FEATURE
How Retailers can Navigate Helmet Tech Fragmentation
We explore Mips and alternative rotational impact mitigation technologies. By Emma Karslake
T
en years ago, “Does it have Mips?” was a simple and often decisive question when choosing a cycling helmet. Today, the question is less straightforward. Rotational impact mitigation has diversified into
multiple approaches, developed both in-house and via partnerships, creating a fragmented but innovative landscape. For the trade, this raises practical questions: how to
explain the differences simply, how to merchandise without overwhelming customers, and how to plan a coherent range when brands push competing narratives.
Helmet Testing and Standards Rotational impact mitigation is now formally entering bicycle helmet certification as the CEN (European Committee for Standardisation, an organisation the UK is still part of) has revised its bicycle helmet testing protocol, that dated back to 2012. The new EN 1078:2025 standard introduces oblique- impact testing, and ‘requires helmets to mitigate angular
16 | June 2026
velocity during oblique impacts to less than 35 rad/s at an impact velocity of 6.5 m/s’. This effectively sets a minimum threshold rather than a
performance benchmark, and many commercially available systems already claim to exceed it using proprietary test methods. In parallel, Virginia Tech’s STAR rating system provides one of the few cross-brand comparison tools available to retailers, evaluating helmets on both linear and rotational injury risk. However, not all manufacturers accept this methodology. KASK, for example, relies on its own WG11 protocol and argues that alternative headform friction assumptions make external comparisons invalid, highlighting a broader lack of consensus across testing regimes.
The lack of direct, standardised comparisons between
systems means retailers must navigate conflicting claims. Most brands benchmark against Mips rather than each
www.bikebiz.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
