Is Trek hinting at a natural fiber construction? (EDIT: Nope, it's WaveCel helmet technology)

Create New Tag

3/20/2019 9:38 AM

Hard to tell without feeling it but it almost looks like the wavecel part could sustain several hits as it looks like it rebounds back to its original shape. Could be wrong though

|

3/20/2019 4:13 PM

I never said anything about this new material being reusable, though that would be cool too.

I bought one of those very first Troy Lee plastic lids with the bolt on chin guard. Mine's gone sadly, but if not it should surely be possible to have it preserved by lining it with something that is squishy and a multi impact material. Then, with a simple head scan one could create a custom liner to take the initial rotational forces and be easily replaceable. Every LBS could have its own 3D printer to make you a freshy for the race or ride in the morning. Plan ahead and stock up for the season?

|

3/21/2019 8:58 AM

Big Bird wrote:

I never said anything about this new material being reusable, though that would be cool too.

I bought one of those very first Troy Lee plastic lids with the bolt on chin guard. Mine's gone sadly, but if not it should surely be possible to have it preserved by lining it with something that is squishy and a multi impact material. Then, with a simple head scan one could create a custom liner to take the initial rotational forces and be easily replaceable. Every LBS could have its own 3D printer to make you a freshy for the race or ride in the morning. Plan ahead and stock up for the season?

yea, being able to withstand multiple impacts is another area where there's opportunity for improvement on helmets. it's honestly just more in line with how people use them. i know plenty of people who don't replace a helmet after a crash unless there's visible damage.

|

3/21/2019 11:11 AM

shots fired: MIPS is disputing Trek's claims on wavecell, claims it can't replicate the results.

https://www.velonews.com/2019/03/news/mips-disputes-wavecel-claims-reiterates-call-for-modern-testing-standards_489690

one important aspect that MIPS gets right (and I agree with in general) is that the "standardized' test methods that are used have plenty of room for improvement. the velo link points out a critical piece of info in that the internal test methods that both MIPS and Trek used likely aren't the same, so any test results won't provide a direct comparison of the results.

|

3/27/2019 10:52 AM
Edited Date/Time: 3/27/2019 10:55 AM

#helmetwars - so Koroyd (what you see in Smith helmets and other brands) is firing back against Bontrager Wavecel (and its green appearance). they sent this press release this morning.
----------------------------------------
CARRIED AWAY BY A WAVE OF HYPE?
Last week Bontrager launched a new helmet material that claims to be the panacea of head protection. Dressed in the same translucent green colour Koroyd became famous for and marketed under the trademark WaveCel, this open-cell material is claimed to decrease acceleration from linear impacts and reduce the rotational forces on the brain under oblique impacts.

By merging these two approaches to head protection and by making substantial safety claims, you could be forgiven for thinking WaveCel has now closed the book on the linear and rotational discussion, which has been going on for the past 20 years. One journalist has even dubbed this new “holy-grail” technology as ‘Koroyd 2.0’ which would be a fitting title - IF you chose to believe the hype.

Despite all the marketing and publicity, we remain unconvinced. Here’s just a few reasons why:


CIRCULAR TUBE STRUCTURES ARE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN TO BE THE MOST EFFICIENT ENERGY ABSORBERS
Koroyd has established itself as the pioneers in head protection following lessons learned from a very high profile air disaster in the UK. A research project, initiated by the CAA, established that a circular tube is the most efficient structure to absorb energy for a given distance. On the back of these findings, we developed Koroyd as an arrangement of thousands of miniature tubes welded together into a single structure. Through the tubular geometry, the Koroyd structure exhibits significantly higher energy absorption capabilities than other materials. Koroyd was the first open-cell material which was commercially integrated inside helmets to absorb energy through plastic deformation of the geometry, rather than the traditional compression of a foam.

ROTATIONAL ACCELERATION REMAINS OUTSIDE OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS
In recent years more and more emphasis has been placed on the risks of rotational acceleration to your brain, however it should be noted that this subject still remains unaddressed by the international standards surrounding head protection. Instead, there is a scientific community and various private companies, who are researching and delivering solutions which potentially reduce the risk of rotational acceleration to your brain during an accident. Whilst not currently a legal requirement of any helmet, rotational impacts are known to represent a risk - and one which is actually substantially reduced as a by-product of reducing LINEAR ACCELERATION.

