Home > Clothing-Gear-Tools > Helmets

Virginia Tech Updates Its Star Rating System Because Helmets Are Getting Safer

POC Cularis from the sideThe POC Cularis is currently the highest rated helmet in Virginia Tech's testing. (photo/Cory Benson)
21 Comments
Support us! Bikerumor may earn a small commission from affiliate links in this article. Learn More

Earlier this month, the Virginia Tech Helmet Lab released a memorandum explaining an update to its STAR rating score thresholds for bicycle and football helmets. Turns out, helmets are getting safer, and the helmet test team felt “the 5-star label had become diluted.” So, they felt this threshold adjustment was needed “to restore the ability of our system to differentiate.” Essentially, it had become too easy for modern helmets to earn a 5-star rating under the old scoring thresholds.

Virginia Tech Helmet Test Lab

If you are unfamiliar, the Virginia Tech Helmet Test Lab has been independently testing and rating bicycle helmets since 2018 and has become one of the most trusted sources for comparative impact performance data. Using a standardized testing protocol, Virginia Tech has tested hundreds of bicycle helmets — along with other sports like football, equestrian, and snow sports — to provide objective comparative data to inform consumers and manufacturers alike. 

screenshot from Virginia Tech's helmet testing protocol.
Screenshot from Virgina Tech’s helmet testing protocol.

I’ve tested dozens of helmets for reviews and buyer’s guides over the years, and I’ve often referenced Virginia Tech’s helmet ratings. Not necessarily because its the be-all and end-all of a helmet’s protective qualities, but because they are pretty much the only resource for this type of standardized, comparative impact test data. According to Virginia Tech’s recent memo, “For consumers, this system highlights performance differences that are not visible from price or marketing claims. For manufacturers, our test protocols and performance thresholds offer a benchmark for innovation and improvement.

And improve they have. Recently, scoring well in Virginia Tech’s impact testing has become a big selling point, with brands seemingly competing for top honors and one-upping each other’s scores and ranks. In the past year alone, the new Fox Speedframe models launched with the top ranking, only to be bested a month or so later by the new POC Cularis and Cytal helmets before they were even available to the public. 

screenshot of the top ranked cycling helemts in Virgina Tech's testing.
The current top six cycling helmets in Virginia Tech’s testing.

Safer Helmets

Over time, new materials, technologies like Mips, and designs have improved the protective qualities of bicycle helmets — and some of that can likely be attributed to Virginia Tech’s independent testing. Virginia Tech states that when it started rating bike helmets in 2018, only 4 out of 30 (~13%) earned 5 stars. In 2025, a whopping 167 of 272 helmets (~61%) were rated 5-star. 

While previously the test lab had predetermined, fixed score thresholds, “when the majority of helmets can earn 5 stars, the top category no longer distinguishes the very best.” Of course, this is a good thing as it indicates that helmet safety is improving, but it also makes it harder for consumers to differentiate the good from the best.

Adjusted Star Rating Thresholds

To remedy this, Virginia Tech has chosen to adjust its rating threshold. According to the memo, “To receive a 4- or 5-star rating, a helmet must perform within the top 50% based on its overall impact performance score. To distinguish between 4- and 5-star helmets, we computed the midpoint between the median-performing helmet and the best-performing helmet. Helmets closer to the top performer received 5 stars; those closer to the median received 4 stars.”

This shift has dramatically reduced the number of 5-star bicycle helmets from 167 to 38. Virginia Tech is also quick to point out that just because a helmet’s star rating has changed, “this is not because their performance has worsened, but rather the bar for top-tier performance has risen.” And that “in general, we recommend any 4- or 5-star-rated helmet.” That said, some previously 5-star rated helmets have dropped down to 3-stars under the recalibrated rating system.

screenshot of the new scoring thresholds for star ratings
Screenshot of the new score thresholds for star ratings. The updated scoring really shakes things up.

Now, bicycle helmet manufacturers will need to work a little harder to get into and stay in the top 50% to earn those coveted 5-star ratings. Generally speaking, bike helmets are currently as safe as they’ve ever been, but a little healthy competition at the top should ensure that they just keep getting safer. 

Check out Virginia Tech’s bicycle helmet ratings to see if your helmet has been tested and how it ranks. Otherwise, click through to the technical documents to learn more about Virginia Tech’s helmet testing protocol. It’s actually pretty interesting.

Helmet Ratings: helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicycle-helmet-ratings.html

Helmet Lab: (For more info about the lab itself, including a video tour) bold.beam.vt.edu/BOLDLabs/HelmetLab.html

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

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

21 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
syborg
syborg
1 month ago

Are helmets truly getting better or are they just getting better at passing the VT testing?

A helmet on human head is different than a helmet on a test dummy head.

Humans have scalp (slip plane in MIPS terminology), and most have hair, which causes more helmet movement than a dummy. Also no one tightens the helmet straps to totally immobilize the helmet.

I don’t see the VT testing taking that additional movement into account in their tests. Does the real life movement tender MIPS moot? Are there conditions that cause a helmet to move sufficiently to expose the a portion is the skull to all unprotected impact or completely come off the rider?

