 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Quote: |
@valais2, yep, tad OTT.
|
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
+2 on the POC backcountry receptor MIPS. It's a nice helmet and I've used mine for the last 3 seasons. No big hits in that time luckily. My wife has a non-MIPS Sweet Protection Rooster from a few years ago. When it's due for replacement I expect she will get the latest MIPS version of the same helmet. I'm sure it will be at least as safe and probably more so than her current helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
POC has SPIN -rotational protection not MIPS anymore LOL-I am waiting for the snow helmets version and buying it because it must work!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| kedsky wrote: |
| POC has SPIN -rotational protection not MIPS anymore LOL-I am waiting for the snow helmets version and buying it because it must work! |
Well actually some of their new snow helmets have SPIN (which appears to be their own development, perhaps inspired by MIPS?) and some still license MIPS. They probably both work unless you think POC don't know what they are doing. In which case, what helmet manufacturer are you going to trust? For me there are only a couple of brands I would consider putting my head in and POC is one of them. There might well be some marketing BS served up (as there is with pretty much any product) but I'm happy in this case that the underlying products are pretty sound.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Steilhang, it seems to me that wearing a helmet effectively increases the radius of your head, which in turn increases the amount of torque applied to the neck/brain by gripping on the snow. On the other hand, not many people ski with uncovered heads, so the friction comparison is probably between helmet and woolly hat, rather than helmet and skin/hair. I'm bald and it'd need to be an exceptionally hot day before I'd consider skiing without my head covered with something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@uktrailmonster, ...were you sliding on the hill when no-one wore helmets? The first to emerge in number was the Boeri bone dome. When I started wearing it my partner used to hum the Dambusters' theme in the lift queue just to wind me up. It worked. I mean the wind up worked. The helmet did too. But it boiled my head. It had only two tiny vents which create two cold spots on your forehead while your brain overheated. Why did I wear it? Because instructor mates started wearing them in CH and Italy, and we'd had enough experience of helmets saving lives in XC mtb-ing to think that it was a good idea in skiing. Then we saw a huge crop of pretty awful helmets, all with the weak CE certification. Actually some really terrible helmets...often worn badly. Giro seemed to be sensible, having brought over research from their excellent cycling helmets. Bell seemed to be strangely absent. Then POC actually did some research-based stuff - we took a look at their research and their test rigs - and I moved to POC. Many of the new-comers such as Sweet Protection follow a kind of Giro-POC mix of underlying design. But we like POC. We have POC-shaped heads. I think that they have served us very well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| valais2 wrote: |
| ... Skiing is a high risk sport, as is DH and XC mountain biking. All of which we do as a family, as do thousands of children around the world. I have been accused elsewhere on this site of ‘wrapping my children in cotton wool’ by insisting on use of high spec helmets and backprotectors. Apparently can’t win. ... |
"We all know we can never win,
We're all trying to lose a little more slowly"
I've no issue with what people wear on their heads or elsewhere, but I like numbers. These may help: https://www.tetongravity.com/story/adventure/your-chances-of-dying-ranked-by-sport-and-activity
Summary: Skiing is actually a relatively low risk sport.
The insurance and helmet industries have an interest in people over estimating the risks. You're encouraged to take their products, which they imply will bring those risks within more reasonable limits.
They could put the actual risks with and without a helmet on their packaging... then you could immediately see the extra "safety" you're buying with MIPS.
I think we can work out why they don't do that... which is why the cost/benefit is mostly subjective and endlessly arguable. I'm not arguing about it, I'm pointing out that it's not evidence based.
