Trek announcing "something that will change cycling forever"
03-20-19, 09:59 AM
#351
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Seattle
Posts: 1,957
Bikes: Specialized Roubaix, Canyon Inflite AL SLX, Ibis Ripley AF, Priority Continuum Onyx, Santana Vision, Kent Dual-Drive Tandem
Mentioned: 20 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 878 Post(s)
Liked 726 Times
in
436 Posts
I have to tip my hat to Trek's marketing. I definitely wouldn't have thought it'd be so easy to fool people into willfully ignoring the existence of Trek's own Ballista helmet. It's not expensive (got mine directly from Trek for $120), it's aero, and you can look up many reviews attesting to it both being surprising cooling and also aesthetically tame enough for those afraid an aero helmet makes them look too xenomorphic. VTech released their helmet ratings last year and nobody cared. Now all of a sudden we have the same geniuses who did nothing last year in reaction to an impartial test talking about how they must get a Wavecell because Trek's marketing tells them it's safer and pointing to the same VTech test. 
03-20-19, 10:20 AM
#352
Advocatus Diaboli
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Wherever I am
Posts: 8,638
Bikes: Merlin Cyrene, Nashbar steel CX
Mentioned: 14 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4736 Post(s)
Liked 1,533 Times
in
1,004 Posts
just food for thought.. if you added another 50-75 grams to eg. a Bell Stratus MIPs (same MSRP as the Specter) in the way of padding or whatnot.. would it be any safer?
03-20-19, 10:59 AM
#353
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,245
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18420 Post(s)
Liked 15,564 Times
in
7,333 Posts
03-20-19, 11:02 AM
#354
Senior Member
Indeed
No. No we do not. I live in Los Angeles. I ride in Los Angeles. Every road is congested. every driver Tweets, texts and Facebooks while driving. Technology that increases my odds of not becoming a vegetable due to a crash is a wonderful thing. A company can't get someone off the couch. Fitbit tried it. It failed. The same percentages of people are still sedentary. Companies need to focus on things like safety and technology. Trek did just that. I definitely want this helmet.
Bicycling occupies a unique place amongst possible fitness alternatives. It offers good core strength and cardio exercise without putting impact pressure on your joints. Add to that being able to cover an extroidinary amount of ground and the corresponding scenery, lake fronts, and the enormous amount of social interaction along the way, all you have to do is convince people they can do it and get them to try it as a recreation. Fitbit tried to turn everyone into a Tri Athelete with hype. Average people can not take that pounding. If bicycle companies would become more recreational centered and less race centric they would be extremely successful in doing just that.
03-20-19, 11:13 AM
#355
Should Be More Popular
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Malvern, PA (20 miles West of Philly)
Posts: 43,056
Bikes: 1986 Alpine (steel road bike), 2009 Ti Habenero, 2013 Specialized Roubaix
Mentioned: 560 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22600 Post(s)
Liked 8,927 Times
in
4,160 Posts
citation: https://forums.roadbikereview.com/ge...id-307688.html
I knew I read it somewhere. I hope I don’t get in trouble for linking to another online cycling forum.
Last edited by datlas; 03-20-19 at 11:43 AM.
03-20-19, 11:26 AM
#356
- Soli Deo Gloria -
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 14,779
Bikes: 2018 Rodriguez Custom Fixed Gear, 2017 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2015 Bianchi Pista, 2002 Fuji Robaix
Mentioned: 235 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6844 Post(s)
Liked 736 Times
in
469 Posts
All of you could have purchased a Smith Overtake with similar technology from Koroyd which has been available since at least 2016.
https://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/orig...-bike-helmets/
The biggest difference between Trek's WaveTech and Smith's Koroyd is that Smith didn't claim to change life as we know it when they released theirs three years ago.
Getting people to think this is new is Trek's real genius.
-Tim-
Last edited by TimothyH; 03-20-19 at 11:41 AM.
03-20-19, 11:32 AM
#357
Senior Member
I think this is a valid point. However you view the safety gains of the WaveCell, they come at the cost of a weight gain where it's probably most noticeable to riders -- especially over the long haul. It'll be interesting to see if other manufacturers add material to perform better at these fairly standard impact benchmarks, or if the market stays with lighter helmets.
