Fox Helmets

SPYGUY wrote:

So did MIPS buy Fluid Inside just to shelve it? Seems like Fox had equipped their V3 with Fluid Inside because they thought it was superior...

So did MIPS buy Fluid Inside just to shelve it?

Seems like Fox had equipped their V3 with Fluid Inside because they thought it was superior to MIPS.

m121c wrote:

Oof. Might be a 6D or Fly Formula for me. Was really wanting to switch to the V3 with the Fluid Inside Tech... not really a...

Oof. Might be a 6D or Fly Formula for me.

Was really wanting to switch to the V3 with the Fluid Inside Tech... not really a fan of the MIPS system in my SE4 currently and wanting to try something different.

This buy out seems like it also has questionable intentions. Hopefully that is a wrong assumption... but would hate to see this technology just get shelved out of corporate strategy.

mastakilla wrote:

I have a Fluidinside helmet and I really wonder about this. I got it because at the time I did not have a great deal of...

I have a Fluidinside helmet and I really wonder about this. I got it because at the time I did not have a great deal of faith in the MIPS system. As time goes, I am starting to think MIPS may work better than I had originally thought.

Now I want to know if Fox dropped the FI pods since they were bogus and MIPS was better all along or if the FI pods are still OK to use.

Also, I need to get my hands on a Fly Formula see how those Rheon pads feel.

TheGetFresh wrote:

MIPS seems like kind of laboratory cheat tech. The helmets are tested on smooth head forms (basically crash test dummy heads) with a single material layer...

MIPS seems like kind of laboratory cheat tech. The helmets are tested on smooth head forms (basically crash test dummy heads) with a single material layer on the outside. The MIPS slip planes are designed to slip around the inside of the helmet but don’t account for the fact that human heads have scalps and hair that allow a similar level of slip on those types of impacts. The MIPS tech score better in lab tests because it’s simply better at slipping on the head form than a normal helmet. This does not accurately replicate the interaction with a real human head, however.

Additionally, MIPS is a carryover from cycling helmets with much lower coverage. MIPS may prevent torsion on the head and neck in those crashes because those forces are transferred via friction on low coverage helmets. On a full helmet where the head sits deeper, the forces applied come from torsion transferred to the side and back of the helmet.

Other helmets have tech that allow a portion of the EPS liner to stay in conformity with the head and rotate within the shell, thus the head stays correctly placed within the liner and safer from blunt impacts following the glancing impact that cause rotational force.

I’ve had one helmet with MIPS and plan for it to be my last. It’s go to see manufacturers trying things to make helmets safer, but MIPS seem like a step in the wrong direction because it’s a cheap solution that can retrofit to any helmet design while ignoring some of the important variables that exist during crashes outside of the lab. Meanwhile 6d and Bell are making great stride while Shoei and Fly are easing in the right direction.

I wouldn’t buy a fox helmet until MIPS is made obsolete through a complete redesign or by a better technology.

TheGetFresh wrote:

MIPS seems like kind of laboratory cheat tech. The helmets are tested on smooth head forms (basically crash test dummy heads) with a single material layer...

MIPS seems like kind of laboratory cheat tech. The helmets are tested on smooth head forms (basically crash test dummy heads) with a single material layer on the outside. The MIPS slip planes are designed to slip around the inside of the helmet but don’t account for the fact that human heads have scalps and hair that allow a similar level of slip on those types of impacts. The MIPS tech score better in lab tests because it’s simply better at slipping on the head form than a normal helmet. This does not accurately replicate the interaction with a real human head, however.

Additionally, MIPS is a carryover from cycling helmets with much lower coverage. MIPS may prevent torsion on the head and neck in those crashes because those forces are transferred via friction on low coverage helmets. On a full helmet where the head sits deeper, the forces applied come from torsion transferred to the side and back of the helmet.

Other helmets have tech that allow a portion of the EPS liner to stay in conformity with the head and rotate within the shell, thus the head stays correctly placed within the liner and safer from blunt impacts following the glancing impact that cause rotational force.

