MIPS Says WaveCel Helmet Technology Falls 'Far Below' Bontrager's Injury Prevention Claims
MIPS has today disputed the performance of Bontrager's new WaveCel technology by claiming it falls "far below" its claims of injury prevention.
MIPS, the company responsible for the Multi-Directional Impact Protection System that is licensed out to a number of helmet manufacturers, has undertaken preliminary testing on the new Bontrager technology and claim that they, "cannot see that the helmets perform in a way that the claims Bontrager/WaveCel makes in the comparison between WaveCel and other helmets/technologies."
Launched on Tuesday by Trek's sister company Bontrager, WaveCel uses a collapsible cellular material that's designed to flex, crumple, and glide during an impact in order to absorb the rotational and linear forces of an impact. It was claimed to be 48 times more effective than EPS foam at preventing concussions and has also been quoted as preventing concussions 99 times out of 100. These claims were backed up by an academic paper, published here, all of Bontrager's WaveCel helmets also received 5 stars, the highest ranking possible, in tests performed by Virginia Tech, here.
MIPS' product is also designed to protect against rotational forces and prevent concussions in a similar way. It is the product of Swedish brain surgeon Dr Hans von Holst and researcher Dr Peter Halldin and has its own facility in Sweden where it has conducted over 22,000 tests and authored several academic papers.
Hons von Holst and Peter Halldin, the originators of the MIPS concept.
 | MIPS subjected the new WaveCel helmet technology to their battery of tests, with results far below WaveCel’s substantial claims of injury prevention. While further testing is warranted, MIPS cannot see that the helmets perform in a way that the claims Bontrager/WaveCel makes in the comparison between WaveCel and other helmets/technologies. MIPS’ position on evaluating the possibility of a concussion resulting from a crash is that it is a highly variable event and unique to the individual impact and rider physiology. No two crashes are the same and no two people are the same, so the risk of concussion is a near-impossible claim to make. However, rotational motion itself can be measured objectively, so that is the metric MIPS can actually report and address. |
MIPS also called for industry wide third party testing to ensure accurate information for consumers.
| We at MIPS have conducted more than 22,000 tests and we know that not all helmets are equally safe, not even the ones that claim to address rotational motion. While we hope from a consumer standpoint that Bontrager’s claims are accurate, we are curious to see how it lives up to the tests conducted in our lab. We are a company of scientists, so we’re approaching this in the spirit of collaboration inherent to scientific research. If together, we can make cycling safer for riders, then we will have honored our mission to make the safest helmets possible. |
MIPS intends to share the its data with the public when testing is complete.
Bontrager replied to MIPS' claims with the following statement:
| We believe that slip liners are a good technology that provide a real benefit to riders. Having partnered with MIPS for a number of years, we have brought many products featuring MIPS technology to market. We also believe that there is room for innovation in rider safety. Trek offers helmets with WaveCel, MIPS and standard technology. Consumers can decide for themselves which products fit their particular needs based on the data and information available to them. |
Full Statement from MIPS
As the leader in the field of rotational motion solutions for helmets, MIPS subjected the new WaveCel helmet technology to their battery of tests, with results far below WaveCel’s substantial claims of injury prevention.
Yesterday morning, WaveCel, through its exclusive licensee Bontrager, announced a new set of helmets featuring their technology, a honeycomb-like insert that attempts to decrease linear impacts and duplicate MIPS’ proven ability to lessen the rotational motion associated with potential brain injuries such as diffuse axonal injury, subdural hematoma, and concussion.
WaveCel has made sizeable claims about the efficacy of this technology, stating on their website that it’s “up to 48x more effective at preventing concussions” than a regular EPS helmet, that “adding the WaveCel technology reduced [the incidence of concussion] to 1.2%,” and, via Bicycling magazine “the company says that a helmet with WaveCel will prevent a concussion 99 out of 100 times.”