03-20-19, 11:33 AM
#358
Banned.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Bikes: The Good Book of bicycling
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 535 Post(s)
Liked 36 Times
in
29 Posts
Indeed, Technology has its place. But the only way you are going to be safe riding in the street, by your own admission with drivers texting, tweeting, face booking, is not do it. It's not worth it. It is a fools game which you are going to lose to a 21/2 ton car if you do it regularly. Stick to dedicated bike paths, fight for more dedicated bike paths, parks and really safe street areas in off peak hours like the riders do here on Saturday and Sunday Mornings along the Lake.
Bicycling occupies a unique place amongst possible fitness alternatives. It offers good core strength and cardio exercise without putting impact pressure on your joints. Add to that being able to cover an extroidinary amount of ground and the corresponding scenery, lake fronts, and the enormous amount of social interaction along the way, all you have to do is convince people they can do it and get them to try it as a recreation. Fitbit tried to turn everyone into a Tri Athelete with hype. Average people can not take that pounding. If bicycle companies would become more recreational centered and less race centric they would be extremely successful in doing just that.
03-20-19, 12:05 PM
#359
Senior Member
Now those who teach communications have a fresh example of how a product launch can go wrong. If you haven't looked at social media, be prepared to see Trek back on its heels, using a lot of exclamation points and typos.
The obvious outcome is that pretty much everyone feels disappointed by the hype; and in that environment, a nice, feel-good safety product is being attacked as elitist, for starters, but also as a copycat. When Trek responds with their concern for safety, their online audience -- who knows open source when they see it -- questions why the technology is licensed and not yet available for kids. Really a tough spot.
The secondary outcome is more worrying. Because they are on the defensive and pushing hard on the safety advantages of the helmet, I fear that the true disappointment will come with the physical limitations of any helmet. This helmet can only do so much. If you look at the white paper, it reduces the torsional force in a few tested collisions -- at about 10 and 14 miles an hour, at 45, 30 and 60 degree impact angles. The percentage chance of head injury drops -- but not to zero. And they acknowledge this technology does not offer any improvement in linear collisions -- that is, when the helmeted head meets something straight on.
It's great that Trek was able to improve some aspects of helmet performance in certain collisions. What's not great is that they unveiled it in such a crazy way and are now left emphasizing claims -- the gist of which is it virtually eliminates the risk of concussion! -- that further mislead their customers. After the first round of these helmets are involved in crashes that result in head injury, what position will their marketing put them in legally?
Be careful when riding a bike, no matter what helmet you have on. This or any helmet won't save your brain from damage in many types of collisions.
And marketers, please, be a little more careful with your products and your audience's credulity.
There was a graceful way to introduce a safer helmet technology. It didn't happen 30 years ago. It happened like two or three years ago, when Trek introduced its high visibility lights. They had the successful formula in their own playbook.
The obvious outcome is that pretty much everyone feels disappointed by the hype; and in that environment, a nice, feel-good safety product is being attacked as elitist, for starters, but also as a copycat. When Trek responds with their concern for safety, their online audience -- who knows open source when they see it -- questions why the technology is licensed and not yet available for kids. Really a tough spot.
The secondary outcome is more worrying. Because they are on the defensive and pushing hard on the safety advantages of the helmet, I fear that the true disappointment will come with the physical limitations of any helmet. This helmet can only do so much. If you look at the white paper, it reduces the torsional force in a few tested collisions -- at about 10 and 14 miles an hour, at 45, 30 and 60 degree impact angles. The percentage chance of head injury drops -- but not to zero. And they acknowledge this technology does not offer any improvement in linear collisions -- that is, when the helmeted head meets something straight on.
It's great that Trek was able to improve some aspects of helmet performance in certain collisions. What's not great is that they unveiled it in such a crazy way and are now left emphasizing claims -- the gist of which is it virtually eliminates the risk of concussion! -- that further mislead their customers. After the first round of these helmets are involved in crashes that result in head injury, what position will their marketing put them in legally?
Be careful when riding a bike, no matter what helmet you have on. This or any helmet won't save your brain from damage in many types of collisions.
And marketers, please, be a little more careful with your products and your audience's credulity.
There was a graceful way to introduce a safer helmet technology. It didn't happen 30 years ago. It happened like two or three years ago, when Trek introduced its high visibility lights. They had the successful formula in their own playbook.
