Will the Fluid Displacement Helmet Liner Render Your Foam Lid Obsolete?


Bryan Bosch

Kirsh Helmets Debuts With CHM-1, the Toughest, Lowest-profile, DOT-certified Half-shell Helmet on the Market

SCHENECTADY, NY – October 11, 2017 – (Motor Sports Newswire) – Kirsh Helmetsa member of the Impact Technologies family, both founded by Jason E. Kirshon, are poised to effect a sea of change in the motorsports and other helmet industries. For decades, legacy compression polystyrene technology (aka foam) has been the standard in helmets, from motorsports to football to snowboarding and any number of other impact sports and activities. No longer. “Has been” is the right way to frame it, because Kirsh Helmets, with its patented fluid-displacement-liner (FDL), is about to make foam to helmets what rotary phones are to cellular technology—obsolete.

“We see Kirsh’s fluid displacement liner as a game changer,” said Donnie DeVito, President and Chief Operating Officer of Kirsh Helmets. “It works better than foam, it’s safer and it’s adaptable to any number of sports and high-speed activities.”

KIRSH-HELMETS-TECHNOLOGY.jpg

Kirsh Helmets, Inc., a member of the Impact Technologies family, was formed in late January 2017 to take up the challenge of commercializing the innovative, patented technology invented by Jason Kirshon. Focusing first on solving the problem of unsafe—but popular—novelty half-shell motorcycle helmets, Kirsh’s CHM-1 outperforms “competing” helmets by orders of magnitude in independent testing.

At one half of an inch thick, the CHM-1 is the lowest-profile half-shell helmet on the market. Made from the highest-quality materials, coupled with the most-advanced impact technology available, it is also Department of Transportation–certified and entirely manufactured in the U.S.A.

Since their inception, the thinking on helmet design has been “more is better.” More foam equals more protection for the head in the event of impact trauma. The independent testing conducted on the Kirsh CHM-1 proves this is not the case. Foam does little to slow down or prevent the brain from slamming into the skull after impact. And the bulk necessary for foam helmets requires more mass, which, in turn, translates into more torque exerted upon the head and neck in the event of a crash.

The Kirsh FDL’s silicone and fluid construct mimics the body’s natural protective functions. The brain sits in fluid in the skull. With the FDL, the skull sits in fluid within the helmet. This allows for less mass, reducing impact torque, and a fluid buffer that more effectively protects the skull and brain. And the malleability of the liner ensures that it conforms uniquely to each user’s head, insuring better protection and a custom fit, which means much greater comfort.

Size and style are key components that influence consumers. Despite overwhelming evidence that helmet use reduces the likelihood of injury for motorcycle riders, many go without. Kirsh is looking to help change that and reduce traumatic brain injury across the board by offering stylish, low-profile helmets that are safer and work better than their larger, bulkier predecessors. Another compelling feature separating the CHM-1 from all other helmets on the market is its ability to sustain multiple impacts without compromising the helmet’s integrity. And the versatility of the FDL allows for application in half-shell and full-shell helmet designs for any sport or activity that requires the use of head protection, meaning its potential goes far beyond motorsports.

So, a question: What do rotary phones, the Ford Edsel, the answering machine, and the foam helmet have in common? Answer: They’re all obsolete relics. Kirsh Helmets is offering the next generation of helmet technology, today, and, for the motorcycle rider, the world is a safer place because of it.

About Kirsh Helmets

Kirsh Helmets, a member of the Impact Technologies family of companies, is an All-American-Made Helmet Company. Our unique technology brings together style, safety, comfort, and improved performance.

Source: Impact Technologies
kirsh-webhead-tm_s_200.png

2 people like this




User Feedback


1 hour ago, 2strokeYardSale said:

It seems to me an incompressible fluid would make a bad helmet liner. But I'm not a neurologist or an engineer.

I'm neither as well, but I'm guessing the action would be displacement vs. compression of the liquid?

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, so it just moves through channels to a different, non-displaced chamber. That would be smart, if the displaced portion could still protect the noggin, or all the protection was done by then. I am intrigued. This sounds like it could take multiple impacts, too.

1 person likes this

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one has pointed out the obvious yet.They demo that technology on something that clearly provides no protection and needs much more than the demoed new technology to provide anyone with the basic level of protection.That would be considered a half helmet as stated in the article.Now,I would say nothing accept,they do mention and try to sale this as a half helmet with new technology in brain and cranial trauma, reducing rotational force damage technology.Put that technology into a well engineered Full face helmet,then demo it,please! 

