List of helmets with improved concussion preventing technology.

mxmedic
Posts
464
Joined
4/1/2008
Location
MN US
7/27/2019 3:14pm
77moto, let's not forget that, in the timeframe you're mentioning, we've also become far more aware of the consequences of concussions, both short and long term. So whereas the mentality used to be "it's just a concussion, brush it off and get back out there", there is now greater emphasis on allowing recovery time post concussion. Maybe it's not the helmets "causing more concussions", but instead people being smarter about the effects of said concussions.
4
Harv379
Posts
493
Joined
1/22/2017
Location
UT US
Fantasy
1959th
7/27/2019 10:11pm
All I know is MTB helmets are shit compared to moto helmets. I'm 6 weeks out from a bad MTB concussion, I have post concussion syndrome, and am working with specialists to make a full recovery. I have short term memory issues, struggle with controlling emotions, have a hard time falling asleep and staying asleep, and have head aches/discomfort most of the day, amongst other little things.

It would be awesome to have lab tests that are accurate to crashes, but every crash and impact is so unique to itself it's hard to rely on lab tests and say what one will protect you the most. Go with what fits best, has 'advanced' technology, and buy high end. Money should not be an issue when you're looking at helmets. Save your $ for a few months longer if that's what it comes down to. Concussions can be life changing, they're no joke. Don't mess around with cheap or old helmets.
1
Racer111
Posts
2767
Joined
5/23/2009
Location
Concord, NC US
7/27/2019 10:48pm
I have 2 lids. Definitely like the 6D tech, but the Shoei VFC Evo is much more comfortable and not nearly as big. 6D helmets are HUGE!!

cwtoyota
Posts
1890
Joined
3/11/2013
Location
Tacoma, WA US
7/27/2019 11:32pm
Jt$ wrote:
Sorry, this is horrifically inaccurate. YES, Rheon labs did testing as would any helmet tech company. That is an obvious step of the process to know...
Sorry, this is horrifically inaccurate. YES, Rheon labs did testing as would any helmet tech company. That is an obvious step of the process to know how the helmet performed.

The independent tests were done by SATRA labs and that’s well documented. We have no affiliation with that laboratory. You skipped over this fact entirely, even though it’s stated repeatedly in all literature, our catalog and on the website.

Please feel free to email me directly at Jthomas@flyracing.com and I can provide you my cell phone # if you’d like to discuss. Anything is better than this inaccuracy.
Thanks for point this out JT.

I'll be looking into some helmets and this test data with more detail over the next few days and if I have some questions, I'll shoot you an e-mail.

The Shop

Natester551v
Posts
1002
Joined
1/11/2015
Location
St. George, UT US
7/28/2019 8:21am
The only question I have about 6D is physical size (i.e. larger shell) and increased weight. From a physics standpoint those design features are problematic. Perhaps that is offset by the ODS tech, but it's tough to say. I do like the fact that they've singlehandedly energized the helmet safety conversation.

I'm currently running the A-stars w/MIPS...I like the light weight and fit (obviously fit is a totally personal thing). Big fan of Shoei as well.
swtwtwtw
Posts
1287
Joined
4/16/2008
Location
Apple Valley, CA US
7/28/2019 11:45am
Price, helmet companies are raking it in, anyone of them using a MIPS type technology are spending about $20 for the MIPS insert. Yet the helmets have gone up $200+ dollars. Mountain bike helmets are up $100. Yikes.
navalseabee
Posts
1086
Joined
5/5/2011
Location
Virginia Beach, VA US
7/28/2019 11:54am
What does the testing cost though? 100k or something?
No idea, but just a quick googling i found Virginia Tech offers like a testing program. I cant imagine that it would be cheap, and it would probably make more than a few companies upset.
Luxon MX
Posts
1052
Joined
11/6/2017
Location
San Diego, CA US
Fantasy
1228th
7/28/2019 12:16pm
I'm amazed that some people believe modern engineering and technology to be less advantageous than multiple decade old tech. How can you rationalize that? There are engineers devoting their professional lives to improving safety. Crumple zones are used across the board in safety devices in some way or another. And it's not hard to understand, it's simple physics: give the energy somewhere to go besides into the human.

