No idea if it's cycling-good, but this looks cool: Sweet Protection | Helmets

M.

I recently upgraded my four year old helmet with one that's soo much more comfortable. Old one was a specialized align, and the straps started to get a bit crusty and stiff. Shopped around for a while and knew I was gonna spend $100+ for a new one. I wanted something lighter and with more airflow, as I found my head to be really sweaty after a quick ride.

One lbs had a specialized prevail on clearance for $160, but the store manager was gonna let it go for $100. I didn't hesitate knowing the regular price was $250. It's light with lots of airflow, and I dig the adjustablility of the retaining system. Took a few rides to dial it in to my head shape.

I've got a bunch of replacement pads left over from the annual kids bike helmet giveaway I organized, pm me if you want a set to try.

I'm interested, thanks! PM sent...

Ruberad have you tried washing the pads? Depending on how much I sweat I'll wash my helmet after rides pretty often.

Maybe you can fill in some blanks for me on MIPS then; I'm having trouble finding more than reference articles talking about it and the pretty videos, but not quite enough on what it does. I get the concept, the low friction interior allows for shift, replicating the way things happen inside your skull. The info in the videos looks like it does an excellent job for motorcycle and other tight fitting helmets.

What doesn't make as much sense to me is how it works in a helmet which already is a bit looser. I can't find any information on that. Something sitting on top of your head with just one strap, even pulled tightly, is going to have more movement than I've seen represented so far. So is it benefiting in this scenario? Do the helmets with MIPS by Scott and the like simply have the patented design included, or do they have additional tests for these configurations? If anyone has a link that covers this, I'd love to see it. If the low friction layer is allowing for rotation to absorb some impact, that would only work if the inner layer is secure enough that the impact force would move the outer layer but not the inner layer; otherwise, it does nothing.

I'm all for safety, my brain is what pays the bills after all, but I just want to make sure what I'm paying for is founded in practical use, not pure theoretical that wouldn't match what would happen on the road. Which is what annoys me about some other certifications out there.

POC, Scott and others license MIPS technology
It is proven in bicycle helmets to reduce certain types of impacts pretty dramatically.
There was a large article about it in Bicycling a while back.

Bicycling article: SENSELESS | Bicycling Magazine

Counterpoint from helmets.org: Bicycling magazine article is misleading

I saw the article and the claim; what I didn't see was real data to prove that claim based on the types of helmets being used. Impact data for a sportbike helmet is going to be different than that for a mountain bike helmet or a road helmet, and much more so with football and hockey helmets which also use MIPS.

But how big of a hit does it need to be? Does low impact energy still go through to your head? How effective is MIPS if the helmet basically has one point to retain it (chin strap)? Does it need to wrap to the base of the skull (more of a full head coverage) to be secure enough to have a benefit? To be candid, the Bicycling article just confirms that organizations aren't keeping up to date, and there are new ideas out there - it doesn't really tell you if MIPS is actually beneficial to me.

I love this stuff:

Universal Cycles -- ProGold Helmet Cleaner And Deodorizer

The foaming action seems like a gimmick but it really does work. I second washing pads. I buy extra pads so that I can replace them as I wash.

I just bought a new Bontrager Specter. Very comfortable and really good air flow. The pads also seem to direct the sweat to the sides of my head. I have a really big head and I have plenty of room to spare in case I want to wear a cap under it. I had originally bought the Bontrager Circuit but the new 2014 models has a major design flaw. They took the adjustable cams out from where the straps meet under the ears and sewed it all together. With no adjustibility it was impossible to get the helmet to fit right.

Actual data on helmets is crazy. There's actually several studies that essentially argue that bike helmets are a waste of time (the number of wrecks where the helmet makes a difference is really small because you either die or aren't hurt much at all). Given how easy it is to wear a helmet I think that logic is silly because if you are in the crash the helmet would help who really cares how rare it is.

I feel similarly about MIPS. My next helmet will probably be a MIPS helmet unless the helmet is uncomfortable. Will it make a difference? Who knows, but why not? Now if another helmet has a feature you want or if you don't want to pay the increased price for a MIPS helmet I wouldn't worry about it. If those things aren't a big deal then the MIPS seems worth it to avoid a brain injury even if it's extremely rare.

I picked a Nutcase Watermelon, because it is fun. In addition to its function absorbing impacts, I find it makes motorists grin for the moment it takes to pass me, and they forget to make the negative associations they might have about cyclists. I do wish it were lighter.

I did pull the forehead pad out once and wash it (dishsoap hand-wash), but it is pretty deteriorated and thin and shabby, and it started to stank again pretty quickly.

That looks interesting. And I certainly would like to have bought extra pads, but Bell doesn't make replacement pads for my bottom-end helmet (surely they would prefer customers throw helmets away and repurchase). And as cheap as that helmet was ($20 or so?), I can't see the value in paying 2x--10x to get a model with replaceable pads. (For that matter, I can't see the value in paying more than about $20 for ANY helmet. How much better can a helmet be?)

Well, the 'Why not' is actually kind of important. For example, Snell requirements have been changing, and on the motorcycle side, have been decreasing in effectiveness of low impact to achieve high impact capabilities... which is not a good thing, imho. The point is, just because a feature is there does not make it beneficial, it can actually work against what one of the goals would be. Unless you apply to the practical, its just theorycrafting and marketing to me.

I used to get real nasty helmet funk but not any more. Now every single time I sweat in the helmet I rinse it out -- shell, straps, pads and all. I figure if it's wet with sweat anyway it'll take the same amount of time to dry if I rinse it out well, and rinsing prevents the funk.

Unless you go with a MIPS helmet. They meet a much higher safety standard than CPSC, which as has been covered, is a fairly outdated standard at this point.

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.

That's a good point. I (relatively) frequently rinse and air-dry my gloves, why not my helmet?

I totally agree, and I know the history

Its those tests that I would really like to see

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

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.

This is exactly what I do. I once saw a friend wash his entire helmet after a ride with a garden hose and at first I thought "how weird". Now I just wash the whole thing in the sink.

tit for tat
I don't consider Bicycling an authority to be taken whole cloth, and you have to balance everything you read.
I think most people can make decisions for themselves on mips technology.

helmets.org is full of 'counterpoints' that are not backed up by the hard data either.
*but both articles and sites contain good info

Certainly, helmets are bought for many reasons. I don't see someone buying mips for safety any less valid than someone spending $400 just for slightly larger vents and a few grams lighter weight.

Marketing and developing helmets based on safety features seems logical to me. Much more so than for "performance" and style reasons that dominate thus far.

No idea why some are being so hyper critical of this but totally ok with what the industry is pushing thus far.

in the end they are all molded packing foam. Just get whatever you feel helps the most.
I happen to think MIPS is a great innovation.

Who says it has to be one or the other? And how is asking for some real information being 'hyper critical'?

I just want one test, just one, that shows impact data based on expected bicycling conditions for the road. I don't see how that is possibly too much to ask.

dude, it isn't one or the other. That's my point.

If you want more data than has been provided, contact them directly. Why would other people with the same search resources as you have more than that?