What is Trek launching?

[Fisherfreerider]

Hahahaha, a helmet. Revolutionary they said. I don't even know what type of road helmet I use. My experience would change 0% if I changed to another helmet.

if it saved you from a serious concussion you might feel differently

First off, in 35 years of "serious" bike riding I've never damaged a helmet and that includes many tumbles on the MTBs.
Second, every helmet sold in the US passes tests to assure its protection.
With all the variables involved in a crash I find it hard to believe that some new technology makes one open face road helmet drastically safer than another.
This hype campaign is laughable but at least it's a break from the e-bike releases.

Lucky you. You are a sample size of 1.
The helmet standards are garbage and outdated.

[Karvalo]

First off, in 35 years of "serious" bike riding I've never damaged a helmet and that includes many tumbles on the MTBs.

So, serious question, why do you bother wearing one?

[Hellgate]

Hahahaha, a helmet. Revolutionary they said. I don't even know what type of road helmet I use. My experience would change 0% if I changed to another helmet.

if it saved you from a serious concussion you might feel differently

First off, in 35 years of "serious" bike riding I've never damaged a helmet and that includes many tumbles on the MTBs.
Second, every helmet sold in the US passes tests to assure its protection.
With all the variables involved in a crash I find it hard to believe that some new technology makes one open face road helmet drastically safer than another.
This hype campaign is laughable but at least it's a break from the e-bike releases.

You got lucky. I broke a Bell Image by going OTB and lawn darting into the ground. My bell was rung hard, think Bugs Bunny stars and planets circling your head. The worst part was pulling both groin muscles. Somehow I managed to ride out. That was about 1989 or 1990. I spent the next several days on the couch due to headaches and not being able to lift my legs. I credit the Bell with saving my life.

Then there's the motorcycle roadracing crashes...at least two concussions there.

[AJS914]

Karvalo, what's your skin in this arguement?

Hellgate, nobody has said that helmets aren't valuable.

Nobody has suggested not to wear a helmet. We only doubt the hype here. If a new $300 Trek helmet will envelopment me in a cocoon of safety I'll run out and buy one.

[Karvalo]

Karvalo, what's your skin in this arguement?

I dislike broken logic.

[TobinHatesYou]

Karvalo, what's your skin in this arguement?

Hellgate, nobody has said that helmets aren't valuable.

Nobody has suggested not to wear a helmet. We only doubt the hype here. If a new $300 Trek helmet will envelopment me in a cocoon of safety I'll run out and buy one.

There are advancements to be made between current helmet tech and "cocoons of safety." I have hit the deck hard enough to break my scapula into 3 pieces. Look up how difficult this is to do. Basically I was descending through a somewhat fast corner at 30mph, railed it close to newly laid down shoulder lines with excess glass reflective beads not cleaned up. I hit the ground with the brow of my helmet so hard, it left long bruise on my temple. As currently designed, helmets are good against a single impact in a crash and their effectiveness is immediately diminished, sometimes to zero if they shatter completely. Something that can distribute the KE as well as EPS through temporary deformation would do well to protect against further head strikes from repeated bounces or other cyclists running into you.

And really, rider safety is way, way, way more important than some new composite frame material. It applies to cyclists of all types...commuters, competitive cyclists, weekend warriors, your kids, etc.

[Hellgate]

Karvalo, what's your skin in this arguement?

Hellgate, nobody has said that helmets aren't valuable.

Nobody has suggested not to wear a helmet. We only doubt the hype here. If a new $300 Trek helmet will envelopment me in a cocoon of safety I'll run out and buy one.

I'll take every advancement in safe for bike that makes sense.

My motorcycle track leathers have an airbag for the head, neck, and collar bone. Not cheap, $2,500, but much cheaper than an injury.

If they have an effective and practical safety fix I'll take it.

[Lelandjt]

Karvalo, what's your skin in this arguement?

I dislike broken logic.

I question the logic that one open face, low coverage (road style as opposed to enduro) helmet is significantly safer than another. Especially not revolutionarily safer.

[Lelandjt]

First off, in 35 years of "serious" bike riding I've never damaged a helmet and that includes many tumbles on the MTBs.

So, serious question, why do you bother wearing one?