03-20-19, 12:08 PM
#360
Portland Fred
Indeed, Technology has its place. But the only way you are going to be safe riding in the street, by your own admission with drivers texting, tweeting, face booking, is not do it. It's not worth it. It is a fools game which you are going to lose to a 21/2 ton car if you do it regularly. Stick to dedicated bike paths, fight for more dedicated bike paths, parks and really safe street areas in off peak hours like the riders do here on Saturday and Sunday Mornings along the Lake.
I've ridden my entire life, and have consistently put in more cycling than driving miles over the last 35 years. However, I've never lived anywhere where sticking to paths was even vaguely practical. Aside from the fact that paths don't go everywhere roads do, they're only appropriate for low speed and therefore short distance use. Besides, bike paths and vehicle paths must inevitably intersect.
Don't get me wrong, I'll take a rural ride over the nonsense that passes for riding anywhere near a city any day. But trying to find that magic safe space is like chasing a rainbow.
Safety is about risk management. Wearing a helmet so you can tool around at a foot pace on a path isn't a horrible idea, but hardly essential to safety. On the other hand, the argument is more compelling if you're bombing down a hill at 50mph.
If you ride within your limits, appropropriately for conditions, and like everyone is trying to kill you, you'll most likely be fine.
03-20-19, 12:18 PM
#361
Senior Member
You are right. Like I said, really safe street areas in off peak hours. You ride in an urban setting at any which time on a regular basis you are going to get hurt or killed. That is just a blunt fact. The amount of Jackasses in society today is incalculable. You add to that their power trip of being behind the wheel of an automobile in addition to texting, talking on the phone, face booking etc., that is something you want to avoid. The amount of these so called ghost bike funerals in this city alone is staggering. Recently two riders were killed at one time by a drunk driver. There is nothing romantic about that. It isn't worth it.Not even close.
03-20-19, 12:19 PM
#362
Banned.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 509
Bikes: The Good Book of bicycling
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 535 Post(s)
Liked 36 Times
in
29 Posts
If cyclists succeed in putting out this message, it will kill off cycling for good.
I've ridden my entire life, and have consistently put in more cycling than driving miles over the last 35 years. However, I've never lived anywhere where sticking to paths was even vaguely practical. Aside from the fact that paths don't go everywhere roads do, they're only appropriate for low speed and therefore short distance use. Besides, bike paths and vehicle paths must inevitably intersect.
They need to spend more time out in the sticks. There are no effective speed limits out there -- you can also encounter people drag racing at over 100mph on roads too narrow to have a stripe, drunks, get surrounded by packs of dogs, or menaced by people who are even more poorly socialized than aforementioned dogs, passed by vehicles towing equipment/materials when the driver forgets what they're hauling is wider than their vehicle, animals can suddenly jump out from the sides when you're moving at speed, and a gazillion other things.
Don't get me wrong, I'll take a rural ride over the nonsense that passes for riding anywhere near a city any day. But trying to find that magic safe space is like chasing a rainbow.
Safety is about risk management. Wearing a helmet so you can tool around at a foot pace on a path isn't a horrible idea, but hardly essential to safety. On the other hand, the argument is more compelling if you're bombing down a hill at 50mph.
If you ride within your limits, appropropriately for conditions, and like everyone is trying to kill you, you'll most likely be fine.
I've ridden my entire life, and have consistently put in more cycling than driving miles over the last 35 years. However, I've never lived anywhere where sticking to paths was even vaguely practical. Aside from the fact that paths don't go everywhere roads do, they're only appropriate for low speed and therefore short distance use. Besides, bike paths and vehicle paths must inevitably intersect.
They need to spend more time out in the sticks. There are no effective speed limits out there -- you can also encounter people drag racing at over 100mph on roads too narrow to have a stripe, drunks, get surrounded by packs of dogs, or menaced by people who are even more poorly socialized than aforementioned dogs, passed by vehicles towing equipment/materials when the driver forgets what they're hauling is wider than their vehicle, animals can suddenly jump out from the sides when you're moving at speed, and a gazillion other things.
Don't get me wrong, I'll take a rural ride over the nonsense that passes for riding anywhere near a city any day. But trying to find that magic safe space is like chasing a rainbow.
