POC_Mips_NSMB_KazYamamura-4.jpg?w=1600
Risk Series #3

Is a MIPS Equipped Helmet Really Necessary?

Words AJ Barlas
Photos Title Image: Kaz Yamamura. Otherwise As Credited
Date Mar 13, 2019

I vividly remember the classic Stackhat my parents made my sister and me wear as kids. At the time, it was thought that helmets should be capable of withstanding multiple impacts. As a result, lids like the Stackhat — considered a historical cycling item in Australia — were nearly indestructible thanks to the strong and thick ABS shell. Inside the helmet was a dense polystyrene foam and a liner.

Since then, aesthetics changed but so did the understanding of what happens when heads hit the ground. While the Stackhat was close to bombproof — I recall my sister and I at times bouncing them like balls off the pavement — they rattled your head inside the hard shell. Now helmets are designed to break and absorb energy from the impact. But since this change, not much happened aside from trying to make them lighter, more aerodynamic or provide more airflow.


This is a multi-part series about some of the big and scary parts of our sport. Our Risk series is made possible in part by support from Your Financial Tree, who provide insurance to athletes - professional and amateur - and enable them to take risks with a little more peace of mind. The 1st article, Risk, Calamity and Injury can be found here... #2 Pro Riders talk Injury and Recovery is here...




Stackhat Helmet

The Australian Stackhat helmet was iconic in the 80's. It was well ahead of its time in terms of coverage! In the 90's it disappeared. Image: Wikimedia


Helmets were tested with this in mind until 2007 by organizations like CE, Snell, and ANSI. Then MIPS came along with their revolutionary slip-plane technology. POC was the first MTB helmet manufacturer to adopt the concept and since then almost every major helmet company has used it. That's unless an independent technology has been developed. Think Leatt with their Turbine system or Kali with their Low-Density Layer. POC have their own Spin system now as well.

But what if MIPS isn't all that it’s cracked up to be? With profits soaring over the last four years — MIPS' revenue for the 12 months ending September 30, 2017, amounted to $14 million and sales were up 45% — it seems we’ve all jumped in feet first. Brands and consumers alike believe in a helmet that is fitted with the thin yellow layer. And why not? Outside of MIPS' own research, a number of independent studies have somewhat supported the technology. A study funded by the U.S. Insurance Industry found that the four best performing helmets* — each meeting the new standard — included MIPS. The top-rated helmet without MIPS was the Specialized Prevail II road cycling helmet. While it may not feature MIPS, it does have a patented multi-density EPS construction that helps manage impact energy.

*A look at the standards website shows more helmets have since been tested. Now ten helmets, each with MIPS, score top marks from the independent tests.

So what do the folks testing and informing the organizations who set the standards think? Turns out not much, at least for Snell. In a report shared with the ASTM, their test results showed "no performance advantage” to the MIPS slip-plane technology. The Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (BHSI), a helmet advocacy program, reports that tests were performed using the same model Specialized helmet, one with MIPS, and one without. Snell carried out their tests using a linear impactor and offset (oblique) impacts. A 5kg guided impactor was dropped onto a "helmeted Hybrid III headform and neck.”

The impactor was guided to achieve an "oblique transmission of energy" to the sides of the helmet. Flat and hemispherical impactors were used and both linear and rotational acceleration was recorded. Snell noted that the MIPS layer activated and moved. Each location of each helmet was hit twice and helmet straps were tight. They chose the locations based on a Harborview study of the most likely impact locations on bicycle helmets. Snell even claims that with some impacts the non-MIPS helmet outperformed the MIPS helmet. They are yet to share the research in full so I can't comment on which ones at this time.

Helmet impact locations and ratio

Frontal impacts around the edge of the helmet are by far the area most commonly hit. The mid-section of the sides are also prominent. The BHSI claim impacts to the left or right side are equal.

Obviously, MIPS disagrees with Snell’s findings. They point out that the testing methods performed by Snell, which differs from those conducted by MIPS, showed similar results in their experience. This is where it gets quite sticky. MIPS and some independent tests, like seen in the video above, use a different test altogether. Their tests are performed with vertical drops onto a slanted anvil. Not the linear impacts used by Snell. MIPS testing also uses an unrestrained moving headform that includes a sticky rubber covering and no neck. This headform is dropped onto the roughly 45-degree slanted anvil with the straps tight and an inflexible jaw. According to the Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute (BHSI) — a 100% consumer-funded group that represents consumers at ASTM meetings and endeavours to better inform the public about helmet safety — a helmet with a normal scalp under it will move anyway.