I’ve had one helmet with MIPS and plan for it to be my last. It’s go to see manufacturers trying things to make helmets safer, but MIPS seem like a step in the wrong direction because it’s a cheap solution that can retrofit to any helmet design while ignoring some of the important variables that exist during crashes outside of the lab. Meanwhile 6d and Bell are making great stride while Shoei and Fly are easing in the right direction.

I wouldn’t buy a fox helmet until MIPS is made obsolete through a complete redesign or by a better technology.

mastakilla wrote:

do you think bell is better than fly? looks like the new bell is some 850 dollar monstrosity with mips spherical, system looks alot like 6d...

do you think bell is better than fly? looks like the new bell is some 850 dollar monstrosity with mips spherical, system looks alot like 6d. there is one paper on pubmed that has mips compared with 6d, 6d did not do well.

i was leaning fly for a new helmet, where do you lean?

TheGetFresh wrote:

MIPS seems like kind of laboratory cheat tech. The helmets are tested on smooth head forms (basically crash test dummy heads) with a single material layer...

MIPS seems like kind of laboratory cheat tech. The helmets are tested on smooth head forms (basically crash test dummy heads) with a single material layer on the outside. The MIPS slip planes are designed to slip around the inside of the helmet but don’t account for the fact that human heads have scalps and hair that allow a similar level of slip on those types of impacts. The MIPS tech score better in lab tests because it’s simply better at slipping on the head form than a normal helmet. This does not accurately replicate the interaction with a real human head, however.

Additionally, MIPS is a carryover from cycling helmets with much lower coverage. MIPS may prevent torsion on the head and neck in those crashes because those forces are transferred via friction on low coverage helmets. On a full helmet where the head sits deeper, the forces applied come from torsion transferred to the side and back of the helmet.

Other helmets have tech that allow a portion of the EPS liner to stay in conformity with the head and rotate within the shell, thus the head stays correctly placed within the liner and safer from blunt impacts following the glancing impact that cause rotational force.

I’ve had one helmet with MIPS and plan for it to be my last. It’s go to see manufacturers trying things to make helmets safer, but MIPS seem like a step in the wrong direction because it’s a cheap solution that can retrofit to any helmet design while ignoring some of the important variables that exist during crashes outside of the lab. Meanwhile 6d and Bell are making great stride while Shoei and Fly are easing in the right direction.

I wouldn’t buy a fox helmet until MIPS is made obsolete through a complete redesign or by a better technology.

-MAVERICK- wrote:

No ever talks about the UFO helmet, but I'd like to see someone do a test on it against the other manufacturers. Helmets are designed, engineered...

No ever talks about the UFO helmet, but I'd like to see someone do a test on it against the other manufacturers.

Helmets are designed, engineered, and made in Italy.

Features:

DCS - Diamond Concept Shell
The outer Diamond shell and its original "diamond" design, studied to optimise shell design to maximise shock absorption and dissipation, has been built using the latest technology and is made up of a high percentage of Carbon (over 60%) and Aramid fibre to maximise performance and minimise weight.

RIAS - Rotation Impact Absorbing System is the revolutionary Diamond helmet technology: In addition to dissipating compression-absorbing shocks like traditional helmets (linear impact), the helmet structure combines innovative technology that dissipates the energy associated with rotational acceleration (rotational impact), reducing tension and providing additional protection for some types of impact. This is all possible thanks to the combined work of the different layers of material used: The main inner shell in high density EPS is characterised by a very compact, rigid outer surface (in contact with the outer shell). The inner surface has large grooves that offer a dual function: they provide greater airflow and differentiate impact force dissipation, effectively as if the main layer had two different densities. Inner oscillating shell, consisting of low density polypropylene foam (PPE) to provide gradual absorption, was designed to rotate inside the helmet, working in conjunction with the Main inner shell. This system enables multi-directional sliding that also dissipates the energy associated with rotational acceleration, so as to improve protection in case of rotational impact.

