UKC

I'm new to this forum and apologise if I have posted in the wrong place or manner, please redirect me if that's the case.

I've been starting to do more serious trad stuff and want to get a proper helmet, at the moment I have a blue 'camp' hardshell, but want something that will really protect my head if I were to fall and hit my head on a rock, rather than something mainly geared to falling rocks.

I want something that will offer the best overall protection from head trauma. I've seen the new BD Vision with mips. The mips really impresses me but the helmet uses mainly EPP and seems to be selling the 'durability' of this foam rather then suggesting that it offers superior protection over EPS, saying they had to add some EPS to meet safety requirements... This makes me feel like EPS is safer? I'm not bothered about having to replace my helmet after a knock, which seems to be the advertised downside of EPS.

Obviously I love the sleek look of the Vapor, but is this helmet as safe as others? Is EPP foam better for small bumps and EPS better for big ones? Will the little EPS 'puck' in the BD vision really do anything other than enable the vision to pass a test? What helmet would you recommend?

I'm not bothered about the price. For a helmet, I want to get the right thing.

Any answers much appreciated...

Thanks

Bike tests have shown mips to be worth it. So if your care is hitting your head against things, that new BD (or the mammut wall rider) will be significantly safer than anything else on the market.

hmmm so MIPS is the thing that will make all the difference, and I shouldn't get caught up on different foams?

Thats good to know thanks for your speedy reply!

MIPs aside (which seems to be supported by testing) - all helmets meet the same testing standards - some maybe exceeding standards more than others but comprehensive comparative data tends not to be available.

EPP v EPS - EPP is more flexible so helmets are bit more robust to accidental damage (flex rather than rigid EPS which can crack if squashed). The issue with entirely EPP helmets seems to be that to meet the top impact standard requires quite a height of foam (see eg original sirocco) which some climbers don’t like either aesthetically and/or as more likely to bash helmet when under overhangs etc. Additionally EPP can puncture from minor but sharp impacts (eg falling ice) which bounce off a shell. 
Hence the compromise that seems to be emerging in top-end helmets of EPP foam with an EPS top/a shell over the crown of the EPP. 

All that said - probably most important is that the helmet fits well and comfortably so worth trying on if possible, and for trad where a bad bash would likely end the day (as opposed to multi day) and a replacement got fairly easily EPS well proven and generally cheaper.

lastly - on MIPS - adds a small amount of weight (no big deal), but can also catch and tug on hair (at least in cycle helmets) when taking on/off - so again worth trying to see if an issue.

hope helps 

Very comprehensive, thanks! I now understand the logic behind the 'puck' and that it doesn't imply that EPP would have been inadequate, simply that they were trying to keep the profile low.

I will definitely look for a place where I can try them on. 

Thanks again.

I personally wouldn't buy a helmet based on whether it had MIPS or not. I think for climbing use it's either very niche case at best, or a sales gimmick at worst. The original tech was based around protection for high speed sliding impacts when motorcycling,and I just don't see many of this type of impact occuring when climbing. I'm also not a fan of those helmets which provide massive venting holes particularly at the back of the head. The standard allows them to do this, but whilst you get a very light and well vented helmet, you also get big holes for spikes to penetrate through if you fall or land backwards on impact, which is not unlikely.

You might think that, but it's not helpful to make a safety case to people just based upon your gut. Start with the VTech helmet safety testing. 

I'm not an expert by any means, but I'm less convinced of the relevance/importance of MIPS for climbing than for bike or ski helmets where sliding/rolling falls are more likely.

Having said that, my non-MIPs Mammut Wall Rider is the best fitting and most comfortable helmet I've ever had, so if money were no object I'd see no reason not to go for the MIPS version assuming it has the same shape & fit.

To the OP: just like with shoes, fit is king. Heads are different shapes, so are helmets. If you don't get one that is comfortable for you then you won't want to wear it for hours no matter how intellectually convinced you are about its superior construction.

