I think he overstates when he asserts that EPS is not good at shock absorbing. EPS will absorb more or less well depending on its density. But I'm on board with the general notion that you could make helmets a little safer by making them bigger and thicker - which would make them even harder to sell.

My general take on helmets is that they provide useful protection for bike crashes. In particular, they reduce your chances of injury from hitting your head on the ground from a fall. The cost is low. the inconvenience is low. So why not?

A helmet probably kept me out of a hospital and maybe even out of a grave when I went over the handlebars of my bike. Hard to say for sure what the outcome would have otherwise been. But the helmet damage suggests a hospital visit as a minimum. But I don't see how a helmet is likely to help much with the forces involved when a car hits a cyclist. As the blogger points out, they are designed with a 14mph or less collision in mind. So if a car merely knocks you down, then its more likely to help. But if it hits you with substantial force, The helmet will provide little protection.

So I think its generally a good idea to wear a helmet. Even when you aren't riding around cars. But I think the strong and even zealous advocacy I often see oversells the potential benefit. If people looked at actual risks they might be just as concerned about head injuries with other daily activities - like walking (especially after age 65) and driving.

[MENTION=573049]Jay Turberville[/MENTION], I think Grant's main objection was to using rigid styrofoam instead of something squishier that slows your brain down before stopping it. And I agree, there's not much a foam hat can do against a Ram 1500.

Other than the kapok-stuffed leather hairnets that we racers used in the '60's and '70's, all bike helmets (e.g., the popular Pro-Tec helmets) used "squishier" foam before Bell came out with their expanded-polystyrene-lined helmets. Once the ANSI (and Snell) began testing bike helmets, the helmets with spongy foam (to say nothing of the hairnets) all but disappeared from the market, since they could not meet the relevant safety standards.

Styrofoam hats, on the other hand, earn approval from the testing agencies because the EPS crushes on impact, thus absorbing energy and lessening the likelihood or severity of concussion.

(By the way: no, an EPS-lined helmet won't protect you from a hit from a speeding car. To argue, as some posters here are prone to do, that such a helmet is therefore useless for a bike rider is like arguing that steel and Kevlar helmets are useless for ground troops because they won't protect against a direct hit from a mortar shell.)

Instead of bloviating about bike helmets from his position of highly opinionated ignorance, Petersen should interview an engineer or two from Bell or Giro or one of the other current helmet manufacturers and learn a little about the subject.

Agreed. I haven't read the entire thread or even all of the last page or the recently linked article. But I've never worn a helmet expecting much protection from a vehicle at speed. While getting hit from a car or truck is certainly in the realm of possibility, it fortunately has not happened. What has happened is getting ran off the path by an inattentive rider, or an e-bike going too fast. I've crashed due to wet roads, loose gravel or mud and while I did not have a head impact if I had I would have been glad to have had the helmet. I've had close calls from people backing out of driveways, right hooks or pulling out in front of me at intersections.

It makes no sense to not wear a helmet because it can't protect against things beyond its design limits.

I understand his point. I just disagree with much of it. Something squishier and of a similar thickness won't slow the head/brain (absorb very much energy) much before it stops it. He also thinks using eggs is a proper test - somehow missing the major point that the mass of an egg is so much less than that of a human head. Whether an egg shell cracks or not isn't a particularly good model for evaluating head protection. Nor is pressing your thumb against some Styrofoam. His arguments against EPS are weak. He seems to misunderstand the issues around absorbing energy which is the key role that EPS plays.

The design problem for bicycle helmets is hard. How do you add useful protection in a lightweight design? Well, the fact is that you can't do it very well. There are some basic physics issues involved that are very hard if not impossible to get around. Automobiles manage the forces by having large crush zones and spreading impacts over larger areas of the body. (They also use EPS in their bumpers and other places for energy absorption). A large crush zone on a helmet would be unwieldy. Who would use it? And it is no wonder that football helmets don't use EPS. The helmet needs to withstand repeated impacts. EPS is useful one time. But motorcycle helmets use EPS as the primary material for impact energy absorption. He's simply wrong to assert otherwise. He also seems to think that rock climbing helmets don't use EPS, but they often do. Likewise, EPS is commonly used in horse riding helmets. I could go on.

Please explain what the point was of posting that link.

Non-stryofoam helmet. Just adding to the conversation.

My $50 Specialized Align II received better performance test results in the Virginia Tech Ratings. Bontrager's own Rally MiPs helmet outperformed all of their WaveCell helmets. Also, some WaveCel helmets also have portions lined with EPS. It is great that people are trying to improve cycling technology. MiPs is one such attempt. And WaveCel may have some advantages that the Virgina Tech testing doesn't reveal. So the marketing video from Bontrager seems to me to be utter BS likening an EPS helmet to 30 year old steel bike frame technology and their new WaveCel technology to a modern carbon fiber bike - that is "better in every way." But unlike the modern bike, the advantages are not clear at all. They appear to be marginal to non-existent if Virginia Tech's helmet testing protocol is to be believed.

