yeahyeahillsignup profile

To a certain extent, I would event say that high end helmets do not correlate with better performance.

Bigger ventilation holes and lighter weight way means less material protecting you in the event of a fall or a sharp object (rock, branch) penetrating the helmet.

Helmet protection standards and testing SUCKS and there is a very misguided attitude towards suggesting higher performance helmets that don't actually provide more in terms of safety. 

This article is an example of that attitude. The safety performance is not quantified or evaluated. There is mention of a rotational impact mitigation system but no real way to discern if it's good or not.  The review focuses on what we typically associate with performance, like venting and features. None of those contribute to the main purpose of a helmet and yet, we now have compelling review motivating the purchase of a very expensive helmet and we justify ourselves with "how much is your brain worth". Nothing suggests that this helmet protects me better than a 90$ Giro Fixture with MIPS.

This is not a dig at NSMB, this is a dig at helmet manufacturing and certification companies not making the important data more available. Reviewers are left high and dry, trying to evaluate performance based on what they can observe, which isn't much.

By the way, interesting mention about hair "slipperiness". It is true that hair (if you have it...) can add a certain element of MIPS-like performance but I don't think it's as effective. There is ongoing research on the matter.

Awesome, thanks for checking Trevor!

Since you seem to have both available, do you know if the OneUp pump bracket mount fits with the SWAT bottle cage? I've had issues with other pump brackets being too short to clear the rather large SWAT cover plate.

That's pretty much the same scenario as what happened many moons ago when Paul Basagoita borrowed a big bike and melted everyone's face off at crankworx.

I'm fully expecting everyone to get destroyed by the bmx guys.

You guys are often very quick to act defensive. You first reponded with a fallacy presenting a false choice (watching this of watching a blank space) and then you assume that I have unrealistic expectations when I simply had no expectations to begin with!

I'm not saying that I expect university level classes in a red bull vid.
They are the ones pretending to explain physics, and they proceed in doing it wrong!

I guess what I'm saying is that if it's worth doing something, it's worth doing it right.

When the choice is between false information or a blank space, I tend to choose the blank 😉

Especially when the info is stated as facts with no disclaimer of the limitations.

I have a hard time seeing how they measured and considered rider input in this.

It's easy to simplify the problem and consider McGazza as a simple projectile (that would have worked for calculating his trajectory in his latest stairset adventure). Those numbers about speed resulting in under or overshoot are pretty much crap since they don't take into account what the rider did (pop or swallow the lip).

But hey, mountain bikers love cheap physics so why not!

Nova Scotian? Let's try again, what's the easiest and most fun to ride or ski (given a proper slope) between A) foot of fresh snow B) crusty refrozen chicken heads C) Icy bumps D) gaper littered groomers wich falling childs left and right E) any other condition than powder?

Found the ontarian!

Well I'd like to think that asking "are you trying to scam us and sell us shit?" is not actually a hard question. Of course the answer will be no. This is a merely a way to say : "You have been attacked, what is you defense?". It is basically the easiest way out you can offer.

Harder questions could have been how do you prove that those new solutions are indeed improvements. The trek guys mention that 29+ is hands down the best option. What do they back this with? That's what I wanna know.

Everyone made the switch to 650b after being told that it was better. However, very little proof has been published of what makes it better.

There is also much talk of stiffness in regards to the new axles. How is it quantified. How do we know how much more stiffness is better? Is there a point of diminishing return?

The rocky guy talks about 27.5+ as being more appropriate for beginner riders, is that true for for 29+ aswell? What do the trek guys think about this?

What can be done with those standarts that can be done with regular tires? The promotional video for the Rocky Sherpa didn't show anything that couldn't be just as fun on a regular bike.

I too was a bit disappointed with the video. You seemed to accept the company's answers without counter attacking. It's ok if you want to showcase the company's PR. It's not ok if you're trying to demonstrate hard hitting journalism.