or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ski Helmets...MIPS or not?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Ski Helmets...MIPS or not? - Page 2

post #31 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

Helmets are warm, and if you can put a toque or any kind of hat on under it, it's too big for your head.

 

 

 

 

Ridiculous.

post #32 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHREDHEAD View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghost View Post
 

Helmets are warm, and if you can put a toque or any kind of hat on under it, it's too big for your head.

 

 

 

 

Ridiculous.


Sorry, I overstated.  A very thin balaclava is acceptable.

post #33 of 44
If you can, get mips. It's like getting airbags in a car--might not save you, but wth would you not get it for 20-50 bucks?
post #34 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude 007 View Post

If you can, get mips. It's like getting airbags in a car--might not save you, but wth would you not get it for 20-50 bucks?


Yea I am leaning toward the MIPS. I just didn't want to put up the extra $50 if the mips was just as effective as the regular helmet.

post #35 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skidude 007 View Post

If you can, get mips. It's like getting airbags in a car--might not save you, but wth would you not get it for 20-50 bucks?

 

Yeah, maybe if they're the exact same construction and price, but the sports gear market seldom works like that.  

Given a choice between a $200 non-MIPS helmet and a $100 MIPS one, both of which meet applicable standards (RS-98 say), I will definitely pick the one that is resistant to the type of damage I've already seen.  Two vent hole struts cracked, flexed and bounced off the skull?  In spite of the fact that both helmets met standards and had MIPS?   Don't buy helmets with vent hole struts.
 

post #36 of 44
post #37 of 44

If you never crash then it's just as effective.  

If you were to crash head on it's just as effective.

If you were to crash so hard and face first that you're DOA either way, then it's just as effective.

 

 

Nobody plans for a crash, and no item is going to fully protect you from a crash, but I don't think anyone is going to say there's a downside or tradeoff except for the $.  So for certain analysis you should say, is price the only factor why I'm not getting this?

 

If you packed a sandwich for lunch for 10days versus eating out and getting a hamburger that's just as effective for feeding you nutritionally and netting you $20-$50.

 

Only you can evaluate if that extra money is worth it to you or not given your risk profile of how you ski, and how much you plan to ski, and your financial status.

 

At the extreme, if that $50 is putting you out on the street, perhaps you shouldnt' be skiing at all.

post #38 of 44

Back to the OP's original interest. Most impacts to a ski helmet are oblique, not perpendicular. The tests are all perpendicular force vectors. So the standards are great for straight on penetration (think a rock or branch), fairly irrelevant for the typical tumbling fall at speed or glancing blow against something hard. 

 

And we have decent reason to think that oblique shear forces are also more likely to result in concussion. So this may be why most helmets do not seem to much prevent concussions; they're literally not designed to. 

 

Rode and used motorcycle helmets for 30 years, Primoz, not sure I buy the argument that the manufacturers would jump at MIPS if it were any good. Fairly conservative market, literally and figuratively (think about all the WWII style pots), and far higher risk of penetrating head trauma. Think guard rails or light posts or bumpers. Capitalism and embracing the best tech do not necessarily correlate. Only if there's demand.


Edited by beyond - 11/3/15 at 5:03pm
post #39 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 

You're kinda missing the point about MIPS, in any case. Which was the OP's interest. Most impacts to a helmet are oblique, not perpendicular. The tests are all perpendicular force vectors. So the standards are great for straight on penetration (think a rock or branch), fairly irrelevant for the typical tumbling fall at speed or glancing blow against something hard. 

 

Is this directed to me? 

  'F'so I explicitly think MIPS is utterly useless in the type of fall that is 'typical' for me.   I also think the standards are completely inadequate and look for helmets that meet criteria beyond what the standard(s) specify.

post #40 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post
 

If you never crash then it's just as effective.  

If you were to crash head on it's just as effective.

If you were to crash so hard and face first that you're DOA either way, then it's just as effective.

 

 

Nobody plans for a crash, and no item is going to fully protect you from a crash, but I don't think anyone is going to say there's a downside or tradeoff except for the $.  So for certain analysis you should say, is price the only factor why I'm not getting this?

 

If you packed a sandwich for lunch for 10days versus eating out and getting a hamburger that's just as effective for feeding you nutritionally and netting you $20-$50.

 

Only you can evaluate if that extra money is worth it to you or not given your risk profile of how you ski, and how much you plan to ski, and your financial status.