Safety is about risk management. Wearing a helmet so you can tool around at a foot pace on a path isn't a horrible idea, but hardly essential to safety. On the other hand, the argument is more compelling if you're bombing down a hill at 50mph.
If you ride within your limits, appropropriately for conditions, and like everyone is trying to kill you, you'll most likely be fine.
03-20-19, 12:31 PM
#363
Senior Member
If cyclists succeed in putting out this message, it will kill off cycling for good.
I've ridden my entire life, and have consistently put in more cycling than driving miles over the last 35 years. However, I've never lived anywhere where sticking to paths was even vaguely practical. Aside from the fact that paths don't go everywhere roads do, they're only appropriate for low speed and therefore short distance use. Besides, bike paths and vehicle paths must inevitably intersect.
They need to spend more time out in the sticks. There are no effective speed limits out there -- you can also encounter people drag racing at over 100mph on roads too narrow to have a stripe, drunks, get surrounded by packs of dogs, or menaced by people who are even more poorly socialized than aforementioned dogs, passed by vehicles towing equipment/materials when the driver forgets what they're hauling is wider than their vehicle, animals can suddenly jump out from the sides when you're moving at speed, and a gazillion other things.
Don't get me wrong, I'll take a rural ride over the nonsense that passes for riding anywhere near a city any day. But trying to find that magic safe space is like chasing a rainbow.
Safety is about risk management. Wearing a helmet so you can tool around at a foot pace on a path isn't a horrible idea, but hardly essential to safety. On the other hand, the argument is more compelling if you're bombing down a hill at 50mph.
If you ride within your limits, appropropriately for conditions, and like everyone is trying to kill you, you'll most likely be fine.
I've ridden my entire life, and have consistently put in more cycling than driving miles over the last 35 years. However, I've never lived anywhere where sticking to paths was even vaguely practical. Aside from the fact that paths don't go everywhere roads do, they're only appropriate for low speed and therefore short distance use. Besides, bike paths and vehicle paths must inevitably intersect.
They need to spend more time out in the sticks. There are no effective speed limits out there -- you can also encounter people drag racing at over 100mph on roads too narrow to have a stripe, drunks, get surrounded by packs of dogs, or menaced by people who are even more poorly socialized than aforementioned dogs, passed by vehicles towing equipment/materials when the driver forgets what they're hauling is wider than their vehicle, animals can suddenly jump out from the sides when you're moving at speed, and a gazillion other things.
Don't get me wrong, I'll take a rural ride over the nonsense that passes for riding anywhere near a city any day. But trying to find that magic safe space is like chasing a rainbow.
Safety is about risk management. Wearing a helmet so you can tool around at a foot pace on a path isn't a horrible idea, but hardly essential to safety. On the other hand, the argument is more compelling if you're bombing down a hill at 50mph.
If you ride within your limits, appropropriately for conditions, and like everyone is trying to kill you, you'll most likely be fine.
03-20-19, 12:32 PM
#364
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 63
Bikes: Trek Emonda, Fuji Absolute. Wife has: Ridley Noah, Brompton
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I refuse to live in a world where I will not ride my bike, because it is unsafe. As I said, I live in LA, so I won't ride during rush hour. However, on weekends, I ride with my group, which makes us more visible, and during the weekdays, I ride on a beach path. All that said, a better helmet is never a bad idea. This one from Trek seems like a monster improvement over all the other ones sold in stores. And don't give me that BS about Smith. Yes, I saw it. It is similar but not the same. Also, I have yet to see a Smith helmet in my LBSs. Helen's, Wheel World, Cynergy, etc etc. None sell them. But Bontrager helmets I have seen. So, I know where to go to try one on and purchase it.
I will tell you, from what I see predominating this website in general, is cynicism. Before the announcement people were saying things like "I can't wait to hate this" and other things similar. 1/2 the people on this thread think it is a bad gimmick. No one has bothered to really look into it. To be cynical is easy. But cynicism = pseudo intelligence. It's easy to brush things off and call them crap. Skepticism is one thing. That is saying, I am not sure, and I don't trust, but I am willing to find out. Cynicism is saying that you already know better because you're some sort of super genius, and you are above it all. Be better than that.