LEAS - Limited Extension Anti Shock
The Diamond Helmet is also equipped with foam protections. One of these is located at the bottom of the chin-rest, and the other at the back at the base of the neck. This advanced protection system represents an important advance in the containment of the front and back neck flexion and in impact dissipation in the event of a fall. This system can work in conjunction with modern neck braces.

SVS - Sliding Visor System
UFO PLAST has also designed an exclusive visor adjustment system, incorporating a sliding flap in the middle that adjusts the length of the visor even when moving.

Pics of the RIAS System

ZOBITO wrote:

New safe helmet tech gives you headaches.

mastakilla wrote:

do you think bell is better than fly? looks like the new bell is some 850 dollar monstrosity with mips spherical, system looks alot like 6d...

do you think bell is better than fly? looks like the new bell is some 850 dollar monstrosity with mips spherical, system looks alot like 6d. there is one paper on pubmed that has mips compared with 6d, 6d did not do well.

i was leaning fly for a new helmet, where do you lean?

sandtrack315 wrote:

can you post a link to that paper?

mastakilla wrote:

do you think bell is better than fly? looks like the new bell is some 850 dollar monstrosity with mips spherical, system looks alot like 6d...

do you think bell is better than fly? looks like the new bell is some 850 dollar monstrosity with mips spherical, system looks alot like 6d. there is one paper on pubmed that has mips compared with 6d, 6d did not do well.

i was leaning fly for a new helmet, where do you lean?

sandtrack315 wrote:

can you post a link to that paper?

mastakilla wrote:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6928098/ this is the sort of stuff we need to see more of, granted this study was done with half shells and not full face. all...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6928098/

this is the sort of stuff we need to see more of, granted this study was done with half shells and not full face. all the manufacturers data like what 6d and fly put out, is just a sales brochure and not something that can be believed

but the 6d system frankly did not perform in this test at least, looks the exact same as the control.

sandtrack315 wrote:

can you post a link to that paper?

mastakilla wrote:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6928098/ this is the sort of stuff we need to see more of, granted this study was done with half shells and not full face. all...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6928098/

this is the sort of stuff we need to see more of, granted this study was done with half shells and not full face. all the manufacturers data like what 6d and fly put out, is just a sales brochure and not something that can be believed

but the 6d system frankly did not perform in this test at least, looks the exact same as the control.

Johnny Depp wrote:

That's a seriously scientific test. Unfortunately flawed for anyone with hair, of course a bald dummy would "slip" against certain surfaces. Connor Fields crash resulting in...

That's a seriously scientific test. Unfortunately flawed for anyone with hair, of course a bald dummy would "slip" against certain surfaces.

Connor Fields crash resulting in a brain hemorage in the Olympics BMX is a good example of the need to continue testing for better helmet performance. Of note also is the proper trackside treatment, which should include a bag of ice to the head.

mastakilla wrote:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6928098/ this is the sort of stuff we need to see more of, granted this study was done with half shells and not full face. all...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6928098/

this is the sort of stuff we need to see more of, granted this study was done with half shells and not full face. all the manufacturers data like what 6d and fly put out, is just a sales brochure and not something that can be believed

but the 6d system frankly did not perform in this test at least, looks the exact same as the control.

Johnny Depp wrote:

That's a seriously scientific test. Unfortunately flawed for anyone with hair, of course a bald dummy would "slip" against certain surfaces. Connor Fields crash resulting in...

That's a seriously scientific test. Unfortunately flawed for anyone with hair, of course a bald dummy would "slip" against certain surfaces.

Connor Fields crash resulting in a brain hemorage in the Olympics BMX is a good example of the need to continue testing for better helmet performance. Of note also is the proper trackside treatment, which should include a bag of ice to the head.

mastakilla wrote:

looks like fields was wearing a fly formula

karlsmith808 wrote:

So from what I'm getting out of this is if I get a helmet with MIPS I should shave my head to make the mips work...

So from what I'm getting out of this is if I get a helmet with MIPS I should shave my head to make the mips work better.