New Bontager Helmet Material

I had heard that Trek was going to have a new material for their bike frames. Well, in fact it is a new material for helmets. Styrofoam worked for preventing skull fractures but that is not a source of cycling injuries on the whole - concussions are.

The new material will NOT offer the ultimate safety as the Styrofoam did but it is WAY softer in the manner of crushing and will eliminate most of the concussions. While this won't meet the helmet standards I have no doubt that they will make a new standard for this material since it will probably save 70% or more of the NORMAL injuries from bicycle accidents.

It will be several years before statistics are available to compare these helmets to the injury rate but I have great hope for them.

They will come in two types - the normal road helmet and that anti-twist system that almost doubles the price of a helmet and for which I do not see much in the way of improvement if the crush of the helmet material is so much softer.

Interesting is that I suspect that they will use this material for the mold around which to form a carbon fiber frame. It will not add any more weight than the inflatable molds they presently use and it is likely that with a more solid mold that voids and gaps will be reduced or even eliminated.

On 21/3/19 3:51 am, wrote:
I had heard that Trek was going to have a new material for their bike
frames. Well, in fact it is a new material for helmets. Styrofoam
worked for preventing skull fractures but that is not a source of
cycling injuries on the whole - concussions are.

The new material will NOT offer the ultimate safety as the Styrofoam
did but it is WAY softer in the manner of crushing and will eliminate
most of the concussions. While this won't meet the helmet standards I
have no doubt that they will make a new standard for this material
since it will probably save 70% or more of the NORMAL injuries from
bicycle accidents.


Looking at statistics from the EU, it seems that about 80% of cycling
injuries presented at the ER, are to body regions other than the head.


How can a new helmet material save 70% of the normal injuries from
bicycle accidents when 80% of the injured don't have a head injury?

--
JS

On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 08:39:02 +1100, James wrote:

On 21/3/19 3:51 am, wrote:
I had heard that Trek was going to have a new material for their bike
frames. Well, in fact it is a new material for helmets. Styrofoam
worked for preventing skull fractures but that is not a source of
cycling injuries on the whole - concussions are.

The new material will NOT offer the ultimate safety as the Styrofoam
did but it is WAY softer in the manner of crushing and will eliminate
most of the concussions. While this won't meet the helmet standards I
have no doubt that they will make a new standard for this material
since it will probably save 70% or more of the NORMAL injuries from
bicycle accidents.


Looking at statistics from the EU, it seems that about 80% of cycling
injuries presented at the ER, are to body regions other than the head.


How can a new helmet material save 70% of the normal injuries from
bicycle accidents when 80% of the injured don't have a head injury?

Obviously it can not, but the compulsory helmet lobby will have their
circle jerk.

IME, styrofoam and other materials hardens over they years and it would
be very unpopular to enforce an age limit on bicycle helmets.

I still have my MSR "bicycle helmet" and its transitional foam material
now has the consistency of concrete. No amount of woollen beenie can
reduce the head aches that follow from wearing it. The Bell mushroom
isn't as bad, but is similar.

On 3/20/2019 2:39 PM, James wrote:
On 21/3/19 3:51 am, wrote:
I had heard that Trek was going to have a new material for their bike
frames. Well, in fact it is a new material for helmets. Styrofoam
worked for preventing skull fractures but that is not a source of
cycling injuries on the whole - concussions are.

The new material will NOT offer the ultimate safety as the Styrofoam
did but it is WAY softer in the manner of crushing and will eliminate
most of the concussions. While this won't meet the helmet standards I
have no doubt that they will make a new standard for this material
since it will probably save 70% or more of the NORMAL injuries from
bicycle accidents.


Looking at statistics from the EU, it seems that about 80% of cycling
injuries presented at the ER, are to body regions other than the head.


How can a new helmet material save 70% of the normal injuries from
bicycle accidents when 80% of the injured don't have a head injury?

There's an article about the new helmet material he
https://www.popsci.com/trek-wavecel-bicycle-helmet-science#page-5. The
key feature is the improved concussion protection.

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 3/20/2019 2:39 PM, James wrote:
On 21/3/19 3:51 am, wrote:
I had heard that Trek was going to have a new material for their bike
frames. Well, in fact it is a new material for helmets. Styrofoam
worked for preventing skull fractures but that is not a source of
cycling injuries on the whole - concussions are.

The new material will NOT offer the ultimate safety as the Styrofoam
did but it is WAY softer in the manner of crushing and will eliminate
most of the concussions. While this won't meet the helmet standards I
have no doubt that they will make a new standard for this material
since it will probably save 70% or more of the NORMAL injuries from
bicycle accidents.


Looking at statistics from the EU, it seems that about 80% of cycling
injuries presented at the ER, are to body regions other than the head.


