Interestingly the results are a bit different to the other tests run last year… https://mediaarkivet.nu/Sites/A/Folksam+Mediaarkiv/5492?encoding=UTF-8
Looks like the non eventing Trauma Void Lynx came in at 10. I have one too.
I guess I need one of those $50 tuff riders ranked number 2. At least it won’t break the bank
Right. What I truly can’t understand is how the GPA Speed Air 2x went from being the most poorly rated helmet in the Folksam study (-24%), with one of the highest risks of concussion) to being in the top 10 of the VA Tech study. That is really odd.
9 Likes
Very interesting, my Trauma Void did ok, so I’m happy with that. I am about ready to start helmet shopping again, but I’m taking my time to find a really good fit as I have a very big head and helmets tend to perch on the top of my head.
My guess will be that sales on the Tuff Rider Carbon Fiber and the IRH Equi-Lite will have a substantial bump in sales! I do wish they looked a tad more traditional, but thats honestly not a big deal long-run.
1 Like
I posted this on the Eventing thread too:
I’ve mentioned this before, but I had similar, serious head-first falls in both a Samshield Miss Shield and a OneK Avance Wide Brim with MIPS. I got a fairly serious concussion in the Samshield, and was unscathed in the OneK (and the fall was serious enough to knock out my horse’s 2 front teeth). I’m so glad we have this study, but it’s definitely just a starting point. Personally, I’m sticking with my OneK, even if it ranks 37th.
12 Likes
I couldn’t see anything in their overview that explained how they selected the helmets they included. How did my helmet do? Don’t know, it’s not there…
I’ve ridden a Charles Owen JR8 forever because I’ve got a pretty small head and it fits great. Not sure how I should proceed.
1 Like
I would really, really like to hear someone with more expertise break down the differences in these studies and what would account for such drastically different results between the Folksam and VT testing results.
As a long oval-headed person, I’m sticking first and foremost with what fits my head. Maybe with a little more explanation and analysis, I’ll take the ratings into account when it comes time to replace the OneK Avance I’ve got, but I’m still not going to buy something that doesn’t fit my head.
6 Likes
Thats the MIPS version. There is a non MIPS version too.
If you do a google, there are some podcasts and articles that break down how and why they tested the way they did.
1 Like
Same.
It does seem odd to me that there is such a wide variation between helmets of the same brand, like Charles Owen. There are two of those in the top 10, but then also a couple of other models much further down the list, including one with just one star.
Wouldn’t you think the same manufacturer would produce all their different helmets pretty much to the same standard?
5 Likes
Took the words out of my mouth!
I would like to have more details from the study (I work in a statistics related field) so I found the findings nice for a summary, but pretty watered down, again a choice for large scale public consumption.
Admittedly, I am lazy and didn’t check last night, is there a full paper published / open code / analysis on Github or some other sharing source?
I would LOVE to see if they accounted for head shape, what all the parameters were, and what were all the nitty gritty components leveraged in their scoring methodology.
2 Likes
Here at least is the study protocol.
As someone who JUST (within the last 3 months) purchased two Tipperary Windsor helmets and have had a CO MyPS (switched out of the Ayr8) as a show helmet for 3+ years, I am bummed by the results. Here I am thinking I was making the best safety decision and turns out I wasn’t? I want to understand more, however, about their testing methodology and why MIPS doesn’t seem to have universally had any protective value, when plenty of studies on the MIPS system itself show a significant protective effect. I am now not sure what to do - go out and buy all new helmets based on one study, or take it with a grain of salt and stick with what we have. The other bummer is that there were only two 5 star helmets and neither belongs in the hunter/equitation ring. You could maybe get away with the Tuffrider in the jumpers, maybe, but it’s not going to pass in the H/E rings.
1 Like
I’ve said this a few times, but I stand by it.
If this study proves anything, it proves that more testing is needed. The Folksam study was smaller and the methodology was different, but that doesn’t dismiss the results. It’s just more data people should consider.
We need more independent testing. We need more transparency in testing by helmet manufacturers. We need to ask questions and make informed decisions. We also need helmets that fit. I don’t know that we all should rush out and by new helmets based on a single study until we have more information. Especially if current helmets fit. And, anecdotal evidence shouldn’t be dismissed entirely either.
So, my researcher brain suggest that people don’t panic and instead ask questions to all parties and ask more from our helmet manufacturers. We won’t ever get any transparency if we don’t ask.
30 Likes
It is my understanding that the reason it’s recommended to replace a helmet every 5 years is because the heat/cold cycle a helmet goes through yearly breakdowns the helmets materials ability to absorb a fall.
“ This setup allowed for linear and rotational motion to be generated during an impact and representative of the head, neck and torso of a 50th percentile male.” Male??? 
6 Likes
I would like to say also, don’t dismiss the data because it’s disappointing or doesn’t match what you’d like it to say.
I think we were all kind of expecting the MIPS helmets to be a slam dunk for safety. But it’s important to remember a few things;
-
the testing was for direct impact, which MIPS may not help much with, so the test may not be geared towards them.
-
MIPS tech may turn out to be a ‘nice to have’ and not a game changer; like how air vests were touted as the replacement to regular CC vests when they were first released. And that’s ok. Finding out what works and what doesn’t is important for the future of helmet safety.
-
the ATSM standard has been severely lacking for a long time now, and the testing needed to pass that bar was pretty low. I would not be surprised if helmet manufacturers step up their game after studies like this are released, because, well, how embarrassing. And because testing like this just hasn’t really been done before, helmet manufacturers didn’t really have anything to gauge their own product against, so they may have thought it was really good when it wasn’t.
12 Likes
That’s the standard crash test dummy.
1 Like
I totally agree with you. The differences in outcome between this and the Folksam and other studies simply indicate that different helmets perform differently against different measures. There is not a “best helmet,” but there may be a helmet that is best optimized to protect the head (of a certain shape/size) subjected to certain forces. I think these findings are interesting and I look forward to more discussion of/about them and, most importantly, to additional research on the topic that accounts for additional factors at play in protection from a fall.
9 Likes
I feel the best study is a tough one to do- take actual data from falls and outcome associated with helmets.
I have a low ranking helmet but it is one of the few that fits my head well so i will be keeping it until i learn more about how the study was done.
1 Like
As another person who just—on Black Friday—bought a helmet that ranked low I’m kind of bummed. I guess I should have had less trust in MIPS and not taken advantage of the sale.
I take some comfort in the fact that my OneK with MIPS fits my particular head well.
People always hope thar science is going to provide that definitive answer that doesn’t change over time, but that’s unfortunately not the way science tends to work.
1 Like
