TimothyH

I'll stay with notTrek brand helmets. Thanks for the info though.

-Tim-

banerjek

Choice of venue and gear isn't what makes you safe. Nor is the existence of bike lanes (which don't exist on the vast majority of useful roads) It's how you use what you have for the totality of conditions at hand.

It does not take long to meet 100,000 drivers on the road. This means that if you're not prepared for the worst 0.001%, you'll find trouble quickly and regularly. Not getting t-boned requires not trusting people to do what they should and looking out for threats at all times.

Since we're on the subject on technologies to reduce head injuries, I present my revolutionary commuter which doubles as a seriously good distance bike and would reduce head injuries far more than Trek's helmet technology if widely implemented

Unlike a standard frame where catastrophic failure, front wheel washout, or crash often leads to immediate and direct high speed contact with the pavement threatening the rider's skull and neck, crash dynamics are much more likely to result in thighs, hips, shoulders, and upper arms bearing the brunt of the impact. Other advantages include being great in headwinds, great on descents (I've never been passed in 12 years I've owned this bike), and it has redneck repellent properties -- tends to evoke curiosity even among those not known for their love of bikes.

And if many people did ride these, it really would change cycling forever and it would be a much bigger change than cyclists have seen for decades

banerjek

When I'm not conditioned, yes -- especially on extended climbs.

But you get used to it. I've put over 12 hrs in the saddle on this many times (though not for a few years)

mjac

Wattsup

What about lack of visibility? Seems to ride quite low to the ground.

greatscott

Well with this copying of the Smith helmet controversy I wonder why Smith hasn't sued Trek for doing that?

mjac

CliffordK

While the helmets have been out in demo models and in testing for some time, Trek only made the formal announcement this week.

I'd imagine that Smith is working to get several of the helmets, and is evaluating their options.

Also, does this fall under the MIPS patent?

79pmooney

A challenge - depth of pockets. Trek can almost certainly survive a suit (and quite likely drag it on past Smith's financial limitations). Actually I suspect they bought the rights from Smith.

Ben

banerjek

A bit lower, but not really a problem. That it looks so unusual helps me stick out which provides a different type of visibility. Also, it's a really fast so I can pace traffic in situations that I wouldn't be able to on a race bike.

One the other hand, visibility when I'm on my trike is a serious problem -- especially large vehicles next to me often can't see me so I need to be ready at all times for vehicles to move in on me and make sure I don't get pinned against something. But I've also ridden that in pretty gnarly situations for over a decade with no real problems. BTW, that one is particularly nice on super slick roads, but you have to mind the cars sliding around.
I always ride with the assumption that people don't see me -- I'm wrong at least 99.9% of the time -- but I'm ready when they don't.

eja_ bottecchia

Seattle Forrest

Love me some disc brakes when it starts to rain.

banerjek

Probably both.

I'm guessing some bounce off but once they get in, you're screwed.

Maelochs

Can we give Trek some kind of "Maximum Hyperbole" award? They really outdid themselves and most every user of the English language on this one.

Maelochs

Actually it is Steve Job's real genius ... the folks at Trek stole that, too ...

WhyFi

Why would it? MIPs is a decoupling from the impact liner, this is an impact liner that allows slippage.

WaveCel is patent pending and Trek is the exclusive licensee of the tech, not the holder; Trek certainly haven't bought the rights from Smith and I'm not sure that they'd be subject to a suit if Smith decided to pursue that route.

mjac

Wattsup

it occurs to me that riding low in a recumbent not only impairs your visibility to others, but also their visibility to you.

banerjek

Correct. Here's a brief shot from a trip home sometime back when it was snowing at night.


Aside from not being able to look through vehicles, I cannot communicate nearly as effectively with drivers. Other specific challenges the trike presents are that I have 3 wheel tracks which makes dealing with holes/debris more problematic, I'm 30" wide which gives me less side clearance in general on both sides, and despite the way it looks, the handling is not nearly as responsive or precise as a race bike.

I adjust for all of these things -- you can't act the same on this thing as you would on a race bike. However, if you use your head, it's quite safe. I'm pretty sure I have fewer adventures in bad weather in the dark when mixing with traffic than a lot of people do riding a path when it's clear and sunny.

With very few exceptions, it is how you respond (or fail to respond) to conditions and not the conditions themselves that are dangerous.

banerjek

I like getting around by my own power and love cycling. I also have 3 race bikes.

If I only could have one bike, it would be this one. Custom built for a 40+mile RT commute I had for over a decade, this thing has many refinements making it an excellent choice for bad weather, hills, and hauling gear. The custom designed steel rack only weighs 10oz with bolts and is just sufficient to hold the small (not large) panniers I use. It takes fenders, but I only have clearance for 23mm tires to keep things tight and aero because I never use anything else. Rear stays were extended 20mm so I won't kick my bags, the added length to the wheelbase gives it solid handling on high speed descents when I pull the fenders off. The newest but most ridden bike in my stable, this has over 70K miles on it.

I find regularly riding different kinds of bikes makes me a better cyclist all around.

Sy Reene

does not compute, does not compute

banerjek

Minimalist rig that does exactly what I need and nothing more.

Previous workhorse was a touring bike which was OK, but heavy and slow. This is way more fun.

Sy Reene

I get that you like your bike, but just can't imagine going into a custom shop and speccing a fendered bike for hauling gear, commuting and bad weather, but specifying that you don't want it to be able to take wider than 23mm tires.

banerjek

The bike is for me and no one else -- I wanted a practical commuter I could take in anything with the soul of a race bike. Most commuting bikes are way overbuilt by my perspective.

When I started my long commute with a touring bike, I started with 28's, then dropped to 25's, and then to 23's. Just a teeny bit lighter for tires/fenders and I like tight lines. I know I'll never mount bigger tires, so I don't even want the option. I'm not sure I've carried 5 lbs and know I'll never even bust 10, so I don't even want the capacity. I do ride in a lot of slop (I chew up a set of rims pretty much every year), so I wanted real fenders -- though I wanted them tight. This thing is also built for my 140lb weight, the steer tube is cut, and it's not going to be something anyone other than me likes. But my experience is that if you really know what you need, you don't need anything else.

If I were having it built today, I'd probably go disc brakes, IGH, and belt drive since I also go through lots of tranny components as well as rims, but the tech wasn't quite where I wanted at the time this was built. Even after all this time, I love every ride on this thing.

CliffordK

One can haul gear with 23mm tires, although I've moved to favoring 25mm tires.

One can add fenders to a bike with narrow tires, although I've been running fenderless.