have neck braces reduced spinal injuries?