How can a new helmet material save 70% of the normal injuries from
bicycle accidents when 80% of the injured don't have a head injury?

There's an article about the new helmet material he
https://www.popsci.com/trek-wavecel-bicycle-helmet-science#page-5. The
key feature is the improved concussion protection.

And as usual, the unspoken assumption behind the article
is that cycling produces so many brain injuries that
cyclists _need_ protection.

Yet any dispassionate examination of the relevant data
shows that cycling is not abnormally risky. Cyclists
comprise only a tiny percentage of serious brain injury
victims, and cycling's benefits far outweigh its tiny
risks.

But that doesn't even slow down the fear mongers.

- Frank Krygowski

On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:42:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 3/20/2019 2:39 PM, James wrote:
On 21/3/19 3:51 am, wrote:
I had heard that Trek was going to have a new material for their bike
frames. Well, in fact it is a new material for helmets. Styrofoam
worked for preventing skull fractures but that is not a source of
cycling injuries on the whole - concussions are.

The new material will NOT offer the ultimate safety as the Styrofoam
did but it is WAY softer in the manner of crushing and will eliminate
most of the concussions. While this won't meet the helmet standards I
have no doubt that they will make a new standard for this material
since it will probably save 70% or more of the NORMAL injuries from
bicycle accidents.


Looking at statistics from the EU, it seems that about 80% of cycling
injuries presented at the ER, are to body regions other than the head.


How can a new helmet material save 70% of the normal injuries from
bicycle accidents when 80% of the injured don't have a head injury?

There's an article about the new helmet material he
https://www.popsci.com/trek-wavecel-bicycle-helmet-science#page-5. The
key feature is the improved concussion protection.

And as usual, the unspoken assumption behind the article
is that cycling produces so many brain injuries that
cyclists _need_ protection.

Yet any dispassionate examination of the relevant data
shows that cycling is not abnormally risky. Cyclists
comprise only a tiny percentage of serious brain injury
victims, and cycling's benefits far outweigh its tiny
risks.

But that doesn't even slow down the fear mongers.

- Frank Krygowski


But Frank. It's NEW and they say that it is better and everyone knows
that a helmet will save your life. What's not to like?

And $149.99 (plus shipping) for the cheap one and $299.99 for the
better (one assumes) model :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 10:33:45 PM UTC-5, John B. Slocomb wrote:
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 18:42:17 -0700 (PDT), Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 3/20/2019 2:39 PM, James wrote:
On 21/3/19 3:51 am, wrote:
I had heard that Trek was going to have a new material for their bike
frames. Well, in fact it is a new material for helmets. Styrofoam
worked for preventing skull fractures but that is not a source of
cycling injuries on the whole - concussions are.

The new material will NOT offer the ultimate safety as the Styrofoam
did but it is WAY softer in the manner of crushing and will eliminate
most of the concussions. While this won't meet the helmet standards I
have no doubt that they will make a new standard for this material
since it will probably save 70% or more of the NORMAL injuries from
bicycle accidents.


Looking at statistics from the EU, it seems that about 80% of cycling
injuries presented at the ER, are to body regions other than the head.


How can a new helmet material save 70% of the normal injuries from
bicycle accidents when 80% of the injured don't have a head injury?

There's an article about the new helmet material he
https://www.popsci.com/trek-wavecel-bicycle-helmet-science#page-5. The
key feature is the improved concussion protection.

And as usual, the unspoken assumption behind the article
is that cycling produces so many brain injuries that
cyclists _need_ protection.

Yet any dispassionate examination of the relevant data
shows that cycling is not abnormally risky. Cyclists
comprise only a tiny percentage of serious brain injury
victims, and cycling's benefits far outweigh its tiny
risks.

But that doesn't even slow down the fear mongers.

- Frank Krygowski


But Frank. It's NEW and they say that it is better and everyone knows
that a helmet will save your life. What's not to like?

And $149.99 (plus shipping) for the cheap one and $299.99 for the
better (one assumes) model :-)

--
Cheers,
John B.

Boy are they proud of their helmets. :-)

Andy

On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 7:57:43 PM UTC-4, sms wrote:
On 3/20/2019 2:39 PM, James wrote:
On 21/3/19 3:51 am, wrote:
I had heard that Trek was going to have a new material for their bike
frames. Well, in fact it is a new material for helmets. Styrofoam
worked for preventing skull fractures but that is not a source of
cycling injuries on the whole - concussions are.

The new material will NOT offer the ultimate safety as the Styrofoam
did but it is WAY softer in the manner of crushing and will eliminate
most of the concussions. While this won't meet the helmet standards I
have no doubt that they will make a new standard for this material
since it will probably save 70% or more of the NORMAL injuries from
bicycle accidents.