And that's the basic principle of how any helmet should work - dissipate energy somewhere other than the brain. Helmet technology has take huge steps forward in recent years. With advanced testing, simulation, etc. we've proven that rotational accelerations are a serious concern that weren't thought of previously. Helmet companies have come up with ways of dissipating that energy - MIPS, Omni-Directional Suspension, etc. are ways that do this and are successful in doing so. This is combined with the traditional impact dissipation and you have a modern helmet far safer than the older generation helmets with loads of testing to prove it.

How anyone can argue that their old helmet is just as safer (or safer!) than the current technology is beyond me. And then backing it up with inaccurate examples of old automotive technology being better than new. Do you believe it's all just some elaborate conspiracy to take your money? Was the moon landing a hoax too? Wow.
9
7/28/2019 3:33pm
Luxon MX wrote:
I'm amazed that some people believe modern engineering and technology to be less advantageous than multiple decade old tech. How can you rationalize that? There are...
I'm amazed that some people believe modern engineering and technology to be less advantageous than multiple decade old tech. How can you rationalize that? There are engineers devoting their professional lives to improving safety. Crumple zones are used across the board in safety devices in some way or another. And it's not hard to understand, it's simple physics: give the energy somewhere to go besides into the human.

And that's the basic principle of how any helmet should work - dissipate energy somewhere other than the brain. Helmet technology has take huge steps forward in recent years. With advanced testing, simulation, etc. we've proven that rotational accelerations are a serious concern that weren't thought of previously. Helmet companies have come up with ways of dissipating that energy - MIPS, Omni-Directional Suspension, etc. are ways that do this and are successful in doing so. This is combined with the traditional impact dissipation and you have a modern helmet far safer than the older generation helmets with loads of testing to prove it.

How anyone can argue that their old helmet is just as safer (or safer!) than the current technology is beyond me. And then backing it up with inaccurate examples of old automotive technology being better than new. Do you believe it's all just some elaborate conspiracy to take your money? Was the moon landing a hoax too? Wow.
Totally agree. Anyone who argues against advances in helmet technology has probably had so may concussions they don't remember ever having one. Their brains are jell-o because they keep using 30 year old technology and telling themselves "If it was good enough for the Hurricane then it's good enough for me."

Price is understandable. It's economy of scale. 1080p and 4K TV's were $10,000 when first released. I can get one for $500 now. A manufacturer has to get some kind of initial return on all that R&D money spent on tooling, manufacturing, distribution and advertising. In 5 years these $600 helmets will be $300 on clearance and replaced by another $600 helmet with better technology.

The MIPS liner might be $20 (who knows?) but it cost the creators waaaaaaay more than $20 to pay a group of employees and material supplier to create, develop, test, troubleshoot, and launch a product. People are fucking morons man. These same idiots have children, vote in elections, manage employees, etc. It's a scary world we live in when the uninformed make "informed" decisions.
2
Falcon
Posts
10034
Joined
11/16/2011
Location
Menifee, CA US
Fantasy
765th
7/28/2019 6:19pm
Just to comment on the crumple zones: they absolutely work. In the context of small car vs. large car, I read a cool article a few years ago where someone (Chevrolet, maybe) crash-tested one of their new cars vs. an old one. Maybe it was a Volt vs. a '64 Impala, or maybe a Bel Air.... Any way, the new car absolutely obliterated the old one. Technology saved the crash test dummies in the car with crumple zones and the passengers in the old-school car would have been killed.
I think the difference in how this relates to helmets is that there is true 3rd-party testing in automobiles and perhaps not so much among helmet manufacturers.
JM485
Posts
5391
Joined
10/1/2013
Location
Davis, CA US
7/28/2019 6:41pm
Luxon MX wrote:
I'm amazed that some people believe modern engineering and technology to be less advantageous than multiple decade old tech. How can you rationalize that? There are...
I'm amazed that some people believe modern engineering and technology to be less advantageous than multiple decade old tech. How can you rationalize that? There are engineers devoting their professional lives to improving safety. Crumple zones are used across the board in safety devices in some way or another. And it's not hard to understand, it's simple physics: give the energy somewhere to go besides into the human.