THE IMPORTANCE OF REDUCING LINEAR ACCELERATION
Consider that your brain is suspended within a bath of cervical-spinal fluid, surrounded by a protective membrane called the dura. When your head hits something hard, your skull decelerates and stops but your brain continues to move, colliding with the inside of the skull. In this collision, your brain can sustain any number of injuries, from bleeding in the brain, to shearing of the tissue, or bleeding between the brain and the dura, or between the dura and the skull. The type and severity of injury is determined by all acceleration to the brain.

Now consider that linear acceleration IS a parameter which features prominently within ALL current international standards, and is an area within which Koroyd equipped helmets DRAMATICALLY outperform the legal limits. This is as a result of Koroyd’s self-imposed ‘Helmet Safety Initiative’ under which Koroyd equipped helmets have to voluntarily meet much lower limits compared to those mandated in the standards.

"Regardless of the impact direction, ultimately linear acceleration is always going to be important. And reducing linear acceleration will also reduce angular acceleration which is a result of oblique impacts.”

Dr Priya Prassad Ph.D is amongst the world’s most respected experts in injury bio mechanics Member National Academy of Engineering, Fellow of the Society of Automotive Engineers, Fellow of the American Institute for Medical and biological Engineers. Author of more than 120 technical papers.

KOROYD’S HOLISTIC APPROACH TO HELMET DESIGN
It is widely accepted that to efficiently absorb LINEAR ENERGY a helmet must make maximum use of the 20-30mm of thickness available within the liner to optimally decelerate your head in an impact - which Koroyd does.

To effectively manage linear and rotational forces the helmet must be designed as a complete system. The former requires compression of materials (and in Koroyd’s case a unique ‘crumple zone’ approach), whereas the latter requires a system capable of fluid movement to redirect the energy.

This is why established systems which claim to reduce rotational forces typically operate independently of the core liner.

Our belief is that any system designed to reduce rotational energy should compliment the helmet’s ability to absorb linear energy, not compromise it by design - especially as it’s actually the latter that is the only component of the global certification requirements.

Whilst we welcome any advancement in helmet technology which has the potential to lower the risk of injuries, Koroyd remains wary of a technology that potentially shift’s the pendulum of the debate way too far in the opposite direction from established industry standards, favouring a focus on reducing rotational acceleration, at the potential detriment of linear impact performance.

Helmets have to offer holistic protection against linear and rotational acceleration. We are currently evaluating the Bontrager helmets under the same published test protocols that the rest of the market are working to. Despite the fact that we strongly believe the existing helmet standards allow helmets to be certified to a level which represents too high a risk of injury (which is why we established the Koroyd Helmet Safety Initiative), we also believe that it is important to offer consumers accurate information based around industry-wide, standardised test protocols.

FROM THE PIONEERS IN HEAD PROTECTION & THE ORIGINAL GREEN MATERIAL
Koroyd equipped helmets are currently exceeding global industry standards in cycling, snow, motorcycling, industrial safety and military markets. Over the last 10 years our company has developed a profound knowledge of materials, construction, accident dynamics and human injury tolerances, we apply it daily through all our activities. We are looking forward to seeing more scientific led research and solutions as well as acceptance across the board as to what better performing helmets are and then to ultimately see that implemented in future standards. There is currently too much marketing led communication which is not built on accepted knowledge - we all have a duty to present factually to those enjoying our products, whatever their activity.

KOROYD IS AVAILABLE FROM OUR PREMIUM PARTNERS IN CYCLE...

|

3/27/2019 11:25 AM
Edited Date/Time: 3/27/2019 1:13 PM

While it wasn't talked about in this "rebuttal press release", one of the huge problems I saw right away with Bontrager's claim was they are somehow able to reduce not just TBI but concussions, dubbing it a "concussion preventing" helmet. As a guy who knows more about concussions than I wish, this seemed hyperbole at best, scandalous at worst.