Looking at statistics from the EU, it seems that about 80% of cycling
injuries presented at the ER, are to body regions other than the head..


How can a new helmet material save 70% of the normal injuries from
bicycle accidents when 80% of the injured don't have a head injury?

There's an article about the new helmet material he
https://www.popsci.com/trek-wavecel-bicycle-helmet-science#page-5. The
key feature is the improved concussion protection.

And as usual, the unspoken assumption behind the article
is that cycling produces so many brain injuries that
cyclists _need_ protection.

Yet any dispassionate examination of the relevant data
shows that cycling is not abnormally risky. Cyclists
comprise only a tiny percentage of serious brain injury
victims, and cycling's benefits far outweigh its tiny
risks.

Depending on individual experience and assuming: (1) people will not ride if they wear a helmet, viz., that one excludes the other, and (2) that those who will not ride with a helmet will do no other activity, like walk, go to the gym, etc. For those who ride with a helmet, a better design is all upside except for cost and weight.

I wear a ski helmet with soft padding and EPS, and I got a massive concussion wearing that -- but I did avoid fracturing my skull or mangling my scalp, which was likely based on my facial injuries. IMO, less rigid materials don't mean no concussion. It seems like a worthy goal, but concussion is possible with no contact between the head and a hard object.

Whether cycling is dangerous depends on your environment. With the crazy mix of transportation modes around here, I'm surprised more people aren't getting injured, e.g. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/13999793819 Yes, as a cyclist, you're supposed to ride up that cut into a bunch of people waiting to get on a street car. The morning ride is a scrum through the south waterfront.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 3:51:29 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:
On Wednesday, March 20, 2019 at 6:42:19 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:

And as usual, the unspoken assumption behind the article
is that cycling produces so many brain injuries that
cyclists _need_ protection.

Yet any dispassionate examination of the relevant data
shows that cycling is not abnormally risky. Cyclists
comprise only a tiny percentage of serious brain injury
victims, and cycling's benefits far outweigh its tiny
risks.

Depending on individual experience and assuming: (1) people will not ride if they wear a helmet, viz., that one excludes the other, and (2) that those who will not ride with a helmet will do no other activity, like walk, go to the gym, etc.

Regarding #1: The point is not whether someone can get
the same health benefits from other exercise. Of course
that's possible - if they do, indeed, choose some other
exercise. But swimming, playing tennis, etc. do not
replace bicycling's transportation possibilities. You,
Jay, won't swim to work if bicycling were taken away
from you. You would drive.

And in some of the studies (those with the highest
benefit-to-risk findings for bicycling) the benefits
estimated included benefits to others, from reducing
pollution and crash risks from drivers.

Besides, why should we discourage an activity that has
net individual and societal benefit by falsely claiming
it's so dangerous as to need protective equipment?

(Occasionally, some helmeteers claim that helmet mandates
or promotion doesn't discourage bicycling. It's a fringe
viewpoint akin to claims that the moon landing was
faked, that 9/11 was a planned demolition of the twin
towers, etc. It ignores logic and data.)

For those who ride with a helmet, a better design is all upside except for cost and weight.

In my experience, a cloth cycling cap is a far better
design.

I wear a ski helmet with soft padding and EPS, and I got a massive concussion wearing that -- but I did avoid fracturing my skull or mangling my scalp, which was likely based on my facial injuries.

As I've said, our society is schizophrenic about risk.
Lots of people glorify objectively risky things like
downhill skiing, free climbing, BMX parks or radical
ATB riding, skydiving and more. And those participants
brag about their wisdom in choosing protective gear.

ISTM it's wiser to avoid activities that are thrilling
because you might get badly injured, and to not push
protective gear for activities that are objectively
safer than walking. After all, the biggest risk of
death for most Americans is from diseases that are
reduced by bicycling.

- Frank Krygowski

On Thursday, March 21, 2019 at 3:51:29 PM UTC-4, jbeattie wrote:

Whether cycling is dangerous depends on your environment.

Of course. The same can be said of walking, driving,
swimming, etc. Yet nobody calls for helmets for all
walkers or drivers. Nobody calls for water wings for
all swimmers, even though it's per-hour fatality rate
dwarfs that of cycling.

With the crazy mix of transportation modes around here, I'm surprised more people aren't getting injured, e.g. https://www.flickr.com/photos/bikeportland/13999793819 Yes, as a cyclist, you're supposed to ride up that cut into a bunch of people waiting to get on a street car. The morning ride is a scrum through the south waterfront.

And the motivation for such hideous segregated bike
facilities? The motivation is the false idea that
riding on normal roads is terribly dangerous.

- Frank Krygowski