Dieter ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 The biggest anti climax will be to get the mud out of those cells after a wet mtb raceIt comes in a disposable version as well!
Pure Savage Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 What a waste, it could be 123942% better than their last model which has kept my brain fine in crashes before, makes zero difference when a car hits you.
SCD Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 Dyneema is also used for kite lines and as composite in windsurf boards since a good while. It has properties similar to carbon but without being so brittle. But Dyneema windsurf board were very difficult to repair. The stuff doesn't take the resin on like carbon and you can't sand it well. The laminate cannot sanded well. They get all fuzzy where you work. But probably not important for bike frames that are not repaired that often. I think there is a limit in how light you can make a frame. You stiff need a certain wall thickness to give the tubes some usable impact resistance. A 500gr frame is of no use if it breaks when you accidentally lean onto the top tube let alone sit on it.
DieselnDust Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 Dyneema is also used for kite lines and as composite in windsurf boards since a good while. It has properties similar to carbon but without being so brittle. But Dyneema windsurf board were very difficult to repair. The stuff doesn't take the resin on like carbon and you can't sand it well. The laminate cannot sanded well. They get all fuzzy where you work. But probably not important for bike frames that are not repaired that often. I think there is a limit in how light you can make a frame. You stiff need a certain wall thickness to give the tubes some usable impact resistance. A 500gr frame is of no use if it breaks when you accidentally lean onto the top tube let alone sit on it. I see what you did there
Christie Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 The argument was used before that one should not compromise ons safety when buying protective kit (helmets and shades). Shurely that implies that you must get a mips or one of these - because it is not worth taking a chance with inferior equipment, no? I had a leather net- and a Topsport type helmet, which were probably worse than a modern Chinese lookalike helmet btw. At what point should you run to the store and swipe in the face of superior technology?
Headshot Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 Saw price for the MTB helmet at $300. Thats not cheap. It does sound like its been tested and does work. It sounds like just what I need. Can you put a price on your head? https://www.pinkbike.com/news/wavecel-bontragers-new-concussion-preventing-helmet-technology.html
Furbz Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 48x better at protection against concussion - ok you have my curiosity.against what though? - a top line Suomy, Giro, Kask? if so you have my attention
DieselnDust Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 48x better at protection against concussion - ok you have my curiosity.against what though? - a top line Suomy, Giro, Kask? if so you have my attention More than likely the base line is no helmet at all
DieselnDust Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 Saw price for the MTB helmet at $300. Thats not cheap. It does sound like its been tested and does work. It sounds like just what I need. Can you put a price on your head? https://www.pinkbike.com/news/wavecel-bontragers-new-concussion-preventing-helmet-technology.html Its R4299.95 before blow out sale discount
Headshot Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 More than likely the base line is no helmet at allTry reading the article. Thy had a std helmet, a MIPS and the Bonty one
Capricorn Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 More than likely the base line is no helmet at allHopefully that was a tongue in cheek comment. But it did make me wonder if comparison with any current helmet is a correct one. the reason is that those helmets are not really peers as none of them were ever designed to be prevent concussions. The new material however, has made that an explicit design goal. What we should be looking for, is what the impact energies are that result in concussions, and evaluate this new material on how much of this impact energy it dissipates. They touted it as revolutionary, which means a new standard applies. Therefore comparison against anything else that does not share the same design objective, is more akin to gold-digging than a genuinely valuable comparison.
marko35s Posted March 20, 2019 Posted March 20, 2019 Saw price for the MTB helmet at $300. Thats not cheap. It does sound like its been tested and does work. It sounds like just what I need. Can you put a price on your head? https://www.pinkbike.com/news/wavecel-bontragers-new-concussion-preventing-helmet-technology.htmlIf you get one of those we may let you ride Cobra again
Pure Savage Posted March 26, 2019 Posted March 26, 2019 https://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/bontrager-defends-wavecel-in-response-to-mips-statement/ So MIPS 3rd party testers can not verify Trek's claims. Love it, when asked for comment, a marketing responds for Trek, not head of testing etc... I dont care about the % safer, just that helmet companies are innovating.
MrJacques Posted April 1, 2019 Posted April 1, 2019 Dyneema spokes https://www.pinkbike.com/news/day-1-randoms-taipei-cycle-show-2019.html
DieselnDust Posted April 1, 2019 Posted April 1, 2019 Hopefully that was a tongue in cheek comment. But it did make me wonder if comparison with any current helmet is a correct one. the reason is that those helmets are not really peers as none of them were ever designed to be prevent concussions. The new material however, has made that an explicit design goal. What we should be looking for, is what the impact energies are that result in concussions, and evaluate this new material on how much of this impact energy it dissipates. They touted it as revolutionary, which means a new standard applies. Therefore comparison against anything else that does not share the same design objective, is more akin to gold-digging than a genuinely valuable comparison. Yeah it was tongue in cheek but it seems someone was having a blou Woensdag. Your point is spot on. Wavecell can't be compared with current helmet designs where the design objective was purely to reduce the "g" measurement during an impact of the head and helmet with the ground from a governed drop height. to avoid concussion the energy of the impact also needs to be distributed over a larger area which I guess Wavecell achieves but not other helmet is designed to do this. If they did the helmets would not have ventilation. kayaking helmets come closest to having a similar design objectivehttps://cyclingmagazine.ca/sections/news/bontrager-defends-wavecel-in-response-to-mips-statement/ So MIPS 3rd party testers can not verify Trek's claims. Love it, when asked for comment, a marketing responds for Trek, not head of testing etc... I dont care about the % safer, just that helmet companies are innovating. And herein lies the rub. Any company can set up tests to prove its own design objectives. Hopefully they didn't load the dice in their favour (not uncommon). I agree with the sentiment that there needs to be new standard that stipulates what the design objective is and the necessary testing is defined and conducted
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.