Originally Posted by SoSmellyAir (Post 23249365)

Do you feel the same way as you do about VA Tech.'s bicycle helmet testing about, for example:

1. The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS-HLDI)?
2. Underwriter's Lab (UL Solutions)?
3. The Michelin Guide (MICHELIN Restaurants – The MICHELIN Guide)?
4. Moody's Ratings (Ratings.Moodys.com/ratings-news)?
5. Energy Star ratings (Homepage | ENERGY STAR)?

And if you answer yes to all of the above, are there any certification or ratings entity that is not selling something?

Originally Posted by Sy Reene (Post 23249397)

Are you sure there's no licensing fee to use their logos and star ratings?

Originally Posted by Sy Reene (Post 23249397)

Are you sure there's no licensing fee to use their logos and star ratings?

Originally Posted by Sy Reene (Post 23249402)

If we get into the test protocols, and how these originally came out when MIPS was being introduced, there are simply in my mind, more questions than answers.
MIPS' selling point, is primarily I believe based on reducing concussion incidence from rotational impacts, with the MIPS liner providing some rotation give that can prevent that. However, then why have a test protocol that eliminates all of the pre-existing mitigators of rotational impact when testing a helmet, such as:
1. Humans (most) have hair.. this moves
2. Humans have necks, the heads on top of them bend and rotate
3. Humans have a scalp/skin -- which slides a bit over the cranium underneath
4. Humans often wear helmet liners or thermal caps for sun protection and/or insulation in cold weather.

Rather, the test protocol is strapping a helmet strongly to a somewhat tacky, hard, and bald immovable head form. Given that Va Tech at least for other sports, seems to actually test those helmets with bendable neck forms, this seems very strange. With VaTech's test methodology, it does support MIPS, as it MIPS does introduce a slip plane to a test object that has none of the normally naturally-occurring ones that aleady exist.

Originally Posted by PeteHski (Post 23249449)

Okay, so you have basically made up your mind that their test protocols are deliberately biased to favour MIPS and therefore you don’t believe any of their helmet ratings and it must all be a marketing scam. That’s fine, but I’m not that cynical.

The way I use their ratings is to simply filter out all the lower rated helmets. There are now so many 5 star rated helmets to choose from at different price points that I think it makes no sense to look at any of the lower rated ones - unless you have a better source of independent crash testing which conflicts with these ratings.

Originally Posted by Sy Reene (Post 23249570)

, but when MIPS came out, the test methodology wasn't updated in order to isolate and prove out the incremental benefit that MIPS claimed. .

Originally Posted by Sy Reene (Post 23249570)

Maybe comparable, but reminds me a bit of how a number of years ago, tires got wider than their nominally specified widths, and low and behold, those tires would win the rolling resistance reviews.
.

Originally Posted by Koyote (Post 23249688)

That is how methodology works: you don’t alter it to accommodate different test subjects. You come up with the best test methodology, and then stick to it… And as you acknowledge, in the methodology, MIPS helmets perform better.
.

Originally Posted by Sy Reene (Post 23249774)

I don't see how or why methodology couldn't be improved.

Originally Posted by zandoval (Post 23252824)

OK... Late getting back to this thread... I think we need a distinction between Road/Hybred/Mountain bike helmet and e-bike helmet. Some of the e-bikes I have seen around here are scooting around at near 30 MPH. 30 MPH needs a different type helmet then a bicycle helmet.

Originally Posted by Sy Reene (Post 23249774)

I don't see how or why methodology couldn't be improved. Especially as it now seems that VaTech presents yearly editions of their reviews. They could switchover to better testing that better emulates real human head/neck forms. Yes, you remove possibility of seeing apples-apples comparisons of current products vs yesteryear's, but so be it. I do find it odd, if they still have the data, that I can't look at their scored result of a helmet I bought 2-3 years ago. Maybe they have an archive section I haven't located yet?

Originally Posted by Sy Reene (Post 23249397)

Are you sure there's no licensing fee to use their logos and star ratings?

Originally Posted by Sy Reene (Post 23249774)

I do find it odd, if they still have the data, that I can't look at their scored result of a helmet I bought 2-3 years ago. Maybe they have an archive section I haven't located yet?

Originally Posted by Koyote (Post 23253873)

Coming back to add this: I easily found the score for my five-year old helmet...So we'll add this to the list of things about which you are just wrong.

Bear in mind that they don't test every single helmet -- so your helmet may not be listed because it wasn't tested.

Originally Posted by howaboutme (Post 23253827)

Late to the thread but the university is a non profit institution. It is not the same as an organization that has been created or developed and charges a fee to use their logo. Even if VA Tech charges, those fees (just call it profit) go back into the research and not into the pockets of their researchers.

Originally Posted by PeteHski (Post 23253822)

Their test methodology may well evolve and improve. But since it is probably the best independent information currently available freely I’m just going to stick to their 5-star rated helmets which also meet my other personal preferences ie fit, weight, ventilation and appearance. FWIW I currently have a Lazer G1 MIPS. Ultra-light, great ventilation, 5-star rating, good fit system and doesn’t look like a mushroom. Price was quite reasonable too on sale.

Originally Posted by Sy Reene (Post 23254450)

Got a link to the other years' editions?

Originally Posted by Sy Reene (Post 23254450)

They rely on corporate donations (monetary or product).

Originally Posted by Koyote (Post 23254459)

I just typed in my helmet’s brand and model name in the search box, and it showed up – even though it’s been replaced by about three updated versions since I bought it.

Provide evidence or stop making such assertions. As it is, you are just making stuff up and posting it to the Internet.

Originally Posted by Sy Reene (Post 23254471)

I can find my helmet model with the search, but there's nothing to tell me which year's model it is (eg. Bell Z20 MIPS). So if they call their reviews the "2024 Edition", I assume it's what they're selling this year.

There's the below. Somewhere buried in other donation instructions, I think i originally found them on the U's website elsewhere, it mentioned ability to accept product donations as well. I'm not going to search again right now though.
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...8d9fca3a6c.jpg

Originally Posted by Sy Reene (Post 23254451)

Isn't that a slippery slope? Research costs money (eg. salaries). those fees are perhaps are therefore returned into funding operations. Yes, they're a non-profit, but there's still incentive to continue operations.

Originally Posted by howaboutme (Post 23254483)

Clearly this thread is a representation of your overall beliefs, which I respect. Because of that, there's no hope for this discussion.