Slashdot Mirror
Science and Bicycling Meet In a New Helmet Design (arstechnica.com)
John Timmer from Ars Technica got a chance to take a look at Trek's new bicycle helmet that they claim offers "the first major change in helmet technology in years," and is backed up with peer-reviewed science. Here's an excerpt from Timmer's report: WaveCel is the product of orthopedic surgeon Steve Madey and a biomedical engineer named Michael Bottlang. The two had been working on a variety of ideas related to medical issues and protective gear, funded in part by federal grant money. When considering the idea of a lightweight material that could evenly distribute forces, Bottlang told Ars that they first focused on a honeycomb pattern. But they found that it was actually too robust -- the honeycomb wouldn't collapse until a lot of force had been applied, and then it would fail suddenly.
The design they eventually developed has a shape that allows flexing almost immediately when force is applied. "It starts to glide right away," Bottlang said. The manufacturing technique creates a clear point of failure that allows more extensive flexing once a certain level of force is exceeded -- part of the structure will fold over rather than experiencing a complete failure. Then, once folded, the polymer it's made of will allow neighboring cells to glide over each other. This provides some resistance even after the structure has collapsed. For the helmet, a patch of this material is attached to the inside of a more traditional EPS helmet, which provides impact resistance. But the WaveCel mesh is allowed to float within the helmet and can absorb much of the force of off-axis impacts. The thin strips of soft material that cushion the helmet where it rests on the head (also found in more traditional helmets) are attached directly to the WaveCel mesh.
It looks more uncomfortable than it is. Madey, the orthopedic surgeon, said they've done tests that show that, even if placed directly on the skin, the WaveCel mesh wouldn't break the skin under most impact forces. How does their new helmet work? According to a paper authored by Bottlang and Madey, helmets including the material reduced rotational acceleration from impacts by 73 percent compared to a normal helmet. A slip pad within a normal helmet (MIPS) only dropped acceleration by 22 percent, which seems like a substantial difference.
The design they eventually developed has a shape that allows flexing almost immediately when force is applied. "It starts to glide right away," Bottlang said. The manufacturing technique creates a clear point of failure that allows more extensive flexing once a certain level of force is exceeded -- part of the structure will fold over rather than experiencing a complete failure. Then, once folded, the polymer it's made of will allow neighboring cells to glide over each other. This provides some resistance even after the structure has collapsed. For the helmet, a patch of this material is attached to the inside of a more traditional EPS helmet, which provides impact resistance. But the WaveCel mesh is allowed to float within the helmet and can absorb much of the force of off-axis impacts. The thin strips of soft material that cushion the helmet where it rests on the head (also found in more traditional helmets) are attached directly to the WaveCel mesh.
It looks more uncomfortable than it is. Madey, the orthopedic surgeon, said they've done tests that show that, even if placed directly on the skin, the WaveCel mesh wouldn't break the skin under most impact forces. How does their new helmet work? According to a paper authored by Bottlang and Madey, helmets including the material reduced rotational acceleration from impacts by 73 percent compared to a normal helmet. A slip pad within a normal helmet (MIPS) only dropped acceleration by 22 percent, which seems like a substantial difference.
The helmet sounds interesting, but the testing apparatus (image from the study) in the linked study is really damned cool. I wish we could get something like that at the office, because it looks like it could one hell of an inverted choke-slam to those in need of such.
It should be noted that MIPS (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-directional_Impact_Protection_System) was only introduced to bike helmets pretty recently. The vast majority of helmets out there - and the majority of helmets on sale today - don't have MIPS. It tends to only be in high-end helmets, or is an additional cost over the non-MIPS version of the same helmet.
Mentioned by some of the commenters, looks safer to me.
https://youtu.be/61Kb53DCeEc?t...
What were they using before when they designed bicycle helmets? Astrology? Homeopathy? Republicanism?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This helmet is worth a close look.
For the last 40+ years, bike helmets have been designed to protect the contents of the head from a single direct impact, They are the best protection for the occasional crash when the cyclist is thrown over the handlebars such that he drops head first onto the pavement from a height of 5 to 6 feet, or less. That kind of crash doesn't happen very often.
Most crashes involve significant shear forces as well as direct impacts. Also most crashes involving other vehicles are a very fast sequence of bounces where each bounce is a complex of impact and shear forces. Foam helmets offer no protection with shearing and often no protection after the first impact.
This helmet's design offers more protection against multiple direct impacts and shear forces.
Shouldn't there be helmets for car drivers and passengers? Brain injuries are the most serious car crash injuries. And those brains are more valuable too, because you know, unlike cyclists, these people can afford cars. I say we make helmets mandatory in cars. All professional racers wear helmets already.
Here in Sweden we have airbag deployable helmets, you wear them like a collar over your shoulders, and should you fall off the airbag will deploy. The only issue then is that once used in an accident, you will need to buy a new one, but they are less cumbersome than a helmet, and so often preferred by city cyclists.
