# Get rid of helmet if it doesn't have MIPS?



## mtnbkrdr98 (May 27, 2004)

I guess the title asks it all.

If helmet otherwise doesn't need to be replaced yet, but doesn't have MIPS, would you guys get rid of it and only use helmet with MIPS?

My road helmet has MIPS but my mountain helmet doesn't.


----------



## Boo Bear (Aug 11, 2008)

Me? No. I have one helmet: a non-MIPS road helmet.


----------



## Rocky Mtn (Jan 19, 2014)

I have owned several helmets over my biking career, and none have had mips and somehow I have survived each crash.

I would not toss a non mips lid, but if you find one on sale, then get it and keep your old one as a backup


----------



## BigKahuna (Jan 19, 2004)

Only if you have plenty of money to throw away.


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

No. I don't have any MIPS helmets. I'm not opposed to it, but I'm skeptical enough of the claims that I don't consider it a must-have.


----------



## LyNx (Oct 26, 2004)

Not from the accrued evidence I have personally seen on how a good "old fashioned non mips" helmet can help protect your noggin. As said, if you're worried and find one with mips on sale, then you could buy it and keep your other one as backup or for commuting etc. Also, just an FYI, helmets have a shelf life, so if your otherwise good helmet is 5> years old, it's most likely time to replace as the elements tend to break down the plastics of a bike helmet.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

OP, I think you're smart to ask the question. It's your brain.

There's no independent, publicly available data either way on whether MIPS makes a difference in the real world. After a fair bit of reading, I agree with BHSI when they say, "We do not see compelling evidence that you should trade in your current helmet on a MIPS model."

But I do think (again, no data) that there are concussion-safety features that are likely to make a real difference -- likely enough to warrant buying a new helmet. The designs I'm most impressed with are (in no order) Leatt DBX 3.0, 6D ATB-1T Evo, Troy Lee A2, and Kali Interceptor.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

OldManBike said:


> I agree with BHSI


That article lacks substance, I'm all for gathering all available information but that read more like an opinion blog to me, complete with manufacture conspiracy theories.

I'm not 100% sold myself and don't believe MIPS on it's own is very beneficial without a well designed helmet around it, but refuting an idea or claim without proof or scientific study is nothing more than conjecture.


----------



## Lone Rager (Dec 13, 2013)

I'm not a MIPS convert. Reducing the angular acceleration of the head in a crash is worthwhile but I'm skeptical MIPS, as implemented, makes a significant contribution. So, no, I wouldn't ditch my current helmets because they don't have MIPs and it's unlikely that my next will have MIPS.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

I have a less than year old D3 that doesn't have MIPS. I will have a nonMIPS D3 for the foreseeable future. I am due an open face replacement soon. It may have MIPS but not a deal breaker. 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk


----------



## gckless (Aug 25, 2016)

I don't believe MIPS is worth the money they're charging right now either. When was the last time someone wearing a half shell went down, hit their head, and got up with the helmet perfectly on their head? Bike helmets move a ton anyway. Not too many people really tighten them down properly. And then on top of that, helmets are designed with ventilation and aero in mind, and have all these holes and ridges and points to get caught in the ground. A good helmet for impacts would be smooth and round. For the full face helmets, there might actually be an argument there, but I think it's marginal at best. Certainly not worth buying an entirely new helmet when your current one is in good shape. IMO of course. 

Bell and Giro invested a good amount of money into MIPS (MIPS is actually a company, and their tech is called MIPS. Weird, right?), so of course they will benefit from all of this hype. If it was truly useful, don't you think they would have incorporated it into pro racing? Until Arai and Shoei pick it up, I'm taking it with a grain of salt.

Leatt and 6D both have the same sort of tech that I think is probably superior to MIPS, but it's not as widely available as MIPS. Those are definitely worth looking into.

I hope the tech continues to develop though, as we collect data both ways. I hope it matures and there's something actually proven. I'm all for improving safety. The theory is sound, but is it enough to make a difference is the question.


----------



## NordieBoy (Sep 26, 2004)

I would only get a MIPS helmet if it was more comfortable than a non-MIPS version.


