Well done, lads. #onlybangers as usual, Dave, and nice work on the words too, Cooper.
Nice job. 'Clean' finish ;)
Sid, he did list all that info - right at the bottom of the article ;)
So, it's not even easy for bars. For helmets, way more complicated, no certainty whatsoever, and there isn't a lot of independent testing going on, so if you're going to point to research or science, be aware - none of it is (so far) conclusive. Pick your favourite brand, indicate their research and BAM! you're smack in the middle of their bias, and you can no longer say 'but, science!' because right now, unless other, independent, bodies are able to back up company x's claim that one piece of technology or another does this or that - then it's all one-sided. It's stuff a manufacturer can claim in marketing copy, and they may have proven it internally, and believe it wholeheartedly, but that doesn't make it fact from a scientific perspective.
Let's say an independent body DOES do the tests, and does recreate someone's results. Great, now you can start to point towards the beginning of repeatable scientific results. Still, can you get everyone to agree that the test methodology is sound? Let's say you can (and that is very, very unlikely right now). You're still not done. Maybe you've proved a helmet does one thing or another, but if you're foolish enough to try to quantify that with respect to preventing concussions, the BS detector is now ringing so loud, you shouldn't be able to think.
Bontrager's tech may be as good as they say it is, but they haven't proven it, and neither has anyone else. Making claims about concussion prevention as part of their mktg copy was naïve at best, disingenous or misleading at worst.
No one said 'don't buy MIPS', or don't trust Kali or Leatt or Bontrager. If one of those helmets fits you well, and you find their claims plausible, then good for you - no one thinks that's a bad purchase. What needs to be clear, though, are that these companies are all working hard and - we think and hope - making helmets and our sport safer. But the truth is we still just don't know. Not with 100% certainty. But we do know they fit better, and that's important, too. And that's what Uncle Dave was pointing out.
Like most complex subjects, this can't be boiled down into one opinion vs another, nor can someone get up to speed instantly on it. No one here (certainly not Dave) is suggesting that tech advancements are NOT useful, or are not advancing helmet safety. No one is suggesting that the people designing, testing, and marketing helmets are interested only in money, or that they don't care about making better helmets for the right reasons. However, what he is pointing out is that it's still conjecture. Research is being done, but that doesn't mean anything is being proven scientifically. And I think that based on some of the dissenting comments above, there's still work to be done in educating people about what we collectively KNOW, what we THINK, and what we HOPE to be true.
But just remember this: there is huge money involved in helmet sales. Go through any piece of research and follow the money - it usually leads back to someone who has a vested interest. This is not like testing rev cycles on a BB. It's far, far more lucrative - and important, of course.
Where things get murky - and this is where only a little bit of knowledge becomes dangerous and causes people to get upset - is that the list of things we don't know about brains and how helmets protects them is far, far longer than the list of things we do know. Dave's conclusions are not lazy in the least, and if you really know about all the dissenting opinions and disagreement, you'd know that, too.
Do helmet companies do the research, test their products, and put the one on the market that they conclude does the best job? Yes, we can assume in most cases, that they do. Yes, they all want to exceed minimum standards in testing. But what if I were to tell you that there are very few cases where people from different companies can agree on the best way to test ANYTHING - including simple things like stems and bars? Those products shouldn't be controversial in a case like this, right? And yet most companies will tell you that they test to meet and exceed CE norms (or whichever governing body is geographically relevant) because they have to, but usually develop their own tests that they feel do a better job of replicating real world use.
Yeah, the message of the video is unclear. I think it's great that YT goes to such lengths to create splashy launch videos, but if the message doesn't land, they become expensive, forgettable, relics.
Imitation as flattery and all that...overall I think they look good, though. They're also very similar looking to the OG Giro Jacket.
For long rides, no question you need a good bib short - especially for riding where you're on the saddle more (road, gravel, or mtb that doesn't have a lot of tech).
Hi Kris, people that ditch the chamois realize a few benefits: first, you're not wearing a sweaty pad, so there's less bulk and sometimes less moisture down there. It also means that if you can't change right away after a ride, it's not as big a deal. Not all bike shorts have bibs, but they do stay on better, so if you ditch bibs, it's nice to not have to fiddle with them if you have to yank 'em down for some reason.
As far as type of underwear, the leader, bar none are Saxx/2Undr/MyPkg and the like - they keep your man bits all nice and tucked in, and are super comfortable. They cost a bit more, but it's well worth the money., whether on the bike or off.
I can see from the photos what you're referring to, but can assure you there is no pilling at all. What you see instead is just AJ's tack sharp photos showing a bit of wool texture.
You guys probably know this, but you'll reduce pilling by washing minimally and never putting your merino in the dryer. High abrasion areas are more susceptible, of course.
I'm 6'1, 195 and the L fits me well - not loose, not tight. I can't comment on a comparison to other Chromag tees since I don't own any, but I do have one of their jerseys in L and it also fits well.
Thanks for that - bad copy and paste last night. Numbers are fixed now.
All good, Brian, I wasn't interpreting your comment as criticism in any way ;)
Safe to say that one thing Canfield could do better is mar/comm. Perhaps they just need to play the game a little harder - but that's not really their style.
Thanks for the insight, Brian. I'm sure they'll refine their messaging, but what you read above is the result of what we got based on Cam's questions to Adam at Revel. If we test one of their bikes, it'll be a good chance to dig in a bit deeper.
Seems to be working fine for me, but I'm sure they're getting plenty of traffic today.