The Latest with MIPS

We caught up with Max Strandwitz the CEO of MIPS Protection to learn more about what the brand has been up to the last few years and what's on the horizon.

Vital MX - Michael Lindsay: So I was lucky enough to visit MIPS...probably four or five years now ago, now. Since then the company has moved into a newer/larger headquarters, but how long has it been now since the early beginnings of MIPS?

For MIPS, the first product that we launched on the market was actually in 2007 and it was an equestrian helmet. That was of course a great success and we did sell a lot of helmets. The issue was with that solution however, we were not experts in making helmets. So that model actually was recalled due to a technical issue on the neck retention system. It had nothing to do with the MIPS itself. As you can guess, Sweden is cold...and during cold times, plastic gets brittle. Those neck retention systems cracked and we had to recall all the helmets at that time. There was also a decision by the board saying that "we are great at understanding rotational motion protection" and so on, but maybe making helmets isn't our area of expertise. This is why we changed direction, became an ingredient brand, and that was actually the basis of the company that we've become today. When you spoke to us last time, four or five years ago, we had about 60 different brands that we work with. Today, we work with over 150 different brands all over the world, and in nine different segments of helmets. Of course, in your area, we do both solutions for off-road helmets and on-road helmets. Back in 2018, we had two technologies. Today, we have around ten different technologies, all doing the same concept by trying to redirect energy, but can of course be presented in a lot of different ways. So a lot of things have happened since then.

Vital MX - So I remember hearing some of the background story of the studies that were done with some motocross riders. So with that, there's been a focus on our segment for quite a while. How's the response been in this segment? How do you feel like the attention and education have been towards rotational energy and the awareness of it in our market specifically?

When we look at the moto market, we split it into the off-road and on-road. If we start with off-road, we have actually seen quite a lot of awareness. We know that the riders are very keen on wearing protection. You know that if you go out riding your motocross or off-road bike, there's a risk that you can have an accident. So most are keen on wearing quality protection and also have acceptance for that part of the sport. If you look at the last year in Supercross, 31 out of the 34 podium guys wore a MIPS-equipped helmet. So I would say the acceptance of the industry, in general, has been really, really good. However, when we get to on-road, it has been a very different animal. It's been a much slower acceptance, much more focused on design and other aspects, and not being that much concerned about rotational motion protection and so on. Now there are standards that are introducing rotational motion protection into the testing and of course, that also see a lot of effects, also new helmets coming out with that kind of protection. So two different types of helmets, two different types of. You would say, and very different acceptance.

Vital MX - Do you think the difference in acceptance between on-road and off-road/moto, does it have anything to do with the types of crashes the riders think they're going to have? With Motocross, I think many riders think about the small low sides and tip-overs, just as much as the big crashes. Where on the street, I'm sure most only thing of the big ones.

Yeah, I think there is a very different concept of actually being safe. When it comes to on-road, people don't look at the average accident, which is actually at quite a low velocity. It's also in an urban environment. Such as running into someone, an open car door, and types of accidents like that. We are scientists, so we need to understand the background and so on. We did a survey a couple of years ago, trying to really look at the average rider on-road/street and what they actually look like. For Europe, it's a man and he's about 47 years old. He has been riding his motorcycle for about 20 years and he's never had an accident. If you ask him, he considers himself to be extremely good at riding a motorcycle...and if there's an emerging threat, he can probably handle it extremely well. I think that's the main difference. For off-road, they know they're going to have an accident eventually, but for on-road they don't believe they will.

Vital MX - Well, there are only two types of riders. The ones that have crashed and the ones that are going to crash. How are other sports outside of motocross? Do you feel like the penetration and education of moto have been easier than, say, mountain biking, skiing, and things of that nature? Or has it overall followed a similar path in each one of those markets?

No, I would say that if we look at bike and snow, it has been very similar to motocross. We see good acceptance, and people understand and are much more aware. If you go to a motorcycle fair around the world, you don't see safety being promoted in the same way. It's very much about color, about the design, and not so much about the safety features or other features of the helmet. So it's a very different thing. Now we are starting to work with safety helmets for construction and so on. There again, we see a big acceptance. So I would say an on-road motorcycle is probably the odd animal in this equation.

Vital MX - Road cycling doesn't terribly surprise me. I've been around friends that are hardcore road cyclists and I know the adoption of new technology is sometimes tough for them. Like the ongoing argument for years about disc vs rim brakes. However, I'm very surprised to hear that road motorcycle riding is such a difficult market to educate. It makes sense when you explain it, but at the same time, I wouldn't have guessed that.

That's what we assumed also. If you take road cycling, for example, go to Tour de France and they're all about weight and so on. However, about 60% of the tour riders wear MIPS-equipped helmets.

