a better read indeed!

Ballista mips scored 10.9
XXX wavecell scored 11.8

sharpen pencil, carry the 2, double checking.... 10.9 is lower than 11.8.

Yep. Should take my own advice!

no worries, brother (Hulk Hogan voice)

While most agrees the actual news was disappointing, i guess the marketing dept succeeded. We all know about it now, discuss the scientific findings, and arguably more will be inclined to buy it.

1-0 trek - ST. /clap

Link to the actual research article.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0001457518303713?via%3Dihub


I'm not a biomechanist or engineer, but if their models for predicting injury are reasonable, then the decrease in the probability of injury shown in the last graph are truly impressive and ground breaking.


This is coming from someone who works with individuals with TBI regularly.

Looks like my link to the article is not working. I accessed it through my university computer and thought is was an open access article but maybe not.

jacksonk wrote:

Looks like my link to the article is not working. I accessed it through my university computer and thought is was an open access article but maybe not.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/...ii/S0001457518303713

EDIT: Interesting. Copy and paste it works. It's the "?via%3Dihub" that breaks it.

---

JustinDoesTriathlon

Owner, FuelRodz Endurance.

Thanks for the fix!

Those results are only partially corroborated by the Virginia Tech results, though. The VT results show WaveCell more on par with MIPs rather than an order of magnitude ahead. Maybe marginally better than MIPs And VT is fully independent while the above study was designed and performed by those who have a financial interest in WaveCell.

I haven't yet dived into the details of each study to try to figure out why the results may not fully agree.

the wavecell specter does edge out the ballista mips at 10.8 and these 3 are the best rated helmets virginia tech have tested so credit to bontrager there.
the ballista does look to be much less ventilated than the xxx so more material which could account for its good score, if the xxx has similar aerodynamics and protection with better ventilation then i'd take that (although i think i read somewhere that wavecell adds something like 50 grams).

all in all though, its not clear that this is anything like the breakthrough that trek promised

one thing that intrigues me with the VT tests, the mtb helmets score noticeably worse than the road ones. i know the extra protection of mtb helmets is more oriented towards coverage than straight impact protection but i would still have expected them to at least match the road helmets. does anyone that understands the VT testing methodology have an explanation for this?

Hmmm... i am all for head injury prevention and safety. By far the most important tech for a bike rider.

But this was a bit much... but good on trek for hooking us in.

I have yet to read the article, but 10.9 vs 11.8 is good, but not great. I support mips in requesting standardized testing. Otherwise it gets easy to design around a test, not reality.

So this is a bit much for a patent workaround, but any safety improvement is good.

What this guy said^^^^ its the new "wave cell " tech. Theyre at my store already.

The difficulty is knowing whether a 'better' helmet would have made any difference.
In Europe (and no reason to suspect it's different anywher else) the fatal accidents are oft so bad a helmet makes no difference to the outcome. Thats how the defence lawyer argument of 'contributory neglegence' to reduce the $$$ in damages for not wearing any helmet is usually dismissed - that no helmet still made no difference to the outcome.

(I'm not saying a helmet is a bad thing here. Our house operates a no-helmet-no-ride policy. And I do buy 'good' safe helmets, not just cheapo styrofoam !)

Hello trail and All,

As you note from the study:

"Disclosure
Some of the authors (MB, SMM) are co-inventors of CELL technology described in this manuscript, have filed patents, and have a financial interest in the company that owns this technology. These authors (MB, SMM) are founders and co-directors of the Legacy Biomechanics Laboratory. Several of the authors (EB, AR, ST, SMM, MB) are affiliated with the Legacy Health System, which was a partial funder of this research. None of the authors received any money or in-kind contribution for this work."

==================================

While the above could be an argument for bias .... a lab that tests helmets might be the ideal place to germinate new helmet concepts and techniques to mitigate crash injuries.

I would hope to see more tests and information about improving helmets.

