MIPS or Meh?

[gasman]

There is at least one company working on a system that allows even more movement between the inner and outer layers of the helmet in a crash than the MIPS system. I’ve seen some of the test data, it’s very impressive. We’ll see if it comes to market.

To all of you who have crashed recently-heal up well.

[makoti]

Originally Posted by Tickdoc

I am a fan.

Here's my two week old Spec lid after a dog stopped in front of me. Saved may bacon:

[IMG][/IMG]

Yeah, yeah, but how is the dog?

[Cicli]

I am going to wait until the MIPS Oaceline cap comes out. Until then, I will stick to my mormal Paceline cap.

[batman1425]

Any potential for reduced trauma to the head in the event of a crash is a worthy investment, IMO. Skin grows back and bones heal. Brains don't.

[csm]

I'm going MIPS for snow.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[572cv]

I had a crash with a Scott MIPS helmet in 2016. It was a pretty low speed crash in which my front wheel caught a bad crack and pitched me over the handlebars. I had a concussion and was hospitalized overnight. I was not clear headed on a full-day basis for about 3 weeks.

When I was clear enough to study the helmet, it was very clear that the MIPS scrim layer had slipped and moved. The type of crash that I experienced was one of those which involve twisting of the head on impact, and that, to a great extent is what the MIPS is intended to address, as I understand the design.

I don't think the MIPS improves the result of all kinds of crashes, just a few. It is an incremental improvement. But for the cost, it improves the odds. It certainly doesn't make existing designs any worse. It just makes MIPS helmets have a little broader coverage. I'll pay for that.

[batman1425]

Originally Posted by 572cv

I don't think the MIPS improves the result of all kinds of crashes, just a few. It is an incremental improvement. But for the cost, it improves the odds. It certainly doesn't make existing designs any worse. It just makes MIPS helmets have a little broader coverage. I'll pay for that.

^^^ This. We accept risk every time we go out on a ride. Anything I can do to to help mitigate that risk with out dramatically impacting my enjoyment or being prohibitively expensive, I'm happy to do. Unlike when they first debuted, it's easy to find a MIPS helmet at most price points, which means I'm all in. Primary bike and ski helmets for the wife and I are MIPS.

[fignon's barber]

Originally Posted by batman1425

^^^ This. We accept risk every time we go out on a ride. Anything I can do to to help mitigate that risk with out dramatically impacting my enjoyment or being prohibitively expensive, I'm happy to do. Unlike when they first debuted, it's easy to find a MIPS helmet at most price points, which means I'm all in. Primary bike and ski helmets for the wife and I are MIPS.

Theoretically that's a great approach, if MIPS actually does anything. The helmets.org link seems to cast a lot of doubt on that. In summary, it said that using a helmet that is rounder and full plastic shell exterior (no exposed outer foam) is superior to MIPS at improving those rotational blows.

[soulspinner]

Originally Posted by Tickdoc

I am a fan.

Here's my two week old Spec lid after a dog stopped in front of me. Saved may bacon:

[IMG][/IMG]

Yeow. Glad u r ok...

[mcteague]

I have my doubts about MIPS. The added movement is very slight and, it seems to me, bike helmets already can slip a bit as they are not that firmly affixed to our heads. I understand the concept but just don't think the extra little plastic bits change the equation much. And, just because you crash, and don't get a concussion, really does not prove much. Much more study is needed to prove this one out.

Tim

[adrien]

Meh.

I work using my brain. and I ride a lot. So far, I have not personally "tested" a helmet.

That said, all my new helmets will be MIPS. Right now, I have one Mips and one non-MIPS, because I always have a fast road helmet (MIPS) and a backup that is fitted with lights etc, and which I tend to use more in the winter with a cap.

My logic here is that it might not work as well as advertised and I might not have the right kind of crash. But in the unlikely (maybe very unlikely, statistically) event that I do, I'll be very glad to have spent the extra $ to get it. It's the same reason I paid extra for rear airbags in my car. Hopefully I'll never see them. But I'm also certain that I won't regret having them if ever they are needed.

[benb]

The article is great.

MIPS seems mostly marketing driven to me. That article makes it clear that MIPS in theory and MIPS in practice might be two different things since the vents and other design features in bike helmets compromise the MIPS design, and the MIPS design compromises the total amount of foam available for impact protection.

