Brad-Kali

I believe softer material next to your head is a good thing. nice job guys.

Hey Max, we do not have a MIPS version. MIPS focuses on rotational forces and it does a good job at that. We took a bit different approach with low density layers. The invader has a RHEON layer shaped in a way that addresses rotational forces but also helps with low g impacts those below 100g's. I believe helmets are generally too hard and are built for only the hardest hits. Rheon is softer and hardens up as impact increases. MIPS is a hard plastic layer. We want to take care of hard hits and those low g hits. One study out of the UK said 80% of all impacts are below 104 g's. The way our standards are written we are not addressing those impact. There are many of us (not just Kali) designing helmets to address this 'low g' issue.

Tooling costs - I have gotten in trouble for saying safety before design, but as the engineer for the company that's my priority. I get it though, looks sell more then safety.

@yakimonti: for sure the lab is not real life. It is part of the puzzle though. Our crash replacement program came about so that we could get real life crashed helmets and learn from them. In some cases we have video (Nicholi's red bull crash for example) we took that helmet back to the lab and recreated that specific crash. From the video we could determine the speed (the professors could anyway) he hit the ground. We had the crashed helmet in our hands so we new the exact location of the impact on the helmet. From there we tested with our LDL and without to see the effectiveness. I've shared those results before and happy to share those 'not real world' lab tests results with anyone interested.

With the new fit system the rear neck roll is no loner needed. I can't tell you for sure it will work for you but without the neck roll it did expand the size range a bit. What is your hat size?

@MarcusBrody: I'm not sure that UNISTRA has published the data yet. It's not my place to publish their data .... BUT .... You will be blown away at which helmet got the only five stars .... I'm not sure I'm supposed to say ... BUT .... Hovding yes the inflatable helmet that we all laugh about got 5 stars. Like I said I trust their testing, I have concerns about that helmet inflating in all situations and it inflating when you do a few foot drop, but it is probably good for commuting in a European city. It does not pass CPSC though. The Kali Avatar (full face) received 4.5 stars but sadly that helmet is too round and boring (and safe) for the current market tastes. It tests out well for us too I tell everyone that might listen that if I know my kid is going to crash that is the helmet I want them in.

@MarcusBrody: Hey Marcus, at this point no other lab has wanted to create a rating system, I think because the are so many variables in testing. I have seen the link and studied fairly closely. When we set out to duplicate the results it was important to get as much information as possible. V-tech uses different equipment then most other labs so that accounted for some of the difference. The University of Strasbourg just completed a study of 128 helmets and put their own 4 star rating system to it. Having our helmets tested their for some time now I do like their methodology, I have not heard how they will publish this data as of yet but I am pretty sure it will be Euro based. We sell helmets into Europe so this is important to us, besides the way Euro's test allows for much softer hemets then our testing requires. I personally believe that is a good thing!

Hey Everyone! Brad from Kali here. One subject I never get enough of and never afraid to talk about … testing. We do a lot of our own testing and for years have tested in labs around the world to gather as much objective data as we can. We test at the labs at our factory, ACT in Southern California, Dynamic Research in Southern California, Imperial Collage of London, Rheon Labs (London), Unistra (University of Strasbourg, France). What we have learned is each lab has their own unique results or bias. Not bias in a bad way, just different testing methodology. V-tech for example uses a Nocsae head form which is used in American football. No other lab does this, does that make it wrong, no, just different testing. We found we had better results in some labs than others. Some better oblique impacts and some better linier impacts. Last year we asked two of the labs to try to duplicate V-tech results. Dynamic research and Unistra, it took some time to understand and get comparable results some of that had to do with the algorithms written at V-tech to come up with their Star system. After several rounds of testing and discussing the algorithms directly with V-tech we think we know the ‘secret’ formula. For me V-tech puts a lot of weight on rotational forces which is important, but I believe that linier forces are still just as important to control and to take that one step further we need to focus more on low g impacts. Our standards and labs (all Labs) are not testing down there enough for me, so I am testing in those lower g’s myself. Our testing will continue and will continue to consider V-tech results along with the other labs I trust. I’m not ready to change my design philosophy just to get a 5 star rating at V-tech.

Development is expensive and time consuming. Factories are happiest when they make the most simple helmets and pump out a million of them at a time. Without the brands following the research, looking at options, and pushing to innovate, the factories would be making the same model for everyone with the latest fashion colors. I applaud Urge for putting softer things next to your riders head, it's a good thing!

Thanks for noticing, I have started to try to include that on all new designs, the mount we make will fit on most of our new models as well as there being enough room for the after market ones.