Trek announcing "something that will change cycling forever"
03-19-19, 09:34 PM
#326
Banned.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Vegemite Island
Posts: 4,130
Bikes: 2017 Surly Troll with XT Drive Train, 2017 Merida Big Nine XT Edition, 2016 Giant Toughroad SLR 2, 1995 Trek 830
Mentioned: 29 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1916 Post(s)
Liked 310 Times
in
218 Posts
03-19-19, 10:56 PM
#329
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: SoCal
Posts: 6,496
Mentioned: 6 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 276 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
3 Posts
I am not sure that it is an elistist thing to want to pay extra for real, or perceived, additional protection.
I recently bought a Cycliq 6 rear view video camera for my bike. I have paired it with the Garmin Varia RTL510 radar.
I am not an elitist, I just want to give myself that extra edge of protection.
Elitist is driving a Bentley convertible when a Mercedes convertible will do just fine.
03-19-19, 11:13 PM
#330
Chases Dogs for Sport
I take it that you haven't looked at them, either, because they plainly state that they're independent tests and that they receive no funding from helmet manufacturers. Also, all of the WaveCel helmets are rated 5-star, something that can't be said for MIPs, which has 3- and 4-star rated offerings.
As for one of the studies, a "helmet manufacturer" may or may not have directly funded the study, but two of the study’s eight authors are the Wavecell’s inventors—Dr. Steven Madey and Dr. Michael Bottlang. Several of the other authors are employed by either Legacy Biomechanics Laboratory (WaveCel), or its parent, Legacy Health. Dr. Bottlang also designed the machine that manufactures the Wavecel liners. I suspect these guys might be a little less than objective when designing the testing regime and bringing together their "findings." WaveCel was no doubt designed specifically to perform well for these particular tests. (That's not diabolical -- it's just the way designs are created. You set up the test, then you design something to perform well for the test.)
To be fair, almost all "studies" related to MIPS also lack a certain objectivity. If you design to the test -- and all designs are created to pass some testing regime -- it is not surprising when your design comes out "best" for that test. If it doesn't, you're not much of a designer. That was the whole point of the design! (But in both cases, nobody really knows if their testing methodologies provide useful information. No humans were harmed in the testing of Wavecel or MIPS for these studies. All these tests are educated guesses about what really matters.)
And while it's true that not ALL MIPS helmets receive 5 stars from VTU, an awful lot of them do. And, according to Bicycling magazine, some EPS-only helmets have received 5 stars, too, in past versions of the list. (None of the 5-star EPS helmets are listed in the latest 54-helmet VTU listing.) So MIPS and EPS-only helmets are capable of getting the same rating the Wavecell helmets received. There is obviously something other than MIPS or EPS holding the lower-rated helmets back. (Some say it might be increased shell stiffness or increased surface area friction. The lower rated helmets tend to be urban commuter helmets without much venting.) So the 5-star rating is a false dichotomy. All three types of helmets have received 5-star ratings.
And 5-star or no, there's no way of knowing if the testing regimen means a helmet necessarily protects you better, anyway. Lab tests can't duplicate all the variables present in a real world crash. We just know that this large group of Wavecell, MIPS, and EPS-only helmets passes VTU's particular set of tests well. And gets "5 stars!" (But you always have to keep in mind that engineers sometimes design or select the tests wrong. It happens.)
Again, none of this says WaveCel is a bad thing or that these are bad helmets. Just that there is no evidence at all that they come close to justifying the hype.
Last edited by FlashBazbo; 03-20-19 at 12:05 AM.
03-19-19, 11:14 PM
#331
Senior Member
Don't know about that, but she does have this in her waiting room:
Reading BikeSnob's latest, I was pleased to see he made reference to They Live, strangely apropos to the topic of the thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI8AMRbqY6w
Reading BikeSnob's latest, I was pleased to see he made reference to They Live, strangely apropos to the topic of the thread.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI8AMRbqY6w
Someone advertising they are a Bike Snob? That is confusing. I thought they were the Scourge of the Earth. My Goal is to regain my strength and dust the Packs of Young Riders that ride on Saturday and Sunday Mornings here around the Lake Front on their Composite this and that with my 14 year old Aluminum Schwinn Varsity.
03-20-19, 07:08 AM
#333
Senior Member
Isn't the objective of a marketing campaign to bring attention to a product? Of course this product (or any other) will not 'live up to the hype.' The objective of marketing is to 'hype it' beyond the level of 'hypeness' it would achieve on its own. Otherwise, why spend the money on a marketing campaign?
03-20-19, 07:10 AM
#334
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
Look beyond the marketing materials, WhyFi. Look at the studies themselves. I'm not saying WaveCel is a bad design or is a scourge on the earth -- just that NOTHING indicates it is a revolutionary improvement in helmet design that is markedly better than anything that has ever been seen. MIPS and Koroyd are right there with it.