Well, there are a few standards. Here's a link
Note that in most crashes, the cyclist, if they strike their head on the ground, will have an impact consistent with a drop of 5 to 6 feet. The cyclist may be going 20 mph, but their head is still likely to receive the same force as just dropping at 0 mph (since there's horizontal velocity (their speed)) and vertical velocity (force of gravity).
Now motorcycle helmets have a similar standard for an impact test (DOT, Snell, and ECE). Again, because despite your velocity in the horizontal plane, it's the same force of gravity. Motorcycle helmet standards tend to have a few other tests as well (such as making sure the visor doesn't crack if a rock hits it at 55 mph), but there's only so much that can be prevented by a helmet.
Now there are tradeoffs - you can make a helmet that's stiffer, or that survives multiple impacts better, but that tends to come at the cost of how much energy it can absorb in one impact. Snell faced accusations of this in one of their previous motorcycle helmet standards (either M2005 or M2010) - the helmet was more durable, but at the potential cost of more G-forces transmitted to the brain.
Nothing in the above should be interpreted as me being anti-helmet - I always wear bicycle helmets, as well as full face, either Snell or ECE rated, motorcycle helmets.
I wear a motorcycle helmet when riding.
However, do very many people at all wear a helmet for bicycling?
I've never worn one, and while I do see the occasional bicycle rider around here with a helmet, I don't see many of them at all.
So, I'm wondering is there much of a market for bicycle helmets? Do more people wear bicycle helmets in different parts of the US than others?
I honestly ask because I hardly see anyone wear them, maybe a few kids, but not even all of them....there were really no such things when I was growing up as a kid.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Anytime I'm out on my bicycle, I've got my helmet on. Why? From that time when I was a kid and one of my friends died from having his skull cracked open crashing into a curb at low speed.
Once you've seen someone's brains on the ground as a result of a bicycle accident, you'll wear the damn helmet.
I also ride motorcycles, and I wear a helmet almost every time I ride my bicycle; I also wear a helmet when skiing. Around me (Mid Atlantic US) I'd say half or more of adults wear them, although with bikeshare that may be less since basically no one uses them on the shared bikes. I have known enough people hit by cars, concussed or (a friend of friends) killed when his his head hit a curb falling at fairly low speed that I don't even consider not wearing one unless I'm doing a short bikeshare hop. I also recently saw close up what a TBI can do when a good friend hit his head after falling in a parking lot (probable heart attack, not a bike accident) - over a year of rehab, 2 years to return to work, and he was lucky since at one point we thought he might never recover.
They are cheap and easy and the potential downside is so bad, why not?
No, the purpose of the post in question was to make a xenophobic remark. No one needs it pointed out to them that bicycle helmets don't help when "gross damage to internal organs" occurs nor are helmets intended to address that.
Yes, many wear helmets and there's a large market for them. Helmet adoption is near universal within the cycling community itself so if you aren't seeing it then you aren't around cyclists.
It's clear you know nothing about bicycle helmets starting with your complete lack of awareness of how many different kinds there are. It would appear you are commenting on road racing helmets, through you know nothing about those either.
I ride mountain bikes, and EVERYONE wears one. If we see someone without a helmet we stop them and tell them to go get one from the ranger station.
I have discussed with friends a variety of these these issues as they relate to motorcycle helmets - it's a shame that there are not more detailed studies into the real world effects. I always wear a helmet on a motorcycle, and 99% of the time on a bicycle; on the motorcycle especially, I'd like more confidence that the helmet is designed for the most likely impacts. In truth most of the time my choice comes down to fit and (lack of) wind noise.
I have tried to see if I could get a testing organization to test an older helmet of mine to try to settle an argument, but I got no response. I have a feeling that a 10 year old helmet will still be about as effective as when new, but I have friends who disagree.
I always wear one mountain biking, usually wear one on the street. I have a friend who lost most of the hearing in one ear when he hit his head in a bicycle accident, I'm sure he wishes he'd been wearing one then.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
Well, anyone I see on a bicycle I guess I consider a 'cyclist'.....and around my city, which is seeing more and more bicycles on the road (they're even making lanes for them on the streets), you just don't see many people wearing a helmet.
Just going with what I observe....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Preface: I'm pro-helmet. I race bikes, and I pretty much always wear a helmet when I go out.
That said, I find the claims that these guys make about the concussion-protection factor of their helmet pretty dubious. To the point: you don't need to hit your head to end up with a concussion. Falling off your bike and never striking your head can STILL give you a concussion. To make claims about how good the concussion-prevention design of this helmet is may border on misleading or negligent.
But it looks like it might be more comfortable and provide better protection in some categories of crashes, so I'm not going to criticise them too much.
Every time I get in a bike where I'm going to be riding the city or the woods I wear a helmet and I cannot remember the last time I saw a knowledgeable cyclist not wearing a helmet. When I'm on a flat pedestrian paved bike trail I often forgo the helmet however. The serious cyclists always wear a helmet because they are training and removing the helmet would alter the times.
It looks like, at least for bicycle helmets, there is no significant degradation over time.
OTOH, standards can improve. Motorcycle helmets seem to do better than bike helmets for standards being changed over time.