The fact that helmets will rotate independently on a persons head is why I believe that MIPS is a system to pass tests and does not necessarily make a safer helmet. I believe that having crush zones to decelerate the head is more important than the slip plane.

Or as I like to say: MIPS is for dummies, crash test dummies.

Robin
Robin
1 month ago
Reply to  syborg

Let’s see your data on your “belief”.

Cbaum
Cbaum
1 month ago
Reply to  Robin

Or as Syborg likes to say: Data is for dummies, crash test dummies.

JBikes
JBikes
1 month ago
Reply to  syborg

Are crush zone protections being reduce to accommodate MIPS? I see no data to infer that. In fact, I think they still perform non oblique impact tests in addition to oblique impact testing.

Nathan
Nathan
1 month ago
Reply to  syborg

Hey, it’s better than CPSC.

Exodux
Exodux
1 month ago
Reply to  syborg

Until we have actual humans that want to use their head for this test, the current method of testing is what we have, perfect, maybe not, but I’d use the results of this test and buy accordingly…if safety is a priority while purchasing a helmet, then I’d use these test to determine which is the best for you.

let
let
1 month ago
Reply to  Exodux

Or they could redesign the test to be more realistic – simulated or animal hair, skin, muscle, &c

Robin
Robin
1 month ago
Reply to  let

That might not be a simple task. Do all hair types behave the same? Does all skin behave the same? Do you use the same head form for bald people, people with tight curls, or people with long straight hair? I think the testing people are trying to come with a solution that helps address that, but that solution may not be easy to come up with. I’m not sure modeling muscle would be of use.

Mitch Erwen
Mitch Erwen
1 month ago
Reply to  syborg

no one tightens the helmet straps to totally immobilize the helmet.”

What’s your sample set size?

Mitch Erwen
Mitch Erwen
1 month ago
Reply to  syborg

America! Where one’s beliefs now magically trumps documented scientific research.

Kyle
Kyle
1 month ago
Reply to  syborg

to be a bicycle helmet you only need to pass a 6 foot drop test. So yes VT is giving better guide lines for the industry to follow to protect our heads. They are getting better. DOT approved I believe is a 13 foot drop test, not sure if that has changed yet as well.

Angstrom
Angstrom
1 month ago

The EU EN 17950 helmet standard now in development will use a new headform in a wide range of sizes, and measure both linear and rotational forces. It could become a new CSPC standard.

Virginia Tech does publish their full test protocol.

The biggest problem in making tests relevant to real-world crashes is the lack of good real-world crash data. The data gathered post-crash is rarely precise or detailed enough (exactly how did they hit their head?)to do an accurate reenactment.

Billyshoo
Billyshoo
1 month ago

I’d like to understand how Virginia Tech can be fair and impartial if they’re willing to accept preproduction samples for testing, giving manufacturers the ability to submit juiced prototypes (i.e. something superior to the finished retail product). As part of a rigorous test regimen, shouldn’t they be purchasing consumer goods off the shelf?

Robin
Robin
30 days ago
Reply to  Billyshoo

How does the imply that that Virginia Tech isn’t “impartial”? Given the range of helmet types they test and the range of sports those tests apply to, they may not have the money to buy the helmets. If manufacturers are submitting “juiced” prototypes, why aren’t they doing that for the helmet models that don’t perform as well in the tests? Maybe–and hold on ‘cuz this is a wild idea–maybe the helmet manufacturers care about making helmet for cyclists that actually perform well in a crash or fall.

dave barnes
dave barnes
1 month ago

I am still using my white Bell helmet from 1977.
I love it.

Mitch Erwen
Mitch Erwen
1 month ago
Reply to  dave barnes

I wouldn’t if you paid me because helmet engineering and materials have come a long way.

Last edited 1 month ago by Mitch Erwen
tertius_decimus
tertius_decimus
1 month ago

Goalpost shifting at its finest.

Petey
Petey
1 month ago

Wouldn’t a 10 point scale just be easier for Joe Average to understand as opposed to redefining the terms of the five point scale?

Robin
Robin
30 days ago
Reply to  Petey

Then what would you do with the helmets from 4 years ago (just an example) that got 10s then, but don’t perform as well as well as modern helmets getting 10s? It doesn’t make much sense to not redefine the scoring as the theoretical levels of protection increase.

Angstrom
Angstrom
29 days ago
Reply to  Robin

I think they made a good compromise: the scoring system has not changed, so one can directly compare old and new helmets using the numerical score. The star ranking has changed so it takes a better score to be in the top rank.

David
David
25 days ago

So roughly how long until cycling helmets stop exhibiting precisely the statistiscal signature of a placebo, as they have done since their invention? The percentage of cyclists who wear helmets matches the percentage of cycling fatalities who were helmeted when they crashed. Those percentages tick up a point about every other year, but they’ve always matched, everywhere they’ve been recorded so far. That’s the exact signature of a placebo.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone, since no other lightweight helmets work either, despite vastly less-challenging requirements. Football helmets don’t work — even with huge caps added on top. Skiing helmets don’t work. Hockey helmets don’t work. Etcetera.

Luckily for all, cycling is not actually that dangerous, and not nearly as dangerous as one would assume from seeing people tooling around town wearing silly plastic hats.

Subscribe Now

Sign up to receive BikeRumor content direct to your inbox.