And that's the basic principle of how any helmet should work - dissipate energy somewhere other than the brain. Helmet technology has take huge steps forward in recent years. With advanced testing, simulation, etc. we've proven that rotational accelerations are a serious concern that weren't thought of previously. Helmet companies have come up with ways of dissipating that energy - MIPS, Omni-Directional Suspension, etc. are ways that do this and are successful in doing so. This is combined with the traditional impact dissipation and you have a modern helmet far safer than the older generation helmets with loads of testing to prove it.

How anyone can argue that their old helmet is just as safer (or safer!) than the current technology is beyond me. And then backing it up with inaccurate examples of old automotive technology being better than new. Do you believe it's all just some elaborate conspiracy to take your money? Was the moon landing a hoax too? Wow.
I can’t even believe some of the things I’m reading in here, I’ll never pretend to be a genius but I can at least recognize my incredible ignorance in the grand scheme of our natural world. Evidently others not so much. . .

Now that I’m done berating people, I’m currious what your thoughts are on MIPS. Thinking through, I’m a little skeptical. From what I know, MIPS is essentially a hard, slippery shell that in theory allows the inner liner of a helmet to slip slightly in the event of a crash, thus reducing rotational force. However, my line of thinking is that the harder the impact, the less effective this sliding system will be because it relies on the low coefficient of friction between the liner and plastic. Even if this coefficient is relatively low, if the forces get high enough I can see it getting to the point where the static friction between the foam and hard shell would be too great to overcome, basically rendering it useless. Am I totally out to lunch on this, or is that a valid concern?
3
Luxon MX
Posts
1052
Joined
11/6/2017
Location
San Diego, CA US
Fantasy
1228th
7/28/2019 7:07pm
JM485 wrote:
I can’t even believe some of the things I’m reading in here, I’ll never pretend to be a genius but I can at least recognize my...
I can’t even believe some of the things I’m reading in here, I’ll never pretend to be a genius but I can at least recognize my incredible ignorance in the grand scheme of our natural world. Evidently others not so much. . .

Now that I’m done berating people, I’m currious what your thoughts are on MIPS. Thinking through, I’m a little skeptical. From what I know, MIPS is essentially a hard, slippery shell that in theory allows the inner liner of a helmet to slip slightly in the event of a crash, thus reducing rotational force. However, my line of thinking is that the harder the impact, the less effective this sliding system will be because it relies on the low coefficient of friction between the liner and plastic. Even if this coefficient is relatively low, if the forces get high enough I can see it getting to the point where the static friction between the foam and hard shell would be too great to overcome, basically rendering it useless. Am I totally out to lunch on this, or is that a valid concern?
I don't know enough about it to comment really, but any amount of slip is certainly better than no slip that you'd get with a traditional helmet!
1
Motofinne
Posts
10670
Joined
1/4/2014
Location
FI
7/29/2019 1:14am
Do road racing helmets have the same technology as the off road ones?
Some do but the majority don't. Bell and 6D have road helmets with the same tech as their MX helmets.
7/29/2019 1:24am
Do road racing helmets have the same technology as the off road ones?
Motofinne wrote:
Some do but the majority don't. Bell and 6D have road helmets with the same tech as their MX helmets.
Which leads me to my 2nd question, are we talking about totally different impacts between the 2 sports?
Motofinne
Posts
10670
Joined
1/4/2014
Location
FI
7/29/2019 1:38am
Do road racing helmets have the same technology as the off road ones?
Motofinne wrote:
Some do but the majority don't. Bell and 6D have road helmets with the same tech as their MX helmets.
Which leads me to my 2nd question, are we talking about totally different impacts between the 2 sports?
I'm no expert but i would say yes. There is a large difference between MX crashes, road racing crashes, car racing crashes and open wheel crashes.

