timlake

@hardlylikely: both, mainly specific features for use cases. I.E not being able to make more breathable, lighter-weight protection for all-mountain/XC. There are a number of points within a CE 1621 test that don't relate to impact protection too. One that was the biggest frustration for me was impact site size. If you take a look at a D3O Knee pad insert, or any other brands for that matter you'll see they're all a similar shape and size. That's because the 1621 test specifies the size of the impact protection and it can't be any smaller. Of course that is fine for gravity riding, but for lighter riding, you don't want/need such a large impact protection area, but HAVE to as determined by the standards. This means we can't create XC/AM pads with a smaller area (i.e thinner side and under-knee coverage). The worst part though is that it essentially puts a complete stop to creating effective kids (and I'm talking ages 3-8) pads. Because the size HAS to be what the standard determines, you effectively can't create a decent kids pad that is certified as protection. That means that you either have to adhere to the roller sports standard, which has an abrasion test (which is why we see so many cheap kids pads with hard caps) or have no certification at all (which means you can't import/sell as protection, increasing MSRP's as import duties for clothing are significantly higher than protection) If a child at the age of 5 was to have a pad that passed CE 1621, the size of the impact pad would likely extend their entire leg, making it uncomfortable and heavy. There are plenty more cases where designs have been limited due to the need to pass the certificaiton, but those are two big ones that can give you an idea of what limitations are imposed.

@Loki87: It has very little relevancy other than the determined energy amounts transferred. CE 1621 is a motorcycle standard adopted by Cycling so that products can be imported and sold as 'protection'. Are mountain bikers exposed to the same levels of impact as motorcycle riders? Maybe. But what is crazy is that there is no scope for protection to be developed for the specific types of riding that are taking place because of the need to adhere to the certification. I understand the testing procedures well after working in protective piece product development for almost 10 years, and unfortunately also understand too well how these certifications are limiting the innovation in protection. There has been absolutely no research carried out in regards to the levels of impacts that riders are exposed to when mountain biking. In order for a pad to pass Level 2 certification, the density of the impact element needs to be increased. With a denser pad, you're losing an element of protection to lower speed impacts, the same with Helmets. Whilst it's not as important on your body as it is on your head, using denser impact foam on your body can still lead to more significant bruising and pain in lower energy impacts. All in all, there needs to be more done to educate on what the certifications are - I would be willing to bet that most people don't even realise that CE 1621 is a motorcycle standard in the first place.

Level 1 & Level 2 are basically categories that define the amount of energy dissipated in an impact. There is a threshold that is needed to pass CE 1621 Level 1, and a higher threshold needed to pass Level 2. There is a lot of marketing hype about passing Level 2, and mountain bikers seem to buy into it because they think that Level 2 must be better. In reality, MTB protection is held back from being truly optimal for mountain biking by the fact that it has to adhere to Motorcycle standards like CE 1621 is. It would be good to see more information shared on sites like PB about what these certifications are and what the positives and negatives to each are, especially when it's people's safety. Instead of just assuming that bigger means better, which often isn't true.

Would be great to see some more informative pieces on what defines Level 1 & Level 2 protection. There is a lot of build up in this article and many others about how Level 2 is great, but is it? Or is it just a marketing fad to get consumers to spend more on protection that isn't necessary for its use. What is important to remember, is that Mountain Biking is a niche sport. It does not have any officially recognized testing standards that have any real scientific data behind them. Most of the testing standards are borrowed from Motorcycle, which of course is not the same as mountain biking.

One thing to note on the ASTM certification is that it doesn't always equal a safer helmet. There is a lot of noise made around ASTM F1952 and it's great that there are new standards introduced to further qualify helmets for specific riding - however people should definitely be better educated around standards. ASTM F1952, by their own admission in the whitepaper, can result in less effective protection at lower speeds. In order to absorb the energy from a higher anvil drop, the density of the EPS must be increased. In the real world this of course translates to better protection against high-speed impacts, however, because the density is increased, slower-speed impacts are absorbed less effectively and can actually increase the risk of concussion. The only way in which an F1952 certified helmet will provide better protection for downhill riding is if it utilises a dual-density EPS liner. One with a high density for high-speed crashes and one with a lower density for slower-speeds. Obviously the addition of any impact tech (Turbine etc) will help for lower speed too. So if you see a helmet that is F1952 certified with a single density EPS, chances are it will actually provide less protection at lower speeds. Helmets you tend to find like this are on the more budget end, where naturally riders will likely be going slower.

I'm not sure you do. Freecaster didn't start showing events until 2008.

@GumptionZA: according to their website you can shift under load of up to 1000watts. So I think everyone on Pinkbike is just about safe!

It's not really relevant though is it? If you add in the weight of the Powershift then you need to add the weight of the Powershift cassette, and compare vs a wheelset including a cassette. So a Hunt XC wheelset is 1469g, plus say a GX 12sp cassette which is 450g - total 1919g. Classified Hunt wheelset, 1339g, Powershift internals 485g, cassette 248g - total 2072g. So comparatively vs a setup that does not use Powershift you are gaining around 150g, but 530% range vs an 11-50t with 455% range with shorter steps between gears. So yeah, it's heavier but there's benefits to the weight gain.

"the fact that you get to wear the stripes afterwards" this is literally it. Going down in history as a World Champion in any sport is something that holds extra prestige. IMO it's similar to a bunch of other sporting events - not necessarily ones in which you become a World Champion, but things like winning Le Mans, Indy 500, Daytona 500 vs their respective championships. Some events just have more prestige and I think MTB World Champs is one of them. I would be surprised (but also interested to see) if any racer would take a WC overall instead of World Champs. don't get me wrong, there's plenty of sports where winning a World Championship isn't the most prestigious either... Tour De France win vs a World Championships in Road Cycling is an obvious one...