Do you want to make Pinkbike and Trailforks better? Pinkbike is looking for full time Software Developers - Check Available Jobs

What helmets & goggles do you use?

PB Forum :: Downhill
What helmets & goggles do you use?
| Next Page
Author Message
Posted: Jun 30, 2019 at 22:38 Quote
Looking for public comment. This is something I have been pondering as I hunt down my next helmet today.

I no doubt agree that MIPS probably has qualities that help. It is a common sense concept. What I get annoyed about is after reading over 15 articles on MIPS today, 10 youtube videos of both their content and retailers...nowhere can I find what the actual math says on MIPS. That sledge test for example, say it creates X lbs per square inch of force or whatever their preferred measurement is. IE. What is the X force without MIPS with the same identical helmet Y force with MIPS. What is the true difference averaged over 10 times.

How can I not find this info anywhere? Why would MIPS be insecure to disclose this information that would in theory sell the concept with ease. Is it legal or is it simply ... not a substantial benefit... anybody know where stats are displayed or vetted? I literally am curious are we talking 5% difference in force or 85% or .5%....you know what I mean? Anybody have
true insight?

For example this is of interest to me but still... only a shallow look into the results as they are argue over test method.
https://helmets.org/mips.htm

Posted: Jul 1, 2019 at 7:10 Quote
Exact numbers open your product up to criticism and comparison and that´s why companies usually tend to not release them. That is, if they even have real and significant numbers to begin with.
And even if they release any numbers, there´s really no reason to believe them if testing wasn´t done by an independent lab or testing facility.
And even then, testing these kind of scenarios is like finding a needle in a haystack. There´s a reason they do various impact scenarios for cars, because results differ depending on angle etc.
With a helmet and various ground densities, as well as objects on the ground, impact scenarios are so manifold, it´s nearly impossible to gather conclusive evidence for any concrete safety gains.
To me, Mips was kind of a letdown once i tried a helmet with it. The helmet moved just the same way any other helmet moves on my head and it wasn´t really that frictionless.
Of course any additional safety gain is a plus, even if it´s only 1%, but personally i think it´s nothing to be too hyped about. As is said, crash scenarios are endless and that (estimated) 5% increase in a hypothetical best case crash scenario will be much less in the real world, given that often times you might end up hitting an object straight (like a tree or rock), effectively preventing MIPS from fullfilling its purpose or at least reducing its effectiveness.
So in my opinion, you end up with something that might benefit you in a limited number of crash scenarios.
If your new helmet has MIPS, great. If it doesn´t, personally i wouldn´t be worried about it really. However i will say that i think it´s wrong to blindly put trust in something like MIPS to put a helmet ahead of the competition.
Given my assumption that safety gains most likely are not in the 50% range one might assume that other factors like superior construction quality, better shell design, better padding or weight safed through not implementing MIPS are also factors contributing to helmet safety and should not be ignored just because a helmet has MIPS in it.
In the end, without any scientific head to head comparisons between specific helmet models, you need to trust the manufacturer to have put out a well functioning and well tested product and also go by your gut and common sense as to what feels the most secure to you.
For example, i do not feel safe in a Giro helmet with MIPS compared to my TLD D3 without MIPS. There are too many hotspots in that helmet (at least for my head) and the padding sucks, so my conclusion is that any rotational shenanigans won´t make up for the increased forces transmitted to my head by the lack of padding and awkward shell design. Now some manufacturers might have especially well designed shells which absord more impact energy than others, resulting in 10% increased safety. How do you compare that to MIPS? Go for the added 5% through prevention of rotational forces or rather gain 10% for straight impacts?
It just comes down to so many variables, so i would just buy the helmet that has the features that give you a good feeling.

Posted: Jul 1, 2019 at 14:35 Quote
Loki87 wrote:
Exact numbers open your product up to criticism and comparison and that´s why companies usually tend to not release them. That is, if they even have real and significant numbers to begin with.
And even if they release any numbers, there´s really no reason to believe them if testing wasn´t done by an independent lab or testing facility.
And even then, testing these kind of scenarios is like finding a needle in a haystack. There´s a reason they do various impact scenarios for cars, because results differ depending on angle etc.
With a helmet and various ground densities, as well as objects on the ground, impact scenarios are so manifold, it´s nearly impossible to gather conclusive evidence for any concrete safety gains.
To me, Mips was kind of a letdown once i tried a helmet with it. The helmet moved just the same way any other helmet moves on my head and it wasn´t really that frictionless.
Of course any additional safety gain is a plus, even if it´s only 1%, but personally i think it´s nothing to be too hyped about. As is said, crash scenarios are endless and that (estimated) 5% increase in a hypothetical best case crash scenario will be much less in the real world, given that often times you might end up hitting an object straight (like a tree or rock), effectively preventing MIPS from fullfilling its purpose or at least reducing its effectiveness.
So in my opinion, you end up with something that might benefit you in a limited number of crash scenarios.
If your new helmet has MIPS, great. If it doesn´t, personally i wouldn´t be worried about it really. However i will say that i think it´s wrong to blindly put trust in something like MIPS to put a helmet ahead of the competition.
Given my assumption that safety gains most likely are not in the 50% range one might assume that other factors like superior construction quality, better shell design, better padding or weight safed through not implementing MIPS are also factors contributing to helmet safety and should not be ignored just because a helmet has MIPS in it.
In the end, without any scientific head to head comparisons between specific helmet models, you need to trust the manufacturer to have put out a well functioning and well tested product and also go by your gut and common sense as to what feels the most secure to you.
For example, i do not feel safe in a Giro helmet with MIPS compared to my TLD D3 without MIPS. There are too many hotspots in that helmet (at least for my head) and the padding sucks, so my conclusion is that any rotational shenanigans won´t make up for the increased forces transmitted to my head by the lack of padding and awkward shell design. Now some manufacturers might have especially well designed shells which absord more impact energy than others, resulting in 10% increased safety. How do you compare that to MIPS? Go for the added 5% through prevention of rotational forces or rather gain 10% for straight impacts?
It just comes down to so many variables, so i would just buy the helmet that has the features that give you a good feeling.

