- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
TECH NEWS
helmet impact testHow safe is your helmet? New study rates them, Bontrager Ballista MIPS comes out on top
How safe is this helmet? That’s probably the question most of you ask when buying a new helmet, beyond such factors as weight, ventilation, fit adjustment and style.
Now new research by Virginia Tech in the US sheds some interesting light on how helmets perform in a crash test.
- Cycling helmets — everything you need to know
It tested 30 adult sized helmets using an impact simulator designed to recreate the most common head-impact scenarios on the road, dropping helmets onto an angled anvil in six different locations and at two impact speeds. Sensors measured the acceleration and rotational velocity so it was able to predict the head injury risk.
The helmets were then ranked, from five stars for the best ability to reduced head and neck injury, down to two stars, the lowest ranking in this test.
And the results of the test show the Bontrager Ballista MIPs tops the list with five stars, followed by the Louis Garneau Raid MIPS, Bell Stratus MIPS and Specialized Chamonix MIPS also on five stars.
All scoring four stars were the Specialized Prevail II, Smith Optics Overtake, POC Octal, Giro Synthe and Scott Arx Plus MIPS.
Lower down the list there’s a cluster of urban helmets such as the Giro Sutton MIPS, Bern Brentwood, Kali City, Bontrager Electra and Nutcase Street.
Not fairing so well is the Bern Watts, bottom of the list with two stars. The Lazer Genesis doesn’t score much better.
You can view the full list here
Are you surprised by the results? An expensive helmet topping the list might be expected, but the much cheaper Specialized Chamonix helmet performing nearly as well is very interesting and indicates that a higher price tag doesn’t always result in a safer helmet.
Through the testing of 30 helmets the Virginia Tech researchers noticed trends. It says that road-style helmets performance better than rounded urban helmets, which is why the likes of the Ballista is at the top and the Bern urban helmet is towards the bottom.
It also reckons MIPS improves helmet performance in these tests. MIPS stands for Multi-Directional Impact Protection System. A MIPS helmet is claimed to offer additional protection against rotational forces in a crash, by allowing two layers of the helmet to move independently. It's increasingly common in top-end helmets.
- 8 of the best cheap cycling helmets — decent lids that don't cost a fortune
The organisation has spent the last few years testing various sporting equipment for safety, from football to hockey helmets. For this cycle helmet test it was supported by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, who lent expertise in analysing common crashes, as well as providing financial support.
It’s the first such comparative test that we can recall seeing here at road.cc that attempts to rate helmets by the level of protection they offer. Helmets have to be tested before they go on sale, but's very much a pass or fail thing, there's no indication whether a £200 helmet is better in a crash than a £20 helmet, or how two £100 helmets compare to each other for example.
In the European Union, helmets must meet the EN 1078 standard, which calls for a deceleration of no more than 250g to be transmitted to the head in an impact at 5.42-5.52 m/s (a little over 12 mph). The standard involves impacts on a flat surface and a kerbstone.
In the US a Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) standard applies. The two are roughly equivalent in terms of impact absorption.
- When should I replace my bike helmet?
“But which helmets are most effective? Until now, there hasn’t been a systematic way for consumers to know. Every bike helmet on the market is required to meet a standard related to the impact threshold for exceptionally severe head injuries, like skull fractures.
But that standard is pass-fail, and didn’t help cyclists discriminate between hundreds of passing helmets; it also didn’t assess helmet performance during less-severe impacts, which are far more common and can still result in concussions and other injuries,” explains Virginia Tech.
“In cycling, we saw an opportunity to reach a broad cross-section of the public and bring a new level of safety to an activity with a wide range of other benefits. We also hope manufacturers will use the information to make improvements,” said Steve Rowson, an associate professor of biomedical engineering and mechanics in the College of Engineering and the helmet lab’s director.
It’s interesting research and sheds clear light on how helmet tests are lacking. I'd like to see a Euro NCAP-style test for helmets with much more transparency about the results so the consumer can make a much more informed choice.
The research team says it’s planning to test more helmets so we'll keep an eye out for those results.
Will these findings influence your next helmet purchasing decision?
David worked on the road.cc tech team from 2012-2020. Previously he was editor of Bikemagic.com and before that staff writer at RCUK. He's a seasoned cyclist of all disciplines, from road to mountain biking, touring to cyclo-cross, he only wishes he had time to ride them all. He's mildly competitive, though he'll never admit it, and is a frequent road racer but is too lazy to do really well. He currently resides in the Cotswolds, and you can now find him over on his own YouTube channel David Arthur - Just Ride Bikes.