Preliminary test results of WaveCel helmets by MIPS cannot substantiate these claims. While further testing is warranted, MIPS cannot see that the helmets perform in a way that the claims Bontrager/WaveCel makes in the comparison between WaveCel and other helmets/technologies.
MIPS’ position on evaluating the possibility of a concussion resulting from a crash is that it is a highly variable event and unique to the individual impact and rider physiology. No two crashes are the same and no two people are the same, so the risk of concussion is a near-impossible claim to make. However, rotational motion itself can be measured objectively, so that is the metric MIPS can actually report and address.
For over 20 years, MIPS has been researching brain injuries and designed its system to reduce rotational motion transferred to the brain from angled impacts to the head, keeping people safer in the outdoors, from casual beginners to professional athletes. MIPS has conducted more than 22,000 tests in their state-of-the-art test lab in Sweden. MIPS’ own Dr. Peter Halldin, with Dr. Hans von Holst, has authored several academic papers on helmet impact biomechanics since 2001.
While MIPS finds it encouraging that more and more brands are acknowledging the damaging rotational motion, there is still a lack of an industry-wide standard from third party testing organizations to ensure accurate information for consumers – something MIPS called out earlier this month.
“We at MIPS have conducted more than 22,000 tests and we know that not all helmets are equally safe, not even the ones that claim to address rotational motion”, says Johan Thiel, CEO of MIPS. “While we hope from a consumer standpoint that Bontrager’s claims are accurate, we are curious to see how it lives up to the tests conducted in our lab.”
“We are a company of scientists, so we’re approaching this in the spirit of collaboration inherent to scientific research. If together, we can make cycling safer for riders, then we will have honored our mission to make the safest helmets possible.”
Author Info:
Member since Nov 14, 2018
Must Read This Week
Sign Up for the Pinkbike Newsletter - All the Biggest, Most Interesting Stories in your Inbox
PB Newsletter Signup
MIPS: No u
If Bontragger changed their wording to something like, "in our test scenarios, WaveCel was 48 times more effective than EPS foam at preventing concussions", there's nothing MIPS really say.
www.handicappedpets.com/walkin-dog-helmet
Independent testing by VA Tech and IIHS
www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicycle-helmet-ratings.html
I know I know, R&D, supply and demand blah blah blah. I don't care. That little yellow bit of plastic is a ripoff. The costs have been recouped long ago. They should drop the licence fee to something reasonable, like perhaps $1 per unit.
Any claims of concussion reduction cannot really be determined using laboratory tests but would require a large sample size of long term rider testing.
Personally this statement is not a good look for MIPS. First they may have started out as scientists, but they have a market position to protect—MIPS is trademarked, but protecting against rotational or shear forces is not. It is obvious they have a huge economic incentive to hide behind the power of that yellow logo to add $20 MSRP to a helmet. Not admitting to that under the guise of “science” puts them no better then Trek.
Second, the main criticism of MIPS is that there is no way to prove reducing such forces reduces concussions in real life. MIPS using that exact same attack line against a competing product is rich.
Finally, why pick this company/tech to attack? This is not the first sort of variant to attempt to improve on MIPS with a gel approach. I own a Kali Interceptor whose LDL liooks like it operates similar to WaveCell. My guess is Trek, being so large with a lot of distribution and marketing clout represents no new threat to the MIPS tech, but is a serious threat to MIPS *marketing and branding*. The other vendors with competing tech (like Kali) do not license MIPS and charge significantly less for their tech (I believe Kali is introducing a new helmet with LDLlike performance for $60 MSRP) which makes it an ???? to ????, but it lacks a ???? to ???? comparison. My Giro Synthe MIPS is sold side by side with the Synthe telling me I paid exactly $x more for a piece of plastic and some yellow breakaways. Here Trek is selling regular EPS helmets, the same helmets with MIPS for $x more and a helmet with “WaveCell” but without MIPS in their top end price range. they are telling through price and marketing that they have tech that does what MIPS does, only better, and that must be attacked, science be damned.
