I already did email them, and because this is a forum - some people have come across things others haven't. Thats kind of the point of a forum.

I'm sorry my hope for some real information has rapidly compressed your panties. Good luck with the unbunching.

1. Fit.
2. See #1 .

An inexpensive helmet that fits properly is superior to an ill-fitting expensive helmet.

This one did its job:

I would be tickled - thrilled! - no, seriously! - to be linked to some independent data corroborating this statement.

Cool. Could you give us the number and title of that safety standard, and the issuing body/organization? Thanks!

tcs, same here. The best thing I've found so far is a Swedish group that reviewed children's helmets, using impacts at 21-27km/h (13-17mph). They did rate the Scott helmet highest for safety, but the hard data isn't available (or easily found - I'm google translating the pages)

Edit: Link here: https://www.folksam.se/testergodarad/sakeritrafiken/pacykelochtillfots/cykelhjalmstestbarn/1.110302

This is the adult version of the test:

Cykelhjälmstest vuxna - Testresultat - Tester & Goda råd - Folksam

Summa säkeret ... is the summary of "safety points"

let me know if you want anything else.

fwiw, the germans have the best testing system.

This is the adult version of the test:

Cykelhjälmstest vuxna - Testresultat - Tester & Goda råd - Folksam

Summa säkeret ... is the summary of "safety points"

let me know if you want anything else.

fwiw, the germans have the best testing system.

this helmet the won the test of Folksam:

Etto | Zero

When I was younger it was style over comfort and safety, now that I am a bit older it's more leaning towards comfort and safety over style but if you are willing to spend some money you can find a happy medium.

That was interesting article. I read both the child and the adult version after running them through Google Translate.

Looks like the MIPS stuff likely works and likely causes no increased harm. Not so conclusive on the adult version because the clip on the POC MIPS helmet failed but still the helmet received a good rating. I'd not take either of these tests as conclusive but I think they are inferring what I was saying earlier - likely will help significantly and will do no additional harm.

The 40% claim for a reduction in oblique hits would be significant. If I remembers some of the other reading I did on this a while ago, the damage to the brain doesn't follow a linear relationship with the acceleration received but that it is much more a threshold situation - shearing (i.e. tearing of neurons in the brain/damage) is relatively small and inconsequential until you pass a threshold acceleration and which point injury increases rapidly with increased acceleration. So a 40% reduction gives you considerable margin and a chance to keep below the threshold since, conversely, if you reduce the acceleration experienced by the brain, you drop the damage in a non linear fashion too (a very good thing).

I'd love to see more testing too because if this works, I'd love to see manufacturers have to compete on better concussion protection and protection above and beyond the arcane CPSC and/or statutory standard.

J.

Thanks! Looks like it beat out the only MIPS helmet in the line up, the POC Trabec Race MIPS, which scored on par with a few others.

Test approach seems pretty solid. Direct impact, simulation of impact with a car, and simulation of impact with asphalt direct. The big downside on the POC was that the strap came apart, which lowered the score, but there is absolutely no information on how they handled scoring. It may have been equal to the Etto Zero if that had not happened, but then that would mean the two oblique tests (vehicle impact test and asphalt impact test) showed no difference between the Etto Zero and the POC Trabec Race MIPS. Which doesn't make the MIPS seem to have any advantage.

I really wish they would have posted the direct data and more detail in the methodology.

It's similar to consumer reports. FWIW.

i'm shocked to hear you say that. shocked!

I'm not sure "best" is meaningful. If testing doesn't reflect current understanding of concussion/TBI mechanisms but rather is based (at some level) on historical standards then it may not matter. TBI is a big topic right now and medical understanding is evolving rapidly; severity is being attributed to much lower levels of symptoms than had been previously.

Be be interesting to hear more about this.

J.

Does my head count as independent data? Or maybe the fact that i'm alive and well after smacking my head at 25 mph onto concrete one time? I've retired two helmets that otherwise would have been coma (or death) inducing impacts. I think the case is closed on helmet safety so lets move on, eh?

- Andy

While thats awesome and I'm glad you're ok

.... no, it isn't really. It doesn't say anything about whether MIPS helmets are safer, whether there is a trade off or not, etc. I'm not calling any of the current standards out there great, they are measured at standardized testing facilities. The only testing thats not direct from the creators of MIPS seems to be the Swedish study done by an insurance company, which doesn't share the test information, just the overall rating they applied, and the only MIPS helmet was not the top choice.

