I wonder whether this dude bought this helmet.
Back in September, I wrote about a guy who wiped out on a turn. Banged up and bleeding, he was worried about scratching his $12,000 bike and $300 helmet.
Well, if he wants a reason to be upset for paying such a price for head protection, he should talk to Andrew Glancey of Stattsburg, New York. Mr. Glancey is the lead plaintiff in a class-action suit against Trek Bicycle Corporation related to its Bontrager brand.
According to the suit, the company used "false, deceptive" claims that the technology in Bontrager WaveCel helmets is "up to 48 times more effective than traditional foam helmets" in preventing concussions from a bicycle crash.
 |
| Cutaway view of Trek/Bontrager WaveCel helmet, introduced in 2019. |
First of all, whenever an ad says a product is "up to X times" better, more effective, longer or whatever, I am suspicious. I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. Glancey, who doesn't allege any injuries while using the helmet, felt the same way. But, there is something more than my paranoid mind to back up skepticism about Trek's claim.
Turns out, the tests cited in the claims weren't conducted with the helmet in question. Rather, according to the report from the very laboratory--the Helmet Impact Testing facility of the Portland Biomechanics Laboratory--that did the test, a Scott ARX helmet modified to include the feature that is supposed to make the WaveCel helmet more effective.
According to a press release from 2019, the year the helmet was introduced, the traditional EPS foam found in most helmets is replaced with layers of cells designed to move independently until the cell walls crumple and glide, dissipating both direct and rotational energy from the wearer's head. That may well offer better protection than other helmets but, as I said, I am skeptical about "up to 48 times." Also, there may well be other structural differences between the Scott and Bontrager helmet that could have affected the test's outcome.
So, if I were that guy I met on a ride to the Rockaways, I'd be upset about paying $300 for a helmet--unless, of course, it did its job. My Giro Atmos did just that when I crashed: I had injuries, but, as the doctor said, it could have been much worse.