----------



## AndyDUK71 (Dec 3, 2016)

Well after spending the last few weeks suffering from Post Concussion Syndrome, anything that makes my head more protected and feasible on a bike is worth it . I understood that the majority of helmets without mips are designed for a frontal impact . When you fall off and hit your head on the side , sometimes the helmet itself can cause damage . MIPS in this scenario is a better option . I'm no scientist but after twatting my head hard on the side from a pretty pathetic crash, I'm sure MIPS would have made more of a difference . I'm going to put my hand in my pocket and buy one before I'm let loose on my bike again. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## avidthrasher (Jan 27, 2016)

AndyDUK71 said:


> Well after spending the last few weeks suffering from Post Concussion Syndrome, anything that makes my head more protected and feasible on a bike is worth it . I understood that the majority of helmets without mips are designed for a frontal impact . When you fall off and hit your head on the side , sometimes the helmet itself can cause damage . MIPS in this scenario is a better option . I'm no scientist but after twatting my head hard on the side from a pretty pathetic crash, I'm sure MIPS would have made more of a difference . I'm going to put my hand in my pocket and buy one before I'm let loose on my bike again.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


The only way to know for sure is buy a shiny new MIPS helmet and do it again! Everything else is conjecture.


----------



## AndyDUK71 (Dec 3, 2016)

avidthrasher said:


> The only way to know for sure is buy a shiny new MIPS helmet and do it again! Everything else is conjecture.


Exactly 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

I would not ditch an otherwise good condition helmet for a MIPS lid.

But when it's time to replace your current helmet, it IS worthwhile to consider helmets with additional features as attempts to improve safety.

MIPS is not the only one of those.

#1 item on my list is fit. If the helmet doesn't fit and isn't comfortable, it's not going to be purchased. I don't care what safety tech it has.

When evaluating a company's safety tech, I'm looking at it from a potential to improve safety vs. potential to reduce safety vs. cost. When it comes to MIPS in particular, the cost isn't terribly high. In most cases, the increase in cost for a MIPS helmet vs. its non-MIPS sibling is roughly $20 (take the Bell Stoker, for example, but MIPS appears on helmets that cost as little as $60 from Bell, at least). That's a pretty marginal cost when considering the potential costs of concussions, which can be pretty long-term. It has some potential to improve the safety of the helmet for some types of crashes. I really don't think there's much potential to reduce the safety of the helmet at all. So for me, when choosing a new helmet, a feature like MIPS with fairly low cost, a potential to improve safety, and little to no potential to reduce safety, it's something I'm going to be considering strongly as an option.

Other tech mentioned here is also worth considering. But from what I'm seeing now of most of the helmets mentioned that contain it, they have a much steeper cost of entry. Many cost near or above $200. Sure, those of us who spend thousands on bikes probably aren't TOO upset about spending that much on a helmet with that kind of potential to improve safety, but it's worth keeping in mind that there are quite a few people who balk at spending $200 on their whole bike.

Availability is a huge part of the equation, too. For me, a MIPS helmet is easy to find, with lots of different fit options to choose from. I wouldn't, for example, buy a POC helmet with MIPS. I haven't found a POC helmet that was comfortable for me, MIPS or not. But when it comes to the other safety tech options listed, the only one I've had an opportunity to try on is the Troy Lee A2. I thought that helmet was fantastically comfortable for me, and it's on my list for my next lid. It's available with MIPS as well as some additional tech with safety in mind (breakaway visor, dual density foam), and that definitely pushes it higher than a helmet with MIPS alone. Will I get a chance to try on the Leatt or 6D helmets at some point? The chances don't look good, but if I see them, I'll try them. Maybe they'll wind up on my list if I like the fit, but unless I can try them on, they won't be on my list for that reason.


----------



## Highwaystreets (Apr 3, 2006)

i certainly wouldn't ditch a good helmet for one with MIPS.... if it's still relevant technology in the 2-4 years when i buy a new helmet (if i don't crash) then i might grab one but currently it's not a must have for me as i have yet to see enough independent research to justify it.


----------



## kiwim5 (May 19, 2015)

Interesting that POC is largely responsible for MIPS success and now they have moved away from MIPS.



Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


----------



## Hesher123 (Jul 31, 2011)

mtnbkrdr98 said:


> I guess the title asks it all.
> 
> If helmet otherwise doesn't need to be replaced yet, but doesn't have MIPS, would you guys get rid of it and only use helmet with MIPS?


Funny, I found this thread while researching a new helmet to replace my MET Parabellum which is just too uncomfortable for my head.

