Kali's Brain Saving Tech - Eurobike 2016
 |
It may look part ocotpus and part Lego, but Kali's Low Density Layer is said to greatly reduce low-g hits and rotational forces.Head injuries have to be one of the scariest things out there. They're in the spotlight now more than ever due to a slew of high-profile incidents over the past year or so, and unlike a broken bone, torn muscle or ligament, or some other kind of trauma, we still know relatively little about them. This is compounded by the fact that a concussion - which is actually brain trauma, an even scarier way of putting it - isn't the type of injury that can always be easily diagnosed, and even when it is, people often shrug it off because it's not a gaping flesh wound or a femur split into two pieces.
How we look after ourselves post-accident is a whole other ball of wax, but doing what we can to prevent or limit the damage to our brains from a crash should be paramount. With their Composite Fusion Plus shells that use conical-shaped foam of different densities to progressively dissipate impacts, Kali Protectives has long been doing things differently than their larger sized competition. Now, Kali is employing a new technology, dubbed LDL, which they're claiming is going to be a ''MIPS killer.''
It also happens to look like a cross between an octopus tentacle and a piece of green Lego.
 |
The flex in this up-sized model shows how the LDL design works.While some helmet testing standards, as well as a lot of helmet technology, focuses on the worst-case kind of cycling crashes that might be akin to getting hit by a car or falling out of a third-story window, the very large majority of spills aren't that violent. Kali's Brad Waldron believes that helmets designed to mostly look after your head during those third-story window types of crashes sacrifice a lot of protection when it comes to the kind of relatively minor spills that some of us seem to have weekly. Why? Because the EPS foam, and also the helmet's exterior shell in some cases, has to be so rigid that there's no way that it can properly deal with smaller, less violent impacts, even though those are arguably more common and can also cause some real damage.
So, how do you construct a helmet that has to pass tests that demand third-story window type of impact protection, but that also dissipate lower energy impacts?
You add in another element between the head and the helmet, much like how MIPS sits between the shell and the rider's head. Waldron said that he wanted something more effective than MIPS, though, so he worked with a company called Armor Gel to come up with LDL (an acronym for Low Density Layer) which is essentially odd looking strips that have been placed under the pads inside of the helmet's shell.
The LDL strips are nearly hidden below the helmet's pads.These rubber-ish strips (Armor Gel and Waldron aren't saying exactly what they're made of) have a specific shape to them, with short, cylinder-like extensions that are designed to flex laterally when an off-axis impact occurs. Basically, they allow for some movement and energy dissipation before the EPS foam comes into play, which Waldron says allows the helmet to reduce rotational forces by 25% and low-G impact forces by a claimed 12%.
MIPS likely helps to prevent head injuries to some extent, but it could also be said that having a MIPS sticker on your lid is nearly mandatory when it comes to sales these days.
MIPS likely helps to prevent head injuries to some extent, but it could also be said that having a MIPS sticker on your lid is nearly mandatory when it comes to sales these days.
A small LDL strip is also put to use on the helmet's brow.
Marketing aside, I'd rather have a MIPS helmet on my head than a normal lid, but Waldron is claiming that his LDL system and how it allows for flex rather than MIPS-like sliding is a much more effective way of keeping a rider's head safe.
Kali is looking to employ LDL in all of their helmets, and it's already put to use in the $180 USD Interceptor that's pictured here. With added protection at the back of the head, the Interceptor is a trail/enduro style helmet, but it's on the airy side of things in that category. Waldron explained that the helmet's large vents are possible because of the shell reinforcement around the vent edges, a step that he took instead of using denser foam (less foam requires denser foam, he says) which would be a step backward in regards to absorbing the majority of impacts. The back of the Interceptor's shell is also a bit more rounded than some other helmets that are sporting a more popular, squarer shape, a shape that Waldron believes to be more prone to digging into the ground and intensifying an impact rather than a rounder profile that's more prone to slide and lessen the forces of a crash.
 |
The $180 USD Intercepter is a well-vented trail helmet with the LDL system.
Author Info:
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
sploid.gizmodo.com/miraculous-spray-on-coating-protects-a-watermelon-from-1785972880
www.youtube.com/watch?v=-awkfSo-TMU
Glad to see helmets getting better, but all the en vogue trail lids are pushing $200 these days. F*ck.
