On Track Off Road No. 195

MIPS & CREATION OF THE NEW CRASH HELMET
we still have a long way to go.
We are constantly developing
new solutions and new technologies
to always be equally
safe and achieve the same
thing: to reach the movement
of 10-15mm in all directions…
but it can be presented a bit
differently.
On standards and testing and
the FIM…
Halldin: Now that EC 22-06
has met and started the revision
of the motorcycle test
standard they looked at the
FIM, and for that the FIM has
been very important. When
it comes to the test standard
then the ball had already been
rolling. We started our work
in 2012 and the FIM started
theirs in 2014, I believe, and
the good thing is that they
came to more-or-less the
same conclusion as we did
within CEN TC158/Working
Group 11, except that they
choose a slightly different test
headform. Both of us have
made the same decisions
when it came to simplifications
for what is needed; like
both test methods do not
have or include the neck…
which people could question
because everybody in the
world has one! But we both
concluded that the existing
neck form – Hybrid III - is not
designed for the testing of
helmets.
Strandwitz: We never publish
our own test results because
we think it is wrong for us to
say ‘see what we have done
at home…’ We rely very much
on third party testing to make
sure they communicate results.
While there is no standard
[for rotational acceleration]
and people publish their
own test results then I think
it will confuse the consumer
rather than educate them.
Halldin: I know the FIM have
been working a lot to make
this happen. Even though it is
not perfect it is a very good
first step and important for
the whole helmet industry.
The fact that there is a rotational
element of the test
standard for MotoGP is an
important thing: that there is
another dimension to helmet
testing. There are other examples
on the bicycle side.
Now there is more of a debate
about test points, impact
angles, pass/fail criteria – but
I think the most important
thing right now is discussion,
and that we are using
the same or similar metrics
for manufacturers when their
design is being done and
optimised. That optimisation
should be done against the
pass/fail metric that is used.
On the wide road for MIPS…
Strandwitz: Before we go into
a category we always look for
relevant injury criteria: can we
make a difference or not? We
are now entering construction.
We have looked at how
you actually hurt yourself on
a construction site; what kind
of damages or dangers are
you exposed to? It is not only
falling objects. You can trip,
you can slip, you can fall, and
you work at heights. We have
validated our solution against
those types of accidents and
we see that we can make a
big difference. We see a lot
of interest from that category
and a lot of construction
companies coming to us to
say: ‘how can we have solutions
with MIPS?’ We looked
at injury statistics in Europe
and especially in Sweden because
they are very well documented
to see where we can
make a difference and then
we model those kinds of accidents
in our computer system
to make sure that we would
add brain protection. We have
that capability, which means a
big advantage.
Halldin: We spent some time
getting into the NFL Head
Health programme – I or II –
and we did not get any prize
or funding at that time. They
have been asking us to join
again but it takes quite a lot
of time. I have chosen to work
on other matters. I would love
to join that programme but
the days are full enough already!
Also, it is about building
a full helmet…and we are
about adding protection to an
existing helmet. We’d need to
team-up with a helmet manufacturer
to participate.