Having two different test methods is certainly adding to the confusion. Peter Halldin of MIPS has said to Snell representative, Bill Muzzy, that he's open to helping out in order to design a better test that mimics a bicycle crash. It appears for MIPS, the use of a different headform and dropping it on a slanted anvil, rather than impacting it at angles, provides a more accurate depiction of the forces encountered in a bike accident. Halldin noted that the tangential forces, in his experience, are dominant in cycling accidents and the MIPS testing method provides greater data for these forces.

Sources I've spoken with have also mentioned that the test headforms need to be updated, regardless of which of the above tests is being used. Better yet, they claim these updated headforms are already starting to be created. These headforms are said to include skin and hair, which I’m told has a large influence on what happens during impact. Similar thoughts are also mentioned in the BSHI reports on slip-plane technology findings.


We do have scientific evidence that a helmet with a low friction layer will make a difference in a test including a tangential force. So, as I told Bill Muzzy at the ASTM meeting I am willing to help out to design the test to mimic a realistic bike accident. – Peter Halldin, MIPS CTO
Leatt 360 Turbines

Leatt's 360 Turbine technology uses a similar principle. Does it face the same scrutiny from the likes of Snell? Time will tell. Image: Andrew Major

Kali Helmets AndrewM

Kali uses a Low-Density Layer to achieve similar protection as well. There's lots of other tech in the Kali helmets too, all of which they're developing themselves. Image: Andrew Major

So what are we to do in the meantime? All helmets, MIPS or not, currently at your local bike store should meet current safety standards. But there are questions among safety organizations and manufacturers further adding to the confusion. Heck, you can suffer a concussion without even touching the ground with your head, a fact that helmet manufacturers probably don't want you to know. It is safe to say more testing will be done and we can probably expect to see new, better standards and test methods come as a result of all of this. When and what they will be is anyone's guess.

As consumers we need to stay informed and at this point, be aware that even the helmet safety industry isn’t convinced by MIPS’ technology. But as they say on the BHSI website; "Although unbiased test results are very hard to find, any spur to innovation in what has been a long stagnant period for new helmet technology is very welcome.” I couldn’t agree more.

References for further reading:

Trending on NSMB

Comments

Vikb
+9 One Imaginary Boy Adventurepew Tremeer023 Kris Rayner Bikeridenow AJ Barlas Doug M. Kenny Niels
Vik Banerjee  - March 13, 2019, 6:43 a.m.

I wear a helmet each MTB ride, but I don't have a MIPS helmet. I wear knee and elbow pads as well. But, my main safety consideration is riding within my skill level in terms of speed and terrain features. Rather than focusing on gear to deal with the effects of a crash. I try my best to avoid a crash in the first place.

In my anecdotal experience it only takes a small % reduction in speed and aggression on the trail to reap large benefits in terms of fewer crashes and less impact when the few crashes happen. I also do not notice any difference in overall enjoyment of my riding experience by making these changes so the trade offs are well worth it to me.

Of course this means I do not race and have no interest in racing.

Similarly when I am riding on the road my focus is not on wearing the correct helmet technology to mitigate my crash damage...it's to ride in such a way that I reduce my likelihood of being in a crash in the first place.

Reply

Kenny
+2 Cam McRae Vik Banerjee
Kenny  - March 13, 2019, 8:18 a.m.

So true. If I or my riding buddies crash, we know the first thing we will hear: "80% rule dude!" 

In reality when I remember that rule I probably ride at 90% instead of 105%. But that small reduction of not riding right at the edge of my ability reduces my likelihood of crashing probably 10 fold. 

My crashes almost always happen when I forget the rule. I go too fast and I also get too fatigued. My fitness is average at best and if I push too hard I think my brain/coordination suffers, and that is really a recipe for a wipeout.

Reply

slyfink
+4 Timer chachmonkey Agleck7 upandown
slyfink  - March 13, 2019, 12:52 p.m.

While this is a good rule of thumb, accidents happen. Sometimes, even if you're riding within your limits, something happens and you want your helmet to be there for you.

