Kali's Brain Saving Tech - Eurobike 2016

Aug 31, 2016
by Mike Levy  
Eurobike 2016


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.


Eurobike 2016
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.


Eurobike 2016
Eurobike 2016
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.
Eurobike 2016
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.


Eurobike 2016
The $180 USD Intercepter is a well-vented trail helmet with the LDL system.



95 Comments

  • + 129
 Awesome, I personally love to see brands trying to create a safer helmet that provides greater protection against concussions. I hope it trickles down to the lower cost helmets too.
  • + 53
 Absolutely! I couldn't care less if my bike has boost, I want a helmet that's going to keep my noggin working if I get in a crash.
  • + 87
 After 11 concussions over 20 years,im at the point to where id wear an actual octopus on my head if it'll help
  • + 4
 The sad thing is that no one pays attention to preventing concussions until they've already had one. Once you've had a couple concussions like we have, it takes much less force to give you another, and no helmet in the world will fix that. The riders who need a helmet like this the most are the ones who've never had a concussion.
  • + 6
 @gdnorm: That would just protect the outside layer of the helmet, your insides would still be destroyed.
  • + 3
 @berryz: what if we got a layer of line-x then half a watermelon, then a MIPS helmet?
  • + 1
 @gdnorm: Do you know how concussions happen? Obviously not. Here is the best way to prevent concussions.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=-awkfSo-TMU
  • + 1
 Especially because the raw material doesn't really cost them sh*t. I've never paid over $90 for a helmet, but it seems there's still a premium for MIPS and the like. Yeah yeah, I know, R&D (and marketing). Could this be more cost effective than MIPS and make it into the sub $100 range? I hope so.

Glad to see helmets getting better, but all the en vogue trail lids are pushing $200 these days. F*ck.
  • + 1
 @WasatchEnduro: yeah,well....capitalism. The price will come down in time
  • - 1
 @meesterover: No really, this could actually work.
  • + 5
 @Phillyenduro: so true. One of my best buddies was concussed a couple times about six years ago doing mundane things. Hit his head on a soap shelf in a shower at a hotel when he bent over to fiddle with the drain. He wears a strong prescription for glasses which you don't wear I the shower and all one colour so he didn't see it. Hit his head a couple months later on a cupboard door. He went through a car windshield when he was a kid too. He has not been able to excercise since. And his work has been adversely affected too. My wife hasn't worked for nearly ten years as a result of a concussion skiing. She had several before that from ski racing and bike racing. Better helmets are coming now It seems which very good to hear.
  • + 3
 This will be my next helmet
  • + 2
 Giro and Bell have MIPS helmets at $60 for recreational riding.
  • + 23
 I would love to see a bit more rigor applied to (a) figuring out how the different types of forces affect brain trauma and (b) how those forces can be appropriately modeled so it's possible to test them. This is much bigger than just MTB - motorcyclists, bike commuters, road bikers, skaters, skiers/snowboarders, etc. - there are zillions of uses for helmets, and lots of different standards, but very little actual knowledge yet. Given all we've only learned recently about concussions/brain trauma, etc. and the huge impact (no pun intended) that's having on all sorts of sports and human activities, I'm guessing today's state of the art helmets (and the standards used to certify and test them) will look somewhat quaint and primitive in a decade or so...
  • + 1
 I, for one. hope you are right
  • + 12
 I really like this technology. I saw something like this in the 6D helmet they put out. Really like the 6D with thier omni- directional protection but damn are they pricey. Then again, small price to pay compared to bieng damaged permanently.
  • + 13
 Well written and good read, definitely wasn't too dense
  • + 40
 Hopefully it made an impact.
  • - 6
flag WAKIdesigns (Aug 31, 2016 at 9:49) (Below Threshold)
 I hope that saying that this upsized green thing looks moist won't leave you shaken
  • + 9
 @mikelevy: these puns a Kraken me up.
  • + 11
 tentacles... hmmm, japanese technology
  • + 7
 It seems like Kali, Leatt and 6D are the only companies that seem to be paying attention to lower impact crashes with multilayer foam. While 6d was potentially first, you still cant get their open face trail helmet in a XL (I ordered mine in March and am still waiting). Kali seems to have some really good technology with their multi density foam and in mold technology (which Leatt has licensed). Now with their LDL they seem to be addressing the rotational issues. It is also really nice that Kali is doing this at reasonable price points.
  • + 5
 I agree. Those 3 (I'd add Smith with their Koroyd) are the clear leaders in concussion-reduction innovation in MTB helmets right now. The bigger companies -- Bell/Giro, TLD, Fox, etc -- should be leading the way, but instead they're just content to sit back and rely on MIPS, which I see as a decision driven by marketing not safety.
  • + 4
 That's funny because Kali, who is primarily technology based, has had in-molding technology integrated into their helmets since the beginning . Circa 2008
  • + 3
 @peanutbutterandsam: not to mention that Leatt licenses most of its tech from Kali...
  • + 0
 @Circe: and vise versa Kali is using Leatt's 360 turbines in some of their helmets.
  • - 3
 @Phillyenduro: TLD will make your jaw drop soon, in regards to low speed impacts.
  • + 10
 @stikmanglaspell: I will believe it when I see it. Troy Lee has virtually no information on their website about their safety features, nor available by searching the internet. Kali posts real explinations of their goals and systems, as does Leatt. TLD seems to be about style over substance (for example, their helmets have protrusions that can catch).
  • + 5
 TLD is just overpriced. It shows how much bikers care about their looks, not safety.
  • + 3
 @zutroy: None of our helmets feature Leatt's 360 Turbines. Our LDL technology was first introduced in the Tava aero road helmet in June 2015 at Press Camp, albeit under a different name. However, Leatt did work with Kali when they developed their 360 Turbines, as well as licence our dual density in-molding technology for their latest full face helmets.
  • + 3
 @KaliProtectives: My bad, I was informed wrong on that one.