I read a ton and the reviews for the TLD A1's comfort pretty much sold me.

I found out that the A1 can also be had with MIPS but I decided against MIPS and got a 2016 A1 for 50% off... for me I chose comfort and a great price over MIPS.

Jim


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Hesher123 said:


> Funny, I found this thread while researching a new helmet to replace my MET Parabellum which is just too uncomfortable for my head.
> 
> I read a ton and the reviews for the TLD A1's comfort pretty much sold me.
> 
> ...


I would attribute that to a different model and brand, not MIPS. I tried on 2 otherwise identical helmets and choose the MIPS version mostly because it was more comfortable than the non-MIPS one.


----------



## gregnash (Jul 17, 2010)

kiwim5 said:


> Interesting that POC is largely responsible for MIPS success and now they have moved away from MIPS.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


How so? MIPS was around for a number of years before it was invested in by the biking community. It originally started on football helmets to help reduce concussive states for players. Then was moved over to other forums when the technology had advanced enough.

Also, cost for MIPS helmets has finally hit the trickle-down state where you are starting to find it available in sub-$100 helmets, e.g. the Giro Chronicle. There are other technologies out there dealing with the foam of the helmet composite itself to help make a difference but the true thing about MIPS is that it is based on rotational impacts not singular plane impact.

With the technologies in helmets today, is MIPS an absolute necessity???? That is up to the rider, but I believe it all depends on how hard/aggressive you ride and how often you crash. 
Should someone toss a perfectly good lid for a MIPS on???? Negative, if your helmet is still in good shape, hasn't taken any good hits/impacts then keep it going until you have the money burning a hole in your pocket.


----------



## 6D ATB-1T EVO (Jul 13, 2010)

kiwim5 said:


> Interesting that POC is largely responsible for MIPS success and now they have moved away from MIPS.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk


Just bought the latest POC Tectal Race. That is not made in a MIPS version? The old Trabec is.
Guess POC has a reason for doing what they do. They have made helmets a long time.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

AndyDUK71 said:


> Well after spending the last few weeks suffering from Post Concussion Syndrome, anything that makes my head more protected and feasible on a bike is worth it.


This is the problem. If we are looking to protect our heads as well as possible we are afraid we risk injury by not using the latest technology. This may or may not be a reasonable fear though.

The whole point of MIPS is that it allows the helmet to rotate on your head. That's all it does, one thing. However, that rotation is limited by the outer shell and if you try twisting any helmet you will find that they all rotate on your head quite happily until the shell meets your head. Basically, while the benefits of MIPS seem perfectly valid in practice most helmets will behave in a similar way to MIPS anyway. In fact a think a standard helmet with a larger shell will rotate more than an MIPS helmet with a smaller one.


----------



## outlaws (Aug 26, 2008)

I specifically looked for a helmet without MIPS. The plastic piece felt kinda annoying on my head.


----------



## JackWare (Aug 8, 2016)

This website lists the various standards Helmets must meet - I was surprised that the European standards are lower than those of the US and many European helmets would not pass the US impact tests. Also if you follow the links to the Snell website you'll find those helmets that are approved using even stricter criteria.

https://helmets.org/standard.htm


----------



## Fairbanks007 (Sep 5, 2009)

Where is your current helmet in its life expectancy? I replace my helmets after 2 or 3 years, sooner if they've taken a good whack. I don't think MIPS is the "be all and end all" of head protection, so I wouldn't replace your current helmet until it's due just to get the MIPS technology. 

When you're ready for a new helmet anyway, for sure get one with MIPS - it's another layer of protection, and as others have pointed out, it's not as expensive as it used to be. Not that price should be a major factor in protecting your brain, but everybody's got a budget.


----------



## someoldfart (Mar 14, 2013)

Mr Pig said:


> This is the problem. If we are looking to protect our heads as well as possible we are afraid we risk injury by not using the latest technology. This may or may not be a reasonable fear though.
> 
> The whole point of MIPS is that it allows the helmet to rotate on your head. That's all it does, one thing. However, that rotation is limited by the outer shell and if you try twisting any helmet you will find that they all rotate on your head quite happily until the shell meets your head. Basically, while the benefits of MIPS seem perfectly valid in practice most helmets will behave in a similar way to MIPS anyway. In fact a think a standard helmet with a larger shell will rotate more than an MIPS helmet with a smaller one.


