I always consult Virginia Tech’s ratings, just like I check out Rolling Resistance for tires. I like data to influence decisions especially when it comes to my physical and mental well-being.

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.

RIMS got wider, which made tires plump up beyond their nominal widths. And in many cases, that is indeed faster.

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?

Well, I’m sure that you know much more about this sort of research and testing than all of those people with PhD degrees who do it professionally.

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.

I'm not sure why a e-bike needs a different helmet for >30mph. Wouldn't that mean those of us on regular bikes going faster than 30mph need a different helmet?

This is the Road Cycling subforum, so we probably don’t need to worry about other types of helmet here.

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.

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.

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.

Buy a helmet that you like the fit and looks (color, shape) of. Everything else is far on the margins (IMHO, non-expert).

Got a link to the other years' editions? I was here which is titled 2024 edition, where I'd assume to find a link to 2023, 2022, etc editions or their archive.
https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicyc...t-ratings.html

I realize they don't test all helmets or brands. They rely on corporate donations (monetary or product). While the reviews aren't biased by intent, I do wonder if what they review is based on who sends them product to review?

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.

It should evolve and improve. Actually, interesting question IMO as to the timing of their bicycle testing platform and reviews launch preceded, was concurrent to, or came after MIPs helmets entry into the market?

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.

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

In other words, (1) they do indeed list your helmet, (2) you have absolutely no evidence that they take money from the helmet industry.

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

I guess you can call them beliefs, but honestly I just consider what I've said the result of a bit of research, common sense, and a wee bit of critical thought. These calls to back up what I'm saying, which I attempt to do, are met for some reason with just more and more challenges. Not sure exactly why.

Over the decades I've crashed 3 times to the point where my helmet hit the road. All 3 helmets were of varying quality, all protected me.

You’ve not offered a single piece of evidence that the VA Tech helmet lab has received any funding from a helmet manufacturer. (Your “beliefs” are not evidence.)

Your version of “common sense” and “critical thought” betrays a complete failure to understand public universities and the research process.

Since you claim to not understand why I’m challenging you, I’ll make it as clear as possible: I hate bs. If you don’t want to be challenged, then don’t make entirely unsupported claims - especially on a cycling forum when we’re discussing a respected neutral organization that’s trying to help us make safer decisions.

You're correct. Non Profit is more accurately - "Not for Profit". It doesn't mean the business doesn't make money. It means it doesn't exist to make a profit. It exists to provide services and any money that is made beyond expenses (IOW "profit") is put back into services, salaries, infrastructure to support the services, or reasonable cash reserves - rather than to shareholders profits. Universities can do the same and often have "Centers" and such that are similar to stand alone entities and some of them generate income from their activities to keep themselves in business. I wouldn't be surprised if the helmet testing thing is set up that way.

Is there a major helmet manufacturer absent from their tests? All the brands I can think of are included.

It really doesn't matter whether or not they receive donations and money from the helmet industry. In itself there's nothing wrong with that. I don't really even care if that somehow prioritizes which products get reviewed first or next.

The crux of my issue with the entire setup is their testing itself, and I've laid out what issues I see with their methodology back in POST 25. Their test protocols are available to anyone. The fact that their test equipment lacks actual human characteristics is also obvious. What is unknown is whether their omitted characteristics matter to actual helmet safety. I can't prove that these factors matter, but intellectually I think they could. I also cannot find anybody that has provided any rationale or scientific support as to why those factors do not matter. So you can call my concerns BS if you like, but there's neither proof nor disproof that my concerns are relevant.

Here's a little exercise anyone can perform right now. Take 3 fingers, line them and push on your forehead about where a cycling helmet cage would be. Then move around -- see how you can move up/down/left or right, or in little circles. This simple phenomenon is not replicated by any test that I can determine.

So my claim is basically that I believe the VaTech's cycling helmet reviews have become the industry's de facto standard, but perhaps undeservedly so. The marketplace accepts their rankings because they're the only game in town. Their test platform could be inherently favoring MIPS (and alternatives such as the revolutionary Wavecel) results, and likely be a large contributor to MIPS taking off commercially. MIPS in itself, generally, adds cost, weight, and decreases ventilation vs helmet designs that don't include MIPS. I'd prefer there to be more substantiated evidence that these tradeoffs are definitely worth it for the real amount of increased safety. I do imagine that the reason these factors aren't tested is that it's prohibitive to do so -- requiring much more elaborate headform constructions, and if you even could get one of these made with a sliding exterior layer (like a scalp or with hair), that in testing these will wear out and be consumed fairly quickly -- being unusable for continued and multiple repetitive testing.

Partial lists linked below; I do realize there's some overlap between these though. I also realize that many of these are brands that the US market can't access from domestic sellers, but I'd still would like to see the tests. I think you're in Europe aren't you, so maybe more familiar with some of these brands.

Filtered1
Filtered2

Amazing what people will pay to think they look less like a dweeb!

but, but, but, a helmet is only good for 5 yrs, so make sure it's been discounted by more than 20% :innocent:

Maybe because e-bike riders tend to have a different average competence level than those who can power their own bike to 30mph…

Maybe because they're doing that speed in city traffic not in their imagination?

So in Darwin's survival game, of those that crash in accidents that will involve head trauma, we want the people with lesser abilities to have a better chance to survive? <grin>.

Welcome to BF!