The in mold dual density is an awesome technology, they were smart to license it!
  • + 8
 They should name the technology the "Kraken"
  • + 15
 And release it immediately for all their helmets Wink
  • + 1
 It will be called by the dropping of a dropper post.
  • + 3
 Neat! On the topic of mips, am I the only one that thinks it diminishes the fit and ventilation? The latter can be tolerated but the former seems like it could effect protection in a crash. The mips helmets I've tried on feel a bit higher on the head than their non-mips versions. I tried poc and bell's super for reference. That said, this seems like a better solution than slapping a plastic liner on your half shell and calling it safer...
  • + 6
 Thumbs up to Pinkbike giving helmet-safety innovation the serious attention it deserves. Keep it up!
  • + 2
 I have suffered a serious head injury this year. Been off my bike and work for 3 months and I don't know when I'll be back on. Low impact hit. Fell simply off my bike while balancing on the front wheel. Let go of the brakes and the bike went the wrong way. Been doing this for over 40 years and this is the first time I fall. Speed of 0 km/h. Just a straight fall. Any innovation is good. It makes the industry move forward. The same technology has been used for decades. The industry has been sitting on their butts. If technology can help low impact trauma, I'm all for it. I like Kali's system better than the Mips. Putting this with the Koroyd innovation from Smith would make a good package in my opinion. Koroyd seems like a really good impact absorber.
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
  • + 0
 I too had an injury this year and researched what to buy next as I trashed my $100 helmet, i too chose the Forefront and so far am really impressed. Fortunately I havent crashed in it yet but the weight and airflow is excellent.
  • + 5
 And therefore it shall be called...NIPS
  • + 1
 I'll be impressed when someone comes up with a helmet that routes sweat to the back, like an integrated Halo band. My follicle-challenged brothers know what I'm talking about. Wait. Dang, did I just give away a patent?
  • + 2
 Cats out of the bag! MIPS is just marketing crap...in most cases: Poc had a nice disign, but seems to have been dropped on their new line.
  • + 1
 But even the guy marketing LDL/KALI, said MIPS likely works and he wouldn't ride without a MIPS labeled helmet. So, I guess the MIPS hate is a bit early.
  • + 7
 I'm not convinced MIPS is a big improvement. Even if you wear the helmet with the chinstrap tight (most folks don't) I still think it will start to slide on your head/hair before mips comes into play. Or the helmet will just slide on the ground as long as it's fairly rounded.
  • + 5
 This helmet has a quite big exponential vents working like a tyre pattern increasing the "grip" of the helmet to the ground/ tree during a crash at speed, instead of freely bouncing and sliding from it. So this anti rotational stuff probably barely compromises for in reased rotational input force in comparison to a round pisspot helmet or the one like Bell Super or POC trabec with very rounded shell, small smoothly recessed vents. I don't even want to mention the visor if we are so concerned about safety Blank Stare
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: That sounds like a very valid concern to me. I'd be interested to hear Kali's response. Quite a different approach than their Tava roadie helmet took. The bigger vents may result in a lighter helmet, and that has *some concussion-reducing value, and maybe a less-overheated rider is less likely to crash in the first place, but I'd guess the added grip more than offsets those benefits. On the plus side, I think Kali's basic approach is more promising than 6D's dual-shell design, both in terms of safety and sales. And I agree with Kali that the more rounded back is safer.
  • + 3
 @riiz: BHSI seem to disagree. They say MIPS is unproven. The difference in expensive helmets to lower priced ones doesn't always equate to better protection and that the best bet for safety from glancing blows etc is as smooth and rounded helmet as possible with no snag points.