We don't know a *lot* about the brain, right on down to the forces it takes to create a concussion. To suggest a technology is "48 times better" at preventing a concussion suggests the engineers are able to recreate "concussion forces" in a lab, and these forces are the same person to person. This couldn't be further from the truth. When it comes to what it takes to cause a concussion, we simply don't know. This is why someone can get knocked silly shorting a double in the worst possible way and walk away 100% fine and someone else can take a small tumble bonking their head slightly and get a concussion that messes with them for days, weeks or months (or longer). Obviously we can take some guesses that follow some kind of a trend line with respect to net force, and there is a point where brain injury is all but assured, but concussion, or sub-concussive hits (the kind that seem to lead to CTE) are so poorly understood it shows just how hard this challenge really is to tackle (no pun intended). Moreover, buying some "concussion proof" helmet and then going out and sending like you have two lives is false advertising with the worst possible consequences. Its just not right IMO.

Anyway, rant aside, these claims should all be taken with a grain of salt, no matter the company.

All that said, I'm happy to see companies trying new things, pushing the envelope in a positive direction and trying to figure out how to get a helmet to absorb the maximum amount of energy should you need it. I wear a 6D helmet and am convinced its better than any helmet was 10 years ago. I just want more science from the most elementary level first, and that starts with understanding the neuro-biology of the concussive event...

|

3/27/2019 12:17 PM

Trek published in a peer-reviewed journal, which doesn't appear to have a stake in the result. As far as I can tell, MIPS and Koroyd have never published anything. Crap does make its way through peer-review, but even the crappiest of peer-reviewed science is far more credible than a threatened-tone press release with pictures of old white dudes to enhance credibility. Whether or not Trek has set a bar on safety, submitting your manuscript to a journal is best practice, and the other companies should follow suit.

|

3/27/2019 12:43 PM

mossboss wrote:

Trek published in a peer-reviewed journal, which doesn't appear to have a stake in the result. As far as I can tell, MIPS and Koroyd have never published anything. Crap does make its way through peer-review, but even the crappiest of peer-reviewed science is far more credible than a threatened-tone press release with pictures of old white dudes to enhance credibility. Whether or not Trek has set a bar on safety, submitting your manuscript to a journal is best practice, and the other companies should follow suit.

Per an article on PinkBike (sorry!), MIPS claims to have authored several academic papers.

"MIPS' product is also designed to protect against rotational forces and prevent concussions in a similar way. It is the product of Swedish brain surgeon Dr Hans von Holst and researcher Dr Peter Halldin and has its own facility in Sweden where it has conducted over 22,000 tests and authored several academic papers."

All in all, per Jeff's comment above, there is so much unknown about the brain and how it handles impacts. Furthermore, no impact is the same.

|

3/27/2019 1:04 PM

Okay, MIPS does have links to general safety papers on their website: http://mipsprotection.com/r-d-papers/

...but none of those are written within the last 12 years, and so they all predate MIPS as a technology. While they may have staff that published foundational research, there don't appear to be any papers discussing the safety properties of MIPS.

|

3/27/2019 1:22 PM
Edited Date/Time: 3/27/2019 1:24 PM

mossboss wrote:

Trek published in a peer-reviewed journal, which doesn't appear to have a stake in the result. As far as I can tell, MIPS and Koroyd have never published anything. Crap does make its way through peer-review, but even the crappiest of peer-reviewed science is far more credible than a threatened-tone press release with pictures of old white dudes to enhance credibility. Whether or not Trek has set a bar on safety, submitting your manuscript to a journal is best practice, and the other companies should follow suit.

Via the paper...

"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,
M are affiliated with the Legacy Health System, which was a partial
funder of this research. None of the authors received any money or inkind contribution for this work"

So yeah, the people who have direct financial incentive wrote a paper showing how amazing the helmet was. #shockedImnotmoreshocked

I read the paper, it wasn't bad persay, but there were a number of holes to say the least (assumption of concussion forces to be one of them). You have to start somewhere, and they do genuinely seem to care about raising the bar. I just can't help but think the marketing team went haywire with this one in a somewhat questionable way. I'm not singling out Trek alone here, but a third party of neurologists, neuroscientists and concussion experts ought to be evaluating these, not the guys tied to making a pile of dough on them.

Oh, and yeah, it was submitted to what appears to be a legit peer reviewed journal, but then again non of my doctor friends have ever heard of it. This wasn't JAMA or the Journal of Neurology - this was pretty esoteric.

|

3/27/2019 1:26 PM

jeff.brines wrote:

Via the paper...

