There are so many things wrong with the methodology in there - as in most tests - that I don't think you can draw a ton of great conclusions. Head form (no body), nylon sheath instead of hair, 80 grit sandpaper to simulate a 'road surface' plus a 45º anvil, one speed only, roughly done to simulate travel at 16 km/h (better for some MTB scenarios than road, but not great for either)...and that's just the beginning.
Also, I already addressed VT's study up above - it also has lots of methodology issues and very limited sample sizes. One of their most interesting studies involves football players studied over the course of the year, using a variety of helmet types. They saw a reduction in TBIs, but again, it's not a huge sample size (I think it was 1-2k high school players over one season) and this is all really early days.
You can't just read part of a study and call it good. You have to look a lot deeper and more critically and ask 'are they really testing for conditions we ride in, or is it just based on the standards established for national-level testing', which are even dismissed by helmet designers as being terrible.
There's research, it's just that none of it is very good.
By the way, the same thing applies for the way governing bodies like CEN test things like stems and bars. Their methodologies seem like they were thought up by people who don't understand anything about how bikes are actually used.
Aug. 17, 2022, 9:24 p.m. - Pete Roggeman
There are so many things wrong with the methodology in there - as in most tests - that I don't think you can draw a ton of great conclusions. Head form (no body), nylon sheath instead of hair, 80 grit sandpaper to simulate a 'road surface' plus a 45º anvil, one speed only, roughly done to simulate travel at 16 km/h (better for some MTB scenarios than road, but not great for either)...and that's just the beginning. Also, I already addressed VT's study up above - it also has lots of methodology issues and very limited sample sizes. One of their most interesting studies involves football players studied over the course of the year, using a variety of helmet types. They saw a reduction in TBIs, but again, it's not a huge sample size (I think it was 1-2k high school players over one season) and this is all really early days. You can't just read part of a study and call it good. You have to look a lot deeper and more critically and ask 'are they really testing for conditions we ride in, or is it just based on the standards established for national-level testing', which are even dismissed by helmet designers as being terrible. There's research, it's just that none of it is very good. By the way, the same thing applies for the way governing bodies like CEN test things like stems and bars. Their methodologies seem like they were thought up by people who don't understand anything about how bikes are actually used.