Helments for cyclists not using the footpad.

rollingscone

Ahoy,

Am looking for a new helmet for a family member after they took a spill off the bike and sustained a minor concussion type injury.

My first instinct was to go to MIPS on the basis that it couldn't be less safe than a standard helmet but the oft cited (at least on here) helmets.org article suggests that it might actually be deleterious to give up some foam/impact absorption depth to make room for the MIPS liner.

Now the helmet I was looking at was the Bontrager Ballista (also available non-mips afaik) which seems to meet all of the criteria for good helmet design otherwise mentioned in articles sceptical of MIPS e.g. round shape, smooth shell with faired in vents (for aero reasons but...) to prevent drag on the ground.

Is there anything more to read on this? Should I just let my family member use a minimum standard meeting Aldi helmet?

Chuchote

rollingscone wrote: »

Ahoy,

Am looking for a new helmet for a family member after they took a spill off the bike and sustained a minor concussion type injury.

My first instinct was to go to MIPS on the basis that it couldn't be less safe than a standard helmet but the oft cited (at least on here) helmets.org article suggests that it might actually be deleterious to give up some foam/impact absorption depth to make room for the MIPS liner.

Now the helmet I was looking at was the Bontrager Ballista (also available non-mips afaik) which seems to meet all of the criteria for good helmet design otherwise mentioned in articles sceptical of MIPS e.g. round shape, smooth shell with faired in vents (for aero reasons but...) to prevent drag on the ground.

Is there anything more to read on this? Should I just let my family member use a minimum standard meeting Aldi helmet?

I have a MIPS helmet; I'm not aware of it having less liner, though it may have. It makes me look like Ming the Merciless, anyway, with a huge bulbous head. Is there any evidence from testing of the effects of the MIPS, or is this theory?

tomasrojo

Last I read, standard helmets (not just bicycle helmets) don't really address concussion, while MIPS does. I don't know whether there are any large-scale studies into how MIPS performs in "the real world".

(The last thing I read might have been biased, or just wrong, but there was a fair bit written about a year ago, especially with regard to American Football.)

rollingscone

My main concern isn't MIPS being ineffective. It's a MIPS helmet being less effective than an equivalent non MIPS lid

tomasrojo

I guess if the MIPS helmet has the EN1078 certificate, then it's as good at addressing linear acceleration as any other helmet with the certificate. That is, it has to have passed the anvil-drop test, so its liner took that force (the force of a 1.5m drop with a 5kg headform) without breaking.

Manufacturers usually aim to just pass these standards and do no better, so I can't see it being worse at addressing linear acceleration, and I presume it's much better at addressing rotational acceleration.

jimmycrackcorm

Forget That - this is what you need:

Carawaystick

I'm wondering what the thread title has to do with the OP?
Why would a cyclist use a thief?

Is there still a snell test which is more stringent than the EN std?

rollingscone

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'm wondering what the thread title has to do with the OP?
Why would a cyclist use a thief?

Is there still a snell test which is more stringent than the EN std?

Exile the heretic!

Chuchote

Carawaystick wrote: »

I'm wondering what the thread title has to do with the OP?
Why would a cyclist use a thief?

Is there still a snell test which is more stringent than the EN std?

Most footpads carry blackjacks to stun their victims, so the helmet covers that risk too.

Here's one of the MIPS-questioning pieces

http://www.roadbikereview.com/reviews/does-mips-helmet-technology-really-work

The answer is surely more stringent testing which would clear up the impact effect of all the helmets?

tomasrojo

Chuchote wrote: »

The answer is surely more stringent testing which would clear up the impact effect of all the helmets?

There are a few obstacles to that. One is that the industry is pretty happy turning out expanded polystyrene helmets with a plastic shell, and manufacturers usually have a hand in designing standard tests, so they wouldn't be keen on introducing extra tests that highlight the shortcomings of their current products. And since the current standard design presents 80+% of all head injuries(*), there's no pressing need to improve the design, so the current testing regime is just fine.


(*) "Unpacking" this claim, as Melvyn Bragg says in In Our Time, is not the focus of this thread. We know where those discussions go.

rollingscone

Chuchote wrote: »

Most footpads carry blackjacks to stun their victims, so the helmet covers that risk too.

Here's one of the MIPS-questioning pieces

http://www.roadbikereview.com/reviews/does-mips-helmet-technology-really-work

The answer is surely more stringent testing which would clear up the impact effect of all the helmets?

In this house we say FOOTPAD!

DKmac

tomasrojo wrote: »

Last I read, standard helmets (not just bicycle helmets) don't really address concussion, while MIPS does. I don't know whether there are any large-scale studies into how MIPS performs in "the real world".

(The last thing I read might have been biased, or just wrong, but there was a fair bit written about a year ago, especially with regard to American Football.)

Correct, American football has seen many helmets developed with the promise of a reduced risk of concussion, all to be pretty much disproved as marketing bullsh!t.

Whilst modern helmets can reduce the effects of direct impacts, unless it can stop your brain rattling around in your cranial cavity when subject to sudden forces then there is little that can be done to reduce concussion.

In short its more the sudden whiplash effect on your skull than the impact that causes concussion . That being said no harm in the helmet absorbing most of the blow than fracturing your skull.

rollingscone

The MIPS system is a friction resistant liner that claims to reduce the rotational forces throwing your brain around inside your skull by allowing your scalp to move freely within the helmet

Chuchote

Perhaps the solution is for cycling organisations to do their own tests, with cameras present, then release these to the press? That would a) put cat among pigeons, and b) soften cough for them.

ford2600

rollingscone wrote: »

The MIPS system is a friction resistant liner that claims to reduce the rotational forces throwing your brain around inside your skull by allowing your scalp to move freely within the helmet

I would have thought making the helmet heavier is the best strategy.

Force = mass by acceleration

For a given force the larger M the smaller a.

Any other design strategy is majoring in the minors?

Of course the helmet that protects is unwearable due to being heavy

Chuchote

ford2600 wrote: »

I would have thought making the helmet heavier is the best strategy.

Force = mass by acceleration

For a given force the larger M the smaller a.

Any other design strategy is majoring in the minors?

Of course the helmet that protects is unwearable due to being heavy

Don't be stupid, be a smartie…?