"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,
M are affiliated with the Legacy Health System, which was a partial
funder of this research. None of the authors received any money or inkind contribution for this work"

So yeah, the people who have direct financial incentive wrote a paper showing how amazing the helmet was. #shockedImnotmoreshocked

I read the paper, it wasn't bad persay, but there were a number of holes to say the least (assumption of concussion forces to be one of them). You have to start somewhere, and they do genuinely seem to care about raising the bar. I just can't help but think the marketing team went haywire with this one in a somewhat questionable way. I'm not singling out Trek alone here, but a third party of neurologists, neuroscientists and concussion experts ought to be evaluating these, not the guys tied to making a pile of dough on them.

Oh, and yeah, it was submitted to what appears to be a legit peer reviewed journal, but then again non of my doctor friends have ever heard of it. This wasn't JAMA or the Journal of Neurology - this was pretty esoteric.

As someone who works on a marketing team, yeah....you're probably spot on. We tend to get a little carried away.

|

3/27/2019 1:40 PM

jeff.brines wrote:

Via the paper...

"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,
M are affiliated with the Legacy Health System, which was a partial
funder of this research. None of the authors received any money or inkind contribution for this work"

So yeah, the people who have direct financial incentive wrote a paper showing how amazing the helmet was. #shockedImnotmoreshocked

I read the paper, it wasn't bad persay, but there were a number of holes to say the least (assumption of concussion forces to be one of them). You have to start somewhere, and they do genuinely seem to care about raising the bar. I just can't help but think the marketing team went haywire with this one in a somewhat questionable way. I'm not singling out Trek alone here, but a third party of neurologists, neuroscientists and concussion experts ought to be evaluating these, not the guys tied to making a pile of dough on them.

Oh, and yeah, it was submitted to what appears to be a legit peer reviewed journal, but then again non of my doctor friends have ever heard of it. This wasn't JAMA or the Journal of Neurology - this was pretty esoteric.

Yes, of course the authors have a stake in their own work, but, putatively, the peer-reviewers and journal do not. That's why we do peer-review, to have an independent entity screen bullshit to the best of their abilities. It's not always perfect, but it's the best we can do.

I can't comment on the quality of the paper, as it's not my field, but the precedent of helmet comparisons in a peer-reviewed study is a definite step in the right direction. And as you said you have to start somewhere.

|

3/27/2019 1:49 PM

jeff.brines wrote:

While it wasn't talked about in this "rebuttal press release", one of the huge problems I saw right away with Bontrager's claim was they are somehow able to reduce not just TBI but concussions, dubbing it a "concussion preventing" helmet. As a guy who knows more about concussions than I wish, this seemed hyperbole at best, scandalous at worst.

We don't know a *lot* about the brain, right on down to the forces it takes to create a concussion. To suggest a technology is "48 times better" at preventing a concussion suggests the engineers are able to recreate "concussion forces" in a lab, and these forces are the same person to person. This couldn't be further from the truth. When it comes to what it takes to cause a concussion, we simply don't know. This is why someone can get knocked silly shorting a double in the worst possible way and walk away 100% fine and someone else can take a small tumble bonking their head slightly and get a concussion that messes with them for days, weeks or months (or longer). Obviously we can take some guesses that follow some kind of a trend line with respect to net force, and there is a point where brain injury is all but assured, but concussion, or sub-concussive hits (the kind that seem to lead to CTE) are so poorly understood it shows just how hard this challenge really is to tackle (no pun intended). Moreover, buying some "concussion proof" helmet and then going out and sending like you have two lives is false advertising with the worst possible consequences. Its just not right IMO.

Anyway, rant aside, these claims should all be taken with a grain of salt, no matter the company.

All that said, I'm happy to see companies trying new things, pushing the envelope in a positive direction and trying to figure out how to get a helmet to absorb the maximum amount of energy should you need it. I wear a 6D helmet and am convinced its better than any helmet was 10 years ago. I just want more science from the most elementary level first, and that starts with understanding the neuro-biology of the concussive event...