Mr. Petersen has made a cycle industry career out of 'everybody else is wrong and I'm right'. He's built a small following over the last 30+ years.

In addition to MiPS and WaveCell, 6D has a proprietary slip plane design between two crush layers. Leatt and Kali also have helmets with liner "doughnuts" designed to permit head motion on impact. POC has their SPIN system, LEM uses something called "GelMotion" impact pads. Laser has a design called KinetiCore. Custom helmet producer HEXR has 3D printed honeycomb interior that reduces rotational energy. Louis Garneau has a design called ROTEXX with a fluid layer. There are others, like Smith Optics' Koroyd liner.

BTW, I've seen posters (not Jay) insinuate that MIPS itself was a safety certification or its presence was some sort of guarantor, when in fact it's just a proprietary, licensable slip plane design. The Triple 8 Dual Certified MIPS helmet is rated just three stars in the Virginia Tech tests, currently the #185th place tested helmet!

Some smart, sincere folks at ASTM, Snell, CPSC, Consumer Reports and Virginia Tech have designed tests they say mimic cycle crashes. All five test protocols differ in various aspects. There are disputes over whether the EN960 headform or the Hybrid III headform more accurately mimics the human head in testing.

Thanks for that. I'd forgotten the Trek advertising campaign for their WaveCel helmets: "Cycling Has Changed Forever!" or whatever their slogan was.

FWIW, Virginia Tech recently rated Trek's Specter WaveCel helmet #38 overall. (Among all styles of helmets, that is, including road, MTB, commuter, etc.)

Anybody know what happened to the $5 million class action lawsuit alleging deceptive claims about the effectiveness of WaveCel? I'm guessing they settled out of court since I can't find the outcome online and their current advertising verbiage seems less definite in their claims.

Good points.

Here's a question; everyone's all about rotational forces, but what proportion of your average head impact is rotational versus straight smack?

As I understand it, the concern is that a glancing impact is likely to impart rotational accelerations to the head as the helmet "sticks" to a rough surface like asphalt.. Given the complex nature of just about any head impact, I'd assume few are a "straight smack". So your question is probably more like, "How often is the MiPS system going to be presented with harmful amounts of possible rotational acceleration (glancing strikes) that MiPS needs to render harmless?" I don't know the answer, but here's the paper describing the Virgina Tech testing methods and there is some discussion about rotation in it. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/items/...7-a4eef66ad1fa

There are references in this article that may help answer the question. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11559-0
But frankly, I don't see how MiPS is likely to be harmful. I can get it in a highly rated and inexpensive helmet. So I'm not highly motivated to dig further. If you do dig in, I'd be curious to know what you found though.

Just an observation re: how often we "smack straight". What's the most common bone break in cycling? Collarbones. When we hit straight on, we don't even contact our shoulders. But we often have head injuries in addition to our broken collarbones. That head/helmet contact is quite typically a head spinner. BTDT.

Actually my question was more like, does MIPS protect at all from impact? Stated like that, it's a dumb question. Sorry, I have zero interest in the techy stuff.

I wear my helmet with the assumption that it may not protect me much from concussion, but it might mitigate skull fractures. Unless I'm hit by anything big, in which case it doesn't matter.

My comments from another place on the forum got moved here and I removed them.
EddyR

Correct. Keep your helmet jibber jabber where it belongs, in A&S.

I must be missing something...

Moved some posts here from 50+

Helmets for commuting
 

Thinking about my next helmet.

What helmet do you use for commutes or errands?

What features made you pick this helmet?

What modifications have you made to your helmet for comfort, convenience or safety?

What features / mods have you found to be especially or surprisingly helpful?

What features / mods have you found to be kind of meh or ultimately unproductive?

Know other threads are similar but new materials, new technology such as smart helmets, and creative use of magnets in recent years may mean there are some new or new-ish ideas out there that I certainly would find interesting.

Thanks in advance fo anyone that takes the time to respond.

I like to buy an inexpensive white helmet with good ventilation. I clip a 180-degree red blinkie to the rear, a modest headlight to the top to blink during the day and be a solid supplemental light at night. I also mount a small action cam to capture my rides for review, to share, and in case evidence is needed after a collision.

I have been clipping the rear light to the elastic band that no longer seems to be used in newer designs. I'm sure I could fashion a mount for any future helmet if need be. I thought about spending the extra money for a helmet with integrated lights, but I don't think the front lights are as bright as what I can attach myself.

I ride year-round down to 5F and it's usually in the teens on winter mornings. Even at those temperatures I prefer lots of helmet ventilation. I wear a thin balaclava, and from 5-12F I may put up the hood of my light wind-breaker shell for an additional layer. But my head gets really hot, and a sweaty head gets and stays colder than a dry one.

That's the very reason I steer clear of helmets with built-in lights. They're never what you really want for brightness. I've always managed to find a way to mount my own head and tail light along with mirror and camera. Of course, for night rides I leave the camera off.:)

(helmet) Giro Agilis MIPS or Bontrager circuit wavecel
 

Considering they both fit well, what would you rather get ? My only worry about the Bontrager is they material may make me feel more hot during warm weather riding