Then don't buy one. Is it great to have choices or what?

Having had MIPS helmets and non MIPS helmets and seeing first hand that it's a virtual certainty that it will not cause harm over regular helmets and after seeing first hand the absolute horror of a serious TBI, I think it's a worthwhile bet to make. And that's why I'm spending the money to outfit my family accordingly. If I'm wrong, the incremental cost to me for the whole family is $0 to $100 max. If I'm right and if circumstances occurred that it prevents a serious TBI, then I'd say the marginal difference was pretty much priceless. That's a bet I'm happy to take all day long and twice on Sundays. Little downside to stepping up, big upside if it's needed and it works.

Listen, I'm glad you're happy with your purchase and feel comfortable, but I don't see why you're getting bothered over someone wanting verifiable information about the helmet. No, I won't be buying one as of right now, and the entire reason why is that this has been out for four years and I don't see any real-word test data aside from one independent test without details or conclusive positive results.

Now since you're concerned about helmet safety, even owning a MIPS helmet already, why don't you want to see more tests done? Isn't that one of those things you were commenting about in your initial posts?

If I get a reply back from the manufacturers on their impact testing, I'll gladly post it up.

I'm not bothered by it. I'm telling you why I did buy several. In return, I'm not sure why that apparently bothers you. To put a point on it, I don't care what you do. I don't even know you. My concern about helmet safety is for my family and for me because we have a need for it. I've researched it and I'm comfortable with the decision as I explained. By all means buy or don't buy whatever you want.

I'm not bothered, you're replying to me repeatedly saying buy it or don't. Which doesn't seem to imply so much that I'm bothered.

Anyway, you're comfortable with the manufacturer's ads, one article in Bicycling, and two manufacturers saying its great. I'm not. I'm glad you're happy with your decision. I will co tinue to look for more information and share it. Anecdotes are not evidence, and testing is a *good* thing. If there was a point where MIPS was significantly less effective at impact absorption, wouldn't you want to know? Wouldn't you want the manufacturers to know?

Its amazing to me how much - we'll call it 'lively response' - there is to looking for proof, when that's precisely a reason behind complaints about current standards, that they don't include or account for the multitude of other problems and concerns associated with accidents. More information is not a bad thing.

You mischaracterized what I've said and done. To amplify on what I've said as well as recount:

1. I've corresponded with engineers at some of the helmet companies that incorporate MIPS.

2. I've corresponded with some of the technical people at MIPS themselves.

3. I've purchased and carefully examined helmets from several manufacturers that incorporate MIPS technology in both skiing and cycling helmets. I also have carefully compared them to helmets in both disciplines that do not have MIPS.

4. I have talked extensively with medical professionals, expert in TBI, about the benefits and deficits involved with helmets and their protection over the course of the last 18 months.

5. Based on my engineering background and the above, I have become largely certain that MIPS technology in a helmet does not do additional harm and very likely provides significant increased benefit and that there is little downside and much upside to be had.

Yes, more information would be a very good thing but this is not a decision without getting the information. Would it be nice if there was a nice little package of information with a bow on top? Sure. But that doesn't mean the information doesn't exist or that there is inadequate decision on which to make a reasonable decision.

This works for me and I believe that my family is net safer. Everyone else has to make their own decision.

J.

First time you're mentioning this at all, actually. Care to share what information they have provided?

First time for this as well. Again, care to share?

They reviewed MIPS? And what was said?

If all I have to go on is a design company making a video, I'd call that inadequate.

Nope. I've said or implied it in previous posts here and elsewhere. These were private conversations, feel free to contact them. I'm sure they'll be as forthcoming with you. I'm not in the habit of providing detailed private conversations without permission.


Same as above.


short version:

1. standard helmets do virtually nothing to prevent DAI injuries but are very good at preventing penetrations and mitigating fractures

2. MIPS is extremely promising and they are all for it. And "it's about time," is a common response.

3. TBI is much more severe, has much more signifcant long term health consequence than previously thought. Much higher emphasis needs to be placed on protection and avoidance of DAI (oblique hit) damage. Another way of saying it - even mild TBI especially repetitively, has long term health consequences.

No, it's all about how motivated one is to find out. That is also a personal choice. I was/am very motivated to figure it out.

J.

Actually, all you've said previously as guiding you is:

But ok. I guess test data is private information in your eyes.

I will continue to look for more information and provide that information here as I did before. Enjoy your purchase.