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?
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: 100% correct.
  • + 0
 @Phillyenduro: vents make for a better crumple zone in case of a direct impact, because such ribbed structure will deform more than a solid sphere of a pisspot So there's a lot of factors involved. I guess Bell and POC have the best of both worlds.
  • + 1
 @mgolder: Fact. Unproven and most likely ineffective. The industry really is doing a disservice of playing on riders valid fears of injury due to head trauma by claiming that these "technologies" reduce concussions or some other metric and then offering them on helmets for a marked up price. The attitude of "well it's better than not having it" is exactly what they want the purchasers to think. Might as well save the money and buy some essential oils with it.
  • + 5
 MIPS is easy to make look magical in lab tests, with a helmet tightly fit to a smooth dry headform. But does it make any difference in the real world of helmet fit, hair, and sweat? I doubt it. And the fact that the companies selling MIPS helmets have been dead silent on that obvious question for years makes me doubt it even more.
  • + 1
 @riiz: Nice. Quoting the marketing guy.
  • + 1
 WTF are you talking about?

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.
  • + 3
 @WAKIdesigns: arrrggghhh!!!

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.
  • + 2
 @Phillyenduro: You don't think that that is the exact same way that Kali is testing it's helmets? That's the easiest way to do standardized testing. ALL helmets are tested on "bald" head forms.

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.
  • + 1
 @gdnorm: I'll gladly pay $20 to reduce rotational concussions. Gladly. Especially in the world of snow where it happens all the time. Is your brain not worth $20 for any chance of something helping in ANY crashes? Obviously, it's not hurting anything...
  • + 1
 @MasterSlater: You write a whole post bitching about zero science then you make this statement?

"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"
  • + 2
 @MasterSlater:

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.
  • + 0
 @onemanarmy: I would pay $20 dollars if that's what it actually did...which it doesn't.
  • + 0
 @onemanarmy: engineering=science. I've been a catholic long enough to watch people smash other people with big words they have no possibility to fully grasp only to sht them up in case they wanted to ask questions. Real science looks like that: you make a research, present results in a few journals, then wrap it up in a paper, and present it to the indpendent panel. Then one day someone makes a research like your trying to replicate your results and if he gets them then Ooooh Laaawd we have science. Other than that... Hummmm
  • + 0
 @WAKIdesigns:

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.
  • + 0
 @gdnorm: So you're brain isn't worth $20. I get it now.
  • + 1
 @onemanarmy: Mind if I get your email? There are a few multilevel marketing campaigns I'd like to get you involved in. Really great stuff. Works every time too.
  • + 1
 @gdnorm: Mid-level marketing equals protecting your brain?

