Just to inject a note of skepticism, I’m all in favor of MIPS and any other system for reducing forces in a crash and I will probably pay attention to the VT ratings when I replace my helmet, but the claim regarding concussion prevention as a medical outcome is completely speculative, as no clinical or even relevant animal data show that these systems are effective, and you will note that that the manufacturers don’t make any such claims because they would run afoul of the FDA if they did.

true ....

But I feel a better way to think of it is a helmet with MIPS or equivalent technology is better than the same helmet without.

From a personal perspective, what i found interesting was that they tested a POC Octal but not the MIPS version. That helmet did well and I would imagine the MIPS version - which I own - would be a 5 star helmet.

Anyhow, for what it’s worth, our son suffered a severe TBI while skiing 6-1/2 years ago the year before MIPS was really available. I’m an engineer, so I got pretty interested in this because of our experience and because our son, an athlete, had goals in his rehab that related to a resumption of sports. I wound up corresponding with both the MIPS and POC technical teams. Without going into detail, and since most of it is old information now anyhow, the arguments for MIPS or similar technologies are pretty compelling and I wish MIPS had been in my sons helmet when he crashed because I think his injury would have been mitigated substantially. I also learned that MIPS in a helmet is never going to be worse and is highly probable to be better based on the simulations they had done - consistent with a “do no harm” strategy that was necessary to take the legal risk to exceed CPSC specs. So with this report, I’m glad to see that it’s being widely accepted and is working like it should and that the industry has finally broken out of the CPSC induced stalemate. No family should have to suffer through what we did. Any chance of avoiding that is a big deal.