To protect my head in case I hit it hard. The possibility exists and our culture has driven it into me that riding without a helmet is stupid and reckless, though the rest of my body needs no more protection than a quarter millimeter of lycra offers.

[Karvalo]

To protect my head in case I hit it hard.

Right, so if that happens wearing a helmet may make a 100% difference to your riding experience from that day forwards for the rest of your life, regardless of the fact that it was totally useless every other time you ever put it on.

But it's the comment about safety standards that really doesn't make sense. They guarantee protection, but only up to a certain arbitrary level. Can you still hit your head harder than that and be severely injured or killed? Yes. Could a new material allow your head to survive those impacts much better? Supposedly yes.

[mattr]

So, serious question, why do you bother wearing one?

As i get serious earache from the (ex) wife, mother, in-laws, the police (i've been stopped, despite it not being illegal) and eventually, i guess the kids will nag.

Father is an ex racing cyclist and never mentions it.

Just easier to wear one than not.

Means more expensive tend to be better (for me) as they are less noticeable due to better venting, fit and lower weight.

[Lelandjt]

To protect my head in case I hit it hard.

Right, so if that happens wearing a helmet may make a 100% difference to your riding experience from that day forwards for the rest of your life, regardless of the fact that it was totally useless every other time you ever put it on.

But it's the comment about safety standards that really doesn't make sense. They guarantee protection, but only up to a certain arbitrary level. Can you still hit your head harder than that and be severely injured or killed? Yes. Could a new material allow your head to survive those impacts much better? Supposedly yes.

"Supposedly"
You believe them, I don't. Like I said before, so many variables in a crash that the difference in protection between a snell rated helmet and this is questionable and certainly doesn't stand up to my standard of "revolutionizing" my riding experience.
It's worth noting that more protective bike helmets have existed for years that offer far more coverage since they're designed for enduro racing where crashes on uneven terrain are common. If a slight increase in head protection is "revolutionary" to you than your revolution could have begun years ago.
My point is this is overblown marketing just like most of us predicted. If you like the sound of it, go forth and spend. I've certainly blown $300 on sillier things.

[Karvalo]

"Supposedly"
You believe them, I don't. Like I said before, so many variables in a crash that the difference in protection between a snell rated helmet and this is questionable and certainly doesn't stand up to my standard of "revolutionizing" my riding experience.
It's worth noting that more protective bike helmets have existed for years that offer far more coverage since they're designed for enduro racing where crashes on uneven terrain are common. If a slight increase in head protection is "revolutionary" to you than your revolution could have begun years ago.
My point is this is overblown marketing just like most of us predicted. If you like the sound of it, go forth and spend. I've certainly blown $300 on sillier things.

You're replying to a heck of a lot of stuff that I haven't said. You know that, right?

[TobinHatesYou]

"Supposedly"
You believe them, I don't. Like I said before, so many variables in a crash that the difference in protection between a snell rated helmet and this is questionable and certainly doesn't stand up to my standard of "revolutionizing" my riding experience.
It's worth noting that more protective bike helmets have existed for years that offer far more coverage since they're designed for enduro racing where crashes on uneven terrain are common. If a slight increase in head protection is "revolutionary" to you than your revolution could have begun years ago.
My point is this is overblown marketing just like most of us predicted. If you like the sound of it, go forth and spend. I've certainly blown $300 on sillier things.

This is a typical strawman. Yes, obviously full-face DH MTB helmets provide excellent protection against facial and occipital trauma compared to road and commuter helmets. That doesn’t mean I won’t choose to wear something lighter, better ventilated and with better peripheral vision. I am knowingly making compromises and that’s ok. If a road style helmet comes along with equal ventilation, low weight, etc. but significantly lowers impact Gs (multiple times,) then what’s the problem exactly?

You have taken a very black & white stance for unknown reasons. It also seems like you’ve assumed a price of ~$300. Are you sure this isn’t something that will be on a $100, $150, $200 helmet?

[mattr]

It also seems like you’ve assumed a price of ~$300. Are you sure this isn’t something that will be on a $100, $150, $200 helmet?

It's the bike industry, it'll be $10 worth of plastic and "development costs" in a box marked up to $400.