# post concussion helmet choice



## little851 (Aug 20, 2012)

So I had an off and a resulting concussion. out for about 1 week. 
Dumbass me goes swimming another week later, does a cannon ball, and gets concussed AGAIN! so 2 in 3 weeks. Now I'm sitting on the couch for about 4 weeks now, and finally feeling better. So....

I need a new helmet with the best protection for XC and the occasional beginner trails at downhill parks. No jumping.

I was thinking something with a chin guard like the MET parachute and the old switchbacks, or maybe the Casco Viper.
All seem like you have to go over seas to buy one. 
What is available here with MORE protection, at least the ears, cheecks and possible the chin/front face.
Thanks


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

Giro Feature
POC Trebac
Bell Super
TLD A1

Whichever fits best.


----------



## musikron (Jan 16, 2013)

Nothing will help with concussion, helmets just keep lacerations off your head and your brains inside your skull.


----------



## shiggy (Dec 19, 1998)

musikron said:


> Nothing will help with concussion, helmets just keep lacerations off your head and your brains inside your skull.


Prevent, no.
Help, yes.


----------



## little851 (Aug 20, 2012)

shiggy said:


> Prevent, no.
> Help, yes.


Agreed, shiggy. The purpose of any eps liner is to take energy out of an impact. Furthermore check out the new tech a new company has developed from concussion research...
6D Helmets


----------



## dth656 (Feb 12, 2009)

you may also want to look at the new MIPS helmets (POC has a MIPS version of their Trabec). iirc, i read somewhere that the brain experiences both linear and angular acceleration in most impacts (this makes sense---very few impacts involve a perfectly linear motion like a woodpecker pecking on a tree)

i think the MIPS system is supposed to help reduce the angular component


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

dth656 said:


> you may also want to look at the new MIPS helmets (POC has a MIPS version of their Trabec). iirc, i read somewhere that the brain experiences both linear and angular acceleration in most impacts (this makes sense---very few impacts involve a perfectly linear motion like a woodpecker pecking on a tree)
> 
> i think the MIPS system is supposed to help reduce the angular component


This. After messing up my face I've been researching helmets and my next one will have MIPS. MIPS | Safest helmets in the market



little851 said:


> Agreed, shiggy. The purpose of any eps liner is to take energy out of an impact. Furthermore check out the new tech a new company has developed from concussion research...
> 6D Helmets


These are cool but still only see motorcycle helmets which aren't as safe for biking as helmets specifically designed for biking.


----------



## little851 (Aug 20, 2012)

TwoTone said:


> This. After messing up my face I've been researching helmets and my next one will have MIPS. MIPS | Safest helmets in the market
> 
> These are cool but still only see motorcycle helmets which aren't as safe for biking as helmets specifically designed for biking.


I plan on letting them know this technology could help cyclist as well, and could be very profitable for them.


----------



## zachvii (Aug 20, 2010)

I got a gnarly concussion last November and have gone to the MIPS helmet. Haven't had a hard crash yet with the new helmet but I would rather be riding with the latest technology than not. MIPS | Safest helmets in the market

They also have a few youtube videos explaining the new technology if you are skeptical.

Below is a list of available Mtb Helmets with the technology:
Trabec Race MIPS
Scott Lin
Scott Taal


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

As I understand it, the chin protection on a fullface isn't designed to do a thing for reducing concussion risk. It just protects your face from abrasion. The current helmet certifications focus on ensuring that helmets reduce skull fracture risk, they ignore concussion risk. Helmet technology is likely to improve dramatically in the coming years. For now, MIPS is the only concussion-specific feature out there.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

zachvii said:


> a list of available Mtb Helmets with the technology:
> Trabec Race MIPS
> Scott Lin
> Scott Taal


Also Scott Stego.


----------



## little851 (Aug 20, 2012)

*helmets*



OldManBike said:


> Also Scott Stego.


Thanks everyone for the info. I am almost ready to ride says the doctors.
That means I am almost ready to go buy my next helmet as well.

Keep those newer, higher tech helmet makes and models recommendations coming...

C


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

OldManBike said:


> Also Scott Stego.


Ordered mine Yesterday.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

This ridiculous image is eye-opening for me. Here is what it shows:
_
two notable helmet experts prepared an analysis for us explaining what thickness a helmet would have to be if made with today's standard EPS foam to keep the g's below 100 in the drops included in the CPSC standard. (You might still be concussed at 100g but the odds are with you.)

We mocked up a helmet with their parameters, and it came out looking like this:​_
For me, this vividly illustrates the point that current-technology foam helmets don't and can't give effective protection against concussions. And also makes the point that our aesthetic preference for a slimmer helmet works against us when it comes to avoiding concussions.

