# Is mips a waste of money???



## unrooted (Jul 31, 2007)

The first thing I do after a wreck is re-adjust my helmet, so the fact that the Mips helmet allows for the helmet to rotate doesn't seem like a real increase in protection. Is there any real world evidence that mips really makes a difference?


----------



## Menel (Mar 15, 2015)

Real-world and evidence doesn't logically link up.

Evidence is in the lab trials and test results.

Real-world experience is going to be someone's head hitting the ground while riding a bike... and there are too many variables to control. No evidence can be drawn from this kind of testing. Nor would you find many volunteers...

Maybe you're looking for amateur, anonymous, subjective opinions? We have lots of that around here


----------



## net4n6 (Jul 6, 2015)

With my head, I rather be safe than sorry.


----------



## Stuart B (Mar 21, 2005)

I decided not to go mips on my bell super 2, as I thought the ventilation looked worse.


----------



## mtnbkrmike (Mar 26, 2015)

I went with the non-MIPs Super 2R only because I had read some interwebz reports that suggested it had some hot spots (worse than the non-MIPs version).


----------



## Bald_Ben (May 2, 2005)

I have no idea if these guys are credible, but I found this an interesting read when I had the same question a few months back. Obviously, the studies put forth by the manufacturers say MIPS is immensely helpful.


----------



## jp08865 (Aug 12, 2014)

I bought into the hype (Scott Lin) as it seems to make sense to me. I will say one thing I instantly noticed was the great fit. This is the only helmet I've ever had that I did not have to make some king of modification to, to make the fit feel good. Best helmet fit, most comfortable, I've ever had out of the box !


----------



## evasive (Feb 18, 2005)

unrooted said:


> The first thing I do after a wreck is re-adjust my helmet, so the fact that the Mips helmet allows for the helmet to rotate doesn't seem like a real increase in protection. Is there any real world evidence that mips really makes a difference?


I'm skeptical for exactly that reason. I doubt even a perfectly fitted bike helmet resists rotation enough for MIPS to provide any real benefit.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

solomon707 said:


> Obviously, the studies put forth by the manufacturers say MIPS is immensely helpful.


If you wanted to maximize the apparent benefit of MIPS, you would test it under conditions that minimized non-MIPS slip between head and helmet. That is, you would eliminate all the other, real-world conditions that allow slip. So the dummy surface would be tacky not smooth. You would put the helmet on tight enough to make the dummy's eyeballs pop out. The shell and strap fit would always be perfect. Maybe you'd remove the helmet's padding. Most importantly, I think, your crash dummy would have no hair, nothing that mimics the natural slip of a scalp, and no sweat or moisture.

Is that what the manufacturers actually did to get those glowing test results? Maybe someone here can answer that better than I can, I'm not an insider or an expert. But nothing I've seen suggests the answer is no. Like, check out this video at 0:56 and 1:20. And this one at 3:16 to 4:36. To my eye, those both show tests that are designed to produce results that overstate the benefit of MIPS.

Have they done testing that tries to measure the benefit under more realistic conditions? If so, do those tests still show MIPS offering a meaningful benefit? We'd all like to know.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

FWIW, here's what Consumer Reports said in April:
_
But whether a helmet with MIPS minimizes rotational force any better than a helmet without MIPS is a matter of debate. Some experts argue that your scalp or hair functions similarly to a helmet liner and allows for slide on impact. We did not test that feature because we could not find a standard test for rotational force._​


----------



## Chicane32 (Jul 12, 2015)

I went with the MIPS because it was highly discounted and super cheap. I think a extra $20 for the MIPS is a no brainer for me. I could see you head digging into the hard foam of the non MIPS on impact, but it won't dig into the plastic of the MIPS. I've been a crash test dummy twice racing go karts at over 50+mph and I noticed a difference between two brands of helmets. Seeing blurred vision for about 30 minutes was a little scary. The cat scans were negative.

FYI- Backcountry has all Bell Super 2 helmets at 25% off. No affiliation to me.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

Does MIPS hurt at all? I can't see that it does. As far as I'm concerned, whether various test results are overstated or not, any attempt to improve helmet safety is good and I will purchase MIPS helmets or anything else that's an attempt to improve helmet safety so long as they don't wind up doing the opposite to add incentive for companies to continue to innovate.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Harold said:


> Does MIPS hurt at all? I can't see that it does. As far as I'm concerned, whether various test results are overstated or not, any attempt to improve helmet safety is good and I will purchase MIPS helmets or anything else that's an attempt to improve helmet safety so long as they don't wind up doing the opposite to add incentive for companies to continue to innovate.