I will tell you, from what I see predominating this website in general, is cynicism. Before the announcement people were saying things like "I can't wait to hate this" and other things similar. 1/2 the people on this thread think it is a bad gimmick. No one has bothered to really look into it. To be cynical is easy. But cynicism = pseudo intelligence. It's easy to brush things off and call them crap. Skepticism is one thing. That is saying, I am not sure, and I don't trust, but I am willing to find out. Cynicism is saying that you already know better because you're some sort of super genius, and you are above it all. Be better than that.
03-20-19, 12:35 PM
#365
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,520
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20810 Post(s)
Liked 9,456 Times
in
4,672 Posts
Half the people in this thread think this is new and ground breaking and want to get it immediately.
All of you could have purchased a Smith Overtake with similar technology from Koroyd which has been available since at least 2016.
https://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/orig...-bike-helmets/
The biggest difference between Trek's WaveTech and Smith's Koroyd is that Smith didn't claim to change life as we know it when they released theirs three years ago.
Getting people to think this is new is Trek's real genius.
-Tim-
All of you could have purchased a Smith Overtake with similar technology from Koroyd which has been available since at least 2016.
https://cyclingtips.com/2016/09/orig...-bike-helmets/
The biggest difference between Trek's WaveTech and Smith's Koroyd is that Smith didn't claim to change life as we know it when they released theirs three years ago.
Getting people to think this is new is Trek's real genius.
-Tim-
Why you so triggered, though?
03-20-19, 01:03 PM
#366
Should Be More Popular
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Malvern, PA (20 miles West of Philly)
Posts: 43,056
Bikes: 1986 Alpine (steel road bike), 2009 Ti Habenero, 2013 Specialized Roubaix
Mentioned: 560 Post(s)
Tagged: 2 Thread(s)
Quoted: 22600 Post(s)
Liked 8,927 Times
in
4,160 Posts
I refuse to live in a world where I will not ride my bike, because it is unsafe. As I said, I live in LA, so I won't ride during rush hour. However, on weekends, I ride with my group, which makes us more visible, and during the weekdays, I ride on a beach path. All that said, a better helmet is never a bad idea. This one from Trek seems like a monster improvement over all the other ones sold in stores. And don't give me that BS about Smith. Yes, I saw it. It is similar but not the same. Also, I have yet to see a Smith helmet in my LBSs. Helen's, Wheel World, Cynergy, etc etc. None sell them. But Bontrager helmets I have seen. So, I know where to go to try one on and purchase it.
I will tell you, from what I see predominating this website in general, is cynicism. Before the announcement people were saying things like "I can't wait to hate this" and other things similar. 1/2 the people on this thread think it is a bad gimmick. No one has bothered to really look into it. To be cynical is easy. But cynicism = pseudo intelligence. It's easy to brush things off and call them crap. Skepticism is one thing. That is saying, I am not sure, and I don't trust, but I am willing to find out. Cynicism is saying that you already know better because you're some sort of super genius, and you are above it all. Be better than that.
I will tell you, from what I see predominating this website in general, is cynicism. Before the announcement people were saying things like "I can't wait to hate this" and other things similar. 1/2 the people on this thread think it is a bad gimmick. No one has bothered to really look into it. To be cynical is easy. But cynicism = pseudo intelligence. It's easy to brush things off and call them crap. Skepticism is one thing. That is saying, I am not sure, and I don't trust, but I am willing to find out. Cynicism is saying that you already know better because you're some sort of super genius, and you are above it all. Be better than that.
I hope we can all agree on that and move on.
03-20-19, 01:05 PM
#367
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,520
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20810 Post(s)
Liked 9,456 Times
in
4,672 Posts
03-20-19, 01:06 PM
#368
Portland Fred
Wax on as eloquently as you want. Look at the statistics of people hurt and killed riding in an urban area. That is fact. That does not change. The amount of these Ghost Bike Funerals in this city alone is staggering. Recently two riders were killed at one time by a drunk driver. Avoiding urban areas during peak hours will kill off cicyling for good? That is melodramatic hogwash. There are many places and opportunities to ride safely other then urban areas during peak traffic hours. What has the potential of literally killing cicyling is ghost bike funerals and this romantic notion you can ride anywhere you want anytime you want. You say you can survive urban riding then go on to say how dangerous rural riding is and then say urban riding is more dangerous then rural riding. Your logic does not make sense.