High siding while going 200km/h and landing head first on the asphalt is not the same as crashing head first from 40 km/h to dirt.
1
7/29/2019 2:03am
swtwtwtw wrote:
Price, helmet companies are raking it in, anyone of them using a MIPS type technology are spending about $20 for the MIPS insert. Yet the helmets...
Price, helmet companies are raking it in, anyone of them using a MIPS type technology are spending about $20 for the MIPS insert. Yet the helmets have gone up $200+ dollars. Mountain bike helmets are up $100. Yikes.
This is a good point. I’ve said it before when talking about helmets, but people tend to get blinded when they go helmet shopping and just look for helmets with MIPS. Taking a bad helmet and putting MIPS in it doesn’t make it good and safe helmet. Some older quality helmets, even though they don’t have anything specific rotational technology, doesn’t mean they haven’t took rotational forces in to account when designing and testing helmets.
2
7/29/2019 5:04am
JM485 wrote:
I can’t even believe some of the things I’m reading in here, I’ll never pretend to be a genius but I can at least recognize my...
I can’t even believe some of the things I’m reading in here, I’ll never pretend to be a genius but I can at least recognize my incredible ignorance in the grand scheme of our natural world. Evidently others not so much. . .

Now that I’m done berating people, I’m currious what your thoughts are on MIPS. Thinking through, I’m a little skeptical. From what I know, MIPS is essentially a hard, slippery shell that in theory allows the inner liner of a helmet to slip slightly in the event of a crash, thus reducing rotational force. However, my line of thinking is that the harder the impact, the less effective this sliding system will be because it relies on the low coefficient of friction between the liner and plastic. Even if this coefficient is relatively low, if the forces get high enough I can see it getting to the point where the static friction between the foam and hard shell would be too great to overcome, basically rendering it useless. Am I totally out to lunch on this, or is that a valid concern?
Luxon MX wrote:
I don't know enough about it to comment really, but any amount of slip is certainly better than no slip that you'd get with a traditional...
I don't know enough about it to comment really, but any amount of slip is certainly better than no slip that you'd get with a traditional helmet!
I could be totally wrong on this but the theory sort of makes sense to me. Isn't the purpose of these new techs meant more for slow speed falls? All these helmets are rated for high speed stuff for on road use. A helmet hitting hard ground at a high rate of speed. Our problem has always been slow speed stuff that would never take enough of the blow because it was meant for a harder impact.
jfid24
Posts
3
Joined
12/13/2017
Location
Columbus, IN US
7/29/2019 6:26am
Casting wrote:
Do your own research and look into the labs who tested the helmets and designed the technology. There is a lot of marketing out there designed...
Do your own research and look into the labs who tested the helmets and designed the technology. There is a lot of marketing out there designed as science.

The best example, or worst, is Fly's most recent helmet. They claimed in the press release and on podcasts that the product was independently tested.

That is not the case as by definition their testing is not independent: RHEON Labs was one of the "independent" labs which tested the effectiveness of the helmet, yet RHEON was also the lab that designed the gel-like substance that goes in the helmet to supposedly mitigate concussive-blow severity.

Having a lab which has a financial stake in the helmet, and which designed components of the helmet, complete the "independent" testing, is laughable and meets the definition of conflict of interest.


I have nothing against Fly. I recently bought 2 jerseys for mountain biking which have worked out well for me. However, when a company tries to take advantage of or mislead their customers (don't mention the info-graphic they published with incorrect data), I will always speak up and point out the falsehoods.


Never take advertising at face values and do your own research.

Don't take my word for it: see their website: https://rheonlabs.com/rheon-x-fly-racing-launch-formula/

The inventor of RHEON Dr. Plant is quoted as saying "I am a motocross rider as well as being a testing and impact specialist, and I choose to wear the FLY FORMULA helmet with RHEON technology, simply because it’s safer"

Independent labs don't market or endorse the products they "test".
Jt$ wrote:
Sorry, this is horrifically inaccurate. YES, Rheon labs did testing as would any helmet tech company. That is an obvious step of the process to know...
Sorry, this is horrifically inaccurate. YES, Rheon labs did testing as would any helmet tech company. That is an obvious step of the process to know how the helmet performed.