Also, I firmly believe in progression. It's what I like most about mountain biking: trying things that are outside my comfort zone. that's why I have a dirt jumper and go the skate park. of course, you have to progress slowly, but that still requires an element of risk.

I've cracked a few helmets in the past couple of decades riding bikes. I'm happy I have them, and I'm always paying attention to new technological improvements. of course, I'd be happier knowing those improvements have a basis in science, but as long as they don't take away from the baseline safety of the helmet (i.e. meet the same basic safety requirements and pass the same tests), I'll gladly shell out for a helmet claiming to have even more safety built-in (though an independant test that proves these claims sure would be nice).

Reply

DemonMike
+1 4Runner1
mike  - March 13, 2019, 8:31 a.m.

No MIPS for me , I wear a fullface , it,s my only helmet. As for riding , and riding speed ,all depends on the day and the crew. Some days I fly through sections , other days I,m screw this crap and wuss out LOL. Also I have crashed riding sections I should have rocked thru. Due to riding it too cautious and slow.

Reply

fartymarty
0
fartymarty  - March 14, 2019, 5:52 a.m.

For me it depends on the conditions, how i'm feeling, who i'm riding with (or not), mood, etc.

It's only on solo rides (usually at night) where I reign it back.

That said I think my next helmet will be MIPS or similar.  IMO it can't hurt.

AJ - thanks for the trip down memory lane with the Stackhat.  I remember we had them in NZ as well.

Reply

AJ_Barlas
0
AJ Barlas  - March 14, 2019, 10:06 p.m.

I wish my folks still had mine. I'd hang it on my wall for sure!

Reply

Timer
+2 Allen Lloyd Cam McRae
Timer  - March 13, 2019, 9:04 a.m.

"Snell even claims that with some impacts the non-MIPS helmet outperformed the MIPS helmet."

That doesn't surprise me. The Mips layer and it's fittings take up space that woud be used for a slightly thicker layer of EPS in a helmet without Mips.

Admittedly, I never believed in the way Mips is implemented in bike helmets. Precisely because humans (in contrast to crash test dummies) usually have hair and skin on their heads (the former might not always be true but i sure hope that the latter is). With most helmets, i'm more worried about them sliding too much in case of a crash instead of too little.

Ironically, i own a Mips helmet, because the model that fit my head best had Mips in it.

Reply

taprider
0
taprider  - March 13, 2019, 10:33 a.m.

since the vast majority of impacts are to the front rim of the helmet, why not use more foam/plastic to extend the body of the helmet visor-like above the forehead?  I've only seen this done on one type of kids helmet. 

When I buy a helmet, I always choose the one with the most foam in front of my forehead

Reply

mammal
0
Mammal  - March 13, 2019, 11:48 a.m.

I find that one interesting, because I don't remember ever having a significant crash (one that would require helmet replacement), to the front rim of the helmet. Side-rim, front-middle/top and side-middle/top, mostly. I've never wrecked a helmet visor in a crash, even in 4 straight years of DH racing (back in the day).

This could just be me, and my crash tenancies, because crashes are very dynamic things that depend on tonnes of factors... But that graph surprised me.

Reply

taprider
0
taprider  - March 13, 2019, 12:14 p.m.

only helmet I have wrecked (needed to replace because of a crash) was cracked at the forehead.

the other crashes I've had, have not cracked/dented/visually impacted my helmet (my nose on the other hand...;-)  )

Reply

mammal
0
Mammal  - March 13, 2019, 3:18 p.m.

With regards to EPS, if the foam is compressed from impact, it should be replaced in case you impact the same spot again (protective qualities compromised). Not just the case of a cracked helmet (I'm certainly not telling you what to do though).

That said, yeah, my events have always been either OTB or really abrupt slide-outs. Both those scenarios involve a very small likelihood of front-rim impact. I'd say that's road/commuter data, for a large part.

Reply

morgan-heater
+1 JVP
Morgan Heater  - March 13, 2019, 12:55 p.m.

I wonder if it's different between road and trail riding. The harborview study was probably mostly road cyclists.

Reply

nouseforaname
0
Nouseforaname  - March 13, 2019, 12:58 p.m.

^^ This - who bothered to read the study? I didn't; but I'd ASSume that it was related to road cycling - as that's far easier to measure and probably related more to people coming to an abrupt stop (into a car?) than the kinds of slips and spills that we do as MTBrs.