For those of you not familiar with Portland, cyclists here think passing from behind on the inside of turning vehicles is a great idea despite the fact this is universally regarded as dangerous/stupid on every other form of transport on land (including foot), water, and air pretty much everywhere else. I see people doing this every day -- and they get hooked all the time (curiously, I've never been hooked). Notably, these same cyclists also seem to think most of the roads are unridable when they're in fact very ridable and consider 35mph (not a typo, thirty-five) a dangerous speed for traffic to be moving near bikes. People are seriously like that here -- it's straight out of a Portlandia skit.
But I must get back on topic or I'll wind up in A&S -- back to our revolutionary helmet...
I am curious how good the airflow is. $150 isn't out of the question, but there are lighter and very good MIPS contenders that can be had for that price.
03-20-19, 01:13 PM
#369
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: TC, MN
Posts: 39,520
Bikes: R3 Disc, Haanjo
Mentioned: 354 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20810 Post(s)
Liked 9,456 Times
in
4,672 Posts
03-20-19, 01:39 PM
#370
Senior Member
What's melodramatic is the cyclist activist nonsense that preaches fear of low speed traffic and encourages cyclists to engage in incredibly dangerous behaviors. You should move to Portland -- you'd fit right in here.
For those of you not familiar with Portland, cyclists here think passing from behind on the inside of turning vehicles is a great idea despite the fact this is universally regarded as dangerous/stupid on every other form of transport on land (including foot), water, and air pretty much everywhere else. I see people doing this every day -- and they get hooked all the time (curiously, I've never been hooked). Notably, these same cyclists also seem to think most of the roads are unridable when they're in fact very ridable and consider 35mph (not a typo, thirty-five) a dangerous speed for traffic to be moving near bikes. People are seriously like that here -- it's straight out of a Portlandia skit.
But I must get back on topic or I'll wind up in A&S -- back to our revolutionary helmet...
I am curious how good the airflow is. $150 isn't out of the question, but there are lighter and very good MIPS contenders that can be had for that price.
For those of you not familiar with Portland, cyclists here think passing from behind on the inside of turning vehicles is a great idea despite the fact this is universally regarded as dangerous/stupid on every other form of transport on land (including foot), water, and air pretty much everywhere else. I see people doing this every day -- and they get hooked all the time (curiously, I've never been hooked). Notably, these same cyclists also seem to think most of the roads are unridable when they're in fact very ridable and consider 35mph (not a typo, thirty-five) a dangerous speed for traffic to be moving near bikes. People are seriously like that here -- it's straight out of a Portlandia skit.
But I must get back on topic or I'll wind up in A&S -- back to our revolutionary helmet...
I am curious how good the airflow is. $150 isn't out of the question, but there are lighter and very good MIPS contenders that can be had for that price.
If you have a problem with bike activists in Portland, take it up with them. For I am not one of them.
You think a helmet is going to protect you when you get T-Boned by an SUV because the driver wasn't paying attention then you have a different understanding of Physics then I do.
03-20-19, 01:40 PM
#371
Disco Infiltrator
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Folsom CA
Posts: 13,446
Bikes: Stormchaser, Paramount, Tilt, Samba tandem
Mentioned: 72 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3126 Post(s)
Liked 2,105 Times
in
1,369 Posts
I'm interested in this technology. I agree that it should have come out of the gate stronger in VT's testing, but it's the first go vs. MIPS helmets that have had some years to evolve, so maybe it will show better in another generation. Or maybe they prioritized the rotation hit and lost out on the direct hit in VT's tests.
I don't find it the same as Koroyd, even though it's also green plastic. Smith makes no promises about rotation concussions nor do they claim it competes with MIPS - they just claim it's cooler than foam and takes a hit better.
Something interesting in VT's tests - the 3/4 shell MTB helmets don't score better than the 1/2 shell road helmets. Not just MIPS or Trek, any of them.
I don't find it the same as Koroyd, even though it's also green plastic. Smith makes no promises about rotation concussions nor do they claim it competes with MIPS - they just claim it's cooler than foam and takes a hit better.
Something interesting in VT's tests - the 3/4 shell MTB helmets don't score better than the 1/2 shell road helmets. Not just MIPS or Trek, any of them.
