You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I'd buy a tweed frame..!
Solid tyres that are relatively light and grippy .
2wd e-bikes, there's an idea. Easy to implement too. Think of the fun you could have with 5" tyres and two 250W motors.
I thought crazy-legs might've been close - perhaps a shaft drive gearbox bike (even though it's been done, marketers don't really care) but a new frame material is a nice idea.
I reckon some kind or organic composite, like carbon fibre but not carbon fibre, maybe some kind of tree fibre
Probably bamboo fibre of same sort.
another attempt to do away with air in the tyres
aheadsets are about 30 years old
To change something for everyone means all bike types and costs so I think it has to be something universal to a BSO.
Only thing that warrants a news story big enough not to fall flat on its face when it is finally launched is airless tyres imho.
The lattice background picture could be something to do with sidewall contstruction to give compliance.
Struggle to think that it would be a bike manufacturer that came up with the idea though - maybe in collaboration with a tyre manufacturer or similar.
If it is just a standard of something or other, like bottom bracket shell or drop outs etc, surely 90% of the bike buying public would be seriously underwhelmed and therefore not justify these wild claims.
Only other standard I can think of that fits every bike from BSO to £12k wonder-machine is the humble bottle cage mount.
To change something for everyone means all bike types
Unless it means everyone, be they cyclist or not, which would fit with some sort of super eco frame material. Saving the fluffy polar bears, innit.
All the hype. All the tin foil hats.
And it's just a helmet...
https://www.bikemag.com/gear/apparel/helmets/bontrager-introduces-wavecell-helmet-technology/
EDIT: A bloody expensive one too!!! $300 for an open face lid? I'm ooooout.
That's rather dull; we're still waiting the announcement on the Bontrager websites.
Wow, that is seriously underwhelming
You design a helmet so there is more chance that if you fall of you'll be able to carry on riding as you always have then claim it changes everything forever. Where is the logic in that, surely it's been designed to keep everything the same, well your brain anyway.
A return to vertically adjustable quill stems, says he hopefully.
A day early?
disappointing
although a good move
WTAF
650A
If that is actually it, then their copywriter/marketing manager really needs to have a word with themselves.
Lets hope that STW are suitably sarcastic when the news is posted on the front page.
Oops, wrong thread
[img] 
[/img]
And it’s just a helmet…
Man, I've gone n binned all my bikes in readiness! No way it's just a helmet! 🙁
The date on that image has been changed twice! Originally said 18th, then 19th, seems this morning they changed it to the 20th, perhaps on the back of SC launching the Megatower, which will surely grab way more attention than a helmet... Bad news for Trek/Bontrager is it was already out in the open today...
what a f'kin letdown.
A lesson in how one instagram post can become the best bit of cycling marketing in 30yrs......
Massive over hype.....
Helmets are about as interesting as puncture repair kits. You (well most riders) have to have one, but you don't actually ever want to use it. So how they can hype this in such a way, I do not know.
Something interesting is coming tomorrow, I bet... something else...
Trek's Wavecell page has now gone live (it wasn't accessible when Bike Magazine posted the link; I think they may have jumped the gun somewhat by posting the announcement before Trek) - https://wavecel.trekbikes.com
Well that’s just shit. I’ve never felt under helmeted
Why does the 'commuter' wavecell have so few vents? Madness!
naughty bike mag, we've been sworn to secrecy until tomorrow!
Why does the ‘commuter’ wavecell have so few vents? Madness!
Because it is
e-bike approved
naughty bike mag, we’ve been sworn to secrecy until tomorrow!
The [url= https://www.trekbikes.com/gb/en_GB/?clear=true ]Trek UK homepage[/url] is still heralding "Cycling's most important change in 30 years" to be announced 20/03/19 and "Be the first to know" but supplying your email address; the UK appears to have missed the boat.
I was intrigued by "Trek and Bontrager have partnered with WaveCel to create a helmet technology..." If you Google Wavecell, hidden amongst the pages of Trek/Bontrager bumpf there is a [url= https://wavecel.com/ ]Wavecell.com[/url] so it looks like Wavecell might not be a Trek development; have they bought them out or bought some sort of exclusive license?
--- Edit ---
From the FAQ - Currently, WaveCel is available exclusively in Bontrager helmets.