As for one of the studies, a "helmet manufacturer" may or may not have directly funded the study, but two of the study’s eight authors are the Wavecell’s inventors—Dr. Steven Madey and Dr. Michael Bottlang. Several of the other authors are employed by either Legacy Biomechanics Laboratory (WaveCel), or its parent, Legacy Health. Dr. Bottlang also designed the machine that manufactures the Wavecel liners. I suspect these guys might be a little less than objective when designing the testing regime and bringing together their "findings." WaveCel was no doubt designed specifically to perform well for these particular tests. (That's not diabolical -- it's just the way designs are created. You set up the test, then you design something to perform well for the test.)
To be fair, almost all "studies" related to MIPS also lack a certain objectivity. If you design to the test -- and all designs are created to pass some testing regime -- it is not surprising when your design comes out "best" for that test. If it doesn't, you're not much of a designer. That was the whole point of the design! (But in both cases, nobody really knows if their testing methodologies provide useful information. No humans were harmed in the testing of Wavecel or MIPS for these studies. All these tests are educated guesses about what really matters.)
And while it's true that not ALL MIPS helmets receive 5 stars from VTU, an awful lot of them do. And, according to Bicycling magazine, some EPS-only helmets have received 5 stars, too, in past versions of the list. (None of the 5-star EPS helmets are listed in the latest 54-helmet VTU listing.) So MIPS and EPS-only helmets are capable of getting the same rating the Wavecell helmets received. There is obviously something other than MIPS or EPS holding the lower-rated helmets back. (Some say it might be increased shell stiffness or increased surface area friction. The lower rated helmets tend to be urban commuter helmets without much venting.) So the 5-star rating is a false dichotomy. All three types of helmets have received 5-star ratings.
And 5-star or no, there's no way of knowing if the testing regimen means a helmet necessarily protects you better, anyway. Lab tests can't duplicate all the variables present in a real world crash. We just know that this large group of Wavecell, MIPS, and EPS-only helmets passes VTU's particular set of tests well. And gets "5 stars!" (But you always have to keep in mind that engineers sometimes design or select the tests wrong. It happens.)
Again, none of this says WaveCel is a bad thing or that these are bad helmets. Just that there is no evidence at all that they come close to justifying the hype.
As for one of the studies, a "helmet manufacturer" may or may not have directly funded the study, but two of the study’s eight authors are the Wavecell’s inventors—Dr. Steven Madey and Dr. Michael Bottlang. Several of the other authors are employed by either Legacy Biomechanics Laboratory (WaveCel), or its parent, Legacy Health. Dr. Bottlang also designed the machine that manufactures the Wavecel liners. I suspect these guys might be a little less than objective when designing the testing regime and bringing together their "findings." WaveCel was no doubt designed specifically to perform well for these particular tests. (That's not diabolical -- it's just the way designs are created. You set up the test, then you design something to perform well for the test.)
To be fair, almost all "studies" related to MIPS also lack a certain objectivity. If you design to the test -- and all designs are created to pass some testing regime -- it is not surprising when your design comes out "best" for that test. If it doesn't, you're not much of a designer. That was the whole point of the design! (But in both cases, nobody really knows if their testing methodologies provide useful information. No humans were harmed in the testing of Wavecel or MIPS for these studies. All these tests are educated guesses about what really matters.)
And while it's true that not ALL MIPS helmets receive 5 stars from VTU, an awful lot of them do. And, according to Bicycling magazine, some EPS-only helmets have received 5 stars, too, in past versions of the list. (None of the 5-star EPS helmets are listed in the latest 54-helmet VTU listing.) So MIPS and EPS-only helmets are capable of getting the same rating the Wavecell helmets received. There is obviously something other than MIPS or EPS holding the lower-rated helmets back. (Some say it might be increased shell stiffness or increased surface area friction. The lower rated helmets tend to be urban commuter helmets without much venting.) So the 5-star rating is a false dichotomy. All three types of helmets have received 5-star ratings.
And 5-star or no, there's no way of knowing if the testing regimen means a helmet necessarily protects you better, anyway. Lab tests can't duplicate all the variables present in a real world crash. We just know that this large group of Wavecell, MIPS, and EPS-only helmets passes VTU's particular set of tests well. And gets "5 stars!" (But you always have to keep in mind that engineers sometimes design or select the tests wrong. It happens.)
Again, none of this says WaveCel is a bad thing or that these are bad helmets. Just that there is no evidence at all that they come close to justifying the hype.
As far as the results, I don't know what to say. You say there's no significance in the fact that all of the WaveCel helmets score 5-star. I tend to disagree. You say that there's something clearly holding back the other designs and say that it may be related to the construction, pointing out that "urban commuter helmets without much venting" are among the poorest scorers... yet you ignore the fact that Bontrager's Charge helmet is one of those "urban commuter helmets without much venting" and it, too, scores high enough to get in to the 5-star bracket. I'm all for skepticism but, so far, I'm not getting a whiff of anything amiss from the sniff test.
03-20-19, 07:23 AM
#335
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 39,237
Mentioned: 211 Post(s)
Tagged: 1 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18412 Post(s)
Liked 15,535 Times
in
7,328 Posts
03-20-19, 07:38 AM
#336
Senior Member
I think the confusion might be over two different studies or evaluations. One was by Virginia Tech, another was performed largely by the technology's inventors, who licensed it to Trek.