Reply

morgan-heater
+1 AJ Barlas
Morgan Heater  - March 13, 2019, 2:28 p.m.

I scanned it, but it didn't list where the accidents occurred. It did say that something like 15% of the accidents involved cars, which points to mostly road cyclists. Although, I bet Harborview does see the gnarlier area mtb crashes, as it's the biggest hospital in Seattle.

Reply

velocipedestrian
0
Velocipedestrian  - March 26, 2019, 2:16 p.m.

In general I would disagree with that, but I did just crack my lid dead centre of the forehead in the weekend.

Replaced with a mips version, but mostly because of the fit - I went around trying on everything I could find, with the dials etc wound right out to find the best fitting shell for my head.

Reply

alexdi
0
Alex D  - March 13, 2019, 4:03 p.m.

I drove my forehead into the ground with a Super 2R MIPS. Broke my collarbone, cracked the helmet, no concussion. Not even dazed.  

Was it MIPS? I have no idea. Will I buy a MIPS helmet again? Definitely.

Reply

JVP
+5 chachmonkey Timer Andrew Major Niels AJ Barlas
JVP  - March 13, 2019, 4:13 p.m.

My takeaway is that my big moppy mess of hair is a safety feature.

Reply

AJ_Barlas
+1 JVP
AJ Barlas  - March 14, 2019, 10:07 p.m.

Likewise. Cause to continue growing it? I reckon so. :)

Reply

JVP
+3 Mammal Niels AJ Barlas
JVP  - March 15, 2019, 10:01 a.m.

Totally!  Avatar updated.

Reply

DBone95
0
Darryl Chereshkoff  - March 13, 2019, 5:32 p.m.

I bought a new helmet this year (TLD A2) and specifically made sure it had Mips..... is it better? Heck, I don't know, but it makes me feel better knowing its there. BTW, the A2 fits my large, round melon like no other helmet ever has..... that alone is worth it's weight in yellow plastic.

Reply

krisrayner
0
Kris Rayner  - March 13, 2019, 9:07 p.m.

Until we get more transparency in the test results and what they mean ( not just pass or fail ), I gotta believe there’s too much marketing hype and emphasis on looks. MIPS means nothing to me if I can find a helmet that will transfer fewer G’s in a head on. I think that for the most of us, our decisions end up being based on looks, price, and marketing jargon then actual test results.

Reply

Kenny
0
Kenny  - March 14, 2019, 7:21 a.m.

No offense, but I don't think so.

I think it's safe to say the typical NSMB member has moved past the point of making gear purchases primarily based on marketing. 

I'd be willing to bet that the majority of us buy based on fit (by "us" I mean people who have more than just a passing interest in MTB). 

At least to me, it seems intuitive that all of the upper tier helmets are pretty "safe", so what's probably going to make the most difference is having one whose shape reasonably approximates your skull. Having even pressure all around your head so that loads are most effectively spread across as much surface area as possible seems like a good bet, and one that I can make a reasonable estimate on since I can feel it.

Reply

Vikb
-1 taprider Timer generationfourth OldManBike 4Runner1
Vik Banerjee  - March 14, 2019, 7:44 a.m.

Since nobody [including the folks selling the helmets] actually know what will be safer/better for you when you specifically crash the only thing left for someone to use as data to decide on a helmet purchase is fit and marketing/aesthetics. 

I'd argue that any helmet made to the typical certification standards is safe to use regardless of cost. I don't think spending more gets you more safety. It gets you more marketing, cool looks and features like fit adjustments and ventilation.

You can tell nobody actually cares about brain safety [in a rigorous way] and it's 95% just BS marketing hype when you watch everyone drive 120kph for an hour to a trailhead without wearing their helmets and then "worry" about brain injuries only when they get on their bikes. Driving a car is orders of magnitude more dangerous to your brain than mountain biking. And yes that's after considering air bags, seat belts and other safety features. If people really cared about their brains they'd wear a helmet in their car driving to the trailhead. I'm serious about this.

So ya wear a helmet. Pick one that fits comfortably and you like the look of, but don't act like you are "all about safety" unless you are wearing it in your car/truck.

Reply

oldmanbike
-1 taprider
OldManBike  - March 14, 2019, 4:33 p.m.

Spectacularly bad advice.