The image came from Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, here.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

OldManBike said:


> View attachment 946096
> 
> 
> This ridiculous image is eye-opening for me. Here is what it shows:
> ...


I understand the point they were trying to make. I read that site and not sure I buy everything they say. First the CPSC standard is ancient if you look at all the recent information that has been learned about head injuries.

That article even mentions rotational energy "....upping the dreaded rotational energy to the head..." So the CPSC standard doesn't even take into account rotational energy, just a flat drop. Well when was the last time you crash with you body in a nice straight line and hit the ground, tree rock- whatever nice and perpendicular.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

TwoTone said:


> I understand the point they were trying to make. I read that site and not sure I buy everything they say. First the CPSC standard is ancient if you look at all the recent information that has been learned about head injuries.
> 
> That article even mentions rotational energy "....upping the dreaded rotational energy to the head..." So the CPSC standard doesn't even take into account rotational energy, just a flat drop. Well when was the last time you crash with you body in a nice straight line and hit the ground, tree rock- whatever nice and perpendicular.


Their take on MIPS is interesting reading, different from what many would expect.


----------



## TwoTone (Jul 5, 2011)

OldManBike said:


> Their take on MIPS is interesting reading, different from what many would expect.


I know- that's why I take what they say with a grain of salt.

First they talk about the head slips in a helmet anyway because it's not affixed tightly. Even with my basic physics classes 20 years ago, I understand that at the time of impact, the forces involved will change that.
Take 2 pieces of paper in your hand and barely hold your hands together, move pretty easily, not push your hands together as hard as you can- they don't slip quit as easily.

Then there's this gem: 
"There is even the question of how much you would want your helmet to slip. this study calculates risk factors for helmets that slip due to poor fit, and how much that increases the risk of head and facial injury. A MIPS helmet has a very small amount of slippage designed in."

For people that are giving out advice about helmets, how they can't grasp the difference between my helmet slipping up off my forehead in a crash and allowing my head to hit the ground and a MIPS helmet that fits properly and allowing your head to rotate inside upon impact is beyond me. They're basicallt saying that a helmet flopping around on your head is the same as MIPS


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

TwoTone said:


> I know- that's why I take what they say with a grain of salt.
> 
> First they talk about the head slips in a helmet anyway because it's not affixed tightly. Even with my basic physics classes 20 years ago, I understand that at the time of impact, the forces involved will change that.
> Take 2 pieces of paper in your hand and barely hold your hands together, move pretty easily, not push your hands together as hard as you can- they don't slip quit as easily.


I'm sure that's true, but I'm not sure it proves that MIPS actually works. That website's point, as I understand it, is that there are lots of different slip planes at play--skull/scalp, head/helmet, helmet/ground. MIPS just adds another, and so far there is no empirical evidence that the MIPS slip plane provides any independent benefit.

Responding more directly to your point, your point is that the head may not move in the helmet under impact, but is there a concrete reason to think that applies to head/helmet but not MIPS liner/helmet?


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

With no hard data available either way, my best _un_educated guess is that Kali's conehead dual-density foam (shown here, for example) does more to reduce concussions than MIPS does.


----------



## Kaliprotectives (Nov 12, 2014)

OldManBike said:


> With no hard data available either way, my best _un_educated guess is that Kali's conehead dual-density foam (shown here, for example) does more to reduce concussions than MIPS does.


Our helmet standards are antiquated. As one user mentioned, they're designed around preventing traumatic injury (e.g. skull fractures) rather than preventing concussions. You can have a brain injury at 70-80 g's, but our helmets don't start to protect us till much higher impact levels.

The benefit to the multi density coneshaped foam used in our helmets is that is allows us to use a softer density foam around the head. This enables the helmet to dissipate impacts of different speeds more efficiently. The way the cone shaped foams are distributed also help to spread the impact over a larger surface.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Kaliprotectives said:


> Our helmet standards are antiquated. As one user mentioned, they're designed around preventing traumatic injury (e.g. skull fractures) rather than preventing concussions. You can have a brain injury at 70-80 g's, but our helmets don't start to protect us till much higher impact levels.
> 
> The benefit to the multi density coneshaped foam used in our helmets is that is allows us to use a softer density foam around the head. This enables the helmet to dissipate impacts of different speeds more efficiently. The way the cone shaped foams are distributed also help to spread the impact over a larger surface.


Can you explain the benefit of having the light/camera mount on the visor instead of the helmet? I know accessory mounts on helmets can be a grab point in a crash, increasing the risk of rotational force. Is Maya designed to lower that risk? I see that the visor is advertised as flexy, and I don't see it described as having breakaway mounts.


----------



## OldManBike (Apr 16, 2011)

Review of a notable new helmet:
6D ATB-1 Full Face Helmet - Reviews, Comparisons, Specs - Mountain Bike Full Face Helmets - Vital MTB


----------

