[carabiner]

I'm pretty convinced mips is just marketing. Hair will do the same thing. That's why in rock climbing world, petzl hasn't even bothered with it when they're usually very forward thinking about their designs (first company to do side impact testing).

[mmooss]

> Hair will do the same thing.

VA Tech (and others, IIRC) has years of empirical tests that show otherwise. What is your comment based on?

Edit: In fact, if I understand your analysis, humans won't get concussions at all.

[snovv_crash]

Exactly. Hair and scalp. Evolution already made a MIPS system. The thing lacking it was the test dummies that Virginia Tech uses, so now they recommend we put it in helmets too.

[arrowleaf]

Not having my hair and scalp act as the MIPS system is worth the $20 extra to me.

[Scoundreller]

Or the ground being low traction: dusty/dirt/wet. Harder to control what you land on, but will diminish MIPS’ ROI in many situations.

[mmooss]

If ruling out risks by a priori is a solution, why wear a helmet at all? Maybe you won't hit your head when you fall. Maybe you'll land in water or on a satin pillow (low friction).

[Scoundreller]

Not ruling out anything but pointing out MIPS’ benefits will be poorer than portrayed in the lab in many realistic situations.

Sure, buy all the safety equipment you can afford that has any possible benefit.

What’s better: a $15 more expensive bike light or a $15 more expensive helmet with MIPS?

[mmooss]

> MIPS’ benefits will be poorer than portrayed in the lab in many realistic situations

How are they testing it in the lab? How do concussions work in realistic situations (is there one way?)? What is the distribution of realistic situations?

Maybe the benefits are better in realistic situations; maybe the lab tests are more aggressive than reality or the results are interpreted conservatively (because scientists spending years on something might have thought of a 30-second hot take), ...