It's interesting but ultimately of uncertain impact (pardon the pun) because there's no way to correlate the rating to some real world impact. For example, if I have a low or high speed crash, what is my probability of concussion or head trauma-related disability if I am wearing a 3 star versus 5 star helmet? Is higher rating always better or is some threshold good enough? Does fit matter (would a given helmet be 4 star on some head shapes and 5 star on others)? How much didn't hey fiddle with helmet fit vs just slap them on and make sure the chin strap was reasonably secure as is the prevailing method.

Two specific criticisms:
1) they seem to do more than one test per helmet. This seems like an understandable compromise between costs and testing scenarios. However, I would replace my helmet after any significant impact so might performance on tests 2+ on a given helmet swing the ratings? If so, that would be irrelevant since all I care about is the performance on the first impact. If a helmet completely falls apart on a crash but protects me noggin, it's job well done.
2) they are a respected and thorough group but it's not clear how well their series of tests covers the range of possible impacts, which could potentially bias the results.

Glad to see that the Ballista MIPS did so well. I have an older version of the Ballista (which is a great everyday helmet) and it's tempting to upgrade.

From the test methodology, available here: https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/...ce=1&isAllowed=y, it would seem that the test four models of one helmet per location, with new helmets used for each testing position, resulting in 24 versions of each helmet being tested.

Position sequencing was selected off of the most common helmet impact points that are not currently tested for.

Is it conclusive? Probably not. Will it impact my purchasing decision? Most certainly. I've had more concussions than I can count and I'm still dealing with the ramifications of my last two.

---

----------------------------------
Editor-in-Chief, Slowtwitch.com | Twitter

This part really caught my eye. I have had several friends who have clad their kids in the urban style helmets for the perceived increased safety of something looking more solid while making somewhat pointed barbs at my "flimsy/unsafe" racer type helmet . . . Turns out you really can't judge a book by its cover.

My initial thought is that it seems to independently validate MIPS, with the top 6 helmets being MIPS, and none lower than 3 stars.

That will influence my buying decisions, e.g. choosing the MIPS or MIPS-similar (there are some competing technologies based on a similar premise, I think).

I agree, but it just reaffirms what I know about impact dynamics. Intuition is not your friend, unless you do crash testing for a living. Even if you do, trusting you intuition is often risky.

But, often "looks solid" is another phrase for "transfers load very well."

Extensive? They only tested 30 models...... Bump that out to like 150-200 models and I'll pay attention.

24 x 30 = extensive

---

wovebike.com | Wove on instagram

You volunteering to fund it?

I'll be getting this helmet when I upgrade!

I’m not sure that’s correct, the article says, “All that data required 120 individual helmets, subjected to a cumulative 720 impacts.” and reading the methods they don’t explicitly say they used a new helmet for every test. Per my read, they had 4 of each model and did 6 impacts each on them.

Hello milesthedog and All,

Good article ....

Wish they did some TT helmets like my Giro Aerohead MIPS .... but Giro seems to be doing their homework so I feel pretty comfortable with it.

Here is more of the same ....

https://www.bloomberg.com/...-lack-latest-helmets

Urban-style helmets -- which have nearly solid covers with few vents -- and those that haven’t adopted the latest anti-concussion technology were more than twice as likely to result in injuries, researchers from Virginia Tech and the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found in a study released Tuesday.

“I’m of the opinion that the less you hit your head, the better,” said Steve Rowson, director of the Virginia Tech Helmet Lab and an associate professor of biomedical engineering and mechanics. “But when you do hit your head, you want to have the very best protection because you want to reduce the forces that the brain is experiencing.”

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/industry-news/2018/06/26/virginia-tech-and-iihs-collaborate-bike-helmet-ratings#.WzRHLNJKhEZ

Giro's Thom Parks, the brand's senior director of product safety, said he applauded Virginia Tech's effort.


"Virginia Tech's Cycling STAR rating is another tool that can help us understand the performance of our products and the potential for helmets to reduce risk of traumatic brain injuries, including concussions," Parks said. "The testing and ratings represent a single methodology based on Virginia Tech's point of view and their available resources for testing cycling helmets, and we believe the Cycling STAR ratings can be complimentary to the research and testing we do in the Dome as part of helmet creation at Giro.

