Question MIPS??

[Rabbit]

So I ran across a new to me helmet technology called MIPS that promises a 10% reduction in rotational force during an accident by allowing the helmet to slip slightly using a built in internal liner. They don’t claim helmets with this technology are safer or will reduce concussions but I’m very intrigued. Do any of the engineering minded folks around here have input on whether this is worthwhile to find a helmet with this technology or no?

 

[melensdad]

MIPS has been around for a decade or so??? Several brands license the technology. The MIPS logic makes sense but it is difficult to quantify any of this type of technology in real terms. Arai doesn't use it but shapes their helmets in more of an egg shape and designs all their air foils and vents to break off on impact, they claim that it creates a more glancing blow impact, which some suggest is similar to the effect of the MIPS effect. Both the MIPS system and the ARAI shell design make a lot of sense to me, but I doubt that either could be quantified in actual crash data.

Me, honestly I don't know. But I would suggest that some helmet shapes probably would not glance off in an impact and likely could use the assistance of the MIPS rotational system. FWIW, the MIPS technology seems to be embraced more by bicycle riders than motorcycle riders.

The crash data that is generally publicly available typically only includes a check box asking if the rider was wearing a helmet or not. High priced helmets use superb materials, offer greater comfort and airflow, but there is no data to prove they are actually safer than lower priced helmets. Not because they are not safer, but rather because there is no uniform system of data collection that has a large enough data base collecting all the reasonable variables along with the condition of the helmet pre-crash.

 

[Janus]

I used to work in a bicycle shop and— if the claims are true— MIPS is a fantastic system and should definitely be considered for purchase.

I'm not sure how much more useful it would be inside a moto helmet since the key feature is controlled slipping. If your helmet is slipping, you've got other issues than brain contusions

 

[MZ5]

If you look inside a Bell helmet that’s labeled MIPS, you’ll see a rectangular piece of plastic that can move a quarter to a half inch along each of two directions. The rest of the helmet inside looks the same as one of their non-MIPS helmets.

No one has been able to quantify or test the effects of rotational movement in motorcycle helmets (or they’re keeping it ‘secret’), nevermind test the various systems out there for efficacy. Lots is made of injuries in football, some try to equate that to motorcycling. The differences are radical and obvious. How or even whether there’s a parallel remains in serious question.

The military was studying this stuff for many years, but I think the funding was taken away. The Snell Memorial Foundation has lots of info from that work on their website (smf.org).

What I know is that Bell’s MIPS helmets are all significantly more ‘round’ inside than their others, so I can’t wear any of them.

 

[TheIronWarrior]

The theory seems sound, it's basically a shock absorber. Properly designed, it could be extremely helpful in preventing serious injuries.
BUT:
I would be concerned that you would be unable to effectively balance the amount of slip (too little and it's basically useless, too much and it's basically useless) and the resistance to slip (too little and it's basically useless, too much and it's basically useless).
I'd also be concerned about the strength of the rubber bands. If they snapped, how is the connection between inner and outer maintained? Would the shell just pop off?
How is the motion limited? Are there hard stops that prevent it from slipping too far? If so, what happens when the outer (heaviest) part of the helmet hits one of these stops and all that momentum is transferred to the inner part?
How much heavier is a MIPS helmet compared to a non-MIPS? Comparison of Bell Qualifier helmets suggests about 70g heavier. If this weight increase is significant enough, you could eliminate any benefit you might get while still bringing in the other drawbacks.
Ultimately, on the surface it looks like promising technology, but without more details and test results it would be hard to say if it will be a major benefit in practice.

 

[Rabbit]

Thanks for all the feedback guys. This is really helpful.

 

[Oldbear]

As noted, existing crash to would make it very difficult to quantify and brand or type of helmet’s effectiveness vs any other. A “helmet” may be anything from a$20 plastic cope of a Nazi helmet to a$1000 Schuberth or Arai, not to mention the whole “pudding bowl, to 3/4, to modular, to full face. Even “If” that data was available the variabilities from crash to crash would make it tough to get any meaningful data. With that said, it “appears” to be a viable concept. It will be interesting to see what comes out in the next few years. If the testing bodies come up with a lot of data you’ll see these becoming more common. If not, they’ll eventually fade from the picture.

 

[TheIronWarrior]

As noted, existing crash to would make it very difficult to quantify and brand or type of helmet’s effectiveness vs any other. A “helmet” may be anything from a$20 plastic cope of a Nazi helmet to a$1000 Schuberth or Arai, not to mention the whole “pudding bowl, to 3/4, to modular, to full face. Even “If” that data was available the variabilities from crash to crash would make it tough to get any meaningful data. With that said, it “appears” to be a viable concept. It will be interesting to see what comes out in the next few years. If the testing bodies come up with a lot of data you’ll see these becoming more common. If not, they’ll eventually fade from the picture.

With enough data (IE, large enough sample size), the variables would average out and give some strong indications, if not a guaranteed accurate value.
Some variables are never going to be considered, like for example, are the riding habits of those that tend to but the "legal minimum" helmets significantly less safe than those that buy the most expensive helmets they can find? Do people who wear yellow helmets tend to drive faster than those who wear black or gray helmets?
But always in statistics, you control what variables you can, then gather a large and random enough sample to try and balance out the remaining variables, and identify sources of potential bias.

For example, a study found that a motorcycle equipped with ABS is between 31% and 37% less likely to be involved in a fatal accident than a bike without ABS. In the conclusion of the study, they specifically mentions the the possibility that an ABS rider may be, in general, more safety conscious than a non-ABS rider, especially given that ABS is generally an optional feature. Further supporting that is that for 25% of the fatal accidents of non-ABS motorcycles, the rider was speeding, where only 17% of ABS accidents involved speeding. To note, the study only looked at data for motorcycles available with and without ABS.
I suspect MIPS would have a similar potential influence, people willing to spend more on a helmet that's thought to be safer may be more likely to have safer riding practices, and may as a result push the statistics to "show" MIPS is safer, when it might only be that safer riders choose MIPS.
Objective testing might show a certain reduction in forces applied to the rider's head, which can be used to infer safety, but real-world data will not be free of bias, which may strongly skew the results and be impossible to account for.
The bias doesn't mean it's not "meaningful data" just that statistics based on real world somewhat uncontrolled data have recognized limitations, but are also in many cases going to be the best way to have any reasonable comparison.

https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/bibliography/2042

I think we can expect to see this continue to exist even if there's no hard data to back it up. There will always be a subset of riders who will go for the "safest" options, even without any supporting evidence. For example, if you look at the SHARP ratings on helmets, you can see that although there is a general trend for more expensive helmets to be slightly safer than cheaper helmets, there are certainly plenty of mid-level helmets that have a higher safety rating than many premium priced offerings. Even with that, lots of riders still thing buying the most expensive helmet they can find thinking it has to be safer because it costs more. I've hat people shit on my Icon Airframe (because Icon gear is apparently too cheap to be good?), then put on a helmet that cost twice as much and actually ranked lower in SHARP safety ratings. Not that SHARP ratings have to be the be-all-end-all, but I don't know of any other system that gives more information than just "pass/fail" for motorcycle helmets. With this in mind, if a helmet manufacturer can market it well, even without hard data to back it up, I expect plenty of people will still buy them.