chaadster

Real word results? What does that mean?

bruce19

I was thinking stats of injuries sustained with MIP vs non-MIPS. Although I do recognize that this would be difficult because it's difficult (impossible?) to replicate accidents since there are so many variables. OTHO what does that say about MIPS claims?

chaadster

I think it says MIPS’s claims are reasonable, sensible, and rooted in the best scientific data available.

But let’s back up…what are MIPS’s claims? From their website:

“Our low-friction layer inside the helmet allows multi-directional movement of 10-15mm on certain angled impacts, intended to help reduce rotational force to the head.”

What do you think your impossible— or at least unethical— “real world results” have to say about those claims?

mstateglfr 

Sy Reene

Who owns MIPS anyway, or put a different way, is there much in the way of interviews with key MIPS personnel, etc? I couldn't find too much.

Or should I say, I visited their website, and maybe it's just me, but I find it odd that their homepage is primarily devoted to corporate financial reports, filings, etc, instead of their fundamental product?
https://mipscorp.com/

chaadster

That’s not the product site, obviously, this is: https://mipsprotection.com

In answer to your first question, if you poke around the site link you posted, you’ll see that Bell, the helmet folks, are a primary shareholder, since ‘14. I think Bell (who also own Giro) is owned by Vista Outdoor now, though. Anyway, there’s a bunch of investment capital in MIPS, and coupled with VSTO (Bell, Giro) being a major shareholder, I’m guessing inter-industry relationships and rivalries have to do both with adoption and resistance to the MIPS system.

Koyote

Sooo many problems with this idea:
1) Each accident is a unique event, hence comparisons are useless.
2) Different populations might purchase different helmet types -- e.g., higher-mileage cyclists are more likely to purchase expensive (i.e., MIPS) helmets, and hence report more accidents and have accidents at higher speeds. This introduces massive bias into any compiled data. But...
3) There is not compiled data. Bike crashes are not reported events -- i.e., there is no database. Crashes which result in NO injury fly completely under the radar -- so, how will you know if one helmet type more effectively prevents injury in the "real world"?

All of this is why mechanical testing -- like that done by VA Tech -- is actually the best (only) way to test helmet effectiveness.

Maelochs

Yes, lab testing is all there is .... but the fact that given three labs there are three protocol;s and three differing sets of results ....... is this practical, applicable science?

Not saying Mips is good or bad .... or that any other helmet tech is better or worse. All I am saying is that for most riders, buying Mips is like buying a really expensive lock---almost never gets tested, and if really tested, easily defeated.

(That ought to stir things up.)

Koyote

There are certainly more than three protocols, but most manufacturers treat their testing (protocols and data) proprietary. As far as third-party testing goes, we seem to be in the early stages; there might eventually be an accepted standard.

Sure, of course. But I think most cyclists understand that helmets buy them only marginal (not absolute) protection. Just like a lock.

PeteHski

Well that's not going to be meaningful for all sorts of reasons.

Comparative lab crash tests are the best/only way to shed any light on what is better. Kask are basically questioning the current standard crash test protocols and suggesting that they exaggerate the effect of MIPS (due to a sticky head model). I can see their point, but I still make my buying choices based on independent crash test results and how well the helmet actually fits me. Most current high-end helmets now have MIPS or similar proprietary tech anyway, Kask being a notable exception - so it's hardly surprising that they are trying to cast doubt on MIPS credibility.

Sy Reene

New and proprietary tech must always be better

Maelochs

Yup .... by adding tetraethyl lead to your gas you can not only run higher compression, you can poison the entire planet's atmosphere with brain-destroying chemicals.

So ... a couple generations later people are arguing over which Dixie cup inside a Solo cup protects some immeasurable fraction of a percentage point better.

Yup ... the effects of lead in our gasoline.

himespau 

I just buy the cheapest helmet that seems safe to me. MIPS or not. Pretty much because I have yet to see a widely accepted 3rd party testing standard and don't really trust that any company's internal testing saying its thing is the best are really worth all that much.

chaadster

Wow, I’m saddened that you’re not embarrassed to say such a thing.

himespau 

I'm not saying I'll take the amazon special from who knows where with no verifiable maker or testing at all, it's just that the MIPS or similar that each brand makes as proprietary, always seemed like a "ours is better, but only on our testing and we're not going to make any sort of independent testing to actually show it's better than the other brands".

mstateglfr 

There is snob and then there is Chad. Good lord.

What himespau does is what most people do with helmets- they go to a store, try a few on, and pick one that seems safest(which in part is one that fits best). Most trust that a store, be it bike shop or big box, wont sell helmets that have not passes some sort of testing minimum.
The group on here(me included) that geek out and choose to read about helmet testing is probably 5% of the market, at most.

I went down the rabbit hole 2 winters ago and ultimately purchased 12 helmets to find one I liked from fit, finish, and safety perspectives. I tried multiple sizes of a few helmets, mid-priced helmets, expensive helmets, etc. I came away with 2 of them- a MET and an ABUS and find both to be excellent still. One has MIPS and the other doesnt. I feel equally safe in both and since I have both hair and wear a cap, there are slip planes upon slip planes so nobody knows what that does to safety since it hasnt been tested.

chaadster

I see. Certainly part of the issue is that federally required CPSC compliance does not test for the angular acceleration and velocity which rotational force reduction systems like MIPS are designed for. However, certainly you’ve heard of the Virginia Tech STAR testing, which does account for tangential velocity; does the fact that all of their top performing elements in every category include MIPS not carry any weight with you?

