SNELL, ECE, DOT and now FIM?

[RightCoastBias]

Looks like FIM is getting into the helmet cert game. It will be interesting if they do anything that helps push the stagnant head protection game, but, probably not.

https://www.asphaltandrubber.com/racing/fim-helmet-crash-test-frhp/

 

[ToraTora]

Interesting. I wouldn't say that helmets have been all that stagnate. Sure the face flips, built in visors, heads-up, etc are just gimmicks, but there has been some new protective tech showing up. Have you seen the two new technologies in the recent Bell helmets?

One of them is MIPs which is designed to deal with rotational forces.

[YOUTUBE]ESBf4d6fDKo[/YOUTUBE]​

Then there is there flex liner--a multi compound liner, to deal with different types of impacts.

[YOUTUBE]VDqoV6MZcws[/YOUTUBE]​

They've also done things like holding the cheek pads in with magnets so the pad can be removed by EMTs making helmet removal easier without causing damage to the spine. There's a lot of innovation going on these days, and contrary to the old roll of anything over $200 is comfort, you can actually buy a better protecting device with your money than any old thing with a DOT sticker on it.

 

[CrumpetRocket]

The greatest advance we could possibly make in helmet technology is convincing everybody to wear one, and that it dosnt make you a huge panty waist. After that i would say more comprehensive studies on real life accidents, as well as evaluation of crashed helmets. More lab testing isn't going to hurt, but I don't think it's going to be much of a game changer.

 

[kuksul08]

 

[wally]

There's a lot of innovation going on these days, and contrary to the old roll of anything over $200 is comfort, you can actually buy a better protecting device with your money than any old thing with a DOT sticker on it.

This reads like you're implying that newer technologies are safer ("better protecting") than more traditionally designed DOT approved helmets. Is that what you're trying to say and if so do you have any data to back up your claims?

 

[LabRat675]

Having high-sided and landed on my forehead with a BELL flex lined helmet I would have to say yes... newer designs are better.

Single density SNELL helmet and I ended up with a concussion a few years ago. Multi-density moveable liner, in a harder impact, and I was back on track in the time it took to switch bikes out in the pits. BELL, 6D and others are actually working on tech to decrease transmitted force. It's just not cheap to fund and manufacture.

*I personally have a grudge against SNELL and their tactics and I will admit that.

 

[ToraTora]

This reads like you're implying that newer technologies are safer ("better protecting") than more traditionally designed DOT approved helmets. Is that what you're trying to say and if so do you have any data to back up your claims?

Hey Wally, the way you are constantly asking questions leads me to believe you have a hard time employing Google. Really it's not that difficult, and it is a skill you can learn.

Here's a great place to get started:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...134479?hl=en&usg=AOvVaw07V9op4wsjYeTlgInUp5it

But since it takes time to learn how to use tools here's a white paper for you to read while you come up to speed.

http://mipsprotection.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/StappKleivenHardy2002.pdf

 

[wally]

Hey Wally, the way you are constantly asking questions leads me to believe you have a hard time employing Google. Really it's not that difficult, and it is a skill you can learn.

Here's a great place to get started:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...134479?hl=en&usg=AOvVaw07V9op4wsjYeTlgInUp5it

But since it takes time to learn how to use tools here's a white paper for you to read while you come up to speed.

http://mipsprotection.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/StappKleivenHardy2002.pdf

that's what I thought. No data.
lol at a modeling paper from 2002 in response to a question about new technologies.

 

[stangmx13]

Having high-sided and landed on my forehead with a BELL flex lined helmet I would have to say yes... newer designs are better.

Single density SNELL helmet and I ended up with a concussion a few years ago. Multi-density moveable liner, in a harder impact, and I was back on track in the time it took to switch bikes out in the pits. BELL, 6D and others are actually working on tech to decrease transmitted force. It's just not cheap to fund and manufacture.

*I personally have a grudge against SNELL and their tactics and I will admit that.

im def looking forward to new technologies. good to hear a positive review of it. right now, im just waiting for the tech to trickle down a little bit. i destroy too many helmets to be paying $600 each for them. a trickle of tech to other brands would be great as well. i find it kinda odd that only a few brands are jumping on this wagon.