"We applaud Virginia Tech for applying a STAR rating system to cycling helmets. We are also encouraged to see more research on cycling head protection, and to see our helmets perform well in the initial Virginia Tech tests. It is important to remember that every impact is a unique event. No rating system can prove if a specific helmet will or will not prevent, or even reduce the risk of concussion. This is why we encourage riders to choose a helmet that offers the most coverage that they're willing to wear, that is designed to the most relevant standards for the riding they do, and to inspect and replace their helmet regularly."

And some info on TT helmets:

https://helmets.org/chrono.htm


The tail of a chrono helmet is not an asset for anything but aero shape. It is long and provides a great place to snag your head in a fall, twisting your head and neck. We don't recommend chrono helmets for street or trail use. Here is an email that demonstrates why:

"I was recently in a crash trying to avoid another rider during a triathlon. It was a typical fall with the bike sliding out in front of me and I landed sliding on my elbow, butt and head. This is generally not the most serious kind of crash but my comments are related to the helmet I was wearing, one of the time trial 'aero' helmets which are being used a lot more by triathletes. On my helmet the shell extends 5-6 inches past the head. The rear aero extensions were held intact by the plastic shell covering the helmet but the downward force from the back of my head broke the inner styrofoam shell into several pieces; the back retention clamp broke off; and the rear strap connection which did not go completely through the helmet (i.e. connected only to the styrofoam part of the helmet) also pulled out. With only the front ends of the chin straps attached to it the helmet came off my head."

Note that using a helmet like that in traffic, where the first hit is likely to be on a car, having the helmet come off could mean hitting the pavement with a bare head. In a time trial there is normally only one really hard impact, on the road. So the tail is a hazard. Here is the Snell Foundation's warning label, required on any helmet meeting their B-90TT or B-95TT standards for time trial helmets:

"WARNING: THIS HELMET IS NOT INTENDED FOR RECREATIONAL USE. This special use helmet has been designed to provide an aerodynamic benefit through an aerodynamic tail which in a fall or crash may reduce its ability to provide adequate protection. In a fall or crash the aerodynamic tail may cause the helmet to be pushed out of position thereby exposing the head to serious and/or fatal injury. Similarly, in a fall or crash a rider may be exposed to a strangulation and/or choking hazard from the retention system. USE ONLY ON A CLOSED DESIGNATED COURSE IN CONNECTION WITH SANCTIONED TIME TRIALING ACTIVITIES OR COMPETITIVE EVENTS."

That should be a caution to anybody considering the use of a long tail time trial helmet.

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

So I currently live about two hours away from VT, raced on the tri team for another school in the area, have worked events with youth athletes, and due to all of this (plus being a nurse), I figured I'd reach out and ask the researchers a few questions.




Virginia Tech has pretty competitive triathlon and cycling teams, and I was wondering if you were planning on sharing the research with them/getting them involved? For draft legal races, helmets have to be CPSC certified (officials legitimately check for the sticker), but this isn't the case for some cycling races and pretty much any other non-draft legal triathlon.
With the Tour de France coming up, have you guys thought about looking at the breakdown of helmet brands and the percentage of how many riders use which brand? I'm not sure if there will be information on the specific models of helmets, but I know for sure that IronMan world championships in Kona goes through and provides information about this. Garneau and Specialized are popular helmet brands, but I know of some other ones, such as Rudy Project, Giro, and Kask, haven't been looked into. In addition to that, have you guys thought about testing the teardrop shaped aero style helmets? Those seem to be the helmet of choice in most triathlons, and for cyclists competing in time trial races. When I raced in college, our coach was able to get a few of those, and I personally never felt safe wearing them, which makes me wonder if they truly would stand up to your tests.



This is what she replied in response to my questions:


1. We have not been in contact with the VT cycling team directly, although that's a great idea and we certainly would like to at least share the research with them. Getting their feedback on helmets could also be very interesting and helpful. Thanks for the suggestion! I'd be curious to see how many people wear non-CPSC certified helmets in races.


2. We are very interested in analyzing a subset of Tour de France helmets, and actually are just finishing up testing some of these helmets for the ratings. My approach was to look at the top projected cyclists before the start of the Tour and see what helmets their team typically wears. I did not select any time trial helmets out of these, as we're trying to target as wide a population as we can, and the time-trial helmets are for more of a niche market. That being said, I'd be interested in testing a special subset of these helmets in the future!