That makes some sense to me, but I don't agree entirely. Here's my take on it, from this other recent thread:



OldManBike said:


> I think you're overlooking the broader reality. If the market just accepts MIPS marketing at face value, then the financial incentive to continue improving is reduced. And if my guess is right that the less-effectively-marketed dual-density foam helmets made by Kali and the crushable-straws helmets made by Scott are more effective than more-effectively-marketed MIPS, then MIPS is not a technology without any safety cost.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

OldManBike said:


> That makes some sense to me, but I don't agree entirely. Here's my take on it, from this other recent thread:


To be fair, I also buy what's available to me. There are enough MIPS helmets out there by now that I don't have trouble finding one for sale. Plus, MIPS appears on helmets I can try on locally to find what fits.

The competing technologies by Kali and Scott are not available/accessible to me locally to try on. I have seen the Scott ones occasionally and the concept intrigued me. I haven't even seen a Kali helmet with the dual-density foam.

So while marketing of the technology is a factor, availability and accessibility are far bigger.

I agree that a smooth, rounded shape is a pretty important factor with allowing the helmet to slip/rotate on glancing impacts, and that's one of the reasons I chose a Bell Super 2.


----------



## gt4130 (Aug 19, 2011)

Was thinking that if MIPS also transfers some of the head on crash energy into rotational force it would be worth the $20-30 premium over a non-MIPS


----------



## Andrew8404 (Nov 20, 2011)

From what I've read the testing standards for helmets in itself are terrible and need to be changed. As for MIPS your still just as likely as getting a concussion as a normal helmet but it may help minimize the damage a small percentage. So I say MIPS can't hurt and can only help.


----------



## JohnnyVV (Feb 28, 2015)

I went with MIPS because me worrying about whether or not $20 is a waste of money in cycling is akin to a 400lb guy worrying about whether or not pickles will add too many calories to his Big Mac.


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

gt4130 said:


> Was thinking that if MIPS also transfers some of the head on crash energy into rotational force it would be worth the $20-30 premium over a non-MIPS


When I priced a Poc Trabec (non-MIPS) to a MIPS Poc Trabec for my wife, the difference was closer to 2x the price... If it was only $20-30, I would've paid it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 6, 2015)

"Developed by brain surgeons and scientists to reduce rotational forces on the brain caused by angled impacts to the head." Didn't know there was a problem with rotational forces on my brain and frankly, I thought the advances in chin strap and fit were designed to keep the helmet in place. I must be missing something here. Of course I am not a brain surgeon and not aware of the (apparently) large number of torque affected brain injuries. In any case, in two years, it will be cheap and hard to avoid (my prediction).


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Nov 19, 2013)

none of this matters


get a snell or ansi helmet, and don't bash your skull

mips or non mips seriously will not matter as impacts are basically random and you never, ever know or can plan wtf will happen, mips or no mips. just get a bike helmet with a safety sticker and go ride. 

the only way to test this is go bash your head and then get a cranial CT...no one is gonna do that. 

just save your loot and be careful.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

The basic issue is that current helmet certification standards focus on protecting against cracking your skull in a high-force impact (think 35 mph road crash), not protecting against concussion from a lower-force impact.

So, the question for helmet designers today is, how do you design a helmet that meets the certification standards but still does a better job of protecting against concussions?

As of now, there are two different strategies. One (Giro/Bell, POC, and Scott) is MIPS -- trying to reduce rotational forces with a slip plane. The other (Kali and Smith) is trying to reduce smaller-impact forces by using something softer than standard helmet foam.

No current helmet uses both strategies [EDIT: this is wrong, below], so you have to pick. Buyers looking for a helmet that offers better protection against concussions have to make a choice (a largely uninformed choice, as I've said above) about which strategy is more likely to work.

Everyone keeps saying that MIPS may not help but it won't hurt. Part of the point I'm trying to make is that MIPS is one option, and there are others. If MIPS doesn't work -- _if _-- and the Kali or Smith helmets do --_if_ -- then choosing MIPS isn't just a waste of 20 bucks, it's a wasted chance to get a safer helmet.