The independent tests were done by SATRA labs and that’s well documented. We have no affiliation with that laboratory. You skipped over this fact entirely, even though it’s stated repeatedly in all literature, our catalog and on the website.

Please feel free to email me directly at Jthomas@flyracing.com and I can provide you my cell phone # if you’d like to discuss. Anything is better than this inaccuracy.
Jason,

First, I want to thank Fly Racing for pushing the boundaries of helmet technology and sharing lab testing data with us consumers. Fly's investment in this technology benefits all parties involved. As an Engineer, it's in my nature to question everything until I see the data. After reviewing the Formula Benchmark Data Testing, I am questioning the data used for the Helmet Performance Ranking Chart.

The helmet performance ranking chart indicates that 10 helmets were ranked over a series 8 impact tests. Out of the 8 tests, 2 tests were performed by SATRA labs and 6 tests were performed by RHEON labs. Therefor, 75% of the data used for the ranking was conducted by RHEON labs. Unfortunately, RHEON labs is the company who created the Adaptive Impact System (AIS) and one could argue that financial incentives are associated.

Could you or Dr. Dan Plant shine some light on this?

Regards,

Jfid24

B.S. Mechanical Engineering
M.S. Engineering Technology
Purdue University
3
7/29/2019 7:55am Edited Date/Time 7/29/2019 8:27am
White papers and testing information avail right on the site.

Like to always throw this in the ring when the opportunity is given because nobody really gives it a second thought i feel.

https://www.leatt.com/product_uploads/white_papers/TURBINE_WHITE_PAPER…
https://www.leatt.com/product_uploads/helmet_test_reports/2017/GPX%206…



Jt$
Posts
1122
Joined
11/2/2011
Location
Boise, ID US
7/29/2019 8:00am Edited Date/Time 7/29/2019 8:05am
You keep saying it's the same tech and comparing but it's significantly different than that version of Armour Gel. Same inventor, though. Nothing against the helmet you're posting, they are just not the same helmet.
-MAVERICK-
Posts
49942
Joined
3/26/2015
Location
Ontario CA
Fantasy
3682nd
7/29/2019 9:26am
I'd say it might look like that because we're more aware of concussions now more than ever and they keep track of things now.

Back then it was more of a "I rung my bell but I feel alright, I'm good to go" no questions asked kind of thing.

They have protocols in place now. If you don't pass the tests you don't race.
-MAVERICK-
Posts
49942
Joined
3/26/2015
Location
Ontario CA
Fantasy
3682nd
7/29/2019 10:04am Edited Date/Time 7/29/2019 10:09am
I can't speak for the older heavier helmets because I don't have much experience with them but I do know that when I had my big accident I suffered no head injury, wasn't knocked out or concussed.

I was wearing a Bell Moto 8 at the time and in my opinion the helmets have only gotten better since then due to technology and innovation.

If innovation wasn't progressing anything how many more deaths would there be if the seat belt or air bag was never invented? If it weren't for innovation everyone would still be wearing leather caps.

I know that if I was still riding today, I'd be wearing the latest model that's on the market.
1
7/29/2019 2:06pm
For my experiences...

I rode an XR 100 for 3 years without a concussion.
I raced and rode a 125 for 4 years without a concussion
I rode a 250f for 2 years and had 1 concussion
I've ridden a 250 2 stroke for 9 years now and have had 1 concussion

I haven't raced in 15 years and both of my concussions happened on practice days at a track. The extra speed I had available in my right wrist definitely had something to do with it. I don't think either concussion would have happened if I were on a 125. I just wouldn't have the raw speed available in the bike to get me in trouble as much.

Post a reply to: List of helmets with improved concussion preventing technology.

The Latest