 

At the extreme, if that $50 is putting you out on the street, perhaps you shouldnt' be skiing at all.


haha I like your examples!! And I really have no issue putting up the extra money if its going to protect me. I know that skiing is an expensive sport and I'm cool with that!

post #41 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post
 

If you were to crash so hard and face first that you're DOA either way, then it's just as effective.

 

Just as a clarification on the third example,
helmet threads are beating a dead horse here, but there's a contingent and have valid stats research and articles that show that helmets aren't statistically saving you for various reasons.  Search if you want to read through hundreds of posts debating it.
This third example is giving them that nod, that you may crash in such a way that you're dead anyway or massively lifechanging, and having a mips helmet, a regular helmet, or a beanie would have played no role in the resulting outcome.

post #42 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by raytseng View Post
 

Just as a clarification on the third example,
helmet threads are beating a dead horse here, but there's a contingent and have valid stats research and articles that show that helmets aren't statistically saving you for various reasons.  Search if you want to read through hundreds of posts debating it.
This third example is giving them that nod, that you may crash in such a way that you're dead anyway or massively lifechanging, and having a mips helmet, a regular helmet, or a beanie would have played no role in the resulting outcome.


I understand. I also understand that just buying buying a helmet isn't going to save me from death. Falls and crashes are unpredictable, so you can't buy a helmet based on the types of falls you are going to encounter. I've had too many concussions in that past, so I just want to buy a helmet that is going to protect my head the best it can.

post #43 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by cantunamunch View Post
 

 

Is this directed to me? 

  'F'so I explicitly think MIPS is utterly useless in the type of fall that is 'typical' for me.   I also think the standards are completely inadequate and look for helmets that meet criteria beyond what the standard(s) specify.


Wasn't directed at you. And agree about standards being b.s.

 

Curious what your typical fall is, though, now that you've brought it up. I think the idea is that we are not just falling "down," we're falling out/down a fall line. So even when the sensation we're left with is that we slammed out helmet "straight" down, if we had a little video camera with a giant telephoto aimed from the side of the slope out toward us, ultra slow mo, it would show a "glancing" blow, meaning a vertical and a horizontal component to the vector, no? So vector of force at angle against a sphere, produces angular rotation, no? Which is apparently does the most damage when the brain's slopping about inside the skull. MIPS is designed to minimize same, by letting the inner shell rotate first and absorb some of the energy. Am I wrong about this (entirely possible)? 

 

Pretty sure there's no epidemiological evidence one way or another about MIPS because it's way too new, too small a sample of users and will be for years. But the issue of angular movement and shear of small vessels is pretty settled post-mortem or PET anatomy, trust me on that one. The correlation to non-lethal, lower grade concussion is seen as reasonable and likely among neurologists, although disagreement about specific lesions and their connection to specific symptoms. (We don't have a really grasp of concussions period.) So issue is more IMO - assuming we adopt a conservative approach to prevention - is about whether MIPS has a large enough effect to significantly alter the forces getting to the skull, rather than the model being wrong.

 

And I really think the reason current helmets don't much help protect from concussion statistically is that they're not designed to. (I also have issues about how the statistics are generated and interpreted, but that's been hashed out elsewhere.)

 

Now if your most typical fall is impaling yourself on a tree trunk, or falling in a lift line because you're trying to balance two open beers as you get on, then all bets are off. :D 


Edited by beyond - 11/4/15 at 7:20pm
post #44 of 44
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beyond View Post
 


Wasn't directed at you. Curious what your typical fall is, though, now that you've brought it up. I think the idea is that we are not just falling "down," we're falling out/down a fall line. So even when the sensation we're left with is that we slammed out helmet "straight" down, if we had a little video camera with a giant telephoto aimed from the side of the slope out toward us, ultra slow mo, it would show a "glancing" blow, meaning a vertical and a horizontal component to the vector, no? So vector of force at angle against a sphere, produces angular rotation, no? Which is apparently does the most damage when the brain's slopping about inside the skull. MIPS is designed to minimize same, by letting the inner shell rotate first and absorb some of the energy. Am I wrong about this (entirely possible)? 

 

Now if your most typical fall is impaling yourself on a tree trunk, or falling in a lift line because you're trying to balance two open beers as you get on, then all bets are off. :D 


haha I feel like this discussion has turned into a physics discussion. Which Physics IS totally relevant, just a lot of stuff to know.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › Ski Helmets...MIPS or not?