It should be noted that there is a slice of cyclists that eschew helmets.

https://pvcycling.wordpress.com/...-in-the-helmet-wars/

That said .... personally ..... I am a 'helmet believer'.....

I have been knocked off my bike in a race and can vouch for the fact that the road is harder than my bare head.

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

Agreed. A nice product and worthy of consideration. Just not 30-year revolutionary status. I don’t necessarily have any issue with the product. But, the marketing over-hype certainly makes me seriously question any and all other claims about the product and I doubt I’m alone in that regard.

Yeah no argument there. That was a reach lol

---

JustinDoesTriathlon

Owner, FuelRodz Endurance.

Hello ggeiger and All,


MIPS replies:


"MIPS has today disputed the performance of Bontrager's new WaveCel technology by claiming it falls "far below" its claims of injury prevention."

https://www.pinkbike.com/...ontrager-claims.html

---

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster

Didn't Smith invent your 30 year revolution several years ago?


https://www.smithoptics.com/us/techhelmet

https://www.smithoptics.com/au/Root/Men%27s/Helmets/Cycle/Route/p/HB18-RTMBMD/sizeVariants

https://www.freestylextreme.com/au/home/brands/smith-optics/smith-optics-matte-red-white-black-2017-overtake-mips-mtb-helmet.aspx?prodid=328159

In my home country vehicle drivers should wear an awareness helmet (that has to be invented) .. they cause 70% of the accidents with injured bicycle riders ..

---

*
___/\___/\___/\___ the s u r f b o a r d of the K u r p f a l z is the r o a d b i k e .. oSo >>

Depends on your risk awareness and risk aversion. If it is truly 48x more effective at preventing concussion, I would consider the "hype" warranted.

I'm glad that manufacturers are spending money trying to make us safer even though most people might think it's just a boring helmet.

Agree... from the study

"Results of this study are limited to a narrow range of impact conditions, but demonstrated the potential that rotational acceleration and the associated brain injury risk can be significantly reduced by the cellular WAVECEL concept or a MIPS slip liner."

Then the disclosure that patent holders, inventors, those with a financial interest were part of the study. This makes me leery from experience with other studies in other realms with patent holders at the controls of a study.


As a TBI 'person' from a bike accident this is of some interest to me. I find they describe and test different sorts of accelerations (linear, rotational,..) and prevention of skull fractures. In my experience I'm sure my helmet (Giro Air Attack Shield) saved my life but I did sustain a concussion by sheer forces of the event which was my head/helmet hitting a fence post at ~40mph. Would I have fared any better with a MIPS or Wavecel?


Interesting study but honestly I'd need it in more layman's terms.

MIPS have responded, also apparently unable to corroborate. Though obviously with a financial incentive themselves. But if their results (which they say they'll release to the public) largely corroborate the VT study, then I'll consider WaveCell to be a nice alternative to MIPS, but not the be-all end-all that that marketing suggests it is.

I agree with MIPs here...

MIPS’ position on evaluating the possibility of a concussion resulting from a crash is that it is a highly variable event and unique to the individual impact and rider physiology. No two crashes are the same and no two people are the same, so the risk of concussion is a near-impossible claim to make. However, rotational motion itself can be measured objectively, so that is the metric MIPS can actually report and address.

It is a highly variable event, take me for instance flying down a fence row and into a fence post. I don't remember much of the accident but my Garmin had me a little under 40mph. A doctor described my brain as being the consistency of tooth paste... I'm happy I had a helmet on but I'm not sure Wavecel would have stopped my brain from being sloshed around. With that I'm calling baloney on the claim of preventing 99 out of 100 potential concussions.

I think an important qualifier to this study is that the tests were done at 4.8 and 6.2 m/s (~11 and 14 mph). This is likely to be significantly different from the speeds and consequently forces that would be experienced in a crash by the population here.

I think the value is focused on morbidity not mortality. We need a Hans-like device for the later;)