From the paper, they're using an established relationship between head acceleration and chance of concussion (it's the Brain Injury Criterion score and then the Abbreviated Injury Score, BrIC and AIS respectively). It was these data that showed the reductions in concussions and brain injury. While you are certainly correct that we don't know everything about how concussions happen, these are some of the best data available and the only way to make these sorts of comparisons.

|

3/27/2019 2:20 PM

Masjo wrote:

From the paper, they're using an established relationship between head acceleration and chance of concussion (it's the Brain Injury Criterion score and then the Abbreviated Injury Score, BrIC and AIS respectively). It was these data that showed the reductions in concussions and brain injury. While you are certainly correct that we don't know everything about how concussions happen, these are some of the best data available and the only way to make these sorts of comparisons.

Sure. I know I'm being a bit hard on Trek and the helmet. I really do appreciate companies trying hard to make our sport safer! I suppose its my background (I will likely deal with a concussion the rest of my life) combined with the false sense of security one might get when buying a helmet that is "48 times better at preventing concussion" that gets me all worked up.

From what I can tell they had somehow calculated the force it'd need to replicate a AIS 2 brain injury. This would be a "mild to moderate" brain injury, or concussion with loss of consciousness less than an hour. It mentions nowhere AIS 1 brain injury, or rather how concussion is very loosely defined, which is honestly fine and all until you go back and read the marketing guys' PR. I see nowhere in the peer reviewed paper they claim this helmet to be 48 times more beneficial in preventing concussion. I also see a lot of "there needs to be additional research" defense being played in the paper - which I'd expect and agree with.

Overall I get angsty when we are using the idea of safety to sell something, and that "safety" is more of a faux safety than it is something real. I get the feeling this won't help concussions in the big picture. End of the day, the best thing we can do for brain injury is try and not have them. I realize we can't exist in a bubble and am walking proof of that, i don't want to stop riding due to "what could happen'...but I also know at 18 if I put a helmet on that made me concussion proof, after everything we've learned the last decade, I'd be a whole huge giant ball of liability - essentially throwing all that out the window.

Just my $0.02.

|

3/27/2019 2:20 PM

Seems like there is $hit flying in both directions.

Im sure the actual scientists cringe at what happens once the marketing teams dumb-down an insanely complex topic to the knuckle-dragging populace. BUT IT'S GREEENNNNN!!!!!

|

3/27/2019 2:34 PM

Do either of you know how/when the standards for the tests were developed? By that I mean, were they established pre-Josh Bender days when freeriding was more going down steep hills and "smaller jumps? Or are they updated periodically to reflect more of today's riding style?

I ask because I'm sure it's easy to say that a helmet is 48x safer today versus early 2000s. But if the standards were updated recently....

|

3/27/2019 2:50 PM

mwolpin wrote:

Do either of you know how/when the standards for the tests were developed? By that I mean, were they established pre-Josh Bender days when freeriding was more going down steep hills and "smaller jumps? Or are they updated periodically to reflect more of today's riding style?

I ask because I'm sure it's easy to say that a helmet is 48x safer today versus early 2000s. But if the standards were updated recently....

Very good question.

As far as standards changing you are assuming *way* too much. I mean that in the nicest, most "you have common sense but they don't" way possible.

You'd think we'd be looking at how we ride, what we know about brain injury and build helmets in a best practices kind of way based on those two factors. We don't. The testing standards aren't from the Bender days, they aren't even from the Marzocchi Super T days. When the helmet certification regs were developed Seinfeld had *just* gone off the air.

As far as 48x safer, I don't think they are comparing it to current safety standards but they rather claim its 48 times better at preventing concussions...which again, I frankly don't know how you quantify that when we know so little.

|

3/27/2019 3:21 PM

6D has a lot of popcorn to pop

|

I'm Slow

3/27/2019 5:48 PM

I like how Trek put out a bunch of hyped up material to say their helmet is the best, and now every other helmet company is putting out hyped up material saying that Trek's stuff sucks and THEIR helmet is the best.

|

3/27/2019 9:43 PM

Of course there is marketing spin from both sides.

Wavecell is focusing on rotational acceleration and Koroyd is focusing on linear acceleration, both in the context of what causes concussion and brain injury. Which one is most important? Based on what both parties are saying, it appears that that is quite debateable at this point in time, as our knowledge and understanding of brain injury is in its early stages. In the meantime, keep testing like mad, and I’d like to see some linear data on Wavecell and some rotational data on Koroyd.

There is money at stake. There are scientific and engineering reputations at stake. So the debate is going to get heated.