Latest Comments
- Bmblbzzz 3 hours 49 min ago
First I've heard of that. Goes off to investigate...
- chrisonabike 4 hours 3 min ago
Yeah, they've got history there.
- chrisonabike 4 hours 7 min ago
I'm confident you won't regret it! Although I'm passing judgement in some ignorance (being rather a social media hermit barring this site)....
- David9694 4 hours 49 min ago
For real?
- mattw 4 hours 52 min ago
Nothing suitabel innthe range at my small local Halfords. Next stop JE James in Chesterfield, or a larger Halfords.
- mctrials23 5 hours 3 min ago
Extra shit points for doing it when there was zero traffic coming on the other side of the road.
- chrisonabike 5 hours 36 min ago
I always wondered why they had PSI ops units* ... clearly it's to exert pressure on the popular imagination....
- Rendel Harris 6 hours 16 min ago
I don't actually agree with de Vlaeminck's comments, let's wait until the end of a career to see where people are, Pogacar isn't that far off in...
- belugabob 6 hours 35 min ago
“Unfortunately budgetary constraints mean that the previously envisaged cycle lanes cannot be included within this initial phase of this Victoria...
Add new comment
93 comments
BTB is simply myopic. Can't see beyond the end of his own dissertation.
Thank you for that, I hadn't seen the excellent critique of Rodgers' paper. Still, it's a model of accuracy compared to the "research" done by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson, which basically started the helmet hysteria and was used to justify laws in Australia and New Zealand.
Have you considered moderating your language? Calling people liars because they disagree with you is hardly likely to win many friends, or arguments.
Rodgers' paper is essentially worthless. The data is ancient and the methodology so poor that any findings have no value whatsoever.
I call you a liar because you consistently repeat statements that you know are untrue.
You claim that there was no correlation between rising helmet use and declining KSIs in the UK.
That is demonstrably untrue yet you repeat the claim ad nauseum.
In Hi-Viz 'cause that gives me a reason to wear one (the chance of a crash on any one trip being minute). I realise that wearing a lid makes me feel safer, and that proabably means I am less risk averse......
In any event I am sure my airbag is much more effective, but frequently I wear neither of these.
From your first linked article
Why aren't you trying to get drivers to stop running over cyclists instead of using statistics (I have heard that statistics can be manipulated and distorted to support both argiments) to try and support your position?
A second quote from your debate ending article.
Did these people die from head injuries? (I'll give you a clue: the article doesn't say.
I stopped wasting my time after that point.
Here's a fact: In fortyfive years, and many kms of riding, a helmet has not once saved my life.
I have a broken thumb from an MTB accident; the helmet did fuck all.
I have various scars on my legs from MTBing accidents; the helmet did fuck all.
So there's two cycling accidents to throw in those bullshit statistics.
I think I'll excercise my right to making up my own mind rather than being patronised.
It's funny, but most of the things I enjoy doing require some sort of head protection and I therefore have a collection of brain buckets for kayaking, cycling, rock climbing, snowboarding and motorcycling.
In EVERY case, I know that the helmet won't protect me from every concievable incident and can, in fact, introduce some other risks - e.g. strangulation if the helmet gets stuck - but, on a few occasions, I have been very glad I've been wearing one and will therefore continue to do so.
Wearing a helmet would have prevented me ending up in minor injuries with a fin cut in my head while surfing. That's one sport where helmet wearing really is in the minority, despite the obvious risks.
I could really have done with one last weekend when I got hit on the head with a garden tool - fortunately by the plastic handle and not by the pointy steel business end!
I made the mistake of watching football last night. Didn't wear a lid and fuck me my head hurts this morning. Wear a lid.
I made the mistake of watching football last night. Didn't wear a lid and fuck me my head hurts this morning. Wear a lid.
Once. Not twice. Drink sambuka once also.
Stupid double posting shite internet crap!
Self criticism can be invaluable at times.
Indeed, it shows a level of self awareness, something lacking in these parts.
No foul play can be called on my part though, my suspisions were raised when someone quoted me and was full of praise.
Yawn, unless there is a prize for the 100th post in the thread I'm not interested. No minds will be changed on these threads.
Almost certainly. But....
as someone who only wears one occasionally (I'll spare you the details of why), seeing more varied tests being done is a good thing. Hopefully ratings like these should help buyers and prompt the industry to up its game. I also hope that, as several MIPS lids have scored well, perhaps it means that we can eventually decide whether MIPS is more than merely product hype.
On the other hand, I sincerely hope it does not fuel the drive for compulsion by legislators, who have no interest in our safety, only restricting our liberty.