Maelochs

As with so many others .... I buy a helmet from a major brand (Bell seems always to fit my head ... i guess all the oddity is inside, not the outside shape) and realize that in most crashes a helmet isn't going to do much except protect my skin.

No one knows how one will crash or even if one will crash. No one knows if any of the testing replicates real-world accidents or if any of the helmets which shine in testing actually offer any added protection, or if that protection is in a range where it matters.

The fact that some helmets max out some tests tells me that either the test is suited to the helmet or the helmet built to pass the test---not that the test is valid or that the helmet is better.

That is in fact the thrust of the article---that for all anyone knows, Mips in the real world is no better than non-Mips. No one knows how the tests relate to actual crashing conditions.

chaadster

I would say the more accurate statement is, “to the best of our knowledge, MIPS offers enhanced protection over non-MIPS.”

All testing which can assess some measure of tangential force, meaning independent and from MIPS, shows MIPS reduces angular acceleration at some point, which proves, to the best of our knowledged, MIPS provides enhanced protection. Furthermore, those tests are across a variety of protocols (including various headforms), further supporting the statement that, to the best of our knowledge, MIPs provides enhanced protection.

Apropos of this discussion we should remember that old aphorism, “perfect is the enemy of the good.”

mstateglfr 

Did you read the article? Which headform does VT use and which headform does VT admit has a high coefficient of friction? Below is a full quote from a lab director that is in the article.
When a headform is so sticky that even the lab which uses it admits it is sticky(and therefore stickier than the newer option and stickier than a person's head), then a system which allows for movement under the helmet's foam will obviously perform better when stuck against a sticky headform as compared to a helmet that lacks that system. Furthermore, the VT director says they attach the helmet 'fairly tight' compared to a full head of hair which also creates a variable that will obviously change results.

^ that is this week's most obvious conclusion ever, to be clear.

Maybe MIPS does help even more when an actual person with actual hair and an actual scalp is involved. Maybe the fact that helmets arent 'fairly tight' on most people, most people have hair, some people also wear a cap, and all people have a scalp would combine to make actual results not at all line up with VT testing.
You point to data that even a director at the facility that generated the data admits may not benefit people with hair, as justification to go at another poster and tell them you are surprised they arent embarrassed for themselves.

chaadster

Maelochs

Takes a big man to post a short video when he has been utterly humiliated on a bicycle forum. Bravo, chaadster.

chaadster

Wait, it’s not the Repressed & Fragile Male Ego chat room? Are you absolutely sure?

Koyote

oof. Posting this as a reply is like crying "uncle." Like admitting you've lost the debate.

Another possibility is that some helmet manufacturers add MIPS to their most expensive helmets, and those helmets have other design features (more precise fit, better materials, etc) that result in better test scores. In other words, the MIPS might be merely coincidental.

canklecat

I've rotated between five helmets the past few years. One, the Bell Formula MIPS, has MIPS and it's the most comfortable on my noggin. The harness is "busy" compared with non-MIPS, but it fits me well. The other was a very similar Bell, without MIPS. It was less comfortable on my head.

A few months after buying the Bell Formula MIPS I got konked on the noggin by a railroad crossing arm. Long, stupid story about how it happened. Nope, I wasn't trying to beat the train. I was tailgunner on a group ride shepherding newbies. As we approached tracks the lights and warning bells started, although the train itself wasn't moving and was several hundred yards away. The group was split. I called for my folks to stop. I misjudged my distance from the descending crossing arms while I stopped to look around and check the newbies behind us in the group ride, BONK. Yeah, I set a great example for situational awareness and safety. Hey, I said it was a long, stupid story.

Suffice it to say, the helmet deflected the blow without damage to me or the helmet. The harness stayed put while the shell deflected around the harness. If that's a legit test, MIPS seemed to work in that specific scenario.

The POC Omne Air SPIN is the coolest, but that's because of the vent design, not the lack of MIPS. POC claimed they discontinued using MIPS because their proprietary SPIN design worked as well. But industry insiders said POC just didn't want to pay the MIPS license fee. Their SPIN "system" is just comfortable detachable/replaceable pads. There's nothing special about their harness. Good helmet but heavy, due to the thicker EPS foam and, possibly, polycarbonate shell.

I sold the Catlike helmet to a friend, cheap, like $40. I hoped to like it because it's very lightweight (with cervical spine damage, that's a big deal). But the harness design yanked my hair, and their medium was a small on my head. My friend buzz cuts his hair and his noggin is smaller, so it was perfect for him. I might consider another Catlike if they adopted MIPS, but otherwise, nah. It's just for the comfortable fit, not because of evidence about whether MIPS works better.

My aero helmet is pretty spartan inside and uncomfortable. I've worn it only a few times for chasing KOMs, which always elude me, but it seemed to help me crack a few top tens. Not something I'd wear every day.

Of them all, I'd probably buy another Bell with MIPS. Just fits my Frankenstein skull better, the MIPS is comfy for me, and Bell helmets seem to be better values with lots of attention to detail in little features that add up: sweat channels; good pads; good straps; polycarbonate that covers the underside of the helmet where it contacts tabletops (the POC Omne Air SPIN has bare, soft EPS foam that gets nicked up on a concrete picnic table).