Here's the study performed by the inventors, who disclose their interest in the findings, which is on Trek's site: https://trek.scene7.com/is/content/Tr...ct_testing.pdf
If you dig a bit into the people responsible for the design, you get their company, Apex Biomedical, and judging from their website, they were shooting to crack into the football helmet market. Maybe they have; I don't know.
The Virginia Tech evaluation is this one: https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicyc...t-ratings.html
The founder's study says that WaveCell reduces the theoretical risk of brain injury (by formula based on torsional forces) in 6 different collision scenarios involving roughly 10- and 14-mph crashes into an angled surface (30, 45, 60 degrees). The risk drops into the low single digits, starting from a max of 40-60 percent with an unspecified EPS (traditional) helmet. The unnamed MIPS helmet is in the middle.
Virginia Tech's methodology was similar, but used slightly different drop velocities and impact angles, as well as more of them. The put the WaveCell Specter helmet at the top of their rankings, but a MIPS was in second by a whisker, and other MIPS helmets outperformed other WaveCell helmets.
Here's the study performed by the inventors, who disclose their interest in the findings, which is on Trek's site: https://trek.scene7.com/is/content/Tr...ct_testing.pdf
If you dig a bit into the people responsible for the design, you get their company, Apex Biomedical, and judging from their website, they were shooting to crack into the football helmet market. Maybe they have; I don't know.
The Virginia Tech evaluation is this one: https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicyc...t-ratings.html
The founder's study says that WaveCell reduces the theoretical risk of brain injury (by formula based on torsional forces) in 6 different collision scenarios involving roughly 10- and 14-mph crashes into an angled surface (30, 45, 60 degrees). The risk drops into the low single digits, starting from a max of 40-60 percent with an unspecified EPS (traditional) helmet. The unnamed MIPS helmet is in the middle.
Virginia Tech's methodology was similar, but used slightly different drop velocities and impact angles, as well as more of them. The put the WaveCell Specter helmet at the top of their rankings, but a MIPS was in second by a whisker, and other MIPS helmets outperformed other WaveCell helmets.
03-20-19, 07:47 AM
#337
Non omnino gravis
Ignoring the stars and looking only at the numeric scores, Trek needs to go back to the drawing board and figure out why the $150 model works slightly better than the $300 model.
__________________
03-20-19, 07:58 AM
#338
- 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
From a purely practical standpoint, a helmet lamp can't be strapped to a WaveCell helmet.
-Tim-
-Tim-
03-20-19, 08:04 AM
#339
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
Why? Impact results aren't the sole consideration. While the $150 is marginally better in that regard, the $300 is their aero model. I think that it's already been proven that some people out there will pay a premium for the aero promise.
03-20-19, 08:07 AM
#340
Occam's Rotor
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times
in
1,164 Posts
You've never heard of or read BikeSnobNYC?
03-20-19, 08:08 AM
#341
Non omnino gravis
There's no logical reason "aero" should compromise impact rating. Some of the Bern helmets are just big foam buckets, and they do not test well at all. That variance has to come down to design. While I readily admit a helmet's aero performance isn't my paramount concern (fitting and not being hot are) I don't think I would trade X% of impact protection for X% of improved aerodynamics. For 300 bucks, it oughta do both.
__________________
03-20-19, 08:10 AM
#342
Occam's Rotor
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times
in
1,164 Posts
Considering Trek was essentially provided the answer key to the exam, via their collaboration with Virginia Tech, I am surprised to see these helmets don't stand out as being anything substantially different or better from various MIPS helmets tested.
03-20-19, 08:31 AM
#343
Portland Fred
A lot of people who want to get into cycling have a hard time coming up with $150 for a bike let alone a helmet. That probably makes up 90% of would be cyclists and why people complain about the cost of entry into cycling. Most people are fine with a $30 helmet that went through the same testing and certification to be sold.
But I agree that people who ride low speeds in easy conditions would probably be served fine by cheaper options.
Though no helmet will be effective if not worn properly -- something you'll see a lot of cyclists doing wrong.
03-20-19, 08:32 AM
#344
Portland Fred
03-20-19, 09:09 AM
#345
Senior Member
Admission
You've never heard of or read BikeSnobNYC?
Why you never smile?
03-20-19, 09:20 AM
#346
Occam's Rotor
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 7,248
Mentioned: 61 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2366 Post(s)
Liked 2,331 Times
in
1,164 Posts
Hell is other people.
03-20-19, 09:36 AM
#347
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
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.
03-20-19, 09:41 AM
#348
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
A lot of people who want to get into cycling have a hard time coming up with $150 for a bike let alone a helmet. That probably makes up 90% of would be cyclists and why people complain about the cost of entry into cycling. Most people are fine with a $30 helmet that went through the same testing and certification to be sold.
03-20-19, 09:44 AM
#349
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
Also, I'd like to add, if you support Trump, don't bother wearing a helmet at all. It is simply futile. 
03-20-19, 09:44 AM
#350
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