Sorry for going back to this - perhaps spurred by being downvoted by soemeone I corrected fairly.

People seem to think MIPS, because it is based upon having a 'slip plane', is somehow designed for slides. Slides aren't that dangerous (well, off a motorbike at 80mph anything is dangerous) - but if you're sliding you aren't putting your brain under concussive force.

The point is that a slightly off-centre impact without mips will force the skull in an abnormal direction very quickly. Like, VERY quickly - this forces your brain into the inside of your skull at velocity and can cause tearing of brain tissue (and therefore, a TBI). MIPS simply reduces the transmission of this rotational force. It isn't about a rotational fall, but a rotational force on your helmet.

Vtech test helmets by swinging an anvil at parts of the helmet (the anvil is covered in sandpaper - to mimic a hard surface like a rock wall that you might swing into). MIPS universally reduces transmitted impact to the brain.

MIPS is a no brainer! 

I will make a swift exit now.. 

Erm, it was based on a review of the existing literature, and discussions with experts at the time the tech was first mooted, and not a conclusion I came to solely on my own. Rotational brain injury is known to be a big deal in many sports like cycling, American football etc, which the VTech research focuses on, but wasn't felt to be likely to be such a major issue in climbing based impacts. If there is some new research I'm unaware of proving me/us wrong, I'd be happy to see it. My point about overall design stands, I'd like to see the standard changed to reduce the permitted size of vent holes, or a penetration test introduced for elsewhere than the crown impact location, but it's a fine balance between getting better helmets and one's which are less wearable.

Edit: I didn't down vote you despite you assuming I was using my gut rather than brain!

Across other sports the evidence suggesting MIPS improves protection is limited, but not negligible. A big problem in the tests for MIPS effectiveness is helmet fit onto crash test dummy heads - which are usually taken as a mean (average) of male heads, and so the same shape as no real person's head. This next bit is advice from people testing helmets that is not all published, so to be taken with a pinch of salt. As MIPS works by creating slip planes, it is possible to have MIPS work better than, or the same as, a standard helmet with small changes to strap tightness. Whether the fit that makes MIPS work well is too tight for comfort is not really clear. Cycling studies a couple of years ago showed that reports of TBI were lower with helmets with MIPS than without, or with other liners. Again - to be taken with a pinch of salt, as many other variables e.g. awareness of dangers of head injury in participants with MIPS could have contributed.

Very interesting that your review suggested climbing falls don't require MIPS. Have you published it? Wouldn't mind a read of it

Realisitically though, MIPS has almost zero downside apart from costing a few extra £ - so why not have it? wouldn't bother prioritising it personally but clearly is important to some. 

Thanks all for your useful input,

I've decided to go with a MIPS helmet as it seems clear it is safer than non-MIPS (though all do not agree on the degree to which safety is improved). As ianstevens mentioned, I may as well if I'm not bothered by the price.

Neuromancer, I watched some stuff on the Vtech safety testing you mentioned, and the impacts they simulate when testing MIPS, to me, look very comparable to rock climbing falls. 

I have recently discovered that there exists an EPS helmet with MIPS - the Mammut Crag Sender. So regardless of what foam I go for, MIPS is an option.

As vscott mentioned, all these helmets meet the same safety requirements, so I guess if I take good care of my helmet, It makes little/no difference what foam is used in terms of safety. Supposing they all fit well, I could justify getting the Crag Sender, as I would imagine this has a lower profile, being made entirely of EPS. Or alternatively just get the one I like the most when trying them on.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken about any of this.

Any thoughts on which to get; Cragsender, Wallrider, BDvision, (or other MIPS helmet?)

Thanks again, hope this thread isn't already dead.

Being EPS the crag sender should be lighter/smaller (you can probably check in specs) but might not last as long. And would agree you might as well get something with MIPS, unless there's any chance the extra cost might play on your mind when looking at replacing it when damaged.