--
Interesting that POC are in legal issues with that. Thinking about it I'm slightly surprised that something to quell the angular impact wasn't worked out before - now we know about it, it seems simple and obvious.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@philwig, I got as far as the Grand Prix racing figures and decided that the numbers (or definitions) were skewed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
@philwig, ...I agree; I like the figures. Smcflude points out that the assumptions always need to be examined, and that’s right too. The overall stats will be true in general, but actual risk of course depends on what a specific individual is doing. We (valaisgrom2) and I definitely do things which put us at risk, just like bobinch with his tiny-bobs. But it depends very much on developing in the groms a sense of high risk awareness. This is like climbing, where every action is risk assessed - that flake, that rock-alley, that abseil tat. You evaluate everything, separately, all the time. It’s a high risk sport that you make safe - overall stats not bad, inherent risk: off the scale. Falling doesn’t hurt you...hitting the ground does. Kids often have nasty accidents because they are doing enjoyable things like throwing stones in a canal, then do something risky like fall in, and only then realise that the sides of the canal are too high to allow them to climb out. This mindset issue is very important - switching from I’m having fun to oh that’s become dangerous often results in injury. Being constantly aware of risk in climbing, DH, XC, and skiing makes safer the inherently risky. When we are doing these things - valaisgrom2 weaving at high speed on single track between close-packed trees - I know that it would be safer sitting in the cinema. But it might not be safer than him mucking about with mates on a friend’s trampoline which has no safety netting.
I would say that some skiing is inherently high risk, but with precautions and constant safety awareness (something instilled in the groms from age 2) you can avoid being part of the wrong column on the stats tables.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
So........just to recap....
OP:
MIPS - is it worth it?
Overall SH response - black is white and white is black and black is black and white is white.
Is everyone clear now?
Where are the RandoChiens - someone should ask them.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| valais2 wrote: |
So........just to recap....
OP:
MIPS - is it worth it?
Overall SH response - black is white and white is black and black is black and white is white.
Is everyone clear now?
Where are the RandoChiens - someone should ask them..... |
Of course, we all discuss/bicker about black being white and so on. That’s the joy of snowHeads. Personally, I’d sum up this thread as follows:
Does it work?
We agree that rotational injuries pose a risk and the MIPS concept seems to make good sense but we have found no evidence to confirm or deny whether the MIPS works in practice (or in the lab).
Personally, I find it a little unusual (but not in a suspicious way) that neither MIPS themselves, nor the helmet sellers, do not present some form of evidence to back up the system. You’d think there would be pretty pictures and graphs slapped on all the marketing materials.
I did email MIPS last week asking them to send me their research papers that they mention on the website but have not yet had a response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| valais2 wrote: |
So........just to recap....
OP:
MIPS - is it worth it?
Overall SH response - black is white and white is black and black is black and white is white.
Is everyone clear now?
Where are the RandoChiens - someone should ask them..... |
Of course, we all discuss/bicker about black being white and so on. That’s the joy of snowHeads. Personally, I’d sum up this thread as follows:
Does it work?
We agree that rotational injuries pose a risk and the MIPS concept seems to make good sense but we have found no evidence to confirm or deny whether the MIPS works in practice (or in the lab).
Personally, I find it a little unusual (but not in a suspicious way) that neither MIPS themselves, nor the helmet sellers, do not present some form of evidence to back up the system. You’d think there would be pretty pictures and graphs slapped on all the marketing materials.
I did email MIPS last week asking them to send me their research papers that they mention on the website but have not yet had a response. |
good idea, I will try that also, maybe if enough people ask they will publish the research papers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Are MIPS helmets so much more expensive that the extra cost is an issue?
I've just bought the new Oakley cycling helmet that has MIPS. It's a smaller profile than my Kask and much smaller than my old Giro. MIPS wasn't a factor in me choosing it but I'm glad it has it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| bar shaker wrote: |
| Are MIPS helmets so much more expensive that the extra cost is an issue? |
Thin end of the wedge. I could invent something, produce some nice pictures and blurb to say it makes it better. And get all gear manufacturers to give me £10 to use it. They charge everyone an extra £20 for the end product and everyone's a winner. Who needs proof. It's how a lot of things work isn't it. It's like mens razors. How many blades are they up to now. How close can a shave be ffs. Not everybody is loaded though and if you are watching the pennies you tend to question these things more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
I did email MIPS last week asking them to send me their research papers that they mention on the website but have not yet had a response. |
These ones here? http://mipsprotection.com/r-d-papers/
If you click on the images it opens the papers as pdf...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| HandyHand wrote: |
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
I did email MIPS last week asking them to send me their research papers that they mention on the website but have not yet had a response. |
These ones here? http://mipsprotection.com/r-d-papers/
If you click on the images it opens the papers as pdf... |
No, not those. They are just papers that confirm that rotational brain injuries are not nice. What we wanted was something that helped to show that MIPS makes a difference in reducing this type of injury. Real world data is obviously almost impossible to come by, but presumably they have some sort of test rig stuffed with sensors. Let me stress that I’m not someone demanding this level of proof before shelling out an extra tenner for a helmet, it was more just an interesting discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
@foxtrotzulu +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@foxtrotzulu, ...actually I think it’s been an excellent discussion - anything which raises awareness of rotational brain injury is probably a good thing - I would like to see the papers too - like you I searched for them but unlike you did not think to email / good job.