The Trek UK homepage is still heralding “Cycling’s most important change in 30 years” to be announced 20/03/19
All of the helmets are on the uk site now. Why all of the hate? Surely improving the safety of helmets is a good thing?
Wahoo! I guessed right! Take that y'all...
Is disappoint.
Was out on the bike for several hours today. Wondering what could be so startling was one of the thoughts rattling around.
I came to the conclusion that if
Everything else is history
then it could only mean an end to satan's chain mangling device, the derailleur. That would be history.
Still disappoint. 🙁
Why all of the hate?
Not seeing any hate here, more disappointment that it's nothing really all that ground breaking. The associated ridicule is deserved after Trek having, it seems, massively overhyped this.
I like to feel i played a crucial role in the overhypery
Just had the email from Trek and it is Wavecell helmets. Not quite as ground breaking as I expected.
Waves. Sells.
Maybe that's their thinking?
I actually got more excited (in an angry way though) when I rode though an orange dog turd earlier.
I think the lay 30 can rest safe. Bugger all had changed.
Seriously Trek, who came up with all this BS? Even by bike industry standards this is pretty uninspiring...
Just had the email from Trek and it is Wavecell helmets. Not quite as ground breaking as I expected.
Better the ground than your head and that’s thanks to wavecell! The most important advance in cycling since the wheel.
It's a big step in the right direction. I've been saying for years that EPS isn't fit for purpose as bicycle helmet material.
I’ve been saying for years that EPS isn’t fit for purpose as bicycle helmet material.
Bollocks! Car-> head interface; tree-> head interface; road-> head interface; metal fence-> head interface* etc... Still here, not brain damaged. That, I'd wager, is something properly fit for the purpose for which I purchased it!
I will not be replacing any helmets with overhyped, overpriced, undervented, wavecell bullshit. 😀
*In case of pedantry (ie. not recognising that I am replying to the post above): All protected by EPS helmets.
CBA writing it all out again so here's where I explained my problems with EPS based helmets: https://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/a-helmet-that-looks-like-it-has-actually-been-designed-for-cycling/
"says MIPS" who are the only people who say MIPS does good as far as I know. Independant testing on MIPS found the evidence to be inconclusive and some people have actually suffered greater injury because of it.
I'd buy one if I had the cash to hand. More protection for the same amount of inconvenience always a good thing, even if it comes with extra hype. I can ignore that.
So wtf actually is it? From what I can see the helmet still appears to be eps but with their new liner. Which does what? Direct competetor for mips?
“says MIPS” who are the only people who say MIPS does good as far as I know.
Plenty of good research on MIPS, plenty of evidence of rotational injury from conventional helmets
“says MIPS” who are the only people who say MIPS does good as far as I know
They make some good points about the dubiousness of the 'statistics' being bandied about by Trek's PR department though.
So what does the research on MIPS actually say?
That rotational effects from helmets are real and that the MIPS design reduces this. This came from research by a chap called phillips. IIRC an independent researcher who designed the slip plane then it was commercialised.
Are there figures for how many people have actually suffered serious injury or death from head injuries whilst wearing a cycle helmet?
As the massive over-hype for this shows, it's about marketing first, safety second.
Not that I have seen. Real evidence is actually very poor with loads of very poorly designed bits of research that are not valid and loads of very widely different conclusions. Not one piece of research I have see gets anywhere near the gold standard and most is simply worthless.
One Piece I saw ( low countries,) testing using whole body dummies in OTB situations found 30% of injuries could be attributed to rotation effects caused by helmets and this concept is one of the explanations for the way that as helmet use goes up head injury rates do not come down. TRL in the UK found the rotational effect, concluded it had the possibility of causing injury and then without any proper reasoning stated it was irrelevant.
One of the real problems in the stats used is they tend call it a major head injury if you are kept in hospital overnight. Most of these are actually minor injuries ie those with no lasting effects where people are kept in overnight for observation. the limitation with this approach is that minor and major head injuries have different causal mechanisms
The statistic we really need for helmet use in general is the probability of injury without vs the probability with, both rotational and other. If the one is more than the other then we could assert a benefit. But that's rather hard get real data on do without getting twins to have identical serious bike accidents.
