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

I don't see any proof it's any better than mips...

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

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?

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.

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.

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!

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. 

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.  

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 

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.

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

Looks like Mr. Kirsch took marketing classes from Snake Oil University, and skipped engineering class.