The thing is, OMB, and we have been very, very careful to point this out in just about every helmet review in the past: it's not been conclusively proven that Mips reduces your risk of concussion. It hasn't actually been proven that _anything_ reduces your risk of concussion, other than wearing a helmet. There haven't actually been all that many studies done in this regard at all. WAY more money has been spent on marketing than on actual research. The vaunted Virginia Tech research that all the helmet manufacturers like to point towards is obviously a start, but it's not considered conclusive either, and if you read their findings (I have) you'll see that the results they can point to suggest Mips helps, but their studies are not based on huge amounts of research yet (theirs or that of others) and brain science is still so nascent that it's really hard to prove anything.
I'm not saying Mips either works or not, and most of us figure that it's better to be safe in this regard because there's little obstacle other than a few extra bucks. However, it's a bit of a dirty secret in the bike and ski industries that that yellow sticker causes people to buy helmets because Mips is a really successful marketing story (ditto similar systems), but it's still not 100% true.
It makes sense to me anecdotally, as it probably does to you, but that's not conclusive evidence. We're always careful about what we say for that reason. When I choose a helmet, I look for Mips or similar, but I can't write that I KNOW it protects me better than a helmet without it.
So, whether you think it was brushed aside or not, please be aware that we're really conscious of these marketing messages, and that we don't just regurgitate them because the manufacturers use them to sell helmets.
Aug. 17, 2022, 5:55 p.m. - Pete Roggeman
The thing is, OMB, and we have been very, very careful to point this out in just about every helmet review in the past: it's not been conclusively proven that Mips reduces your risk of concussion. It hasn't actually been proven that _anything_ reduces your risk of concussion, other than wearing a helmet. There haven't actually been all that many studies done in this regard at all. WAY more money has been spent on marketing than on actual research. The vaunted Virginia Tech research that all the helmet manufacturers like to point towards is obviously a start, but it's not considered conclusive either, and if you read their findings (I have) you'll see that the results they can point to suggest Mips helps, but their studies are not based on huge amounts of research yet (theirs or that of others) and brain science is still so nascent that it's really hard to prove anything. I'm not saying Mips either works or not, and most of us figure that it's better to be safe in this regard because there's little obstacle other than a few extra bucks. However, it's a bit of a dirty secret in the bike and ski industries that that yellow sticker causes people to buy helmets because Mips is a really successful marketing story (ditto similar systems), but it's still not 100% true. It makes sense to me anecdotally, as it probably does to you, but that's not conclusive evidence. We're always careful about what we say for that reason. When I choose a helmet, I look for Mips or similar, but I can't write that I KNOW it protects me better than a helmet without it. So, whether you think it was brushed aside or not, please be aware that we're really conscious of these marketing messages, and that we don't just regurgitate them because the manufacturers use them to sell helmets.