MIPS was founded on the goal of better protecting the brain in the event of a crash. As a result of their research, that seems to keep coming back to the idea of rotational motion which is what’s responsible for straining your brain. That’s why the original MIPS (Multi-directional Impact Protection System) liner was designed to reduce the rotational impact during a crash while the helmet does its job to reduce the linear impact. But as helmet designs evolve, MIPS has been in search of new options to fit a wider variety of helmets.

EB17: MIPS eyes two new technologies for safer helmets

EB17: MIPS eyes two new technologies for safer helmets

The new A1 system, or ‘the Pocket’, is essentially a miniature MIPS liner contained in a velcro disc. Created with a series of hard plates layered between low friction fabric and attached with velcro to the helmet an the pad, the A1 allows for the same 10-15mm of movement in the first 2-3 milliseconds that is critical to the protection of the MIPS system. This should allow the same level of protection to be built into helmets with better ventilation since a large liner is no longer needed.

Available in either rectangular or circular designs, the Pockets will be chosen based on the helmet design.

EB17: MIPS eyes two new technologies for safer helmets

MIPS also introduced their E2 or Beanie, which is a solution specifically for full face helmets. The Beanie sits inside the helmet instead of the MIPS liner and has a polycarbonate layer inside that’s again sandwiched by a layer of four way stretch fabric on the outside. Supposedly, the concept offers improved comfort while still offering the same level of protection.

EB17: MIPS eyes two new technologies for safer helmets

Even the current C2 design gets a few updates with a new coating that will allow for easier sliding as well as smaller pins with a lower profile which should improve comfort.

Expect to see all the new designs on MIPS equipped helmets in the coming year.

mipsprotection.com

6 COMMENTS

    • Perhaps test data shows a significant difference in angular acceleration between standard pads and newer pads. Unless data demonstrates otherwise, I’m of that mind that reducing angular acceleration is a good thing for things in the cranial vault.

  1. So much new “Medical Technology” is only backed up by the manufacturers own research. I am unaware of any peer driven research let alone the gold standard of outcome based research. Until that time I view most of these advances as driven by the marketing department. If there is peer conducted research please send me the link.

    Thanks

COMMENT HERE: (For best results, log in through Wordpress or your social media account. Anonymous/fake email comments may be unapproved or deleted. ALL first-time commenter's posts are held for moderation. Check our Comment Policy for full details.)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.