 

[ToraTora]

that's what I thought. No data.

Gee Wally too lazy to search for yourself even with some help? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

There's plenty of info out there if you take the time to look for it. Here's a figure of the data that's pretty easy to understand. The red areas are bad.

 

[ToraTora]

im def looking forward to new technologies. good to hear a positive review of it. right now, im just waiting for the tech to trickle down a little bit. i destroy too many helmets to be paying $600 each for them. a trickle of tech to other brands would be great as well. i find it kinda odd that only a few brands are jumping on this wagon.

Bell sells their Qualifier line of helmets with MIPs. You can buy them for about $270. There are probably some other helmets out there with this tech since in was developed in Sweden, and Bell is licensing it.

[YOUTUBE]6A-rXBGJVhA[/YOUTUBE]​

 

[kuksul08]

This reads like you're implying that newer technologies are safer ("better protecting") than more traditionally designed DOT approved helmets. Is that what you're trying to say and if so do you have any data to back up your claims?

Whether you have data or not, claiming that new technology decreases performance seems like a much harder angle to go at it, wouldn't you think? How could a MIPS layer reduce the effectiveness of a helmet?

Having high-sided and landed on my forehead with a BELL flex lined helmet I would have to say yes... newer designs are better.

Single density SNELL helmet and I ended up with a concussion a few years ago. Multi-density moveable liner, in a harder impact, and I was back on track in the time it took to switch bikes out in the pits. BELL, 6D and others are actually working on tech to decrease transmitted force. It's just not cheap to fund and manufacture.

*I personally have a grudge against SNELL and their tactics and I will admit that.

I'm glad you're here typing this, so each helmet clearly did pretty well. Comparing one crash to another is practically impossible outside of a laboratory environment though.

I'm curious what the SNELL tactics are?

 

[ToraTora]

Whether you have data or not, claiming that new technology decreases performance seems like a much harder angle to go at it, wouldn't you think? How could a MIPS layer reduce the effectiveness of a helmet?

Just a note here. He doesn't actually want to know this information. He's still butt hurt about something I said years ago. He's got this grudge, and at every opportunity he attacks what I say in this very way. It's quite humous on many levels. I've already apologized, but apparently he hasn't accepted it.

 

[clutchslip]

Having high-sided and landed on my forehead with a BELL flex lined helmet I would have to say yes... newer designs are better.

Single density SNELL helmet and I ended up with a concussion a few years ago. Multi-density moveable liner, in a harder impact, and I was back on track in the time it took to switch bikes out in the pits. BELL, 6D and others are actually working on tech to decrease transmitted force. It's just not cheap to fund and manufacture.

*I personally have a grudge against SNELL and their tactics and I will admit that.

Their tactics? They are a non-profit organization.

You are saying that you had two accidents that were absolutely identical, and that some helmet that had some SNELL sticker on it, allowed you to get a concussion. You did not die from either incident, however. Is that correct?

EDIT: My cynical nature is calling with "FIM is in it for the licensing fees."

 

[U26A1]

This reads like you're implying that newer technologies are safer ("better protecting") than more traditionally designed DOT approved helmets. Is that what you're trying to say and if so do you have any data to back up your claims?

Hahahaha



↑ HEY LOOK IT'S A DOT APPROVED HELMET! Better than any of this newfangled garbage today I tell you whut.

I'd type more on the subject but I gotta go clean my points -- until somebody shows me some hard data to back up any claims about any other kind of ignition!

 

[ToraTora]

I went to the McLaren Bicycle Park opening today. Kali Helmets was there representing their products. They are a relatively new helmet maker located in Santa Cruz. Their helmets like many helmets today are of course made in China.

I had a really nice conversation with their rep. I learned that Bell noticed that their helmet technology may have infringed on the Mips patents. So Bell bought Mips.

Kali has developed some helmet technologies that are similar to Mips (the green stuff in the photos). It's pretty cool stuff. Their webpage explains in so click the link for more info on it. They are putting this tech into even their modestly priced bicycle helmets. They have some other tech that's probably worth checking out too.