Not quite right. MIPS is intended to allow the helmet to rotate a bit at impact to mitigate rotational forces on the brain. At impact the inside of the helmet will stick to your scalp momentarily. Simply moving a helmet on your head does not replicate impact forces. I can't say if MIPS or other technologies such as Leatt turbines do anything positive or negative but the logic makes sense. When buying a new helmet I look for these types of features but the helmet has to fit too. I also look for a rounded profile because that will slide better than some helmets which look like a late 50's car fins. I retire helmets annualy because I ride a lot and my helmets get scuffed up even if I have not had a major hit. I wouldn't replace a helmet that was otherwise fine just to obtain MIPS or similar technologies.


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

someoldfart said:


> At impact the inside of the helmet will stick to your scalp momentarily.


Says who? Prove it?

The felt pads on the helmet liner will 'stick' to my head and stop the helmet from moving? Seriously, I'm not buying that. Not for a millisecond. Sounds to me like it's been pointed out to the makers of MIPS that their notion is flawed and the bull-machine has been cranked up.


----------



## someoldfart (Mar 14, 2013)

Mr Pig said:


> Says who? Prove it?
> 
> The felt pads on the helmet liner will 'stick' to my head and stop the helmet from moving? Seriously, I'm not buying that. Not for a millisecond. Sounds to me like it's been pointed out to the makers of MIPS that their notion is flawed and the bull-machine has been cranked up.


I'm not saying it works, but that is the entire premise of MIPS. The forces involved whenyou whack your head on the ground or something are far in excess of what moving your helmet around on your head with your hands is.

POC has abandoned MIPS and replaced it with their own gel pad wiggly system. Do any motorsport helmets have a MIPS type system? I think there is one that Motorossers wear but I've never looked into it.


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Mr Pig said:


> Says who? Prove it?
> 
> The felt pads on the helmet liner will 'stick' to my head and stop the helmet from moving? Seriously, I'm not buying that. Not for a millisecond. Sounds to me like it's been pointed out to the makers of MIPS that their notion is flawed and the bull-machine has been cranked up.


I can believe it. The acceleration causes the friction coefficient to go up exponentially momentarily and probably accounts for it. Add in elastic deformation of the epidural layer of your head and the materials of the helmet and it becomes even more likely.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr Pig (Jun 25, 2008)

someoldfart said:


> I'm not saying it works, but that is the entire premise of MIPS.


Another point. I have a Smith Forefront which is available in both MIPS and non-IMPS. Both lids use the same shell. The plain vanilla one has the usual thin plastic liner strips. The MIPS one has a two-layer job so technically, the MIPS one has a thicker liner. I could be wrong but would't that meat that the helmet would not be able to rotate as far?


----------



## tuckerjt07 (Nov 24, 2016)

Mr Pig said:


> Another point. I have a Smith Forefront which is available in both MIPS and non-IMPS. Both lids use the same shell. The plain vanilla one has the usual thin plastic liner strips. The MIPS one has a two-layer job so technically, the MIPS one has a thicker liner. I could be wrong but would't that meat that the helmet would not be able to rotate as far?


It depends on how those layers are bound. If they are floated in a certain way it would allow the outer to rotate over the inner.

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

mtnbkrdr98 said:


> I guess the title asks it all.
> 
> If helmet otherwise doesn't need to be replaced yet, but doesn't have MIPS, would you guys get rid of it and only use helmet with MIPS?
> 
> My road helmet has MIPS but my mountain helmet doesn't.


None of my helmets have MIPS. I'm not getting rid of any of them.


----------



## terrasmak (Jun 14, 2011)

Waiting for a Fox Flux in MIPS . Still trying to find the perfect road helmet with MIPS. Right now I use a Walmart helmet for road


----------



## 6D ATB-1T EVO (Jul 13, 2010)

MIPS helmets:

Bell makes a Zephyr that look good.
Bern FL-1 MIPS
Giro Synthe MIPS
Giant Rev MIPS
Smith makes one, but it is uggly.


----------



## 6D ATB-1T EVO (Jul 13, 2010)

Maybe this is the next level of protection after MIPS:

POC introduces new safety and vision technology, SPIN and Clarity, with new helmet and goggles | POC Wall


----------