The other issue is the need to look at accident rates between those who wear helmets and those who do not.
We need to know 4 groups. those who don't wear helmets and are uninjured, those who do and are uninjured. those who don't and are uninjured and those who don't and are injured.
Also the public health benefit needs to be considered. CTC did some looking into that and given the best data they could find came to the conclusion that helmet compulsion might save half a dozen deaths from head injuries per year but would cost 60 deaths per year from diseases of in activity from putting people off cycling. the reason for this is that the risks of head injury from cycling are very low and the public health benefits so strong from cycling. Unhelmeted cyclists live longer than non cyclists
Realistically safety sells.
If we have a standard like you do for motorcycle helmets then you can be assured of a mark of quality, i think thats the best we can hope for atm.
Still i know people who are currently scrapping their high end helmet to buy one with mips.
Realistically safety sells.
Unless you're buying something where it's not maybe that important, say a new 737.
The other issue is the need to look at accident rates between those who wear helmets and those who do not.
I don't think the two groups are comparable in all respects other than helmet wearing. Most fast roadies wear them, most slow shoppers do not. It seems plausible that fast roadies could be more at risk of significant injury due to higher speeds, but they may (or may not) have better roadcraft. To many variables.
The forum has convinced me that compulsion is a bad idea, but not helmet wearing in general.
Indeed molgrips. One of the possible explanation for the non effect of helmet compulsion in Aus on death rates is that what happened was all the experienced / skilled riders who didn't wear helmets stopped riding(as much?) and thus the population of cyclists as a whole became less skilled on average.
Its so complex and multifactorial and so many people shout from entrenched positions fitting the data to their position that it is very hard to make a lot of sense out of it>
For me I would like to see a much more realistic testing of helmets ( whole body dummies in a variety of speeds and angles rather than headform only at a single low speed perpendicular to the ground) Some decent quality research into accident rates using large sample sizes and with a much tighter categorization of types of injury. and also longitudinal studies ie following groups of people over time
On the fast roadies ( from memory) in the Netherlands about the only folk you see in helmets are that type - and IIRC their rates of head injury are higher than the average.
Underwhelmed it looks kind of similar to the Smith helmet honeycomb stuff
Roadies are probably at lower risk, but due to the more time/miles they do more actual incidents of injury
On the fast roadies ( from memory) in the Netherlands about the only folk you see in helmets are that type – and IIRC their rates of head injury are higher than the average.
Indeed, but they are the only people I saw cycling on roads, cos you can't be fast roadie on the cyclepaths.
Its so complex and multifactorial and so many people shout from entrenched positions fitting the data to their position that it is very hard to make a lot of sense out of it
I don't think it's that complicated. I firmly believe that having something between your skin and the road or a car's A pillar is better than not. We don't have the same arguments about knee pads do we? Cos everyone can see that having some protection for your knees is going to save some skin.
Helmet wearers mostly don't think they are going to be magically invulnerable in any crash. It's just a bit of protection.
I wear a helmet. I believe it offers protection. I don't wear knee pads but can see that they offer protection.
The difference is no one suggests knee pads should be a legal requirement to cycle on the road.
I don't think there can be a debate about legalisation until we know if helmets offer protection
It is more complicated than that molgrips. firstly there is the data that in some cases ( how many is uproven) helmets make outcomes worse. The best research on this I have seen showed that in 30 % of cases helmets made outcomes worse. Then there is the public health argument that shows even promoting wearing helmets reduces pubic health by reducing cycling. Then there is the victim blaming and also the thought that car drivers react differently to helmet wearers and those who don't.
I don’t think it’s any more complicated than molgrips says, personally.
I’ve had 2 very similar accidents, when I’ve ended with solid contact with my head on a metal fence, neither were going that fast, both metal fences had no give in them. Wearing a helmet, I was straight back on the bike (aside from the embarrassment at the bis driver who saw it) unharmed, continued on to work. Without helmet, huge bump on the sdie of my head, unable to continue, had to be checked in A&E.... but mostly, bloody worried that I’d done more damage than I knew about. It hurt.
That’s how simple it is to me.
Oh bum, this has become another HELMET DEBATE thread! Sorry, can’t be arse to delete now 😂