Holy shit. I should give up my career in marketing and join avon.
  • + 2
 @onemanarmy:

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.
  • + 0
 @onemanarmy - what you quoted is absolutely irrelevant, since I presented you the only actual way of delivering a scientific proof: you have to make a replicable experiment. Your method has to be reviewed and accepted independently. None of that has happened with MIPS yet. Period on that.

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
  • + 0
 @gdnorm: You think I haven't read that regurgitated link?
  • + 2
 And please make no mistake, I do believe this helps with minimizing brain damage from rotational forces, the only issue I have with it is calling it a "brain saving technology" (as in the title of the article) while there is no scientific evidence coming from an independent body, for any of the systems whether ipsy mipsy thing decreases damage up to 2% or 50%.
  • + 2
 @WAKIdesigns:

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...
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: exactly my point.
  • + 1
 @MasterSlater:

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.
  • + 0
 @onemanarmy: apparently not as you think MIPS performs a validated function, when in fact the opposite is probay true. If you want further links to literature I'm usually always happy to oblige, but the fact that you are just going to compare people citing research to religious zealots shows you rely much more on emotion than facts.
  • + 1
 @onemanarmy: The other complication is we don't fully understand all the mechanisms of injury to the brain. We're not sure how force and duration interact.

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.
  • - 1
 @onemanarmy: no, it is you who behave like a preacher tossing terms. Science and engineering is indeed used for making this helmet just like a bridge and a dildo. I am in fact using science and technology to write that post. Those two words can easily be meaningless. And design if I must explain you is a very broad term. Engineers do design things... I do not require you to read a book on theory of design.

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?
  • + 1
 @onemanarmy:

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.
  • + 1
 @MasterSlater:

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!
  • + 1
 @WAKIdesigns: Sounds like we need a mythbusters video showing different helmet designs being scraped across the ground in slowmo to see what's going on.
  • + 1
 @WasatchEnduro:

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.
  • + 1
 @tmcp1127: I think when you strike the ground hard the inside of the helmet will stick to your head from the forces. I don't really have much hair and I can move my helmets on my skull by hand but I think that changes when you hit the ground. I don't know if MIPS works but I don't think it reduces the helmet's ability to protect.
  • + 1
 @Someoldfart: Correct, as pointed out in the above BHSI review, all models as of its writing has areas of bare plastic on EPS, which apparently was not the original design. Also movement is only arbitrarily designed to be 15mm. Another important point stated in the literature is that impact forces are better kept linear than rotational as much as possible, and too much slip plane would actually increase injury.
  • + 2
 i would love to see this run through australia's testing regime which is said to be one of the toughest in the world.
  • + 0
 Always surprised to see generally well-designed mountain bike helmets with gaping-large vents... too many designers don't ride in forests with sharp sticks apparently. Even a nice pointy rock could make for a real bad day
  • + 1
 Just loosen up your standard helmet a bit = costly MIPS technology? This whole thing got me wondering Wink
  • + 1
 until it slides backwards on your head and brakes your neck... or exposes your face to unnecessary damage.
  • + 1
 @onemanarmy: funny you say that... was test driving my son's new full face and was wondering if my head survived the crash would my trachea be taken out by the strap or would I get choked out.........
  • + 2
 Looks better than the Maya. I'd wear it!
  • + 2
 And then there is science!!!
  • - 1
 Doesn't Leatt use amour gel in a similar way in they're helmets? Wonder what they think about Amour gel cheating on them with a different brand! lol.
  • + 1
 And what does the ldl $180 kali helmet weigh?
  • + 1
 @jrocksdh another article said 350 grams.
  • + 0
 It's great and all but still not going to save you from axial loading
Below threshold threads are hidden

Post a Comment



Copyright © 2000 - 2018. Pinkbike.com. All rights reserved.
dv65 0.065629
Mobile Version of Website