There is also brain tissue at stake, and those are perhaps the highest stakes of all. So I’m glad there are what appears to be significant improvements in helmet tech being made, and I believe it’s more than just marketing spin. I might just pony up the cash for one of these new helmets for myself and my family members who ride.

|

3/28/2019 5:21 AM

There are lots of big words here, can someone recap? I tend to forget what I read if it is more than a couple posts up above.

|

I'm hungry.

3/28/2019 5:52 AM

jonkranked wrote:

yea, being able to withstand multiple impacts is another area where there's opportunity for improvement on helmets. it's honestly just more in line with how people use them. i know plenty of people who don't replace a helmet after a crash unless there's visible damage.

The problem with all multi-impact claims is that you don't know many impacts it will take to render your helmet unsafe and thus you keep using it thinking it will still do it's intended job, but then it can't. It can very well be the case that 1 good impact renders a multi-impact helmet useless. Going down the multi-impact route is bad idea. It's best to keep it "single impact" and improve the protection against that one impact as much as possible.

|

3/28/2019 7:42 AM
Edited Date/Time: 3/28/2019 7:45 AM

onenerdykid* wrote:

The problem with all multi-impact claims is that you don't know many impacts it will take to render your helmet unsafe and thus you keep using it thinking it will still do it's intended job, but then it can't. It can very well be the case that 1 good impact renders a multi-impact helmet useless. Going down the multi-impact route is bad idea. It's best to keep it "single impact" and improve the protection against that one impact as much as possible.

This gets brought up constantly and it makes me cringe. Here is how I see this...

A helmet ought to be able to withstand "normal use". EG, if you drop it (without your head in it) off your tailgate or similar. Outside of that, any hit that rings your bell = new helmet.

My opinion is very simple. I want the absolute best protection in the event I do hit my head. Giving an engineer the ability to build a helmet that is "designed to fail" seems the only option if our goal is ultimate performance, especially in a sport where multiple impacts during "game play" is not normal (hopefully).

To add, if you hit your head hard enough to get your helmet to fail, you *ought* to sit out for a few weeks as a precaution. Be glad all you have to do is spend $200-600 on a new bucket. It did its job and has saved you a ton of money. How? Turns out "treating" a concussion (or worse) is expensive, even with health insurance. Many of the protocols fall outside the insurance bubble.

On economics alone I'd take a new helmet 100x over versus a concussion that I have treat via modern medicine.

|

3/28/2019 10:27 AM

As a mag-review pointed in THAT helmets koroid tubes absortion direction it is not in the right direction in the helmet. Nor in the cooler direction...

|

3/28/2019 10:45 AM

Just to add to the fun. Looks like Virginia Tech has done some testing as part of their helmet testing program.

https://www.helmet.beam.vt.edu/bicycle-helmet-ratings.html

|

3/28/2019 3:35 PM

ryan_daugherty wrote:

6D has a lot of popcorn to pop

didnt you just knock yourself out with that big ass 6D on your dome?

|

4/2/2019 6:43 AM
Edited Date/Time: 4/2/2019 6:45 AM

just posting the newest email promo about wavecel from trek.

in the email under this first graphic is a link that says "explore wavecel" which goes to - https://wavecel.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/


under this 2nd graphic there's a "*read the full study" link that goes here - https://www.trekbikes.com/us/en_US/what-is-wavecel/

i don't think there's anything new here, just a different presentation?

|

4/2/2019 8:41 AM
Edited Date/Time: 4/2/2019 12:14 PM

""*Results based on AIS 2 Injury (BrIC) at 6.2 m/s test at 45° comparing a standard EPS Helmet and the same helmet modified with WaveCel insert as described in detail in Comparison of Bicycle Helmet Technologies in Realistic Oblique Impacts."

Though that may constitute a concussion, all concussions do not constitute this specification.

I can't believe their legal team let them run with this one. Its insane to me. This type of test is a very specific type of hit to the head, and clearly does not encompass AIS 1 injury or a brain injury that would still constitute "concussion" but note register under such elementary quantitative testing.

End of the day, this claim is flat wrong, or at least its a (very) partial truth. This helmet is 99% better than a run of the mill foam helmet in preventing this exact type of injury, which may be one type of a concussion. It is not preventing 99% of concussions across the board.

Interesting to see where this goes.

|