Originally Posted by
merlinextraligh
True, but consumers routinely choose to pay extra for helmets based on marketing. You can buy a Wave Cell helmet from Trek for anywhere from $99 to $299. The puffery used to justify the higher end Wave Cell, just like higher end Giro’s and other brands is at least as suspect as any problem with their safety claims. Also you can pay as much or more for a MIPS helmet, or a conventional helmet.
I have a Wave Cell helmet. I knew when I bought it that the safety claims were based on limited data. I’m not terribly upset that there’s now additional data to question the original data, and I’m certainly not holding my breath waiting for my $10 off coupon.
https://cyclingtips.com/2021/01/trek...safety-claims/
This helps explain some of the issue too. You mentioned missing which made me think of this article. Mips is very careful to claim there us a measurable benefit. Its how all the brands are, really...except Bontrager.
Bontrager declared its X % safer and thats being challeneged. Its the potential downside of making a definitive claim. The potential upside is that Bontrager shows supporting evidence and they get some good publicity because courts accept the claim that their helmet is safer.
All this really comes down to how the helmets safety is tested. 2 tests can produce 2 different results. When comparing a lot of helmets, 10 tests can produce 10 different tests, probably.
This helmet does well with side glancing blow, this helmet does well with hit to the crown, this helmet does best in a back of head impact, etc etc etc.
I'm not hoping trek wins or loses, its all just quite interesting to me since they were so bold with their marketing.