No answers, just questions.

EDIT: Actually, Smith has a helmet that has both MIPS and "Koroyd," their crushable-straws tech. Cool.


----------



## Andrew8404 (Nov 20, 2011)

OldManBike said:


> The basic issue is that current helmet certification standards focus on protecting against cracking your skull in a high-force impact (think 35 mph road crash), not protecting against concussion from a lower-force impact.
> 
> So, the question for helmet designers today is, how do you design a helmet that meets the certification standards but still does a better job of protecting against concussions?
> 
> ...


Smith has MIPS options also

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Andrew8404 said:


> Smith has MIPS options also
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


You're right, I edited my post to correct the error.


----------



## 06HokieMTB (Apr 25, 2011)

I took an impact Biomechanics class in college. It was very interesting to see how different types of hits affect the human body.

For example: we studied the Dale Earnhardt crash and learned how that particular scenario was fatal where many others (Rusty Wallace going end over end about 6-7 times) allow the driver to walk away unscathed.

We also studied football helmets and how different positions lead to different types of impacts. Which is why you now see WR's and TB/RB's with different helmets. Linemen seem to have it easiest (from a head impact perspective), the receiver running inside routes (Wes Welker) is screwed.

The point being, through scientific study and research, we've learned a lot about head impacts and how to better protect against them. And it's an evolving field, with new materials being developed that allow for options we didn't have 5-10 years ago.

When I go to buy a new helmet for myself, I'll probably buy one with newer, more advanced technology.


----------



## El_Duderino (Dec 2, 2005)

Like you said smith does have a Koroyd helmet with MIPS although some people myself included believe the abrasive nature of Koroyd material does not allow the MIPS to slide friction free.
If you take any MIPS helmet and push the mips liner against the EPS foam it does not slide friction free.


----------



## cripes (Aug 3, 2015)

Knowing that f=ma, in my opinion anything I can do to increase the deceleration time for my head is a good thing. It means less force applied to my brain, when my cranium stops moving. Is the additional fraction of a second that a mips super 2r is going to give me over a non-mips 2r worth the $20 price difference? It is to me, so I paid it.


----------



## vikb (Sep 7, 2008)

I haven't bought a MIPS helmet. I don't plan to. I don't have the information or ability to understand it required to say whether MIPS is effective. I would also say that any change to a product could have unintended negative consequences so I personally would not assume a MIPS helmet is not worse for me. Just because it's marketed as a safety improvement by folks trying to get my money doesn't mean anything.

I do stupid things like mount a hard plastic and metal light to my helmet for a good chunk of the year which is most definitely not a great safety move. So worrying about MIPS seems pointless.


----------



## James39 (Aug 18, 2015)

Is it really any better? I don't know. There is plenty of debate on that topic. 

Is it a waste of money? Well, on my Super 2R is was a $20 option. Is it wasteful to spend twenty bucks if it has the potential to provide extra protection to the most important part of your body? I don't think so. I spend more than that on post ride beers, which don't help my brain cells any, might as well give it a try.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

delete please.


----------



## One Pivot (Nov 20, 2009)

Theres some compelling arguments against MIPS out there. A big one is that MIPS helmets dont actually do what they say they will because the MIPS layer is lacking in critical areas, like the rear. The MIPS system takes up an amount of room, room that could be used for crushable material. 

Theres a potential you're paying for less protection with a MIPS helmet. If you have crashed with a non-mips helmet, you know that the helmet slips on your head anyway. The concept behind mips is definitely solid, if you can introduce slip you slow the speed of the head injury... but that assumes your current helmet will not slip at all. I dont think thats accurate.

I think the most dangerous helmets are the ones with sharper edges on the back. The sharper edges can dig into the dirt and actually cause the helmet to not rotate. The newer designs like the stoker and super 2 with the more rounded rears, and more coverage on the rear, should be safer helmets, mips or not.


----------



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

One Pivot said:


> Theres some compelling arguments against MIPS out there. A big one is that MIPS helmets dont actually do what they say they will because the MIPS layer is lacking in critical areas, like the rear. The MIPS system takes up an amount of room, room that could be used for crushable material.


The MIPS layer on my Scott covers the entire inside of the helmet and is only about .25 mm thick. It may or may not protect any better than the standard version but I can't see any way that it wouldn't work at least as well. Definitely not a waste of $$$ IMO.


----------