Great answer once again Loki, good stuff.

Now on to the completely different question. I see you're from Austria and i know that Schaldming should be rebuilding the park big time as we speak, do you have any info or details about that? Can we expect something like A-line, any info is much appreciated.

This is a goggles & helmets thread, we can easily take this debate elsewhere.

Posted: Jul 1, 2019 at 15:40 Quote
DuelingBanjos wrote:
Loki87 wrote:
Exact numbers open your product up to criticism and comparison and that´s why companies usually tend to not release them. That is, if they even have real and significant numbers to begin with.
And even if they release any numbers, there´s really no reason to believe them if testing wasn´t done by an independent lab or testing facility.
And even then, testing these kind of scenarios is like finding a needle in a haystack. There´s a reason they do various impact scenarios for cars, because results differ depending on angle etc.
With a helmet and various ground densities, as well as objects on the ground, impact scenarios are so manifold, it´s nearly impossible to gather conclusive evidence for any concrete safety gains.
To me, Mips was kind of a letdown once i tried a helmet with it. The helmet moved just the same way any other helmet moves on my head and it wasn´t really that frictionless.
Of course any additional safety gain is a plus, even if it´s only 1%, but personally i think it´s nothing to be too hyped about. As is said, crash scenarios are endless and that (estimated) 5% increase in a hypothetical best case crash scenario will be much less in the real world, given that often times you might end up hitting an object straight (like a tree or rock), effectively preventing MIPS from fullfilling its purpose or at least reducing its effectiveness.
So in my opinion, you end up with something that might benefit you in a limited number of crash scenarios.
If your new helmet has MIPS, great. If it doesn´t, personally i wouldn´t be worried about it really. However i will say that i think it´s wrong to blindly put trust in something like MIPS to put a helmet ahead of the competition.
Given my assumption that safety gains most likely are not in the 50% range one might assume that other factors like superior construction quality, better shell design, better padding or weight safed through not implementing MIPS are also factors contributing to helmet safety and should not be ignored just because a helmet has MIPS in it.
In the end, without any scientific head to head comparisons between specific helmet models, you need to trust the manufacturer to have put out a well functioning and well tested product and also go by your gut and common sense as to what feels the most secure to you.
For example, i do not feel safe in a Giro helmet with MIPS compared to my TLD D3 without MIPS. There are too many hotspots in that helmet (at least for my head) and the padding sucks, so my conclusion is that any rotational shenanigans won´t make up for the increased forces transmitted to my head by the lack of padding and awkward shell design. Now some manufacturers might have especially well designed shells which absord more impact energy than others, resulting in 10% increased safety. How do you compare that to MIPS? Go for the added 5% through prevention of rotational forces or rather gain 10% for straight impacts?
It just comes down to so many variables, so i would just buy the helmet that has the features that give you a good feeling.

Great answer once again Loki, good stuff.

Now on to the completely different question. I see you're from Austria and i know that Schaldming should be rebuilding the park big time as we speak, do you have any info or details about that? Can we expect something like A-line, any info is much appreciated.

This is a goggles & helmets thread, we can easily take this debate elsewhere.

Not much info yet and i haven´t had a chance to take a look for myself yet.
They have already started cutting the new tracks in and on my question about whether it´ll be a highway or proper gnar they told me "there are enough highways in austria already" Wink .
So, a bunch of new tracks, the promise of some proper gnar and their current trail building record, that stuff should be dope! No word on jump trail plans yet though, but when a park can manage to acquire the permission to build that many new trails it usually means they are planning for big things, as it´s usually damn hard to get the 250 something landowners owning the different parts of the mountain to give permission for even one new track.
Building several new tracks, i suspect the bureau of tourism and the town are invovled as well and want to push things.

Rest through pm if you have any more questions Smile

Posted: Jul 3, 2019 at 13:57 Quote
Looking to buy some new goggles before a trip to Morzine. Both the Melon Parker and 100% Accuri are in my price range. I prefer the look of the accuri with gold lenses but it has been accused of having a narrow field of view especially compared to the Melon. Would be interested to hear any experience in either goggles.

Posted: Jul 4, 2019 at 0:40 Quote
Leathy13 wrote:
Looking to buy some new goggles before a trip to Morzine. Both the Melon Parker and 100% Accuri are in my price range. I prefer the look of the accuri with gold lenses but it has been accused of having a narrow field of view especially compared to the Melon. Would be interested to hear any experience in either goggles.

I have Melon Parkers for MTB and for Snow.

FOV is great, lens quality is good, don't touch the inside of the lens.

Fogging is acceptable/inevitable with any goggle in wet weather, drying the foam is key to avoid this.

Straps don't go bobbly unlike Oakley and Fox.

Customisation is excellent.

Also note they now have the Diablo available.

Posted: Aug 19, 2019 at 18:11 Quote
My new MX google 100 Racecraft 2018 - Starlight
My new 100% Racecraft MX google paired with TLD D3 fiberlite helmet. My cat lady approved Big Grin

Posted: Aug 20, 2019 at 13:33 Quote
Had to get a new lid after compromising my old one (as well as sustaining a concussion, so I haven't had any riding experience with it yet as I'm still recovering)

Decided on a Fox Proframe and didn't wanna get plain black so I ended up with this: (shown with my Smith Squad MTB goggles)





| Next Page

 
Copyright © 2000 - 2019. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.020855
Mobile Version of Website