Reply

generationfourth
0
generationfourth  - March 21, 2019, 4:22 p.m.

That’s a pretty bad false equivalence argument. We all put on our seatbelts when we get in a car just like we all put on a helmet when we go on a ride.

Reply

oldmanbike
+1 AJ Barlas
OldManBike  - March 14, 2019, 4:43 p.m.

Shame on MIPS. The problem with grippy headforms skewing rotational-force test data has been obvious for years. But they've chosen to keep right on ignoring it, year after year. Do they care about reducing concussions, or just about maximizing their profits?

Reply

Timer
0
Timer  - March 14, 2019, 4:45 p.m.

Since they are a company and not a public entity, the answer is very obvious. ;-)

Reply

AJ_Barlas
+1 OldManBike
AJ Barlas  - March 14, 2019, 10:11 p.m.

That's the part that gets me the most, with the unrestrained headform sans neck following in second. I'm no scientist by any sense but that just doesn't seem realistic. Happy to be educated further on it if anyone has more info.

Reply

RAHrider
0
Reed Holden  - March 14, 2019, 10:14 p.m.

I never thought of the hair functioning like MIPS. I have lots of hair so, that's good.

I was never sold on the MIPS thing. I agree with the comment above that the real trick with the helmet in a crash is keeping it on your head. My 2 priorities when buying a helmet are good fit and good venting. Also colour and cool looks ;)

I also think there is a big difference between falling on concrete and falling on dirt. I think a helmet on concrete is more likely to benefit from MIPS as the concrete doesn't move and will "grab" the helmet where as dirt reduces the friction. Most crashes on dirt don't really grab the helmet the same IMO.

Reply

oldmanbike
+1 Doug M.
OldManBike  - March 15, 2019, 6:16 a.m.

I share the MIPS skepticism folks are expressing here, but I think the any-helmet-that-fits view is nuts. The stuff that Kali, Leatt, and 6D (and the super MIPS in Bell's convertible fullface) are doing with helmets is real and promising. If we all keep wearing helmets with rad colors that do nothing to reduce concussion risk until the mythical day when updated certification and reliable public test data arrive, we're going to suffer a hell of a lot of unnecessary concussions. Don't be an idiot, get a Kali Maya 2.0 or a Leatt DBX 2.0, either under $100, and go ride.

Reply

chachmonkey
0
chachmonkey  - March 16, 2019, 6:55 p.m.

Plus Kali has a free crash replacement policy--made it much easier for me to spend that much on a helmet when other brands were available at hefty discounts.

Reply

DemonMike
0
mike  - March 15, 2019, 7:32 p.m.

When you hit the ground/tree/rock like a sack of potatoes how does this help. As for trashing helmets , busted a few in my day. Currently chatting with a company about getting my current one replaced. Head butted a windfall trying to go under it .

Reply

tdc_worm
+1 Timer
tdc_worm  - March 15, 2019, 8:17 p.m.

you have a built in natural "slip plane"....externally its called your hair and sweat, and cerebral fluid internally.

if rotational deceleration ON IMPACT were truly THE issue, we would run perfectly spherical helmets which would have zero lips/ridges, or edges, and break away magnetic visors.  All of those features serve to limit rotation on impact.  to my knowledge, only Arai addresses it from a shell stand point and Fox address it from a visor standpoint (both only in the mx world).  It is not addressed at all in the MTB world.

if you can get a concussion without ever impacting your head, then the slip plane is not a solution.  you can get a concussion from whiplash.

the reality of the matter of MIPS "success" is twofold:

1)   For any given brand model, the most attractive colorways are the highest price.  MIPS is also on those colorways.  Vanity has already justified the upcharge

2)  With no data, we cannot prove that it helps.  But for the upcharge, nobody can claim that it hurts....and after all, isnt your brain worth an extra "n" amount of dollars.  SOLD! we've all been marketed to!

Reply

oldmanbike
+1 Doug M.
OldManBike  - March 16, 2019, 9:06 a.m.

Agree with some of what you say, but have a couple responses.

- it's unlikely that rotational forces are the only head-impact forces that cause concussions. A straight-on impact could still bounce your brain against your skull. That's why softer shells and cushioning tech like the safest helmets use (Leatt's turbines, for example) are important too.