I expect the randochiens simply to say ‘can we eat it?’ And if not they just won’t be interested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Layne wrote: |
| bar shaker wrote: |
| Are MIPS helmets so much more expensive that the extra cost is an issue? |
Thin end of the wedge. I could invent something, produce some nice pictures and blurb to say it makes it better. And get all gear manufacturers to give me £10 to use it. They charge everyone an extra £20 for the end product and everyone's a winner. Who needs proof. It's how a lot of things work isn't it. It's like mens razors. How many blades are they up to now. How close can a shave be ffs. Not everybody is loaded though and if you are watching the pennies you tend to question these things more. |
But to succeed, your invention will have to be taken seriously by all the gear manufacturers, especially the ones with a reputation to protect. I think you'll find it quite difficult to make a quick tenner out of them in reality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@foxtrotzulu, ...as I mentioned in earlier posts the testing standards are a point of concern - if developed properly then the standards and allied testing would give us some idea of the effectiveness of MIPS - but the development process seems to be regarded as proprietary too - which is an insufficiently transparent process perhaps. And are MIPs themselves careful enough of all the application in different styles and types of helmets? Some licence processes work to guarantee income, but not Work the other way in guaranteeing the operation of the thing in different licensed contexts. Markets by themselves are not perfect...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| valais2 wrote: |
| @foxtrotzulu, ...as I mentioned in earlier posts the testing standards are a point of concern - if developed properly then the standards and allied testing would give us some idea of the effectiveness of MIPS - but the development process seems to be regarded as proprietary too - which is an insufficiently transparent process perhaps. And are MIPs themselves careful enough of all the application in different styles and types of helmets? Some licence processes work to guarantee income, but not Work the other way in guaranteeing the operation of the thing in different licensed contexts. Markets by themselves are not perfect... |
I completely agree, although I would expect some sort of proof of concept even if there are question marks over licensing and applications.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
@foxtrotzulu, While I agree it would be nice to see some proof of the benefits in specific applications like snow sports and mountain biking, it's not actually going to make any difference to my choice of ski helmet and probably not yours either. Or are you going to go out of your way to avoid buying any helmet that happens to include MIPS (which is now most of the premium models) until you see such proof of concept?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| valais2 wrote: |
| @foxtrotzuluAnd are MIPs themselves careful enough of all the application in different styles and types of helmets? |
That is a good question and one of the reasons why I trust companies like POC to design it into their helmets properly with due diligence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
| HandyHand wrote: |
| foxtrotzulu wrote: |
I did email MIPS last week asking them to send me their research papers that they mention on the website but have not yet had a response. |
These ones here? http://mipsprotection.com/r-d-papers/
If you click on the images it opens the papers as pdf... |
No, not those. They are just papers that confirm that rotational brain injuries are not nice. What we wanted was something that helped to show that MIPS makes a difference in reducing this type of injury. Real world data is obviously almost impossible to come by, but presumably they have some sort of test rig stuffed with sensors. Let me stress that I’m not someone demanding this level of proof before shelling out an extra tenner for a helmet, it was more just an interesting discussion. |
There's a paper describing the test rig that would appear (from the abstract, haven't read the full text) to have some evidence of the efficacy of MIPS:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15389580309879?journalCode=gcpi20
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
think we caught him on a bad day
