Prototype helmet made with new Elium material can cut critical cycling injury rates by 12%, claim researchers
The outer shell is designed to absorb more energy so that around 40% less is absorbed by the foam underneath that’s in direct contact with your head, researchers say
Researchers have developed a composite cycling helmet “achieving enhanced safety” that they claim can cut critical injury rates by 12% compared to polycarbonate outer shells. This, the researchers say, is due to a new exterior made from Elium, an energy-absorbing thermoplastic resin reinforced with carbon fibre.
The new prototype helmet was developed by the French speciality materials company Arkema, in collaboration with researchers from Nanyang Technological University, Singapore (NTU Singapore). Elium has also been used on wind turbine blades, and Arkema claim it will "revolutionize the wind power, boat-building, hydrogen tank, and concrete reinforcement sectors" on its website. On the prototype cycling helmet, Elium replaces the conventional polycarbonate outer shell used in most helmets.
The idea is that the outer shell cracks on impact to dissipate energy across the entire surface of the helmet. The foam layer below then compresses and absorbs the bulk of the impact energy so that less is transferred to the head.
Speaking to The Engineer, Dr. Somen Bhudolia said: "When the helmet hits a surface at high speed, we noticed that there is a deformation along with the spread failure of the composite shell, which means the outer shell is taking more load and absorbing more energy."
"This is what you really want - the more impact absorbed by the shell, the less of it that reaches the foam, and so there is less overall impact to the head. We found that in existing polycarbonate helmets, about 75 per cent of the energy is absorbed by the foam. This is not ideal as the foam is in direct contact with the human head."
According to the researchers, the new Elium outer shell has been found to absorb over 50% of the impact energy in tests, leaving the foam to absorb the remaining 35% - that’s around 40% less compared to conventional helmets.
Testing also shown the impact of this energy absorption difference on the severity of the injury in the unfortunate event of a crash.
Conventional helmets showed a critical injury rate of 28.7% and a fatality rate of 6%, while the critical and fatal injury rates with the Elium helmet are reduced to 16.7% and 3% respectively, according to the test results.
“The detailed manufacturing and certification tests performed on the helmets have shown a significant potential of using carbon/Elium composite shells as a viable alternative to the conventionally used material systems for helmets in terms of achieving enhanced safety,” it was concluded in the research paper.
The researchers and Arkema are looking to set up a commercial manufacturing process so brands can produce the helmets, and say finished products will offer the same level of protection as the current best helmets on the market. Weight-wise, for reference the researchers say the outer shell of a conventional polycarbonate helmet weighs 116g with a total weight of 230g, while the Elium-infused lid is 155g for the shell and 265.2g total. Prices would likely range between $100-$150 (£72-£108 approx).
The findings by the team have been published in a paper titled ‘Development and impact characterization of acrylic thermoplastic composite bicycle helmet shell with improved safety and performance’, in the journal Composites Part B – you can find the full study here, and you can read more about Elium here.
Help us to fund our site
We’ve noticed you’re using an ad blocker. If you like road.cc, but you don’t like ads, please consider subscribing to the site to support us directly. As a subscriber you can read road.cc ad-free, from as little as £1.99.
If you don’t want to subscribe, please turn your ad blocker off. The revenue from adverts helps to fund our site.
If you’ve enjoyed this article, then please consider subscribing to road.cc from as little as £1.99. Our mission is to bring you all the news that’s relevant to you as a cyclist, independent reviews, impartial buying advice and more. Your subscription will help us to do more.
Anna has been hooked on bikes ever since her youthful beginnings at Hillingdon Cycle Circuit. As an avid road and track racer, she reached the heady heights of a ProCyclingStats profile before leaving for university. Having now completed an MA in Multimedia Journalism, she’s hoping to add some (more successful) results. Although her greatest wish is for the broader acceptance of wearing funky cycling socks over the top of leg warmers.
They should submit a helmet for testing to Virgina Tech and see what an independent tester thinks after they've tested it. I will no longer buy a helmet unless it a 5 star rating from Virgina Tech, I'm not going to trust the manufacture of a helmet to tell me their testing is validated their helmets because they will be bias which could put my pea brain at risk.
