I try to follow helmet-concussion-safety developments pretty closely, and I share your skepticism that VT's testing is authoritative. More info here. Key point: VT "us[es] the methodology that MIPS uses: sticky headform, tight strap, severe anvil angle, rough grippy anvil, no neck. That methodology couples the headform more tightly to the helmet than it would be in the real world. It would be expected to favor the MIPS models, unlike the Snell Foundation's research that showed no benefit from MIPS."
Before opening this I knew this that there'd by something from Blackburn.
I guess you're right, but I think bike helmet makers have a responsibility to their customers that they've failed utterly to meet. It was, what, 3 years ago now maybe, that we first were told that the industry was working on an updated certification standard to test for preventing brain injury not just skull fractures. Still nothing.
You may be right, of course. Maddening that, several years into increased concussion awareness we're all still stuck fumbling in the dark on all these empirically answerable questions.
It's important to be clear-eyed about what a full-face adds, and doesn't add, in terms of rider safety. It surely increases facial protection. But when it comes to concussion and brain trauma, I'm not aware of any evidence that fullfaces are better than halfshells. And they may be worse. More mass and a longer lever arm could increase direct and rotational forces on the brain vs. the same crash in a halfshell. And I wonder if hotter helmets lead to increased fatigue and more crashes. Nothing I'm saying here proves that fullfaces result in more concussions (and, to be clear, I'm neither an insider nor an expert, just a rider who had a bad concussion recovery and has paid attention to this ever since). But if you're buying a fullface thinking that it's the safer choice across the board, you could be making a mistake. I'm a lot more worried about my brain than my teeth, and my best guess from the crappy info available is that the safest option for trail riding is a modern halfshell from a company with a strong track record of concussion-safety innovation with multiple concussion-risk-reducing design features, not a fullface.
Intrigued by Vik's idea. I've had success with a different approach, buying the size that fits from the start and then, if they stretch, tightening the cuff by pinching out the excess and sewing it together. Free, fairly easy, and it works.
You're downvoting my comments, Mammal, but I more or less agree with you and didn't say anything to the contrary.
My comment was directed at nsmb's decision to publish this, not at whether trail builders should use ebikes.
The limp sales pitch at the end was the bright red cherry on top of a piece NSMB never should have agreed to run.
You'd think, but on the other hand Lee doesn't strike me as one to wing it, so who knows. I had 820s on my last bike, which seemed a little ridiculous but I loved them. Maybe he's on to something.
By the way the fact that Lee says my ideal bar width (at 6-4ish) is 840 mm is jaw-dropping new information. And his main point was that most people's bars are too wide. 840!
(Is height really that predictive? I'd have guessed that the key measurement is shoulder width plus humerus length, and that this measurement varies non-trivially among people of the same overall height. Maybe not? Interesting, anyhow.)
I have little insight on the merit of his design, just came here to say that I'm bummed out to see Aston say that covid ruined his life and he's broke. He seems like a smart, thoughtful, independent fellow. Give me one honest Paul Aston over 20 Vernon Felton industry humpers any day. I'm rooting for him to find his way.
That's helpful, thanks.
Another nice review. Any insight on tall-person fit? The fact that it's one size only makes me wonder if it will sit too high.
I've hated the look of most Camelbak packs over the years because of their flashing-billboard branding, so the understated look of this is a welcome change.