My background is as a Research Engineer, in Spinal development.Specifically fluid,friction, and wear. Particulate displacement and organ toxicity.

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see how this would work in theory. I don't know how the technology works internally but if it's what I'm thinking from their description there would be controlled fluid movement from one tiny small cell to another. Almost like how fluid is moved through small orifices in your fork to slow compression. That would be pretty cool, it would certainly be better for low and medium speed impacts as it would have some cushion over standard foam helmets. This is one reason I bought the Bell Moto 9 Flex!

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lots of mentions of independent tests but no links to test data. In Europe we have independent, mandatory S.H.A.R.P ratings for helmets, does something similar exist in the US? I find it hard to believe a company takes head safety seriously when they're making helmets in the shape of a colander. Where's the abrasion protection?   I like the idea but the execution looks a little dubious. I get that the kind of people who wear these helmets are hardly safety conscious in the first place but it seems like a gimmick to me. Like Nike Air trainers.

Secondly, if this worked, why Arai, Shoei, AGV etc haven't come up with it first? They spend millions on R&D, their products have to protect the world's top athletes. They are constantly striving to produce safer, lighter helmets. You think no one at any of these massive companies has tested an alternative to foam??

I've never heard of Hirsh Helmets, probably because their products don't pass the most basic safety tests. 

3 people like this

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems like gel, which is not a new technology and was proven to be better than foam at absorbing impact a long time ago.  Unfortunately its heavy and hot, which is why no one uses it.  The reality of protection is that the best option is rarely ever utilized because its simply impractical and/or uncomfortable, so we take risks instead.  Crash helmets today are still only useful at preventing skull fractures, not concussions.  Everything else is unproven hype.  If you used gel, you wouldn't need mips or any of that other crap because it's fluid and will compress and move at the same time.  

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that football helmets aren't the same as our helmets but if you look at the impact tests I think this technology could carry over. The drop test with the two impacts side by side really shows how much the helmet stabilizes the head 

 

 

 

Edited by meyermetal

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2017 at 6:22 PM, NateDavis said:

No one has pointed out the obvious yet.They demo that technology on something that clearly provides no protection and needs much more than the demoed new technology to provide anyone with the basic level of protection.That would be considered a half helmet as stated in the article

^ THIS^  I'm all for new technology and safer helmets but it's hard to take them seriously when they trot out the half shell. I'm guessing they have a weight problem and can't find a way to sell 12-pound full size helmets. They also have a marketing problem. Trying to sell a "safer" helmet for a premium to consumers who intentionally bought the less safe, half shell seems like a tall order. Their claim to fame is small and low profile which loses it's luster when it's heavier than conventional.

 

 

2 people like this

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just the fact that they've used a DOT 1/2 lid to showcase the technology is enough for me to think they just don't get it.

Who in their right mind wears one of those and thinks there is any protection involved?

15 hours ago, _JC_ said:

^ THIS^  I'm all for new technology and safer helmets but it's hard to take them seriously when they trot out the half shell. I'm guessing they have a weight problem and can't find a way to sell 12-pound full size helmets. They also have a marketing problem. Trying to sell a "safer" helmet for a premium to consumers who intentionally bought the less safe, half shell seems like a tall order. Their claim to fame is small and low profile which loses it's luster when it's heavier than conventional.

 

 

Right on

Share this comment


Link to comment
Share on other sites


Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Reply with:


  • Similar Content

    • By Bryan Bosch
      More @ https://thumpertalk.com/articles/will-the-fluid-displacement-helmet-liner-render-your-foam-lid-obsolete-r752/
      There's a comment section below the article if you'd like to discuss the article. We'd love to hear what you have to say about this new helmet tech. 

       
       
    • By Mobojoe
      Ordered an Airoh Motocross Helmets Aviator 2.2 June 19th
      received ray ban sunglasses in the mail July 27th, sent an email on the 28th they said they would fix it. 
      here I am September 29th with out any response response to when I will receive the correct helmet. emails are broken English and frustrating as heck. 
      BUYER BEWARE this was ordered off the Airohhelmetusa.com website and at this point I don't think they give a darn.
      think I will look at Suomy!!!!!! and see how that goes. wonder if anyone else has had issues with Airoh?