The only thing I have to say this in MIPS defense is that the real innovator here in the last 30 years is the idea of designing helmets to reduce rotational/shear forces instead of rigid impact, and that was innovated not by Bontrager, but by the team behind MIPS. I’d be pretty butthurt by that. But you either take the high ground and stay above it, or you don’t and roll around with the pigs,
Gut instinct: 20k tests and whatever, I fail to see how a bunch of people with a deep understanding of materials and a large marketing and research budget can’t improve on a plastic done and some breakaway tabs. MIPS probably should have taken their licensing $ and introduced MIPS2 while lowering the fees on MIPS or turned MIPS into a certification/rating, instead of letting encourage their licensees to look for ways to get around their intersources fees, You know, when Apple introduced the LaserWriter, they paid $1k per machine to Adobe for Postscript. You don’t see anyone paying a penny for PDF. At some point you got to pivot your monopoly into a lasting advantage, looks like that timer has started in earnest.
I’ve still got a lot of mileage left in my Kali LDL and Giro MIPS to be bothered to throw around some benjamins when I have yet to crash in either (let alone crash twice in the Kali), but my girlfriend needs a new helmet, and I’m going to have her try on a WaveCell first.
Science boom
It is beyond bold to make a statement against a competitor product when there is no independent research validating your own product.
Furthermore, WaveCel closely resembles Koroyd - another 'crumple' technology claiming big improvements over current impact absorption in helmets.
My skepticism for MIPS grows
@ratatat: Precisely, you don't counter bad science with posturing in an online mountain bike magazine. You counter bad science with better science in a peer-reviewed journal.
On the price vs. safety aspect, there are many other areas that brands charge more for other than safety. Aesthetics, breathability, weight, aerodynamics are all big-ticket items that are separate from protection.
#science
Can you point to a source for your claim that VA Tech has a monetary incentive to find one way or the other?
I found this on the NIH web site (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3508267) which is a 2012 response to a claim by a single Football (Hand Egg?) helmet manufacturer that VA Tech was biased in their testing. If the claims made by VA Tech are still true, then I will accept them as the best source of independent testing of helmets.
======================================================================
Virginia Tech is Independent
We have no financial interest whatsoever with the HIT System or Riddell. We have never received any funding or royalties or promise of payment in any form from any helmet manufacturer. We submit that we are one of the only truly independent helmet research laboratories in the world. Our funding is unbiased and comes from the NIH, DOT, DOD, Toyota Central Research and Development Laboratories, and Virginia Tech, all of which have no interest in any helmet company.
I currently have a MIPS helmet, but only because I wanted the Proframe for the ventilation+full face protection, not because of MIPS. Frankly, I don't see how this shitty piece of plastic does a god damned thing.
The original waveCel paper describes that waveCel is better than standard EPS helmets, and MIPS is better than EPS helmets. There was NO statistical tests done to determine if waveCel is better than MIPS. Trek/Bontrager are using poor wording in their PR and are making it seem that waveCel is significantly better than MIPS, which was NOT demonstrated in this paper. Yes, the magnitude of the force reduction was greater with waveCel, but we cannot say this is significantly different.
Now, obviously, MIPS is upset, so they release some bold claim saying that waveCel is 'far below' Trek's numbers. Then it says that 'preliminary tests...', which means they have not replicated the study. Maybe they have done one or two tests and it looks like Trek's numbers were inflated, but until they entirely replicate the waveCel paper and discredit it, whatever they say kind of means nothing.
Moral of the story: can a company full of professional engineers not get one person with any knowledge of statistics to look your statements over before you make silly claims?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy
Not my link, but:
MIPs can't measure what's important (concussions prevented), but can make what they can measure (rotational force) important. That is exactly the same as
Quote from link above "The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is OK as far as it goes. The second step is to disregard that which can't be easily measured"
The way to avoid the McNamara fallacy is to not disregard qualitative observations. In this case, there is nothing to disregard because there are none. No case studies, no anecdotes, no surviver stories, no nothing about WaveCell.