- rounder, smoother shells do matter. (All things being equal, smaller and lighter shells matter too.) That is being addressed in MTB helmets. Just compare the rounded shape of newer Kali and POC helmets with the edgy shape of a Fox Flux, or all the pointy-in-back designs popular 5 years ago.

- break-away visors and accessory mounts for lights and cameras matter, too. Probably a lot. Magnets obviously are not the only way to make something breakaway. Many newer designs address this.

- we all know that no helmet can prevent every concussion. No helmet can prevent a no-impact concussion. But safer helmets can prevent a lot more concussions.

Reply

DemonMike
+1 Adrian White
mike  - March 19, 2019, 12:42 p.m.

I see Bontrager has brought the WaveCel design , supposed to help prevent concussions.

https://wavecel.trekbikes.com/

Reply

Cabana76
+1 Timer
Adrian White  - March 19, 2019, 11:22 p.m.

A promising first study published on this new tech.  I was happy to see that the MIPS liner was also significantly better than the standard.  I'm interested in seeing what other companies will want to license this wavecell tech.  The more companies doing research into this the better.

http://trek.scene7.com/is/content/TrekBicycleProducts/WaveCel_Whitepaper-Evaluation_of_a_novel_bicycle_helmet_concept_in_oblique%20_impact_testing.pdf

Reply

Timer
0
Timer  - March 20, 2019, 3:37 a.m.

It is always problematic if safety improving technology is patented and restricted by licencing (see Volvo and the seatbelt).

Thankfully, in this case, it might not be necessary for other companies to licence exactly this tech. The goal of including a softer, laterally flexible layer can be achieved by many  different approaches, so any company can build something similar (see Kali LDL or Leatt).

Reply

delusional
0
delusional  - March 20, 2019, 10:32 a.m.

I think this is also the first peer reviewed data available on MIPS? And in what appears to be a relatively well regarded journal in the field (I'm a total outsider to the field though, so unsure about this).

Reply

Vikb
0
Vik Banerjee  - March 21, 2019, 12:17 p.m.

Reply

OneImaginaryBoy
0
One Imaginary Boy  - March 22, 2019, 7:39 a.m.

i have tried many MIPS helmets and none have ever fit me and my fat head. Terribly uncomfortable and lots of pressure on my forehead, so i am forced to revert to other solutions, like the Poc Air Coron with Spin technology. 

Very comfortable, although it has more padding then the Proframe, the Switchblade, Bell Super DH, etc.

Reply

Pnwpedal
0
Pnwpedal  - March 24, 2019, 2:54 p.m.

Interestingly, MIPS helmets are the only ones that seem to fit me best. I shop based on brand, features, price, looks, etc... But it all comes down to fit. So I've been riding MIPS helmets for a few years.

Reply

Phillip
0
Phillip  - March 25, 2019, 7:39 p.m.

I finally signed up so I could comment on this article.  Here is my experience.  Last June I crashed bad, 4 broken ribs, crack in the skull, and 3 cervical vertebrae also broke.  I've ridden that trail for 5 years, taken the same drop and easily missed the larger rock about 30 feet from the drop.  Now I'm riding my new bike, pushing a little faster but still within control, and I take the drop but instantly knew something was not right.  I have a 15 minute memory loss of the landing and crash.  

My point.  The helmet saved my head; a moderately low (not minor or major) concussion and the broken bones above.  This was a sideways crash with my body whiplashed against the large rock.  Not at a perpendicular angle direct hit, but a glancing blow type angle.  Helmet is cracked front to back, and large indentation on the left.  so, MIPS it is for me.  I bought the 6D helmet that is MIPS taken to orders of magnitude, but it is heavier and larger.  I've slowed down and gladly walk as needed, since I could have been totally paralyzed.

400 Mile bikepacking race next month: Stagecoach 400!  Keep bikin'!!!!!!!

Reply

cam@nsmb.com
0
Cam McRae  - June 4, 2019, 12:06 p.m.

Glad you are okay Phillip! 

I'm always curious when people declare that a particular helmet saved them. How can you know how you would have done with another helmet? I had a nasty crash that resulted in a bad concussion and facial lacerations - even though I was wearing a full face - and I can say I'm glad about the full face but not that another helmet would have been worse or better. 

Was there something about the way the helmet performed or broke that leads you to think it was superior to some others?

Reply

Please log in to leave a comment.