MIPS?

[scott43]

Does MIPS protect cyclists from traumatic brain injuries?

Determining helmet safety requires testing, so we tested six helmets beyond the certification tests required to sell bicycle helmets.

www.velonews.com

 

[Tom K.]

Interesting.

A good counterpoint from the same source:

Kask puts MIPS on notice with new WG11 rotational impact test

Testing with more human-like headforms that account for hair and scalp suggests standalone features like MIPS might not be necessary.

www.velonews.com

 

[Tony Storaro]

Interesting.

A good counterpoint from the same source:

Kask puts MIPS on notice with new WG11 rotational impact test

Testing with more human-like headforms that account for hair and scalp suggests standalone features like MIPS might not be necessary.

www.velonews.com

If Kask without MIPS were less safe Team Ineos wouldn’t be using them. Simple as…

 

[crosscountry]

Simple as…

...sponsorship?

 

[Tom K.]

If Kask without MIPS were less safe Team Ineos wouldn’t be using them. Simple as…

I confess to being a fan of Kask, owning one of their helmets, and flat-out LOVING the lack of "bobble head" and noise that the most commonly used MIPS layer of plastic as nearly an afterthought provides.

Plus, a ITALIAN!!!

 

[Tony Storaro]

...sponsorship?

You think Ineos will risk the health and lives of elite athletes for money? Really? Even if they do UCI would have a lot to say, they love banning stuff.

 

[Tony Storaro]

I confess to being a fan of Kask, owning one of their helmets, and flat-out LOVING the lack of "bobble head" and noise that the most commonly used MIPS layer of plastic as nearly an afterthought provides.

Plus, a ITALIAN!!!

100%. Protone is my next helmet, MIPS or mot.

 

[AlexisLD]

You think Ineos will risk the health and lives of elite athletes for money? Really? Even if they do UCI would have a lot to say, they love banning stuff.

That must be sarcastic, but I will bite anyways!

You have to remember that the helmet safety norm is not really related to concussion risk, but related to not breaking the skull. I was super disappointed last year when I listened to all these helmet companies on Blister's podcast, all saying their helmet was safe enough [according to the norm] and that they were working on improving other features. I wish there were more pushback to challenge them on that.

If you look at the research out of Virginia Tech, you can see that a 2m drop from static conditions (0 m/s) causes a 50+% chance of having a concussion with even the best helmets (basically, just falling off your bike with no forward speed). Skiing and mountain biking crashes are way worst than that, with higher drops and/or higher speeds. For sure helmets are helping, but I would still argue that they are not quite doing their job if you still have a very high risk of having a concussion when you fall.

There is not a lot of magic. We need thicker helmets to reduce concussions. For that to happen, we need a new norm. I sadly don't see how that will be happening anytime soon.

I know a few people who got concussions. These can be terrible life-altering events and it is crazy that there isn't more people asking for better helmets to protect their melon! Size and aero drag is a non-issue [I think] in skiing and mountain biking [maybe not in ski racing, but clearly in any kind of recreational skiing].

 

[Tony Storaro]

That must be sarcastic, but I will bite anyways!

You have to remember that the helmet safety norm is not really related to concussion risk, but related to not breaking the skull. I was super disappointed last year when I listened to all these helmet companies on Blister's podcast, all saying their helmet was safe enough [according to the norm] and that they were working on improving other features. I wish there were more pushback to challenge them on that.

If you look at the research out of Virginia Tech, you can see that a 2m drop from static conditions (0 m/s) causes a 50+% chance of having a concussion with even the best helmets (basically, just falling off your bike with no forward speed). Skiing and mountain biking crashes are way worst than that, with higher drops and/or higher speeds. For sure helmets are helping, but I would still argue that they are not quite doing their job if you still have a very high risk of having a concussion when you fall.

There is not a lot of magic. We need thicker helmets to reduce concussions. For that to happen, we need a new norm. I sadly don't see how that will be happening anytime soon.

I know a few people who got concussions. These can be terrible life-altering events and it is crazy that there isn't more people asking for better helmets to protect their melon! Size and aero drag is a non-issue [I think] in skiing and mountain biking [maybe not in ski racing, but clearly in any kind of recreational skiing].

Thicker helmets? Heavier? Are we still talking about road cycling? Don’t get me wrong, I am all for more safety but if that means I’d have to wear a 1 kilo helmet, I will take my chances with something much lighter albeit less safe.

 

[scott43]

Here we go.. honestly this was just about the MIPS brand. Let's not make it a helmet thread!!

 

[AlexisLD]

Thicker helmets? Heavier? Are we still talking about road cycling? Don’t get me wrong, I am all for more safety but if that means I’d have to wear a 1 kilo helmet, I will take my chances with something much lighter albeit less safe.

Well, this is a thread about MIPS, which is being used in skiing and mountain biking helmets. Kask makes helmets for these disciplines too. UCI also regulates mountain biking. Sorry if I was confused.