The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured - rotational motion
The second step is to disregard that which can't be easily measured - risk of concussion
They've just stated it in reverse order:
"MIPS’ position on evaluating the possibility of a concussion resulting from a crash is that it is a highly variable event and unique to the individual impact and rider physiology." - since we can't measure that, we'll disregard it.
"However, rotational motion itself can be measured objectively, so that is the metric MIPS can actually report and address." - and instead, we'll measure this (its easy) and report this.
I'm not saying MIPS or WaveCel is better, but MIPS is literally saying "we can't measure or quantify that, so instead we measure this," with no real backup or connection between what they're measuring, and what we're all looking to prevent. Concussion.
A. That research paper was not VT. It did disclose financial involvement, but it wasn't VT.
B. As for the VT research "Since 2011, Virginia Tech researchers have been providing unbiased helmet ratings that allow consumers to make informed decisions when purchasing helmets. The helmet ratings are the culmination of over 10 years of research on head impacts in sports and identify which helmets best reduce concussion risk. This work is done as part of Virginia Tech’s service mission and is 100% independent of any funding or influence from helmet manufacturers."
www.icslabs.com
www.sgsgroup.us.com
These are a couple labs I have used to certify helmets, and many labs will run any protocol you need, say perhaps the draft standard for rotational testing in committee in CE: CEN/TC 158/WG 11, or even the VT protocol. Either one is better than the issued standards (CPSC, CE EN 107
This seems to me to be the essence of investigative reporting, and also might be rad...
Help to make it happen!
It's a monitor so a team can decide how hard a hit was and should the player continue or not.
You can wear one if you want while you bike-nothing stopping you.
How does this stack up to Poc’s breakaway stickers?
Seems like MIPS is going to protect their market position by yelling and attacking.
Let’s have a neck brace debate....
"MIPS’ position on evaluating the possibility of a concussion resulting from a crash is that it is a highly variable event and unique to the individual impact and rider physiology. No two crashes are the same and no two people are the same, so the risk of concussion is a near-impossible claim to make."
MIPs should have had a PR company give a statement. They come off as petty.
Mips: They are a company of scientists. Who perform their own studies, but call for an independent review of wave.
What they should have said, "this is great news for the sport. MIPs welcomes all advancements in helmet safety technology. MIPs is proud of our products...
It's simple Newtonian physics: Force = Mass x Acceleration. A foam hat isn't going to provide much protection from penetrative trauma, spinal cord injury, or road rash. It's there to help with Traumatic Brain Injury. TBI is usually caused by your brain smacking up against the inside of your skull when your head is in motion and then stops suddenly - rapid, negative acceleration.
Back to the formula: You aren't going to decrease the mass of your brain without other complications, so if you want to decrease the force exerted upon your brain, you need to lower the rate of acceleration.
The only practical way to slow down the negative acceleration (deceleration from here on) inside your brain is to start the deceleration earlier. This gives us 2 choices:
The first is to employ active measures similar to airbags in cars. I think we'll be seeing this in the pro ranks in about ten years. Until then, there are a lot of issues to solve. Car airbags cost in the low thousands to implement, and they are made in much larger quantities that we can expect from early active helmets. Also, a simple Bing search for "Takata airbag recall" will give a lot of people second thoughts about having such a device so close to their head.
Lastly, the common, well-tested method for deploying airbags is essentially a small rocket. Even though it is subsonic - so not as loud as a gunshot - the pressure wave, so close to your head is likely to cause permanent hearing damage. So, more testing and more cost... Implemented today, this looks like a $10,000+ helmet that may or may not work reliably.
