1nterceptor

"Consumer Reports has rated three helmets as unsafe in its latest helmet test editorial package. For varying reasons, the independent, nonprofit member organization said helmets from Bontrager, Morpher and Woom failed its tests and are rated as "Don't Buy-Safety Risk.""

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/prod...ticle-comments

bakerjw

From the article. The Bontrager MIPS helmet had a buckle break.

fietsbob

you can pur on a heavier buckle* if you altrady have one of those helmets

*National Molding 'Fastex' has a vast assortment..

livedarklions

The Bontrager is 3rd best on VA Tech's safety ratings. It doesn't appear that VA Tech actually tests the buckles, however.

Phil_gretz

Bontrager, Morpher and Woom could be a law firm specializing in product liability and tort claims. Just sayin'

TimothyH

I'm no fan of Bontrager products but fair is fair and Consumer Reports is dubious as a source of valid information.

trailangel

The cutting edge helmet no good?
https://www.trekbicyclesuperstore.co...SAAEgJb3PD_BwE

tcs

Some years back CU broke the buckle on a Cannondale helmet. IIRC no other testing organization was able to duplicate this failure.

surak

The Ballista is a fantastic helmet. Aero, well ventilated, looks good, not heavy. Strap design is its weakest point as it's not super premium. If one result from the CR testing is that Trek comes out with a better retention system for a future model year, I'll be buying a new one.

Cyclist0108

A bit of a catty response.

Cyclist0108

Dewey, Chetham and Howe.

Cyclist0108

Swing and a miss ...

fietsbob

If The buckle is the issue?, the solution is clear.

Cyclist0108

Based on what?

themp

I gave up on CR when over a period of time I noticed that they were skewed to Toyota and Lexus in their automobile reviews. This was during the accelerator recall:

https://www.thecarconnection.com/new...u-need-to-know

What they did was separate the Toyota and Lexus brand so as to mitigate the damage to the company. It was like Lexus was not a part of Toyota. All other luxury brands in their annual review were tied to their base brand(Honda/Acura). So I felt they tried to cover for Toyota and Lexus during this time frame. I even emailed some of their writers on this and they denied it, but it was pretty obvious to me.

bruce19

I've always found CR to be an objective and valuable resource. Not to say I haven't had differences but I wouldn't call them a dubious source of valid information.

Skipjacks

How many of each helmet did they test?

If they tested 1 and had 1 buckle failure, that's hardly a scientifically valid claim that the buckles are defective. If they tested 1000 helmets and 50 buckles broke, that has some validity.

TimothyH

I'm sorry for shooting from the hip and should have been clearer. I meant high-end specialty gear. See below.


Maybe they have changed but I used to look at their print magazine.

Many times they use useless or irrelevant metrics to rate one product higher than another. For example, they rated the Corvette lower than the Nova because the Corvette had higher maintenance costs. The reality is that maintenance costs are low on the the list of things important to most in the market for a Corvette.

Eagle F1 tires were rated low because they wear out fast. The reality is that sports car owners at the time knew this and yet viewed them as breakthrough product for performance sports car use.

These are example of how they are (were?) divorced from why people buy certain products in the first place. Sure, everyone understands an objective measure of durability when talking about things like washing machines but high end gear is different. I'm not sure they are (were?) in the position to guide people in the market for a specialty bicycle equipment.

Outdoor Gear Lab does some decent reviews of sports gear.


-Tim-

Cyclist0108

I have to admit the idea that a Nova could rank anywhere above the lowest boggles my mind.

bruce19

I think this is valid criticism and mirrors my own. I've owned a Ford Focus ST and now own a Fiesta ST. Both cars come with manual transmission only. However, when you read the reliability report from CR they are lumped in with the "normal" Focus and Fiesta. And, those are downgraded because of chronically problematic Auto trannys. True but has nothing to do with the ST variety. Which, after a total of 70K miles I will say are two of the best and most reliable cars I have ever owned. And, FWIW, I have owned Corvettes, Lotus, BMW, Audi, VW, etc. So, there's that.

1nterceptor

Who should you trust? Helmet makers dispute Consumer Reports findings

https://www.bicycleretailer.com/indu...s#.XR_SJOhKhPY
"The maker of a helmet model that failed a recent Consumer Reports test said the results are "fake news." He also questioned whether the publication's in-house testing should be given more weight than the multiple national standards his helmets have been certified to pass."

I-Like-To-Bike

Does CR still make reference to the discredited Thompson "study metrics" that bicycle helmets prevent 85% of head injuries? The last time I read the print version a few years ago they still were citing that old chestnut in their helmet review.

tcs

I've been reading their test reports for 50+ years, so obviously I think there's some value there. IMO 'always' goes too far:

https://www.aim.org/aim-report/aim-r...sumer-reports/

Kent T

And their newly hired junior partner, "And for how much"

Bicycles and helmets aren't the only thing I distrust CR on. HiFi past 1978 is another, camera gear another just to name some.

Sy Reene

I guess I'm on the side of CR on this.. I don't think they made up the results, and I believe that their testing is valid to identify RELATIVE performance. With this said, do I think that all of these helmets pass CPSC? Sure. In theory all of the helmets tested by VA Tech all did to, but there's nothing wrong with ranking and highlighting, as this article says.. "that there are better choices"