The in mold dual density is an awesome technology, they were smart to license it!
koroyd.com/koroyd-helmet-safety-initiative. I have purchased 300$ helmets and my last one was a 80$, because I just didn't see any advantages from one to the other. Design and weight!!! not worth the extra money. But now we seem to be having safety more in line with preventing concussions which makes me very happy. Now we are starting to have real choices (or better). Just my 2 cents worth
Nobody has their helmet on so tight that it can't move a few mm without MIPS anyway. All MIPS does is have that movement that already exists anyway?
I have a POC helmet with MIPS in it sitting right next to me. The Octal comes with a mips option. So does the Crane. As do the Trabec and the Receptor. Lets not forget the full face Cortex. The Fornix and Receptor BC for snow.
Is it part marketing... sure. But it's also the first technology readily available at it's time. It works. It's better than not having it. Are there newer better options... time will tell. But without MIPS it's likely that folks wouldn't be spending as much money working on it because the financial gains would not be there for options like Kali and 6d.
Here we are again with yet another all-but-guaranteed "brain-saving" helmet innovation, albeit with ZERO actual science behind it. For those of you who care, real, legitimate science does not comprise of some dudes in a "lab" dropping a helmet, and then drawing their own, crazily biased conclusions from the results.
Let's see these companies (if they are truly committed to improving helmet safety) release the unfiltered, unbiased, standardized, un-f'ing-acronymed results of these supposed tests.
But they won't, because they don't have to. But a little corporate social responsibility would be nice...
And yes Waki, it does seem pretty obvious that this helmet would act just like a knobby tire and only make rotational forces worse. But again, they're obviously not as concerned as much with effective safety design as they are with marketing their product.
I've said it before, and will likely say again (although I may just copy/paste it from now on because I'm getting tired of retyping this diatribe) that helmet makers are at least trying to innovate and make helmets safer, and I will always buy the helmet with the newest safety feature du jour. But it would be nice to see how these safety innovations perform on standardized benchmark tests that are easy to understand for consumers. Because hearing someone say "oh, this is waaaaay better than MIPS" (which by the way still hasn't proven anything itself) isn't real science.
And no one has been dead silent about it. Fact is... it's an improvement over what was available and it's leading to more improvements. People need to get off this hate train.
"And yes Waki, it does seem pretty obvious that this helmet would act just like a knobby tire and only make rotational forces worse. But again, they're obviously not as concerned as much with effective safety design as they are with marketing their product"
Because it's still relatively new technology and standardized testing is still being developed. I think as time goes on you'll get more standardized tests for these types of technology... but just like any other test... you can design around it if your only goal is getting a bunch of letters by your helmet.
So it's not really "zero" actual science behind it as a crap ton of engineering goes into the development of any helmet... engineering = science. And it's not like they're NOT being tested because they are. Standardized testing takes times and has it's positives and negatives. Just because it says it's certified for x, y or z doesn't necessarily mean it's as safe as another helmet with the same certs. But that's up to the industry to cover and the user to get educated on.
But otherwise I'd agree with what you're saying. When it comes to protecting your brain you might as well go with whatever the best available option is.
en·gi·neer·ing
ˌenjəˈniriNG/
noun
the branch of science and technology concerned with the design, building, and use of engines, machines, and structures.
the work done by, or the occupation of, an engineer.
the action of working artfully to bring something about.
Holy shit. I should give up my career in marketing and join avon.
I hear what you're saying.
Of course a lot of legitimate science and engineering goes into the creation of these helmets, and I'm sure most of it is pursued with the best intentions towards achieving the best objective results. But that is completely apart from testing, right?
Here in the U.S., the NHTSA has standardized tests that ALL passanger vehicles sold in the States MUST undergo, and it is only then that a consumer can see whether Brand A's magical "anti-rollover" technology is any better than Brand B's magical "anti-rollover" tech. But yes, to your point, it surely must've taken decades for the NHTSA to even agree on what each standardized test should entail and how it would apply to all different models of vehicle. So yeah, we're almost certainly many years away from any kind of comparable set of tests that will COMPARE helmets and their supposed miracle breakthrough innovations. There is no governing body overseeing "bicycle safety", as the NHTSA oversees automotive safety. And there probably won't be one anytime soon.
It's only the cycling industry's will, more specifcally that of the helmet makers, that would catalyze something like this. But for the time being, the money that each and every supposedly "caring" helmet maker would have to devote to creating this hypothetical "safety testing coalition" will instead be spent on trying to one-up the most recent quasi-scientific development.
