Wavecel Vs MIPS Vs Koroyd

joey54321

With this new wave of materials being employed in helmets is it about time we have stricter standards on safety for helmets ?

I don't want this to degenerate into a helmet vs no helmet debate, but if one chooses to wear a helmet it would be comforting to know it was a safer one.

wongataa

It would be good but higher safety standards would most likely make helmets larger and heavier. You could wear a motorcycle helmet on your bike and you would have much better protection but the trade off is that it would be hot and uncomfortable.

kingrollo

I read a while back that there is no industry incentive to push for helmets that give more protection. The reason being is that the manufacturers wouldn't be able advertise as such for fear of claims if someone got injured wearing one.

kingstongraham

If there were stricter safety standards developed now, I'd guess no helmet on the market would pass them.

I think it helps to understand what a helmet is and isn't going to protect you against, and then to do everything you can to avoid crashing.

joey54321

wongataa wrote:

It would be good but higher safety standards would most likely make helmets larger and heavier. You could wear a motorcycle helmet on your bike and you would have much better protection but the trade off is that it would be hot and uncomfortable.

I think all of the title material companies would argue that they make helmets safer without significantly increasing weight or bulk.

KingstonGraham wrote:

If there were stricter safety standards developed now, I'd guess no helmet on the market would pass them.

I think it helps to understand what a helmet is and isn't going to protect you against, and then to do everything you can to avoid crashing.

Depends how strict you make them. The above companies make claims that they are xxx times more likely to reduce concussion. Should this now become the minimum standard to get certified as a bike helmet?

kingrollo wrote:

I read a while back that there is no industry incentive to push for helmets that give more protection. The reason being is that the manufacturers wouldn't be able advertise as such for fear of claims if someone got injured wearing one.

No, I see no reason why the industry would push for it particularly unless they can leverage a competitive advantage. At the moment they can use something like Mips or Wavecel, claim a large % increase in safety compared to a helmet that just meets the minimum and make money from that. I think the push needs to come from governing bodies, etc... to make that the new legal minimum standards for all helmets to meet.

pwinters

joey54321 wrote:

With this new wave of materials being employed in helmets is it about time we have stricter standards on safety for helmets ?

I don't want this to degenerate into a helmet vs no helmet debate, but if one chooses to wear a helmet it would be comforting to know it was a safer one.

That's basically all you need to know: https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicycle- ... tings.html

joey54321

pwinters wrote:

joey54321 wrote:

With this new wave of materials being employed in helmets is it about time we have stricter standards on safety for helmets ?

I don't want this to degenerate into a helmet vs no helmet debate, but if one chooses to wear a helmet it would be comforting to know it was a safer one.

That's basically all you need to know: https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicycle- ... tings.html

Awesome resource, thanks

lakesluddite

The problem with making the standards stricter is that you would effectively price people out of participating in cycling. All the above mentioned innovations come with a premium cost attached, and all other so called 'inferior' helmets would be worthless if they fall below a new, higher standard.
I suspect there are quite a few people out there who would not cycle without a helmet, and so if they are prohibitively expensive (relatively speaking), then they just wouldn't bother cycling.

w00dster

I thought they were already standards in place.
From what I can see, Wavecell, MIPS and Koroyd are different products achieving those standards. I don't think the standards makers should be stating what materials or how those materials can be used to achieve a common aim.
The consumer should be given the option, buy a helmet without any additional protection, but meets the standard - this comes in at X price, or buy a helmet with additional protection coming in at x price more.

We should accept that Wavecell, MIPS and the like, are an aid only. There is no guarantee of any difference, but testing has shown an improvement over helmets without these products.

andyh01

The problem with dual pricing safety equipment is the emotional heart strings... If only they wore the £50 more expensive and therefore "better" helmet they wouldn't be X..

I guess before you can say one type of helmet system to help reduce risk of rotational /de acceleration of brain against skull, you'd first have to agree on standard of where the impact is from and then perhaps one could say if rider is hit in X direction and hits head in y direct then in that case z helmet is more likely to help, if otoh hit from another direction and hit head in another direction then another helmet be better.

I read reletively recently with interest the article which I think 2as on this forum and others about iirc Bontage who claimed their system was x% better then competition, however , when independence tested they couldn't duplicate their results.

More recently theirs the Specialized helmet court case where they're being sued by claiment injured riding whilst wearing their helmet. This could indeed set an interesting precedent.

I would be tempted to buy into helmet upgrade once the evidence conclusively supports manufacturers claims that A helmets do work B X type is better than Y type. Regardless I would still continue to ride as though I'm not wearing a lid. The issue however is other road users perception of oh they've got a lid on be alright if I squeeze by as they've got helmet n be safe if 8 knock them off. Education and attitude and behaviour.

I mean who does actually replace their helmets every few years or so as recommended by the manufacturer

joey54321

AndyH01 wrote:

I mean who does actually replace their helmets every few years or so as recommended by the manufacturer

I do, road every 3 weeks and cross/commuter every 2 years as it takes a little more abuse and is used more. After any big crash I'll also replace the helmet.