The alternative is to simply make the helmet bigger. It impacts the ground/obstacle earlier and makes for a slower, gentler deceleration. There are a bunch of little variables that make the final results less than 100% linear, but you can reasonably expect that increasing the helmet thickness by 50%, you will reduce the impact force on your brain by about 50% as well.
It's the difference between taking a header at 25mph and 17mph. Neither sounds fun, but I know which I'd prefer.
TLDR: Stop messing around with marketing bullshit that is already killing people. Make helmets bigger! They will look goofier. They will be less aero. They will save lives.
I understand that it's only one test but it seems like a pretty simple and straightforward test of which Bontrager WaveCel is outperforming MIPS and standard EPS helmets.
*Results based on AIS 2 Injury (BriC) at 6.2 m/s test at 45° comparing a standard EPS Helmet and the same helmet modified with WaveCel insert as described in detail in Comparison of Bicycle Helmet Technologies in Realistic Oblique Impacts.
Asterisk is important to note when evaluating validity.
Still waiting to see the kali vented full face enduro lid appear, as my trusted net parachute looks very out of date now.
All they ever do is introduce new standards that quickly erode the value of your existing equipment, looks like this one's met some resistance.
Next year: Ultimate Boost 170 hubs, 31 spokes (somehow) and proprietary Ultimate TLR-X rims, "X" because the Tubeless Ready System only works with the new X1 Enduro specific tire's bead and only accepts the X System Valve, which only works with the X System Pump, which isn't available for purchase so you need to go to an authorized Trek dealer, but they have to send them to Trek because the X Pump technology is so secretive that not even the dealers can have it. And Trek charges for this service.
I will not give MiPS a tiniest benefit of doubt. A bit of plastic that more and more companies are dropping, first POC, now Bontrager, then alternatives like Fly, Kali, 6D. Someone’s pants are on fire. Soon Mips will be sported only by ETTO. All I need is MIPs saying: oh but we are happy that Everyone is working on minimizing injuries from rotational forces. Vad Trevligt! They have self distance, virtue signalling and sense of humor that only owner of Pole bicycles can challenge.
In all seriousness I just want to know what works
thors (MB, SMM) are founders and co-directors of the Legacy
Biomechanics Laboratory. Several of the authors (EB, AR, ST, SMM,
MB) are affiliated with the Legacy Health System, which was a partial
funder of this research. None of the authors received any money or in-
kind contribution for this work."
1) Imagine you where to put an oval bolt in an oval hole, can you turn it? (an oval helmet on an oval head is the same)
2) Will it rotate easier when you ad lube it or is their a reason we usually run round axles? Oil, grease, heair, skin or mips, call it what you want...
3) Will it only rotate Once pulled out (lifted off the head) or is mechanicly deformed?
4) if lifted of the head how does reducing friction change anything?
5) based on these question would you agree mips technology is far inferior to 6D technology?
MIPS (and BRG) have the first-mover advantage.
MIPS was the first brand to make the entire bike-rider market believe that their product *markedly* improves hemet safety. At least the first since sized, fitted, (and in-molded) EPS foam/shell helmets became widely available.
On the other hand, Bontrager is HUGE. They can run that tech at a $ loss in only their house-branded products and it would never come close to hurting them financially by itself.
I wear Giro MIPS because I'm far past my lifetime concussion allowance and Giro fits my dome ok (DERP!!!).
And because I've sold MIPS helmets to people. A lot of them.
But for mips to come out and throw some weight about vs a global brand which have to double triple quad check the testing for the American market to avoid lawsuits.
That’s poor business acumen
Is there any news on the comparison of the diffrent Technologys like wavecell, koroyd and mips?
An up to date article would be mint.
Greetings from Innsbruck,Austria.
5-Year Impact Factor: 3.209
That research paper shouldn't be absolute trash...
(and thanks for the crash replacements)
The good news is that WaveCell was not developed by Trek. Trek is only the manufacturing/distribution partner. Means there is a good chance that WaveCell actually works.