To a certain extent, I would event say that high end helmets do not correlate with better performance.
Bigger ventilation holes and lighter weight way means less material protecting you in the event of a fall or a sharp object (rock, branch) penetrating the helmet.
Helmet protection standards and testing SUCKS and there is a very misguided attitude towards suggesting higher performance helmets that don't actually provide more in terms of safety.
This article is an example of that attitude. The safety performance is not quantified or evaluated. There is mention of a rotational impact mitigation system but no real way to discern if it's good or not. The review focuses on what we typically associate with performance, like venting and features. None of those contribute to the main purpose of a helmet and yet, we now have compelling review motivating the purchase of a very expensive helmet and we justify ourselves with "how much is your brain worth". Nothing suggests that this helmet protects me better than a 90$ Giro Fixture with MIPS.
This is not a dig at NSMB, this is a dig at helmet manufacturing and certification companies not making the important data more available. Reviewers are left high and dry, trying to evaluate performance based on what they can observe, which isn't much.
By the way, interesting mention about hair "slipperiness". It is true that hair (if you have it...) can add a certain element of MIPS-like performance but I don't think it's as effective. There is ongoing research on the matter.
May 15, 2021, 11 a.m. - YeahyeahIllsignup
To a certain extent, I would event say that high end helmets do not correlate with better performance. Bigger ventilation holes and lighter weight way means less material protecting you in the event of a fall or a sharp object (rock, branch) penetrating the helmet. Helmet protection standards and testing SUCKS and there is a very misguided attitude towards suggesting higher performance helmets that don't actually provide more in terms of safety. This article is an example of that attitude. The safety performance is not quantified or evaluated. There is mention of a rotational impact mitigation system but no real way to discern if it's good or not. The review focuses on what we typically associate with performance, like venting and features. None of those contribute to the main purpose of a helmet and yet, we now have compelling review motivating the purchase of a very expensive helmet and we justify ourselves with "how much is your brain worth". Nothing suggests that this helmet protects me better than a 90$ Giro Fixture with MIPS. This is not a dig at NSMB, this is a dig at helmet manufacturing and certification companies not making the important data more available. Reviewers are left high and dry, trying to evaluate performance based on what they can observe, which isn't much. By the way, interesting mention about hair "slipperiness". It is true that hair (if you have it...) can add a certain element of MIPS-like performance but I don't think it's as effective. There is ongoing research on the matter.