Of course, aero drag is important in road cycling, but we should not expect safety improvements from athletes whose careers depend on taking risks to shave milliseconds. I think that recreational bikers should think a bit more about protecting their brain. If mass is so important, that is probably one good reason not to use MIPS, which is an additional system. I don't think it helps to pass the norm.

Current bike helmets are in the 200-300g range. Doubling the helmet's thickness would put it in the 400-600g range. What drawbacks do you see out of that? Are you racing for a living?

 

[Zirbl]

You think Ineos will risk the health and lives of elite athletes for money?

Do they conduct independent helmet testing?

 

[AlexisLD]

Here we go.. honestly this was just about the MIPS brand. Let's not make it a helmet thread!!

Aahah, well, I went one step too far too quick.

Of course, hair will influence the results of the testing. Same with a hat worn under a helmet. I also think MIPS is relatively inefficient [or better solutions are possible] to make a helmet rotate around a non-perfectly-spherical head. It is just basic physics, there is no surprise there. Same with the article that claims that the moment of inertia of the head is important during the test when testing rotational impacts. This is really really basic stuff.

And if you look at the data, helmets, even with MIPS, are relatively inefficient at reducing concussion risks. They pass the norm, but are not great at protecting from concussion.

It is great that people are thinking about a new standard, but we should go much further than that and ideally, not have that effort led by companies that will profit from it, patent tech and block competition out of that market. As customers, we should request something much better than current helmets, MIPS, etc. That is where I would like the conversation to go.

 

[DocGKR]

Thicker helmets cannot fully cope with the coup-contracoup injuries caused by the rapid deceleration occurring when the head hits a solid object and stops, while the brain keeps moving within the skull for a brief moment.....

 

[scott43]

Thicker helmets cannot fully cope with the coup-contracoup injuries caused by the rapid deceleration occurring when the head hits a solid object and stops, while the brain keeps moving withing the skull for a brief moment.....

What are you a doctor or something??

 

[Zirbl]

Does MIPS protect cyclists from traumatic brain injuries?

Determining helmet safety requires testing, so we tested six helmets beyond the certification tests required to sell bicycle helmets.

www.velonews.com

Thanks for pointing to an interesting article. The Snell Foundation presented a similar take on the question of forms and testing procedures. Summary with further links here: https://helmets.org/mips.htm

 

[Tony Storaro]

Well, this is a thread about MIPS, which is being used in skiing and mountain biking helmets. Kask makes helmets for these disciplines too. UCI also regulates mountain biking. Sorry if I was confused.

Of course, aero drag is important in road cycling, but we should not expect safety improvements from athletes whose careers depend on taking risks to shave milliseconds. I think that recreational bikers should think a bit more about protecting their brain. If mass is so important, that is probably one good reason not to use MIPS, which is an additional system. I don't think it helps to pass the norm.

Current bike helmets are in the 200-300g range. Doubling the helmet's thickness would put it in the 400-600g range. What drawbacks do you see out of that? Are you racing for a living?

I am not racing even for fun, let alone living. And I am still going to go with the 200 grams helmet as opposed to 600 grams for two reasons:

1. After 150 km 600 grams becomes 6 kilos.
2. If I die on the road, there is about 99% chance it will be because a car or truck hit me and in that case even a full face motorcycle helmet is of no help.

 

[cantunamunch]

Current bike helmets are in the 200-300g range. Doubling the helmet's thickness would put it in the 400-600g range. What drawbacks do you see out of that?

Leaving aside issues of non-planar shape and shell vs decelerating filler, there is one obvious drawback.

Extending the energy absorption envelope to absorb lower impact energies means significantly increased frequency of replacement. From non-impact events. What's a practicable number, 3-4 helmets per season? 5?

There is an argument there for recyclable ("sustainable?") pressed wood pulp helmets - almost as disposable as egg cartons. Think of it that way, that Kranium guy is almost a genius: https://helmets.org/kranium.htm

 

[scott43]

Leaving aside issues of non-planar shape and shell vs decelerating filler, there is one obvious drawback.

Extending the energy absorption envelope to absorb lower impact energies means significantly increased frequency of replacement. From non-impact events. What's a practicable number, 3-4 helmets per season? 5?

I get a Spockian eyebrow if I try to replace more often than every five years.. Unless it's broken in two...

 

[cantunamunch]

I get a Spockian eyebrow if I try to replace more often than every five years.. Unless it's broken in two...

Sure. But if we actually want to lower net acceleration to the brain with single-impact rating, we're going to have to get over that. Even Spock wouldn't reuse an egg carton...

Or we could get astoundingly clever with multi-impact foams. There was one guy ~2016 with an all-foam helmet, basically three-density Confor foam. Imagine a 10cm thick airplane seat cushion wrapped around the head. Doesn't seem less weird 6 years later.

We don't really need doctors or engineers in this thread. We need woodpecker scientists.