I am very much enjoying hawkinspeter's new squirrel pictures.
They bring great relevance to these debates.
I don't see that as a representative test either, as mentioned above, one is going to have a different trajectory to the head in the video, and I'm NOT sure that in such an accident a helmet would be beneficial. Even plod say that you are going to be skidding along the floor leaving lumps of scalp, so I really don't know who to believe, it seems inconclusive either way.
EDIT: There should have been a NOT in there somewhere. Feel free to remove the likes. Sorry for the confusion (must've been a, etc, etc...).
Oh my, a sensible, well-balanced view on a bicycle helmet thread!
I can only my best judgement to extrapolate from these slow speed tests that helmets are most likely beneficial if you fall over and bump your head in a low-speed crash (probably not involving another vehicle/object). This, I believe, is probably applicable to the sorts of bumps that "casual" cyclists are involved in - a couple of my friends/family who are casual cyclists have done something similar.
In contrast, I think the type of crash I'm concerned about - high-speed collisions with things (i.e. a car pulling in front of me whilst I'm cycling around 30mph), a helmet is going to do little more than stop my head scraping along the ground. So it will potentially stop grazes etc, but it wont prevent the catastrophic damage sustained in a high speed crash (as we can tell from the cause of some pro cyclists' deaths in collisions).
All in all, as don simon says, it seems inconclusive.
To be fair to the researchers, looking at the test methodolgoy they have deliberately tried to formulate the impact angles and speeds to be in representative ranges of what they, and others, have found from analysis of real-world incidents and crash data, as well as helmet damage reconstruction experiments. It might well be that that analysis could be flawed, but it seems to be from a number of sources and may not be too far from reality - i'm not qualified to know or not, but it is mentioned in their text and citations, e.g.
I certainly agree with you in that i'd like to see far more testing for higher speeds impacts - and that's where things are heading far more firmly into injury mitigation rather than prevention - but this is at least more data and that's hopefully a good thing.
PS. canyon48 - the reply you quoted was the one with the missing "NOT", don't know if that was relevant.
I left my bike whilst travelling at 40mph, broke leg on crash barrier and shoulder, clavicle et al rearranged by a roadside metal pole (for snow depth) as was my helmet. Minor concussion suggests the helmet at least helped.
This test will probably do little to change the views of the pro/anti types but if you're buying then surely the more info the better.
Damn, that sounds nasty, worryingly that could've been a hell of a lot worst.
And yeah, agreed more info = better.
A weird one; too fast, brakes the wrong way round, ran out of talent, diabetes and piss poor blood sugars the night before.
Even the collision. I didn't think i lost conciousness but the video suggests I may have. Tried to get up and ride, French people told me not to. The crash barrier was running out and i decided hitting it beat seeing what was over the side, wasn't expecting the snow pole though! And still weirdly, smashed shoulder and leg, and not another mark on me, no skidding (leave it) just hit 2 things bloody hard!
Have the smashed helmet pics that suggest it probably helped, I know some will say it increased my circumference and my head may not have hit it. Either way, given the outcomes i'm more than grateful for it. And, i commute without a helmet, do quick rides with one...
The debate is relatively pointless, the propoganda damaging.
An interesting test, but it does not reflect realistic circumstances in a real life collision e.g. no forward motion. There have been similar laboratory tests for thirty years all of which show that helmets protect to some degree, but the death rate of cyclists does not fall as helmet wearing rates increase, so the tests must be irrelevant. These tests might be demonstrating the possibility that the helmet makes you safer, but they have not demonstrated that they do actually make you safer.
If laboratory tests show one thing, but the real life results are completely different, which one is right?
We've been over this Burt.
In the UK the death rate for cyclists fell as the helmet wearing rate rose.
Why keep posting something which has been shown to be false?
.
Squirrel_popcorn.jpg
Because there is much more reliable evidence which shows the opposite.
That may or may not be true.
It doesn't change the fact that your original statement is demonstrably false.
You know this yet you keep reposting it.
If the evidence you've got is so good why post lies?
Because it isn't a lie? All the long term, large scale, scientific, reliable studies show at best no benefit from mass helmet wearing, and the biggest ever study found an increase in risk with helmet wearing. I'll be waiting for the apology for calling me a liar.
Your statement which I highlighted was false.
You knew it was false.
You made a statement that you knew was false.
Pretty much the dictionary definition of a lie.
Sorry, I'm not continuing this nonsense any further. As Thomas Paine said “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead.”
Posts a lie.
Can't back it up.
Standard Burt.
Pages