Most likely everyone who crashed in the thread would have had a similar outcome with a non-MIPS helmet, or even a better outcome. (We really don't know with MIPS!)

All that said.. I just helped both my parents pick out helmets and I ended up putting them in MIPS helmets just cause it was what worked. I don't really think it is a bad system or something if that is the helmet that fits right and otherwise works on price & such.

MIPS needs to get integrated into the various safety standards and we need to understand in a better/more scientific way what it's plusses and minuses are, and it needs to be subject to random field testing, etc.. like SNELL likes.

Harder low-friction shells on the helmets (like moto helmets) would probably offer more benefit for this rotation stuff but go against all the tenets of light weight and ventilation being the most important design elements of bike helmets.

It is amazing how much a magazine writer can influence things and cause controversy. This bicycling magazine thing seems to have really influenced people, and generally who trusts Bicycling on anything?

[batman1425]

Originally Posted by benb

Most likely everyone who crashed in the thread would have had a similar outcome with a non-MIPS helmet, or even a better outcome. (We really don't know with MIPS!)

Its impossible to speculate and very difficult to model how a given helmet would have made a difference in a given crash and no scientific evaluation is without limitations. Far too many variables at play and studies these this will always be limited by n's. We simply can't replicate everything that can happen on the road in a lab. We can only model the effects we deduce to be most important for creating significant changes to the outcome - however one chooses to define "significant" and what they hope to change.

That said I understand the spirit of your comments to be that at some level, we are playing at the margins of available safety technology and essentially everything that is on the market and thoughtfully designed for the application (regardless of the basal tech) will provide good protection in most instances.

IMO, any reduction in risk with respect to helmet tech, no matter how small, is worth the investment. We never know when we will crash and if or how our head will contact a stationary object. Maybe MIPS is only effective in 0.1% of impacts or lower. That's OK with me. I could be one of the 0.1%, and that sliding liner could be the difference in me walking again or not. Is it likely? Probably not, but I'll never regret a few extra $$ spent for the chance of a better outcome if something bad happens out on the road. With the kind of money we the "enthusiasts" spend in this space, it seems trivial to me to dole out a few bucks for a helmet.

[thwart]

Originally Posted by rnhood

Just don't tighten your helmet straps to much and you get most of the same benefit that MIPS provides. You want the helmet just slightly loose so that it can move around just a little. It's all a tradeoff though.

I'm sorry, that's just not correct.

As someone who survived a cycling accident involving a broken neck and some significant facial injuries, your helmet needs to be snug... not uncomfortably so, but snug. That's the way I wear mine, usually over a cycling cap.

I had a 45 min loss of consciousness, but fortunately no significant damage to my brain. Yep, the front of my helmet was trashed in the accident.

Take your 'slightly loose' helmet and push up the front brim of it quickly and forcefully... is your forehead still protected? If not, do yourself a favor and re-adjust.

Or... your friends and family may wind up dealing with this... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontal_lobe_injury

I'm in favor of the MIPS technology.

[Mark McM]

Originally Posted by thwart

I'm sorry, that's just not correct.

As someone who survived a cycling accident involving a broken neck and some significant facial injuries, your helmet needs to be snug... not uncomfortably so, but snug. That's the way I wear mine, usually over a cycling cap.

I agree that a helmet needs to be snug. It is generally accepted that there may secondary impacts after the initial impact (which is why helmet tests subject the helmet to multiple impacts). If the helmet is loose, then inertial forces from the initial hit (or even before the initial hit) may expose parts of the head that helmet normally covers.

Which leads me to one of my questions about MIPs: The MIPs implementations I've seen add a polymer sheet as a thin layer between the head and inner surface of the helmet. This layer is supposed to allow sliding between the head and the helmet, so that the helmet can rotate independent of the head - almost as if the head and helmet were a ball and socket, and the polymer sheet were a lubricating layer.

But here's the thing: My head isn't a perfect sphere, and neither is the inside of my helmet. When my helmet is held snugly to my head, there are many directions the helmet can't rotate, even with the MIPs layer to reduce friction. The MIPS implementation where there is a helmet-within-a-helmet might work, because you shape the interface between the inner and outer helmets like a sphere, allowing it to rotate in any direction. But I question that the thin polymer layer implementation of MIPs will be nearly as effective.