To further clarify what I'm trying to say with a crude analogy:
Making an omelet (or a helmet) doesn't require anything except the ingredients and perhaps the experience of having made one before. It DOES NOT mean that it will be a good omelet. It only means that it will be an omelet, because I've told you it is, and because it contains the common ingredients that an omelet should,(i.e., the current certifications.) And just because I've thrown in some green pepper, or maybe even some truffles, DOES NOT make it a better omelet, unless Julia Child (the standardized test) comes back from the dead and tells you it is.
That's the primary distinction between manufacturing/engineering and scientific testing.
If you think that results cannot be purposefully "engineered" and then presented in a graph for a press release then I have no idea in which world you are living.
How about you use the word "design" - not as impressive as engineering isn't it? But a bit more accurate anyways
So the definition of engineering to defend you saying engineering is not science does not pertain to the definition of engineering as science? Got it! Thanks for clarifying.
You do realize that all credible helmet companies use designers and engineers... do you not? 2 totally different people and fields working together to make something functional, safe and hopefully not look like ass. Though that's often not the case.... the looking like ass part.
I've also never said that MIPS is the end all be all. Folks like yourself and many others I see in these discussions remind me of religious zealots. You are so stuck on you being right of all rights that you don't realize that right is often somewhere off center. MIPS is a currently available technology, just like Flex/6D/LDL, etc. They are all technologies striving to do the same thing, protect your brain. All they can do is use the testing they have available to them and continue to develop new testing and preferably a standardized test. Those test are showing that they help... all of them. Does it? Could the testing be off base or skewed? Sure. But as I said before... $20 isn't worth the potential of protecting your brain? Are these technologies evolving and feeding off each other to create better technologies... yes.
Is science behind it... yes.
Is marketing and making money... damn straight.
Doesn't mean it's not valid and/or valuable. At one point air bags were seen the same way in cars... turns out that the technology has improved and saved quite a few lives. You don't think that an engineer worked with a designer to make that steering wheel in your car look good do you? Oh man... why would anyone care what a steering wheel looks like. Lets just leave the air bag totally exposed. The cover blows off anyways...
I agree with your thoughts on testing. I've actually had similar conversations with engineers and designers and I'd say that every single one of them can see the value in just such a system. But for the time being all they can do is make the best product they can within the confinements of the technology and testing available. All of which will change and improve... none of which devalues the fact that todays helmet is an improvement over yesterdays.
As for the omelet... just because it's got eggs and cheese in it doesn't mean it's an omelet.
One thing we know from vascular injuries is max force isn't the end all be all. Sometimes lesser forces applied over longer periods of time can cause more damage. There is some thought this might be the case for brain injuries also.
Now those guys surely engineered those octopus things, chose the size, thickness, developed the material yes. Now whether that does something and to what extent... Make an experiment>present in a journal (so that other scientists can read about it and eventually write you an e-mail whether you are an idiot or a genius) > write a paper, present to the panel of scientists ( so that they can check your method ) > wait for someone to replicate your experiment.
Do I really have to repeat the most fkng fundamental way the actual science works? The critique of the source nformation lies at the basis of science, it is what makes it different from religion. Are you a freshly graduated student of some department of engineering? Full of enthusiasm with ideology in your hand, ready to change the world?
At the end of the day, innovation and the pursuit of better helmets certainly isn't something to complain about.
I guess sometimes it's about things we wish would happen, in the hopes that they some day will.
And yes, my omelet analogy was not ideal. Also, I totally suck at making omelets.
Agree 100%. LOL! Well... I don't know about your omelet skills.
Here's a tip though... When you pour the eggs in the pan do it on lower heat. Cover it with a lid or a plate so the top cooks at a similar speed to the bottom. When the top is just about done drop your cheese on top. Cover it a second. Then drop your premade ingredients on top of that and fold it up. Drop some cheese on the now amazing looking omelet and cover it again for about 30 seconds. Done. Low heat and covering the eggs being key. I know... it's cheating and Julia Child probably wouldn't approve... but it works. LOL!
Be cool to get every single helmet tested in the same lab... but I'd like to see it tested with a standard head form and then again with either a women's head form or at least one with a couple inches worth of hair. I'd be curious to see the difference in the numbers.