__________________
Genesis 49:16-17
Genesis 49:16-17
03-20-19, 02:29 PM
#372
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18378 Post(s)
Liked 4,512 Times
in
3,354 Posts
So, do the waves exclude yellow jacket bees, or trap them against one's head?
03-20-19, 03:10 PM
#373
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18378 Post(s)
Liked 4,512 Times
in
3,354 Posts
Trek supplies two different accessory mounts with different helmets.
They have a headlight/camera mount on some helmets, and a taillight mount on other helmets.
Unfortunately, they don't seem to have given the option for both a headlight/camera and a taillight.
I suppose the theory is that a rider is either going slow enough that they need a taillight, but not a headlight, or fast enough that they need a headlight, but not a taillight.
I have started a conversation with Virginia Tech about whether they have actually tested the safety of accessory mounts, and they have said that they have not tested them as part of their standard helmet testing. Their interpretation is that many accidents would knock the accessories off.
If I was using that large dome commuter helmet, I'd be tempted to epoxy a headlight/camera mount to the helmet (which again potentially changes the safety profile of the helmet).
As mentioned earlier, a hothead becomes an issue with my summer commuting, and the Trek commuter helmet doesn't appear to have sufficient ventilation (without actually trying it out).
Odd, looking at combo headlight/taillights, and all I can find are THREE.
https://www.topeak.com/global/en/pro...adlux-dual-usb
https://www.topeak.com/global/en/pro...et/326-headlux
https://www.amazon.com/Topside-Recha.../dp/B01M3YP1FO
Unfortunately, none of them appear compatible with Trek's mounting system.
03-20-19, 03:20 PM
#374
- Soli Deo Gloria -
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Northwest Georgia
Posts: 14,779
Bikes: 2018 Rodriguez Custom Fixed Gear, 2017 Niner RLT 9 RDO, 2015 Bianchi Pista, 2002 Fuji Robaix
Mentioned: 235 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6844 Post(s)
Liked 736 Times
in
469 Posts
Thank you @CliffordK. The GoPro mount is interesting.
Is it safe to say that the WaveTech material precludes the use of any strap on accessory?
I don't believe it couldn't be used with a Light & Motion Vis Pro, for example, which attaches with velcro straps in the rear and rubber straps in the front.
The L&M Vis 360 is similar.
Inability to use with strap on accessories is the only reason why I don't own a Smith Overtake which is the same concept as the Trek released by Smith over three years ago.
-Tim-
Is it safe to say that the WaveTech material precludes the use of any strap on accessory?
I don't believe it couldn't be used with a Light & Motion Vis Pro, for example, which attaches with velcro straps in the rear and rubber straps in the front.
The L&M Vis 360 is similar.
Inability to use with strap on accessories is the only reason why I don't own a Smith Overtake which is the same concept as the Trek released by Smith over three years ago.
-Tim-
03-20-19, 03:33 PM
#375
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Eugene, Oregon, USA
Posts: 27,547
Mentioned: 217 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18378 Post(s)
Liked 4,512 Times
in
3,354 Posts
Thank you @CliffordK. The GoPro mount is interesting.
Is it safe to say that the WaveTech material precludes the use of any strap on accessory?
I don't believe it couldn't be used with a Light & Motion Vis Pro, for example, which attaches with velcro straps in the rear and rubber straps in the front.
The L&M Vis 360 is similar.
Inability to use with strap on accessories is the only reason why I don't own a Smith Overtake which is the same concept as the Trek released by Smith over three years ago.
-Tim-
Is it safe to say that the WaveTech material precludes the use of any strap on accessory?
I don't believe it couldn't be used with a Light & Motion Vis Pro, for example, which attaches with velcro straps in the rear and rubber straps in the front.
The L&M Vis 360 is similar.
Inability to use with strap on accessories is the only reason why I don't own a Smith Overtake which is the same concept as the Trek released by Smith over three years ago.
-Tim-
However, the taillight/battery pack may be a problem.
There does appear to be a foam layer that could be excavated out, but then you're doing non-factory mods to the helmet, and would likely lose any warranty or recourse in case of failure.
Although, it may not necessarily affect the overall risk.
Older style helmets could have the shells removed and put back on. But the utility of doing so would depend on the shell design/thickness, but at this moment, I wouldn't mess with the inner layers.
I think your best bet would be epoxy on the shell.