Vital MX - Even though you could consider MIPS an accessory to an existing helmet, I found it interesting upon my last visit how the process of implementing it into different brands of helmets and the amount of testing that was conducted. I believe they shared with us that MIPS always offered some level of improvement but if it didn't meet a certain threshold with a helmet, you would work with that brand for redesigns until it met your standards. Basically, not every helmet just has MIPS tossed in it and is given the green light?

That's correct. I mean, we put a lot of effort in. Last year we did about 12,000 tests and we have done about 60,000 tests so far in total. For us, it's really important to understand the criteria we try to address and so on. If we see that the product doesn't meet the standards that we set out, then of course it will not be a product equipped with MIPS.

Vital MX - Do a lot of helmets naturally accept the technology well and improve from the technology, or do you guys end up having to work with helmet manufacturers quite often to help them improve their product? Like, improve the integration?

First off, we only work with a certified helmet, then you have actually a good standard helmet that is fit and ready to be MIPS equipped. So normally it doesn't require a lot of tinkering and it's quite a straightforward process. We are now close to one helmet project per day. So of course we have done this a lot of times and we have an implementation team of about 20 people. So I would say it's relatively straightforward.

Vital MX - Do you have a rough idea of how many helmets are on the market now with MIPS technology in them?

Last year, we had 883 different helmet models that have been launched to the market equipped with MIPS. Since that time, we can assume that we are getting very close to 1000 helmet models

Vital MX - For a long time, there have been no rotational testing standards. Are there any testing standards on the market or any incoming?

Yeah, there is actually. Not for DOT or Snell yet, but there is one for the new European standard. The new standard is 2206 and it actually does address rotational energy. The thresholds are still quite low, but it's factored into the standard and some of the worst-performing helmets are actually filtered out. So think for sure it's a step in the right direction. And then if you look at the FIM standard, which is addressing the multi helmet there, you also have a rotational motion included in the standard. And there you see them moving a lot faster and also improving standards as they go. So yes, what we talked about then has actually started to happen also when it comes to regulatory test standards and so on.

Vital MX - Has MIPS' tests, thresholds, measurements, and standards changed much since I was there probably five or six years ago? How have those tests evolved?

We have presented a lot of new technologies addressing the same thing, and it's more how our technology is being presented. We always try to improve the performance within a certain criterion and that actually has stayed the same since you were there the last time.

Vital MX - How many products are there now? Because you mentioned how the product line has grown. A lot of people picture MIPS as a sort of a yellow plastic shell that they can find anchored inside helmets. You guys also had some of the more anchor-based web system that we see in more mountain bike helmets, which is very lightweight. Can you give us some description?

The concept is the same across all of them, it's about redirecting the energy. We do that through slip-plane technology, which is about sliding relative to the helmet. Of course, you can do that in a lot of different ways. We have a solution that is called integral split, where you have a three-piece construction that moves independently from each other. You actually don't see the solution because it's fully integrated into the helmet. Then we have a lot of padding solutions, which I think you saw the earliest version on and so on. We also have solutions that can be integrated into full-face helmets and so on. So a lot of different technologies always trying to address the same thing but can be integrated and presented differently.

Vital MX - As the market changes, we've had quite a few brands try to bring in their own proprietary versions of rotational management. Some have been really successful, and some have reverted to or eventually gone to MIPS. How much of a shift have you seen in the acceptance of your product in that matter?

A couple of years ago, that was more a common question saying that maybe MIPS should only be in the high range. Now you see that most brands actually offer across the board. I think Fox is a great example of that, having MIPS in all of their motorcycle helmets and so on. So it's starting to happen more and more, seeing MIPS across the whole range. That of course is also the intention from our side and what we would like to see.

Vital MX - After 6D and MIPS sort of kicked off the conversations about rotational energy, there was an influx of competitors but it seems to have thinned down to the best of the best per se. What do you think of where the direction of these technologies as a whole is going?

First of all, if you compare the discussion a couple of years ago, it was very much an off-or-on discussion. Rotational motion was still questioned, whether it was even a relevant injury criteria or not, and if it was something that needs to be addressed. You see very little of that discussion going forward when it comes to the performance of the technologies that are out there, and the performance is very, very different across different helmets. Some just put in some padding and think that will redirect energy when you have an accident. The kind of point pressure that you have on your head will put on a lot of force, sometimes the small padding is just not enough. You also see some versions where you have only spots that are protected in the helmet, but you never know where you will have the impact. So of course, you want to have as much coverage as possible. So I would say that you see various performances around the technologies that are out there. The good thing is, at least, that there's no longer a question to the market whether rotational motion is something that needs to be addressed or not. Because, some years ago, the discussion was more or less if this protection is even necessary. Now, that's not the case.