Because helmet standards are essentially tied to statute (which is unfortunate), innovation in safety of helmets has really stagnated until the MIPS people shook up the industry with their technology. The helmet manufacturers have been loathe to do anything that did not adhere the current CPSC based standards because they viewed deviating from the standard in any way to be a liability. However, both POC and Scott are on the records as saying that they believe this is significant advance and, for the first time, are willing to deviate from the CPSC standard with a new technology. In other words, these guy have tested the stuffing out of this stuff and believe that it does offer a significant benefit that would only reduce their liability. In the liability drenched world of helmet design, I think that speaks volumes.

The lesson that I learned, in about the most heartbreaking way possible to learn it being that of a parent looking at the MRI of their child's brain covered with DAI damage, is that helmets doing a very good job of mitigating skull fractures and penetrations but they are all but ineffective in preventing shearing and tearing of neurons. That's the damage the gives you cognitive impairments, motor impairments, personality loss/change, etc... - in other words in a gross sense "brain damage." That's the big problem with current helmets and the Bicycling articles does a good job of laying that out. Most of us think helmets protect us from "head injury" in a broad sense but it's far from that simple.

If you look at the Scott helmet rendering of the MIPS IP, you'll see that essentially the pads are mounted to a very thin but very slippery piece that fits in the helmet between the pads and the EPS foam. It can move maybe 3/4" or so. Even if that is completely ineffective, it would be hard for me to see how this would be a problem in that it would likely render the rest of the helmet's ability to prevent penetration or mitigate skull fractures. But I can see how that would prevent a significant amount of rotational force being applied the head/brain. It's a simple change, and it's pretty obvious that it won't wreck the helmet's ability to do the other things it's supposed to do.

Based on this inspection (and our other skiing MIPS helmets) as well as having some confidence that all these helmet mfgs would not be jumping on this technology if it were ineffective or detrimental because this would have a dramatic effect on their best interest, I'm willing to accept that it is better.

The other part of it is that this sort of injury (DAI) can be so egregious that it's worth doing anything you can to avoid it, especially given that helmets don't do much to protect from this right now. Don't get me wrong, the fact that helmets do a very good job of preventing penetrating injuries and mitigating the odds for a skull fracture are exceptionally important - your odds of a avoiding a fatality are much, much better if your skull stays intact. That is (obviously) exceptionally important but it's not the while picture.

There are two ways to address this: (1) you can question and be skeptical (2) or you can satisfy yourself that there is a decent probability that it works and that it does not additional harm. I've spent a lot of time looking into this, and I'm pretty certain that it does no additional harm as minimum and probably provides significant benefit. The marginal cost difference won't even hardly cover your co-pay to see the neurosurgeon or neurologist. Is that a benefit? That's an individual decision for sure. But I think the fact that these helmets tend to sell out pretty fast would argue that a lot of people find this compelling. Given that it isn't heavily advertised as of yet, so it means that people are researching it on their own, is also indicative of it's appeal. Me? I'd rather take the risk that it provides benefit/does no harm at the cost of a few dollars that miss out on the benefit should I need it and not have it.

J.