Somebody needs to learn the difference between percentage and percentage points. Reducing critical injury rates from 28.7% to 16.7% is actually a reduction of 41.8%.
Somebody needs to learn the difference between percentage and percentage points. Reducing critical injury rates from 28.7% to 16.7% is actually a reduction of 41.8%.
So, along with the TR&T 85%, that makes 126.8%; those helmets really are magic.
For those questioning my methodology and logic, you can say what you like, it's still better than TR&T's.
Somebody needs to learn the difference between percentage and percentage points. Reducing critical injury rates from 28.7% to 16.7% is actually a reduction of 41.8%.
Not sure you're right there, they are talking about the reduction in critical injury rate, not numbers: a reduction in the rate from 28.7% to 16.7% would indeed lead to a reduction in the numbers of persons suffering critical injury of 41.8%, it's still a reduction in the rate of critical injury of 12%. Two different things: if the tax rate was cut from 20% to 10%, that would be a reduction in the tax rate of 10%, but it would be a reduction in the amount of tax to be paid by 50%.
Somebody needs to learn the difference between percentage and percentage points. Reducing critical injury rates from 28.7% to 16.7% is actually a reduction of 41.8%.
Not sure you're right there, they are talking about the reduction in critical injury rate, not numbers: a reduction in the rate from 28.7% to 16.7% would indeed lead to a reduction in the numbers of persons suffering critical injury of 41.8%, it's still a reduction in the rate of critical injury of 12%. Two different things: if the tax rate was cut from 20% to 10%, that would be a reduction in the tax rate of 10%, but it would be a reduction in the amount of tax to be paid by 50%.
No, that tax reduction would be a reduction of 10 percentage points. It is pretty common for that to be abbreviated to 10% - but it is not correct. Similarly, the rate of criticial injury would be 12 percentage points.
So along with the 85% predicted by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson (bad scientists) an extra 12% means helmets are 97% effective; whooopee!
Meanwhile, back in the real world, people really interested in cyclist safety, not selling magic plastic hats, are working on things that actually makes it safer; segregated cycleways, getting drivers to look where they are going etc, etc.
Add new comment
13 comments
They should submit a helmet for testing to Virgina Tech and see what an independent tester thinks after they've tested it. I will no longer buy a helmet unless it a 5 star rating from Virgina Tech, I'm not going to trust the manufacture of a helmet to tell me their testing is validated their helmets because they will be bias which could put my pea brain at risk.
Somebody needs to learn the difference between percentage and percentage points. Reducing critical injury rates from 28.7% to 16.7% is actually a reduction of 41.8%.
So, along with the TR&T 85%, that makes 126.8%; those helmets really are magic.
For those questioning my methodology and logic, you can say what you like, it's still better than TR&T's.
Not sure you're right there, they are talking about the reduction in critical injury rate, not numbers: a reduction in the rate from 28.7% to 16.7% would indeed lead to a reduction in the numbers of persons suffering critical injury of 41.8%, it's still a reduction in the rate of critical injury of 12%. Two different things: if the tax rate was cut from 20% to 10%, that would be a reduction in the tax rate of 10%, but it would be a reduction in the amount of tax to be paid by 50%.
No, that tax reduction would be a reduction of 10 percentage points. It is pretty common for that to be abbreviated to 10% - but it is not correct. Similarly, the rate of criticial injury would be 12 percentage points.
(Edit - PS: I think so, anyway )
You know what, now I think about it you're completely right. Thank you, a learning point for me!
The tax rate would be reduced by 10%, but the tax reduction would be something else.
No, it would be reduced by 10 percentage points.
So along with the 85% predicted by Thompson, Rivara and Thompson (bad scientists) an extra 12% means helmets are 97% effective; whooopee!
Meanwhile, back in the real world, people really interested in cyclist safety, not selling magic plastic hats, are working on things that actually makes it safer; segregated cycleways, getting drivers to look where they are going etc, etc.
The only magic hat here is the invisible one on your head with a big countdown timer on it. You'll be just fine, until you aren't.
*reaches for tin hat*
Who's funding this research?
Is a tin hat better than a composite plastic hat?
sadly not! (=