MIPS has acquired the Fluid Inside head protection company, whose system is currently used in the
Fox Rampage Pro Carbon helmet, for USD $3.3 million.
MIPS and Fluid Inside both provide technologies to helmet companies to protect against rotational impacts but they do it in different ways. MIPS integrates a low friction slip layer whereas Fluid Inside uses a number of liquid filled pods that mimic the fluid that surrounds your brain. Fluid Inside was created through a collaboration between Oblique Technology L.P. and the University of Ottawa and has mainly been used in team sports, such as ice hockey, but recently moved over to a mountain bike helmet for the first time.
The protection sector has really heated up in the past few months with
Bontrager's Wavecel claiming to be the biggest development in cycling for 30 years but then being swiftly rebuffed by
MIPS,
Koroyd and, earlier this month,
Virginia Tech's rankings.
MIPS are claiming this acquisition will help shore up their patent protections (
something they've had to defend before) and hints at a move into team sports. We're also wondering if a combination of the two systems could become another step forward for helmet safety technology in future.
| The acquisition is primarily part of our strategic plan to increase our patent protection and is an acknowledgment of our position as the world leader in brain protection systems within helmet-based safety. We are also very enthusiastic about strengthening our relationship with University of Ottawa and to further increase our knowledge within team sports.—Max Strandwitz, CEO of MIPS |
The acquisition amounts to approximately USD $3.3 million with an additional earn-out of a maximum of USD $2 million based on future net revenues.
Too many downvotes. My sentiments are shared, though!
Anything is better than your dribble.
And helmet technology needs to improve... This is a good thing.
You should be ashamed of dragging everything to the depth of your lack of level.
But the yellow layer was not perfect fromtge beginning. It was turning otherwise well ventilated helmets into piss pots and it was giving eczeem to bald people. So they started making more cut outs which started defying the purpose. Meanwhile POC and a few more made slip planes into something that’s always been in helmets: padding.
So now, Mips will create a new low cost product and call it MIPS3.0 and charge more than plastic slip plane and call it even better at preventing brain damage from rotational forces. They have so much money now that they will take yet one more Swedish PhD student to make a not so independent research confirming that.
This strikes me as a way of absorbing similar tech. Could make it more common and cheaper (particularly if it ends up mainstream) or it may keep prices artificially high... I suspect the latter but we will never know!
Anyway, USD 3.3 million isn’t much to get rid of a competitor/take control over and quietly retire a cheaper and well (better?) performing patent, if that is their actual goal with the purchase.
"Not many companies will throw millions at an acquisition just to bury it."...but they did.
"the technology is good"...bonus.
"buy it to use it and make better products "...that's nice.
.".. - so they can sell more and make more money."...I wish them massive success and all the material possessions their hearts desire....and billions to hand down to their special children, can't forget that.
"If the technology is bad, it will kill itself - why waste the money?"...it doesn't seem to be. The accountant figured it's cheaper to buy them out than compete.
"It will certainly be about strengthening their company and marketing position overall, but that doesn't have to be nefarious."....Ready for it? But. it. is. ...at least until proven otherwise. Mark my words....they might bury one of the techs, but probably not. They'll sell one as Premium and one as Mid-level...each at the max price the market will bear....a.k.a.: monopolization...market control...price fixing via competition elimination.
I say...overly optimistic Sir...rose colored glasses...magical fairy dust...
Let's say MIPS and Fluid are almost identical in how good they are but Fluid is 2% more expensive, and maybe they have some management issues. These factors could be enough to be the reason for selling the company. MIPS comes and buys it up. But why should they continue to develop a tech that costs more and is a different type of technology from what they already are familiar with, when the results are the same. It makes plenty of sense to spend some change to bury a competitor.
And I am looking at a snowboard helmet that's less then $100 that has fluid inside I guess I better buy before it gets yanked off the shelf.
I thought it would be nice to have some fluid pads in my helmet instead a ratty piece of plastic that slides around.
Exactly. The company is MIPS, not Apple sitting on $245 billion dollars of reserves.
i feel im more interested in that than a 300 quid helmet, even if it was 2% safer. which apparently its not.
"If you can't HAVE it, BUY it"
You really like talking out of your ass, dont you...
So I see people say this all the time but I’ve never once seen someone link to an actual expert saying that. Do you have a source?
Easy Tiger: check this out from Helmet.org and Snell before you go giving me grief.
Helmets.org/snell are independent - no industry affiliation.
Snell Foundation testing shows no improvement
Snell testing reveals no performance gain with MIPS
In 2018 the Snell Foundation's Bill Muzzy presented to ASTM's F08.53 subcommittee the results of Snell testing of MIPS performance using a linear impactor and offset (oblique) impacts. Snell tested a MIPS and non-MIPS version of the same Specialized helmet. Their results with full details will be published in a journal soon.
Snell dropped their 5kg guided impactor onto a helmeted Hybrid III headform and neck, impacting the helmet sides to achieve an oblique transmission of energy. The MIPS layer activated and moved. They used both flat and hemispheric impactors, and measured both linear and rotational acceleration. They hit each location twice. Helmet straps were tight. They chose the locations based on a Harborview study of the most likely impact locations on bicycle helmets.
Snell's data showed no significant improvement in the MIPS helmet's performance over the non-MIPS model. In some cases the non-MIPS model performed better.
Yep Helmets.org/snell -
Snell Foundation testing shows no improvement
Snell testing reveals no performance gain with MIPS
In 2018 the Snell Foundation's Bill Muzzy presented to ASTM's F08.53 subcommittee the results of Snell testing of MIPS performance using a linear impactor and offset (oblique) impacts. Snell tested a MIPS and non-MIPS version of the same Specialized helmet. Their results with full details will be published in a journal soon.
Snell dropped their 5kg guided impactor onto a helmeted Hybrid III headform and neck, impacting the helmet sides to achieve an oblique transmission of energy. The MIPS layer activated and moved. They used both flat and hemispheric impactors, and measured both linear and rotational acceleration. They hit each location twice. Helmet straps were tight. They chose the locations based on a Harborview study of the most likely impact locations on bicycle helmets.
Snell's data showed no significant improvement in the MIPS helmet's performance over the non-MIPS model. In some cases the non-MIPS model performed better.
Fluid INSIDE SOLUTION - makes sense - MIPS unfortunately is marketing based - genius but genius marketing not science... why did POC drop it? Why did fox use Fluid inside instead...because it works great on a crash test dummy but not in real live situations - see my reply to sdurant12 above for helmets.org/snell comments on effectiveness of MIPS.
Or do fluid & spin work differently