Originally Posted by
JohnJ80
Because helmet standards are essentially tied to statute (which is unfortunate), innovation in safety of helmets has really stagnated
I totally agree, and I know the history
Originally Posted by
JohnJ80
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.
Its those tests that I would really like to see
Originally Posted by
JohnJ80
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.
The only things I could see would be:
* the low friction layer not moving as intended due to the way the helmet is designed/attached
* reduced absorption of direct impact due to the low friction layer
Originally Posted by
JohnJ80
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.
As I said, dollars a irrelevant here, but a healthy dose of skepticism is always warranted. Companies get behind a technology for a lot of reasons, but the most important is always profit, not my health. I'd rather find out more than risk being the example of where something new went wrong.